1nc

Trade Off Disadvantage

A. Funding for Cassini barely surviving now – it would go on the chopping block if
NASA funding is reduced

Rehnberg 14 (Morgan is a graduate student in the University of Colorado - Boulder's Department of

Astrophysics and Planetary Science, Cosmic Chatter, January 15, 2014 “Could the 2014 Budget Save
Cassini?”, accessed 5/1/2014, http://cosmicchatter.org/news/2014/1/15/could-the-2014-budget-save-
cassini)

With its future on the line, the Cassini mission may yet survive if the US Congress passes their proposed budget for
2014. And, for once, that's not seeming like such a big if.¶ It's been a long road for NASA's Cassini spacecraft. In development
starting in the mid 1980s and launched towards Saturn in 1997, the mission didn't arrive at its destination until the summer of 2004. Designed
for a four year mission upon reaching Saturn, the Cassini program has been extended twice - first for two years until 2010, and then for a final
seven through 2017. Coming up on ten years inSaturnian orbit, Cassini has revolutionized our understanding of the
planet and the enigmatic rings which surround it.¶ Despite its incredible successes, recent rumors have suggested that Cassini
could be on the chopping block . Budget shortfalls at NASA, exacerbated by sequestration, has NASA facing a Sophie's Choice: shut
down the successful Cassini or eliminate the popular Curiosity.¶ Cassini and Curiosity represent NASA's two active "flagship" missions (I'm
ignoring Voyager here). These are the largest and most expensive (more than $2 billion each) missions undertaken by the space agency and are
major commitments to studying Saturn and Mars, respectively. In addition to their upfront price tag, each costs in the neighborhood of 50-60
million dollars a year to operate, significantly more than smaller missions.¶ Although in theory NASA could choose to eliminate either one, it's
extremely difficult to imagine shutting down the recently-launched Curiosity, especially given its tremendous public popularity. So, things
were not looking great for Cassini, but the 2014 budget might offer some relief.¶ The current draft of
the 2014 federal budget includes an additional $700 million for NASA over last year's appropriation.
That's an increase of about 4%. More importantly, the NASA science office received a larger proportion of that, about 7%, and
planetary science in particular is being boosted about 10%.¶ Whether this money will go to fund both Curiosity and Cassini or whether NASA
was seriously considering eliminating either isn't yet known. But, the bottom line is that more money for NASA, and planetary science in
particular, can't be a bad thing.

B. Plan spends a fair amount of money and Government funding for space and sea
exploration is zero-sum

Mangu-Ward 13 (Katherine Mangu-Ward is managing editor of Reason magazine and a Future Tense
fellow at the New America Foundation., September 4, 2014, SLATE, “Is the Ocean the real Final
Fontier?”,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_fin
al_frontier.html)

While many of the technologies for space and sky are the similar, right down to the goofy suits with bubble heads—the main difference is that
in space, you’re looking to keep pressure inside your vehicle and underwater you’re looking to keep pressure out—there’s often a
sense that that sea and space are competitors rather than compadres.¶ They needn’t be, says Guillermo Söhnlein, a
man who straddles both realms. Söhnlein is a serial space entrepreneur and the founder of the Space Angels Network. (Disclosure: My
husband’s a member.) The network funds startups aimed for the stars, but his most recent venture is Blue Marble Exploration, which organizes
expeditions in manned submersibles to exotic underwater locales. (Further disclosure: I have made a very small investment in Blue Marble, but
am fiscally neutral in the sea vs. space fight, since I have a similar amount riding on a space company, Planetary Resources.)¶ As usual, the
fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a
significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal
budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the pie. At about $17 billion, government-funded space
exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—NASA’s
soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse.¶ But the
way Söhnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For most of the history of
human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous examples of state-backed exploration—
Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s quest to climb to the top of
Everest—were actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits.¶ But that changed with the
Cold War, when the race to
the moon was fueled by government money and gushers of defense spending wound up channeled
into submarine development and other oceangoing tech.¶ “That does lead to an either/or mentality.
That federal money is taxpayer money which has to be accounted for, and it is a finite pool that you
have to draw from against competing needs, against health care, science, welfare,” says Söhnlein. “In the last 10 to 15 years,
we are seeing a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space side we call it New Space, on the ocean side we have
similar ventures.” And the austerity of the current moment doesn’t hurt. “The private sector is stepping up as public falls down. We’re really
returning to the way it always was.”¶ And when it’s private dough, the whole thing stops being a competition. Instead, it depends on what
individuals with deep pockets are pumped about—or what makes for a good sell on a crowdfunding site like Kickstarter.

C. Cutting Cassini destroys America’s STEM Leadership and Economy

Vertesi 13 (“Don’t Gut NASA Space Missions”, http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/opinion/vertesi-

cassini-mission/, Janet Vertesi is assistant professor of sociology at Princeton University. She has studied
NASA mission teams since 2006.)

As scientists from around the world gathered in San Francisco for the American Geophysical Union meeting, the success stories are pouring in.
On Monday, the Mars Curiosity mission team released a new study showing that the former lake bed in which the Rover landed could once
have supported microbial life. The Cassini mission to Saturn released a spectacular video of mysterious hexagonal clouds whirling over the
planet's pole.¶ But the question on everyone's mind is: Will these missions be allowed to continue? The answer may well be: No.¶ Next year's
NASA budget is poised to force premature cancellation of either Curiosity or Cassini -- the agency's flagship missions. Funding decisions get
made behind closed doors, but projected figures reduce Cassini's budget in 2014 by almost half, and half again in 2015, making it impossible to
fly. Even funding for analyzing data will be "restructured," according to NASA.¶ These cuts are not only devastating for scientists; they are also
potentially harmful for our economy, and our leadership in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).¶ When
most people think of spacecraft, they think of hunks of metal flying or driving around, alone in the far reaches of the solar system. Some are
cute and personable, like the Opportunity Rover or Voyager; some, like Cassini, are less well known. People might also recall the gorgeous
photos spread across the front pages of the New York Times or on the cover of National Geographic. A few might even think of the famous
scientists who have brought these pictures to life, like Carl Sagan, Steve Squyres, or Carolyn Porco.¶ The robots' stories and adventures
captivate us. But what about the people who created and operate the robots? Behind the scenes, largely invisible to the public, are many of
America's best scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA centers, and research facilities who work on these missions to
make space exploration possible.¶ The budget cuts will affect America's most experienced and most promising
engineers and researchers. They may have to join the legions of the unemployed. Do we really want to put someone like Bobak
Ferdowksi, NASA's famous "Mohawk Guy," out of a job?¶ Some may think that space engineers can simply move to the
private sector. After all, companies like Space X or Virgin Galactic are looking for talents. But private ventures involve
different motives and skills. And private companies do not fund planetary science and experiments.¶ Moreover,
private and public research institutions from Cornell to Ohio State University rely partly on NASA grants to support their graduate students,
post-docs, and other staff in STEM fields.¶ In other words, NASA
funding not only expands the frontiers of our knowledge, it also trains
the next generation of STEM leaders in our country. The budget cuts would deprive our young scientists
and engineers the resources to continue their studies and, in turn, contribute to America's innovation.¶
Seen in perspective, the looming budget adjustment along with all the cuts in recent years sentences America's planetary exploration program
to death by starvation.¶ Cassini, for one, is already operating on a shoestring. And NASA has put plans for future missions to
the outer solar system on ice, despite efforts by the planetary community to plan cost-effective and exciting opportunities.¶ The continuous
gutting of NASA and its planetary science programs should outrage all Americans. If
we end the Cassini or the Curiosity mission, it
would be a crisis not just for science but for America's leadership in STEM.¶ At a time when our math and science students
are getting left behind, and the public is looking to our high tech and scientific sectors to power innovation and economic growth, we should
invest in our sciences and continue to inspire the next generation. Let's make sure our current best and brightest working on the cutting edge
don't get the pink slip.
D. Leadership in this area is critical to science diplomacy which solves wars, the
economy, and the environment

Dr. Federoff 8 (Nina, Sec of State, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the
U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our
scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a basis for creating
partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary's
transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening
failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the
international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise
in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for
economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America
must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science
diplomacy and engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political
relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish:
transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is
inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides.
Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists
everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common
language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the
21st century. There is a growing recognition that science
and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the
21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing
countries, where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and
contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50 percent of physical science and engineering graduate
students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have
worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home
countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board's 2008 Science and Engineering
Indicators, 47 percent of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science--
particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology--are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER
Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a
star to Earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world--Japan,
Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States--representing 70 percent of the world's current population. The recent elimination of funding for FY08
U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy
Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S.
contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it
jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United
States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world's two nuclear powers--
the Soviet Union and the United States. In
a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the
threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve
National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a
concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states
to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies,
autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the
world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and
water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity,
and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both
directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a
globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous .
Addressing these common challenges demands
common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly
harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the
private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.
Uniqueness
 Cassini $ Now/Brink
Cassini funding avoiding the ax thus far

Howell 14 (March 4, Elizabeth, UNIVERSE TODAY, Elizabeth Howell is the senior writer at Universe
Today. She also works for Space.com, Space Exploration Network, the NASA Lunar Science Institute,
NASA Astrobiology Magazine and LiveScience, among others.“BUDGET 2015: Flying SOFIA Telescope To
Be Shelved For ‘Higher-Priority’ Programs Like Cassini”, http://www.universetoday.com/110007/budget-
2015-flying-sofia-telescope-to-be-shelved-for-higher-priority-programs-like-cassini/#ixzz312pqDlgD,
accessed 5/7/2014)

NASA is prepared to axe an airborne telescope to keep “higher-priority” programs such as the Saturn Cassini mission
going, according to budget documents the agency released today (March 4). We have more information about the budget below the jump,
including the rationale for why NASA is looking to shelve its Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). ¶ NASA’s has been flying
the telescope for just over three years and recently took some nice snapsnots of the M82 supernova that astronomers have been eager to
image. The agency’s administrator, however, said SOFIA has had its shot and it’s time to reallocate the money for other
programs.¶ “SOFIA has earned its way, and it has done very well, but we had to make a choice,” said NASA administrator Charlie Bolden in a
conference call with reporters regarding the fiscal 2015 $17.46 billion budget request. He added that NASA is in discussions with partner DLR
(the German space agency) to look at alternatives, but pending an agreement, the agency will shelve the telescope in 2015.¶ In a short news
conference focusing on the telescope only, NASA said the observatory had been slated to run for another 20 years, at a cost of about $85
million on NASA’s end per year. (That adds up to $1.7 billion in that timeframe by straight math, but bear in mind the detailed budget estimates
are not up yet, making that figure a guess on Universe Today’s part.) DLR funds about 25% of the telescope’s operating budget, and NASA the
rest.

Cassini funding will happen now

Leone 14 (March 5, Dan is the NASA reporter for SpaceNews, SPACE NEWS, “Cash Strapped NASA
Chose Cassini over SOFIA”, http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39739cashed-strapped-nasa-
chose-cassini-over-sofia, accessed 5/7/2014)

An international airborne telescope the White House proposed mothballing March 4 was squeezed out of NASA’s
budget by other ongoing missions, in particular the flagship-class Cassini probe that has been orbiting Saturn since 2004, a senior
agency official said.¶ The White House proposed grounding the billion-dollar Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy
(SOFIA) in part to avoid forcing the 16-year-old Cassini orbiter to compete with the 1.5-year-old Mars
Curiosity rover for extended mission funding, according to budget documents. Cassini needs about $60 million a year to
reach its currently targeted mission conclusion in September 2017.¶ SOFIA, which is finally on the cusp of full-scale science operations after
nearly two decades of development, could still be saved if NASA’s partner on the project, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), ponies up the
roughly $85 million a year needed to keep the observatory flying. Otherwise, SOFIA heads to the hangar after the current fiscal year ends Sept.
30, a NASA official said in a conference call with the press March 4.¶ “SOFIA does have a rather large operating cost, compared to other
missions,” NASA Chief Financial Officer Elizabeth Robinson said on the call. That forced NASA to make tough trades “about how many [missions]
you keep going, and how much [funding] you free up.Ӧ An astrophysics observatory designed for 20 years of science operations, SOFIA pairs a
heavily modified Boeing 747SP aircraft — a variant last delivered to a commercial customer in 1989 — with a 2.5-meter telescope that takes
images in spectra ranging from the visible to the far-infrared. The aircraft was designed to host a variety of instruments, which could be
swapped in and out, depending on the kind of observations astronomers wanted to make.¶ NASA put German officials on notice about the
proposed SOFIA cancellation late the week of Feb. 28, Robinson said. The U.S. agency is leaving it to Germany, and any other bill-payers it can
find, to cover NASA’s share of SOFIA operating costs.
 Space over Oceans Now
Space Exploration winning the battle for funding now over ocean exploration

Casti 13 (Taylor, September 25, MASHABLE, “Ocean vs. Space: Which Is the True Final Frontier?
http://mashable.com/2013/09/25/ocean-vs-space/, accessed 4/30/14)

Space may be called "the final frontier," but anyone who has seen a picture of a goblin shark or a vampire squid will agree that the
ocean can be downright alien. Both realms are ripe for exploration, offer extensive potential benefits and
come at a hefty price.¶ So which wins in a battle between the two for the title of the final frontier? Which area of exploration
will result in the greater good for humanity? Dr. Paul Bunje, senior director of prize development and ocean health at the XPRIZE Foundation,
and Alexandra Hall, senior director ofGoogle Lunar XPRIZE, met on the Social Good Summit stage to duke it out on Tuesday.¶ SEE ALSO: Does
the Future of the Space Industry Depend on Kickstarter?¶ Space
has been the clear leader for a long time. $17.8 billion
dollars is going toward space exploration in 2013, compared to the $5 billion dollars that goes toward
oceanic exploration. This discrepancy has led to skewed results: ¶ While 500 individuals have been sent into space, only three have
visited the deepest part of the ocean¶ While 500 individuals have been sent into space, only three have visited
the deepest part of the ocean, the Mariana Trench.¶ We have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do
of our own ocean floor, and we understand more about the dark side of the moon than ocean life.
 Space Funding Now
Congress will maintain space funding now

Dreier 14 (Casey, The Planetary Society Press Room, “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary
Exploration”…Again, http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html,
Casey, 1/24/2014, accessed 4/30/14)

The FY2014 Omnibus spending bill, now before the U.S. Congress, once again rejects cuts to NASA's Planetary
Science Division that were sought by the White House. The Planetary Society commends Congress for this action, and strongly
encourages the White House to prioritize Planetary Science in its future budget requests commensurate with its strong public and legislative
support. The Society supports the passage of this bill for its additional Planetary Science funding as well as its overall funding levels allocated for
NASA.¶ Congress plans to allocate $1.345 billion for NASA's Planetary Science Division, $127 million more than requested by the White House.
We strongly support the increase, but note that the number is well below the program's historical average of $1.5 billion per year.¶ The
additional funding ensures the steady development of the next major mission to Mars in 2020, which will store samples of the red planet for
eventual return to Earth. It also provides $80 million for continued research into a flagship-class mission to explore Europa, the enigmatic moon
of Jupiter that was recently revealed to be spouting its liquid-water ocean into space.¶ "Exploring Europa is no longer a 'should' but a 'must',"
said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Society's Director of Advocacy, "Congress made a smart decision to continue studying the Europa Clipper
mission concept. There is bipartisan support and strong public interest in exploring Europa, the mission is technically feasible, and it is high
priority within the scientific community. The White House should embrace this bold search for life and request a new start for this mission in
FY2015."¶ The Society also supports the congressional recommendation that NASA increase the pace of small planetary missions. We are
particularly happy to see full congressional and White House support for restarting the nation's
Plutonium-238 production capability, which provides electrical power for many planetary science missions that can't utilize solar
panels.¶ The White House has requested cuts to planetary science for two years in a row, and for two years in a row Congress has rejected
them. In light of this and the more than 50,000 messages sent to Congress and President Obama in support of NASA's planetary science
program last year, we
urge the Office of Management and Budget to recognize the unprecedented public and
legislative support for solar system exploration, and propose $1.5 billion for this program in their FY2015 budget request.
 NOAA Funding low now

NOAA funding staying level now – no increases

Pekow 5/17 (Charles, http://www.examiner.com/article/house-committee-offers-tight-noaa-budget-

for-2015, accessed 5/19/14, EXAMINER, 2014, House committee offers tight NOAA budget for 2015)

Federal help for fishermen may get reduced next year. The House Appropriations Committee approved a Commerce, Justice, Science
& Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) that would slightly increase the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) discretionary funds budget. But the bill would keep it below what the Obama Administration had
requested. And it would cut the budget for fishing and related programs.¶ The Republican-dominated committee reported a bill that would
giveNOAA's discretionary accounts $5.32512 billion, an increase of only $10.514 million, not enough to keep up with inflation. The
administration had requested an increase of $163.615 million.¶ The committee report became available online on the congressional website on
Saturday, May 17, 2014. The bill has been placed on the House Union Calendar so the House can vote on it after it returns from recess. The
Senate has not yet written a corresponding appropriations bill.¶ Of the NOAA budget, $3.22048 billion would go toward its coastal, fisheries,
marine, weather, satellite and related programs. The amount includes funding transferred from other funds and amounts to $148.513 million
less than what the administration asked for. The National Marine Fisheries Service would get $790.2 million.¶ The committee report also asks
NOAA to provide it with quarterly reports on its stock assessment efforts starting next winter. The reports must describe NOAA's methods for
determining stock assessments, the costs of each survey and how the agency incorporates independent data. The committee also ordered
NOAA to provide within 90 days of the enactment of the bill a report on how it determines fishing quotas, especially when spikes occur in
fishing. The emphasis would be on reported spikes in Atlantic sea bass fishing in 2013.¶ The bill also would earmark $12 million for cooperative
fisheries research. The committee asks NOAA for another report on how it spent its cooperative research funds over the last two years and the
uses of the research. The committee criticized NOAA for not using the research fast enough in its stock assessments.
 They say: Russia will derail

Expert opinion proves exploration will continue at a healthy pace without Russia

Kerans 5/15 (2014, VOICE OF RUSSIA, US-Russian Tensions Roiling Outer Space Cooperation,
http://voiceofrussia.com/us/2014_05_16/US-Russian-Tensions-Roiling-Outer-Space-Cooperation-8392/,
accessed 5/19/14, )

For discussion of the ISS and the possible routes forward for space research, Radio VR’s David Kerans
spoke with John Logsdon, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and International Affairs at George
Washington University, and founder of the Elliott School’s Space Policy Institute.¶ Logsdon expressed
his confidence that the US could produce or procure substitutes for all of Russia’s contributions to the
ISS, given the necessary will from Washington. And he is confident that space exploration will proceed
at a healthy pace, thanks to the determination China has shown to be a world leader in this sector
since about 1992.
Link/Internal
 Cassini on Chopping Block
Cassini on the chopping block – even small cuts can prevent mission effectiveness

Foust 14 (1/13/2014, Jeff is a Space industry analyst, writer, blogger, , NASA: upcoming senior review
won’t pit Cassini versus Curiosity, accessed 5/7/14, SPACE POLITICS,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/01/17/nasa-upcoming-senior-review-wont-pit-cassini-versus-
curiosity/)

Those involved in Cassini—which continues

to be perceived as the mission most in jeopardy during the senior
review, given its cost and age—made the case for continuing the mission at OPAG. “Cassini is an investment not to be wasted,”
Linda Spilker, Cassini project scientist, said in a presentation to OPAG. Flying the mission though its planned end in September 2017 would cost
about $180 million, or $60 million a year, and perform science that otherwise could likely not be accomplished for decades. “To waste it would
be unthinkable.Ӧ
Cassini, some believe, could also be at a disadvantage if asked to continue the mission with
reduced funding, since it has already had to tighten its belt during past reviews: Spilker said Cassini’s budget went from $80 million to
$60 million a year in the previous senior review in 2012 even though it was considered fully funded. Those kinds of challenges await NASA and
ongoing planetary missions this year. “The cold reality,” said Knopf, “is that we have only so much money to go around.”

Cassini would likely face cuts if NASA was forced to cut

Chang 14 (January 20, “The Final Frontier’s Financial Limits”, NEW YORK TIMES, Accessed 5/1/2014)
A decade after swinging into orbit around Saturn, NASA’s venerable Cassini spacecraft is still working, well beyond the four years of science
the space agency had hoped to get. But the spacecraft is
running low on maneuvering fuel, and its managers want to end with a
scientific bang — an ambitious agenda that includes 22
orbits through a gap between the planet and its innermost ring before sending
the craft on a death plunge into Saturn in 2017. For several months, however, scientists have worried that NASA, financially
squeezed like the rest of the federal government, could terminate the mission sooner. This spring, agency officials, as they do
every two years, will conduct a review of the spacecraft that have outlived their original missions. For the 2015 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1,
NASA faces particularly tough choices. The Mars rover Curiosity, which will cost $67.6 million this year to operate, will complete its two-year
primary mission in June, so money for continued roving will come out of funds dedicated to “extended missions.” For this year, that amount is
$140 million, which includes $58.2 million for Cassini. Other extended missions include the Messenger spacecraft at Mercury, the Mars rover
Opportunity and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. “This will be a very interesting competition,” James Green, director of the agency’s
planetary science division, told a NASA advisory council subcommittee last fall. “We have two very expensive flagship missions, Cassini and
Curiosity, which are expensive to operate even in an extended mission phase, along with a lot of our other missions, which are doing
tremendous science at a lower cost. So this particular competition we’ll have to do very carefully.” No one expects NASA to turn
off Curiosity, which will not even arrive at its primary science destination until later this year, raising concerns that Cassini
may be on the chopping block. All that Linda J. Spilker, its project scientist, would say was, “I’m hopeful everything will work out.”
More recently, Dr. Green told scientists that the perception of Cassini versus Curiosity was inaccurate and that officials
could instead scale back the cost and scope of the extended missions. NASA could also juggle other money to pay for both Cassini and Curiosity,
but that could have consequences like delaying future missions. “That is all part of the process,” Dr. Green said in an interview. “I’m asking the
scientists not to freak out, not to worry about things they can’t control.” The Obama administration, which proposed deep cuts in the planetary
sciences budget the past two years, could also ask for more money for 2015. “The
administration remains committed to
operating the pathbreaking Cassini and Curiosity missions as long as they keep passing these rigorous reviews,” said
Phillip Larson, a White House space policy adviser. “If we keep one going, that doesn’t mean we have to cancel the other.” The administration’s
budget request is likely to be disclosed in late February or early March. While Cassini has been studying Saturn and its moons for nearly 10
years, the final orbits would provide new science. The close passes, just above Saturn’s cloud tops at 76,000 miles per hour, would not only
offer spectacular views, but measure the structure of Saturn’s gravitational and magnetic fields just as NASA’s $1.1 billion Juno mission is to do
at Jupiter. That data would answer seemingly simple questions like how fast Saturn is rotating. So far, scientists have seen only the movements
of the uppermost clouds, not what is below. “There’s just a whole new mission almost, waiting for us in the last year of the mission,” said
Candice Hansen-Koharcheck, a senior scientist at the Planetary Sciences Institute in Tucson, who directs NASA’s outer-planets assessment
group. Next year, Cassini is to make three close flybys of the small moon Enceladus, which is somehow shooting jets of water into space, raising
the possibility of liquid water beneath the surface. Throwing away Cassini now, Dr. Hansen-Koharcheck said, “would just be, I think, a tragic,
shortsighted, penny-wise, pound-foolish decision.” Compressing Cassini’s work into fewer years might save money ,
but Dr. Spilker and Earl Maize, the project manager, said it would not be easy. “Something very big would have to give,” Dr.
Spilker said. Except for a dip last year caused by the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration, NASA’s science research budget has
remained relatively steady the last few years, at about $5 billion. But to absorb cost overruns in the development of the James Webb Space
Telescope, the successor to the Hubble, the Obama administration proposed cuts to the planetary sciences program. Even though Congress has
restored some of the money, financing has been far below what was envisioned just a few years ago. While the current missions send back a
bounty of data and discoveries — “the amount of science coming out is phenomenal,” said John M. Grunsfeld, NASA’s associate administrator
for science — the future looks hazier, with fewer missions scheduled. A top priority of planetary scientists is to get a closer look at Europa, one
of Jupiter’s large moons, which has a large ocean beneath its icy crust, making it one of the most promising places where life could be
discovered within the solar system. Putting a spacecraft in orbit around Europa would cost nearly $5 billion, but scientists and engineers at
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., have figured out a way to accomplish many of the same objectives with a $2 billion
spacecraft that simply flies past Europa multiple times. “I’d say it does 80 percent of the science at half the cost,” said Robert T. Pappalardo, the
pre-project scientist. Even that may be too expensive. SpacePolicyOnline.com reported last month that Charles F. Bolden Jr., NASA’s
administrator, told the advisory council that it had to stop thinking about so-called flagship missions with price tags over $1 billion. “The budget
doesn’t support that,” he said. A few days later, Mr. Bolden said in a statement that the agency remained committed to future flagship
missions, but added, “We are dedicated to pursuing the most cost-effective ways to accomplish this goal.” Congress is pushing NASA in that
direction. It allocated $1.345 billion to planetary sciences in the spending bill it passed last week — $127 million more than the administration
had requested — and directed NASA to spend $80 million of it on preliminary design work for the Europa mission. Dr. Heidi B. Hammel, head of
planetary science at the American Astronomical Society, noted that the field has seen worse days. In 1981, the NASA administrator, James
Beggs, offered up the entire planetary science program for sacrifice in response to demands for deep budget cuts by the Reagan administration.
“We’re not as bad as we were then,” Dr. Hammel said. “I’m
hoping we flatten out. I don’t see a downward trend into
the ground.” In the ensuing negotiations between Mr. Beggs and White House budget officials, the program was saved, although no new
missions were launched until 1989. Scientists came up with a list of four priorities. The fourth, to study Saturn’s largest moon, Titan, turned into
Cassini.

Cassini on chopping block – high costs sole motivating factor

Executive Essentials 13 (Published November 25th, 2013, “Cassini, Curiosity, Sheaffer”, from the
Executive Essentials PEN BLOG, http://blog.executiveessentials.com/index.php/pens-fountain-pens-
engraved-pens/cassini-curiosity-sheaffer/, accessed 5/1/2014)

Many people agree that space is the final frontier (although some argue the ocean is a more valuable location to explore). By searching through
the cosmos, we can embark on mission of self-exploration, searching not only for other forms of life and distant worlds that might support us,
but also for answers to our own humanity. With so many questions and so many possibilities, it is no surprise that the United States alone
spends an annual $16.9 billion on space programs. However, with budget cuts brought about by sequestration and a
lack of interest in exploring our galaxy, scientists at NASA have to make decisions on what programs
can continue into the future. Two of the big missions that are up for consideration are the Cassini Mission to Saturn and the
Curiosity Mission to Mars.¶ Up first on the chopping block is Cassini, a probe that has been circling Saturn since 2004. Still
sending back incredible¶ images of the rings around Saturn, Cassini isn’t up on the chopping block because of it’s failures, but
because of it’s $60 million per year price tag. In fact, scientists believe that Cassini has at least 4 more good years of research left if
the program was funded and maintained. Those 4 more years could yield unprecedented information about Saturn’s many moons as well as
new information about the rings of dust that surround it.¶ The Curiosity rover trekking around on Mars has had a great deal of success as well.
Launched in 2012,¶ the probe landed in Gale Crater with the mission to explore the habitability of Mars as well as its climate and geology.
Decked out with all types of instruments, the rover is capable of taking a multitude of readings including video and still pictures. With a nuclear
battery, the rover has a long life ahead of itself and can even be switched off to preserve batteries with the possibility of being fired up in the
years to come.
 NASA Will be target
NASA will be the target for necessary budget cuts – history proves

Tameez 14 (Mustafa, IN THE LOOP, published July 5, 2014, “Obama’s Secret New Tax”,
http://blog.chron.com/intheloop/2014/02/nasas-tea-party-primary/, accessed 5/1/2014)

Every time a budget cut is needed, NASA and the Space Program are on the chopping block. According to
Technician Online, at its peak in 1966 NASA funding amounted to 4.4 percent of the entire federal budget. In 2012, that has decreased to 0.48
percent. In other words, for every two dollars the federal government spends, NASA receives a penny. And now in 2014, not just NASA but the
entire Houston region is bracing for another proposed $200 million cut for planetary sciences. Whoever is elected to this seat has a huge role to
play in ensuring that NASA and the future of the space program are protected. But in Congress, if you won’t stick up for your own district, no
The competition to become the nexus for private space exploration is fierce and
one else is going to either.
any Representative who allows our local advantage in this arena to dissipate should face serious
questions from their constituents.

Space funding tenuous, public could easily be swayed to shift its funding to oceans

Adamu 12 (“Exploring space: Why’s it so important?”,,By Zaina Adamu, CNN Correspondent,

10/20/2012, http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/20/exploring-space-whys-it-so-important/,
accessed 4/30/14)

A mere mention of taxpayers’ dollars going to NASA makes Carol cringe. “I don’t see the use. What are
we going out there to do?” she asked. CNN commenters often share these sentiments; one recently
identified himself/herself as "waste of tax dollars."¶ It’s been asked since space exploration began in
the late 1950s. Some people argue that some –- if not all –- funding for space exploration could be
used to revitalize the economy, fix the education system, or solve undersea mysteries, among other
Earth-related issues.¶ “We need to be researching the bottom of the oceans just as much,” said CNN’s
space and science meteorologist Chad Myers. “There could be things at the bottom of the Earth that we
don’t know about.”¶ According to a 2010 CNN/ORC poll, 50% of Americans agreed that the money spent
for the space shuttle program - which ended last year - should be spent elsewhere. And in a 2009 Gallup
poll, the percentage of Americans who believe the U.S. space program should be scrapped jumped four
points: From 4% to 8% in an 11-year period (1998-2009).¶ The numbers reveal that some question the
purpose of space exploration. NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said the government’s financial
contribution to NASA has been beneficial to humans and will continue to set breakthroughs in
technology.¶ “By sending astronauts to space and trying to understand their biological responses to
space environment, we’ve learned a lot about understanding human beings,” said Abdalati. “A lot of the
instrumentation in an emergency room, for example, is traceable to investments by NASA to monitor
and understand human health and performance in a space-related environment.”
 Link Magnifiers
Errors in one part of NASA spill over to mission effectiveness in other areas

Achenbach 13 (December, Joel, OMAN TRIBUNE, “Lack of Funds is Nasa’s biggest hurdle”,
http://www.omantribune.com/files/pdfs/2013/DECEMBER/28-12-2013/20131228_OT_07.pdf, accessed
5/7/2014

A problem in one part of Nasa can have cascading effects across the agency. That is what happened
when the James Webb Space Telescope was delayed by seven years and ran disasterously over budget. There is no consensus
on what the telescope was supposed to cost – at one point it was projected at about $2.5 billion – but Nasa now puts the price tag at $8.8
These
billion. The Mars Science Laboratory mission, which put Curiosity on Mars, also ran a billion dollars over its $1.6 billion budget.
overruns drain money from other science missions they also make the budget writers nervous. They
wonder: Can the scientists be trusted with flagship-class spacecraft?

Budget Cuts snowball

Brady, 9 [Kyle Brady; “The Decimation of a Generation’s Future,” Daily Kos, http://colonialserf.blogspot.com/2009/06/decimation-of-
generations-future.html, DA 7/24/11]//RS

Programs are going to be cut, funding to states lessened, and our dreams shattered, since all of history shows us the
lawmakers will protect themselves and their interests first, and be concerned about the general welfare of the population at a later
point. NASA, the ultimate embodiment of American frontierism, is
already on the chopping block, with massive
budget cuts and restrictions likely coming down the pipe – despite being a crucial part of our
future, both in terms of space exploration and technological innovation. And it will likely be a
vicious cycle. Funding cuts results in less interest and progress, creating less gains in a given
area, which, in turn, will result in more funding cuts.
 2nc Yes – Trade-Off
THERE WOULD BE A TRADE_OFF
A) Empirics prove – Authorizing new programs can result in NASA cuts

SpacePolitics 11 (2/22/11, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/22/briefs-assigning-members-

and-blame/) JPG
It’s not posted yet on the committee’s web site, but the full House Science Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, March 2, on
NASA’s FY12 budget request. NASA administrator Charles Bolden is the sole witness scheduled to testify. Last week the Senate Commerce
Committee announced the chairs and ranking members of its subcommittees. To no one’s surprise, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) will return as
chairman of the science and space subcommittee. The committee’s new ranking member is freshman Sen. John Boozman (R-AR). However,
it’s likely that full committee ranking member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) will continue to play a major role in any space topics
during this Congress. Last week the
full House approved an amendment to its 2011 continuing resolution
to transfer nearly $300 million from NASA to a Justice Department community policing program. The
amendment was introduced by a Democrat, but passed thanks to the votes of 70 Republicans, who joined 158 Republicans to approve the
amendment. So what was the reaction of Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)? He blames the Obama Administration: “If
the White House had
argued for NASA among House Democrats, we would have protected NASA from this cut,” he told the
Huntsville Times. Of course, if those 70 Republicans hadn’t voted for it, the amendment wouldn’t have passed regardless of what the
Democrats did, as the GOP is now in the majority, but Brooks offers no explanation why 70 of his fellow House Republicans voted for the
amendment.

B) Committeee Rules - NOAA is funded out of the same Committee that funds NASA

Mervis 10 (Jeffrey, deputy news editor, Science Magazine, 2/5/10,

http://www.wbur.org/npr/123410020/president-obamas-science-spending) JPG

But more broadly, Congress isn't going to go for all of these things. Congress, as you'll talk about later with
NASA, is not
going to be happy with that reallocation and savings. And the reason that's important to the rest of the science budget is
because NASA is funded by the same committee that funds the National Science Foundation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, which has NOAA and NIST. And so if they have a fixed amount
of money, the more they give to one agency, the less there is for everybody else. So sometimes Congress
makes decisions not because they're opposed to research, but because they have other higher priorities.

C) CUTGO rules force trade-off

Sange 11 (Alexandra, Legislative Assistant to the Federal Affairs Department, National Association of
Community Health Centers, 1/18, http://blogs.nachc.com/washington/?p=1163, accessed 6-29-11, CH)

Changing Pay-go to Cut-go. The new rules replace the previous ‘pay-as-you-go’ or PAYGO requirement with a ‘cut-as-you-go’ or
cut-go requirement. Cut-go prohibits the House from considering any bill that produces a net
increase in mandatory spending within the 1-year, 5-year and 10-year budget windows, as opposed to
PAYGO’s ten-year window. If a bill increases mandatory spending by any amount, the bill must cut the
budget somewhere by that same amount. Under PAYGO, spending cuts could serve as offsets to spending increases,
however, revenue increases could also serve as offsets. Under the ‘cut-go’ rule increases in revenue cannot be
used to offset increases in mandatory spending.

D) Congressional Perception – they believe they must

Williams 11 (Jesse, columnist, Yale News, 1/20,
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/20/war-of-the-wars/, accessed 7-1-11, CH)

The budget-tightening weeks are a tough time in Washington. After all, our revenues are finite, so
budgeting is a zero-sum game: every dollar we spend on education is a dollar we can’t spend on the military;
every dime we put into Social Security is one dime that can’t go to NASA, and so on. So when it comes time to cut, every
portion of spending can, in a very real sense, be evaluated against any other portion. Yet, we rarely do
that kind of broad evaluating — we stay busy trying to decide whether we’re giving the Marine Corps a new tank instead of a new jet. That’s
not a conversation about national priorities, and not the kind of conversation we can and should be having. Why not weigh that tank against,
say, $12 billion in federal subsidies for education?
 Ext CUTGO Rules
CUTGO prevents new spending more than PAYGO—only opposition is Democrats who
want more cuts

Main Street Insiders 11 (1/17, http://www.mainstreetinsider.org/90secondsummaries/?p=178.,

accessed 6-29-11, CH
While in the House majority, the Democrats had in place a “pay-as-you-go” budget rule, requiring that any tax cut or increase in
mandatory (entitlement) spending must be offset by cuts in other mandatory spending or increases in other taxes, in order to avoid
increasing the deficit. They also barred use of budget reconciliation on any measure that would increase the deficit, as was the
case in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the law that established Medicare Part D. While the incoming Republican
majority professes strong support for fiscal responsibility, it is more deeply committed to low taxes and less spending. The
changes to PAYGO in their rules package reflect those priorities. Summay: The new rules include a number of
provisions intended to lock in the Republicans’ budget principles for the 112th Congress. Specifically, they: •
Replace “pay-go” with “cut-go”, a new system that requires all new mandatory spending
to offset by other mandatory spending cuts. Tax increases are no longer allowed to act as offsets; • No
longer require tax cuts to be budget-neutral; • Grant the Budget Committee Chairman complete authority to set aggregate
spending limits for FY11, limits usually set through a budget resolution; • Overtly exempt the repeal of health care
reform and the extended Bush tax cuts from requiring budgetary offsets; • Allow deficit-increasing tax cut measures to be
passed through budget reconciliation, but bar its use for measures that would increase net spending; • Extend “cut-go” to bar
measures that increase spending by over $5B in any ten years within a 40-year window; • Eliminate the “Gephardt Rule” that
had allowed the House to avoid stand-alone votes to raise the debt ceiling; • Require each committee to formulate
proposals to cut or eliminate programs that are inefficient, duplicative, outdated, or more appropriately administered by State
or local governments. It should be noted that the Senate has no obligation to concur with these rules, and likely will engage
in a bitter fight with the House majority on budgetary issues. Nevertheless , the rules are deliberately designed to
virtually guarantee that mandatory spending will not increase, and likely will decrease, during the 112th
Congress. Supporters: most Republicans, Tea Party and small government advocates • Supporters applaud these
measures as an important reflection of commitment to reduce federal spending and shrink
government in the coming years. Opposition: most if not all Democrats, deficit hawks • Detractors view the changes as a
significant weakening of pay-go’s deficit reducing impact, and many believe it demonstrates Republicans’ fundamental
unseriousness about tackling persistent budget deficits.
 Ext Congressional Perception

R&D is zero-sum within all agencies

Raloff 11 (Janet, science reporter, Wired, 2/15,

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/science-obama-budget/ accessed 7-1-11, CH)

To pay for those priorities, Holdren says, agencies

were asked to make the painful determination of which
programs were underperforming or of lower priority to the president’s national objective “to
out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world.” “I think it is especially encouraging to have a
president who really supports R&D and education,” says Albert Teich, who directs science and policy programs at the American Association
What’s discouraging, of
for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. “You wish every president saw things this way.
course, is that we face this huge deficit. And not everybody in Congress is going to agree with the president’s priorities. So
there’s bound to be fights over it.” How big a tussle? “That’s the question of the hour. And for the answer, I think you should ask the IBM
computer on Jeopardy this week,” Teich says. This “zero-sum game” for federal R&D budgeting is novel, Teich
notes. It is also virtually impossible to achieve, he adds, since a host of different congressional committees are responsible for eventually
drafting the spending bills that will determine how money will be apportioned for individual agencies. And they don’t coordinate their
spending plans to allow such a finely balanced ledger.
Impacts
 2nc* Privatization Scenario Impact
Congressional funding of ocean exploration would spur private investment into
oceans instead of space

Conathan 13 (Michael, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress, June 20, 2014,
National Geographic “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending”,
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-
spending/, accessed 4/30/2014)

“Star Trek” would have us believe that space

is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might
be a tad off base. Though we know little about outer space, we still have plenty of frontiers to explore here on our home
planet. And they’re losing the race of discovery.¶ Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as
“Titanic” and “Avatar,” brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible that he used to become the third
human to journey to the deepest point of the world’s oceans—the Marianas Trench. By contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into
space—including Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which Cameron testified—and 12 people have actually set foot on
the surface of the moon.¶ All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by
such a wide margin.¶ In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for
everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other
programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this
picture.¶ Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately$8 million, deep-sea exploration is
pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human
life. Yet space travel excites Americans’ imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in
terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star
Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century,” and “2001 A Space Odyssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine
From Outer Space” and everything ever mocked on “Mystery Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,”
and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not forget Cameron’s own contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.”¶ When it comes to the ocean, we have “20,000
Leagues Under the Sea,” “Sponge Bob Square Pants,” and Cameron’s somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it.¶ This
imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars
rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his audacious hairdo, became a
minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more
than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself.¶
Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about
what’s out there. We’re presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all
been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot
see all that lies beneath the waves.¶ As a result, the facts about ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5
percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea
territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores.¶ Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life,
consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our oceans. And some of them look
pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus.¶
In a time of shrinking
budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard
look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur
growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths
of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest
source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology.¶ Of course space exportation
does have benefits beyond the “cool factor” of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers in space.
Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our lives—cell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-
filtration systems, just to name a few—and research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and
medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain
a few piles of moon rocks.¶ The deep seabed is a much more likely source of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year
the United Nations published its first plan for management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any
individual country. The United States has not been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the 185
nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity.¶ With or without the United States on board,
the potential for economic development in the most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year
Japan announced that it has discovered a massive supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This
follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean. There
is a real opportunity for our nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance structure
for these activities.¶ Toward the end of last week’s hearing, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), who chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard, hypothetically asked where we would be today if we had spent half as much money exploring the oceans as we
have spent exploring space. Given the current financial climate in Congress, we won’t find the answer to his question on Capitol Hill.¶ But there
may be another way.¶ Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third “Avatar” films. He says the formerwill be set on an ocean
planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century Fox really know how much the first installment of the movie series cost, but
estimates peg it at approximately $250 million—or 10 times the total funding for NOAA’s Ocean Exploration program. Since the original
“Avatar” grossed more than $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isn’t willing to hand over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-
explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can chip a percent or two off the gross from “Avatar 2” to help fill the gap.¶ Come to think of
it,
if the key to exploring the oceans hinges either on Hollywood giving up profits or Congress
increasing spending, maybe we are more likely to mine asteroids after all.

US Commercial space success is key to American leadership.

Worden, 2004 [Simon, Brigadier General (USAF, Retired), a Fellow in the office of Senator Sam
Brownback on detail from the University of Arizona where he is a Research Professor of Astronomy, was
Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base. As the
staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration's National Space Council, he spearheaded
efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs, has written or co-
authored more than 150 technical papers in astrophysics, space science and strategic studies, was
scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions, Marshall Institute, “Private Sector
Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision” 4-7,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf]
I’ll leave you with some final thoughts on space exploration. This time it’s really different. I’ve been involved in past attempts to revitalize space
exploration. I want to point out, and we’ve already seen a lot of evidence of this, that the President’s vision is not just about a government
program. Some, maybe even most of the heavy lifting, in terms of funds, may end up being done by the true
private sector. The government’s role will be to develop the supporting technology and infrastructure,
much as we did in decades past. I want to leave you with a final thought on a rationale for our renewed space exploration endeavor. This is for
those who wonder why we are pursing this Moon-Mars program when we have other pressing
problems. The new focus really is a recognition that the rest of the world is going into space. That’s pretty
obvious. Countries that we didn’t traditionally think of as space-faring, such as India and China, are
going to the moon. Having future generations of Americans ask “Why are other countries’ people
walking on the moon, going to Mars and we are not?” would have devastating consequences for our
national psyche. America’s destiny has always been to lead in the frontier. This is one frontier I think we
can’t afford to cede to other. As we think about the private sector, I think that the motivation is with us all
to ensure we continue to lead in space exploration.

Heg collapse causes nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 [Zalmay, Former RAND Fellow, Current US Ambassador, “Losing the Moment?” The
Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis]
<Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an
end in itself, but because aworld in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the
world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling
the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of
power system.
 AT: NASA undermines Privatization
Complete privatization will fail – only a public-private approach ensures financial
stability and growth

Zervos & Seigel, 08 [Vasilis, Professor of economics and space policy at the International Space
University with a BA in Economics from the American College of Greece, an M.Sc. from the University of
Birmingham, UK, and a Ph.D from the University of York, UK, and David, Dean and Professor School of
Business, University at Albany, “Technology, Security, and policy implications of future transatlantic
partnerships in space: lessons from Galileo”, Research Policy Volume 37, Issue 9, October 2008, Pages
1630-1642]
US efforts to privatize space capabilities have focused on key markets, such as space
telecommunications, space transportation and earth observation. However, full privatization of assets
such as the Space Shuttle is controversial, given the investment entailed and security concerns (Macauley,
2003). In Europe, the focus on more civil-oriented programs facilitates public–private partnerships and the
formation of European multinationals in similar key markets. A breakdown of the consolidated turnover of the European
space manufacturing industry in 2002 is illustrative, with Telecommunications, Launching and Earth Observations activities accounting for over
€3.5 billion out of a total €4.7 billion, which includes Navigation (€80 million) and scientific activities (Eurospace, 2004). The navigation market
was expected to grow rapidly by 2010, based on novel technological uses of navigation and positioning services by automobiles, mobile
communication users and commercial airliners (EC, 2002), and other commercial applications. Despite
encouraging market
projections for navigation markets for example, such industries are subject to numerous market
failures. The most prominent market failures are related to early-stage technology and risks associated
with future market size, as well as uncertainties in the development of competing and existing publicly
developed and owned systems and future security restrictions. Thus, it is unlikely that such a project can
be undertaken by industry alone despite the existence of optimistic market projections and returns
(see Section 3). For example, in the presence of conflict, such as war between two nations or civil war, where adversaries utilize the signals for
military purposes, the stakeholders exercising political pressure for or against regionally jamming the signal could range from the UN and the
authorities in the country in question, to financial institutions owning shares in the enterprise. Although
ultimately the
commercial entity is responsible for obeying the laws and regulations of the licensing country,
numerous issues relating to politics and international law are likely to turn potential investors with no
public involvement away into ‘safer’ and less strategically significant investments. Multi-public–private
partnerships (MP3) spread the financial risk associated with high-technology requirements, while easing
investor concerns over politically sensitive security issues and decisions. Moreover, the presence of
multiple countries in space projects results in more resilient public commitments, reassuring the
private firms.

Public-private partnerships solve any risk of commercial space failure.

Zervos & Seigel, 08 [Vasilis, Professor of economics and space policy at the International Space
University with a BA in Economics from the American College of Greece, an M.Sc. from the University of
Birmingham, UK, and a Ph.D from the University of York, UK, and David, Dean and Professor School of
Business, University at Albany, “Technology, Security, and policy implications of future transatlantic
partnerships in space: lessons from Galileo”, Research Policy Volume 37, Issue 9, October 2008, Pages
1630-1642]
The process of commercialization of space projects aims to develop space markets and industries that
utilize public investment. This can be achieved through successful implementation of spin-offs and global characteristics of space
assets, which contribute to wealth creation and economic development. However, the strategic significance of space is also
significant in its national security dimension. Hence, the objectives of commercialization and security-based strategic
considerations are often in conflict. Multi-public partnerships in space have historically been used as tools for
enhancing closer political links between participating parties, rather than enhancing economic and
industrial returns to the respective nations. The formation of transatlantic multi-public–private
partnerships, where partners such as NASA, ESA and industrial firms develop and commercialize space
programs such as re-usable launch vehicles for commercial applications (space travel), or radio-
navigation services, could provide blueprints for addressing economic and security concerns of using
space for commercial purposes. This would require space agencies evolving from acting as ‘black boxes’
of government space programs into more flexible partnerships that would be able to contribute to the
commercialization of space programs and systems. Export restrictions and technological-related security issues could then
be addressed by the participation of the relevant national agents in the partnerships. Traditionally, national security enhancement has been
addressed by government control over the relevant industries (nationalized utilities). Increasingly however, regulation is used to address the
security dimension of security sensitive industries and technologies, allowing companies to participate in international partnerships, for
example in the aerospace and the oil industry.
 Hegemony Internal
Space leadership is critical to overall US hegemony- provides intelligence and
warfighting capabilities.

Young 8 (Thomas, Chair for the Institute for Defense Analyses Research Group, “Leadership, Management, and
Organization for National Security Space”. July 2008.
http://www.armyspace.army.mil/ASJ/Images/National_Security_S pace_Study_Final_Sept_16.pdf) AV

Today, U.S. leadership in space provides a vital national advantage across the scientific,
commercial, and national security realms. In particular, space is of critical importance to our
national intelligence and warfighting capabilities. The panel members nevertheless are unanimous in our conviction
that, without significant improvements in the leadership and management of NSS programs, U.S. space preeminence
will erode to the extent that space ceases to provide a competitive national security advantage.
Space technology is rapidly proliferating across the globe, and many of our most important capabilities and
successes were developed and fielded with a government technical workforce and a management structure that no longer exist. U.S.
Leadership in Space is a Vital National Advantage Space capabilities underpin U.S. economic, scientific, and military leadership. The
space enterprise is embedded in the fabric of our nation’s economy, providing technological leadership and sustainment of the
industrial base. To cite but one example, the Global Positioning System (GPS) is the world standard for precision navigation and timing.
Global awareness provided from space provides the ability to effectively plan for and respond to such critical national security requirements
as intelligence on the military capabilities of potential adversaries, intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program
proliferation, homeland security, and missile warning and defense. Military strategy, operations, and tactics are predicated upon the
availability of space capabilities.
 Global Warming
NASA’s Climate monitoring systems are key to determining global warming and water
levels
AerospaceTechnology 10 [http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature78185/ “Nasa’s
High-Tech Climate Monitoring” April 6, 2010.]

Nasa and climate satellites share a common history. Even as the fledgling organisation was
struggling with the early frustrations of its initial manned space flight programme, a Juno II
rocket successfully launched Explorer 7 into low Earth orbit and ushered in the era of satellite
climate monitoring. The date was 13 October 1959 and Nasa was little more than a year old.
Fast-forward to the organisation's 50th anniversary on 29 July 2008 and the Earth-observing
constellation had grown to 21-strong. Unsurprisingly, it is not only the numbers that have
changed over the intervening half-century. The climate-monitoring element in that first payload
simply consisted of a flat-plate radiometer to quantify the heat reaching and leaving the Earth.
Today, satellites employ multisensor arrays to monitor everything from glacial ice to the
planetary water cycle. However, while the technologies may have been transformed almost
beyond recognition in their sophistication, the logic behind satellite-based research remains
exactly the same – though many would argue that the need for it is now greater than ever. It is as
simple as it is compelling. Before the satellite era, climatologists could only look upward, limiting
any attempt to gather data on the middle or upper atmosphere, and largely restricting world-
scale understanding to a compendium of discrete, localised observations. With satellites, the
whole thing went global. A global picture Achieving the kind of worldwide overview required
to meet the needs of increasingly complex climate models inevitably requires cutting-edge
technologies across a wide spectrum of sectors, aside from the obvious aerospace demands
implicit in the spacecraft themselves. The instruments on Nasa's Aqua satellite - part of a
huge mission instigated to elucidate the intricacies of the Earth's water cycle – reads like a
checklist of state-of-the-art monitoring devices. The technology includes atmospheric
infrared sounding, advanced microwave sounding and scanning radiometry units, and
moderate-resolution imaging spectro-radiometry. Aqua and its fellow Earth observation
satellites have come a long way since the pioneering days of Explorer 7. The technology has
grown, but then so has the task asked of it. The net result has been to provide today's climate
scientists with access to an unprecedented global picture, replete with levels of detail that would
have been almost unimaginable to the likes of professor Verner Suomi – the meteorologist
behind that first flat-plate radiometer. While Aqua has been examining the inter-relationships of
oceanic evaporation, atmospheric water vapour, clouds, precipitation, soil moisture, ice and
snow, other missions have been inexorably adding to our understanding of Earth's changing
climate. From CloudSat and Calipso, for instance, come near-simultaneous 3D measurements of
cloud structure, from Aura, details of the composition, chemistry and dynamics of the
atmosphere and from the aptly-named IceSat, data on the size and thickness of ice sheets. Still
more investigate rainfall, wind, ocean flows and solar radiation. If all goes according to plan,
2010 will add another two satellite and 2013, a third – and all three are set to push the climate
monitoring envelope even further. Aquarius and Glory Currently scheduled for launch on 22
November 2010, Glory will explore the Earth's energy balance and the effect it has on the
climate. Established in a low orbit, the satellite has two main goals. Firstly, to collect information
on "black carbon", and other atmospheric aerosols, in order to complement existing knowledge
of the seasonal variability in their properties. Secondly, it will amass data on solar irradiance to
contribute to studies of long-term climate shift. These tasks are potentially enormously
significant, since they could go a long way to answering question as to whether temperature
increase and climate changes are largely anthropogenic, or merely the consequences of natural
events. Aquarius, also due to launch in 2010, will pioneer the observation of sea surface salinity
from space, closing a notable gap in climatologists' current understanding by gathering more
data in two months than has been collected by conventional means over the last 100 years.
Capable of a detection accuracy of 0.2psu – equivalent to a pinch of salt in a gallon of water,
according to Nasa – the satellite will extend the boundaries of our knowledge of oceanic
circulation and the global water cycle, enabling more comprehensive climate models to be
developed. The next generation Most of the world's water is contained in the oceans; only 3% is
freshwater and two-thirds of that is in the form of permanent ice. That 1% which is available,
however, forms a vitally important component of the Earth's hydrological cycle – socio-
economically as much as bio-climatically – and precipitation represents one of its most critical
elements. "The only practical way to quantify rain, snow and ice fall is to do it from space."
It is easy to see why. The world's population has doubled since 1950 – and water use has tripled
as a result. With an estimated one billion people already denied access to clean potable
supplies, and against a backdrop of changing climate and burgeoning demand, the future
availability of freshwater is clearly of massive social importance. It also has ramifications
for virtually every other environmental issue too. Without an accurate measurement of
the global distribution and intensity of precipitation, climate study lacks one of its most
crucial factors, yet quantifying rain, snow and ice fall arguably remains the biggest
challenge facing Earth science. The only practical way to do it is from space. Nasa's global
precipitation measurement (GPM) mission, scheduled for launch sometime in 2013, arose in
response. The satellite will carry a conically-scanning radiometer and dual-frequency cross-
track scanning radar and provide the calibration standard for other members of the GPM
constellation. The overarching scope of the mission should lead to a better understanding of the
role of precipitation within the global system and help examine the wider context of natural and
human-induced climate change

Unchecked warming results in extinction

Mazo 10 (PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLAJeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research
Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,”
pg. 122)
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-
industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the
likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions
have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions
at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be
expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in
the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability
and security of countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human
tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and
advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state
failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned
as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate
change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation."
What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid
change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these
extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
 Ext NASA Helps deal with Warming
NASA is key to keeping global warming in check
Lewis, Ladislaw, and Zheng 10 [Lewis - senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public
Policy Program at CSIS. Sarah O. - senior fellow in the Energy and National Security Program at CSIS
Denise E. Zheng , June 2010, “ Earth Observation for Climate Change,”
http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf]

Until this year, America’s civil space policies—and the budgets that derive from it—were shaped
to a considerable degree by the political imperatives of the past and by the romantic fiction of
spaceflight. We believe there is a new imperative—climate change—that should take precedence
in our national plans for space and that the goal for space spending in the next decade should be
to create a robust and adequate Earth observation architecture. There is unequivocal
evidence, despite careless mistakes and noisy protests, that Earth’s climate is warming.
While the effects and implications of this are subject to speculation, there should be no doubt
that the world faces a major challenge. There are important shortfalls in data and analysis
needed to manage this challenge. Inadequate data mean that we cannot determine the scope or
nature of change in some key areas, such as the melting of Antarctic sea ice. Long-term changes
in daily temperature are not adequately understood, in part because of limited observations of
atmospheric changes. Our understanding of how some anthropogenic (man-made) influences
affect climate change is still incomplete. 1 These shortfalls must be remedied, if only to
overcome skepticism and doubt. Climate change now occupies a central place on the global
political agenda, and the United States should adjust its space policies to reflect this. Assessing
and managing climate change will require taking what has largely been a scientific enterprise
and “operationalizing” it. Operationalization means creating processes to provide the data and
analysis that governments will need if they are to implement policies and regulations to soften
the effects of climate change. Operationalization requires the right kind of data and adequate
tools for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating that data in ways that inform decisionmaking
at many levels of society. Satellites play a central role in assessing climate change because
they can provide a consistent global view, important data, and an understanding of
change in important but remote areas. Yet there are relatively few climate satellites—a total
of 19, many of which are well past their expected service life. Accidents or failures would expose
the fragility of the Earth observation system. 2 We lack the required sensors and instruments for
the kinds of measurement that would make predictions more accurate and solutions more
acceptable. Weather satellites, which take low-resolution pictures of clouds, forests, and ice caps,
are not adequate to the task. NASA builds impressive Earth observation satellites for
climate change, but these have been experimental rather than ongoing programs.
 Science
Funding for extended missions key to discoveries, scientific training, and there is no
productive alternative

Spudis 4/22 (2014, Paul is a senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, AIR
AND SPACE MAGAZINE: published by the Smithsonian, “NASA’s Extended Science Missions in Peril”,
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/nasas-extended-science-missions-peril-180951189/?no-ist
accessed 5/1/2014)

But when is enough, enough? There are so many places to go, so much to do and so little money to spread around; new missions are waiting
their turn. Once a mission completes its defined job, shouldn’t we accept that it’s over and move on to the next one? What reasoning guides
NASA’s continued support for extended missions?¶ There are several strong arguments in favor of continuing extended missions. The most
obvious one is that an extended
mission takes advantage of a proven asset already in place and working.
Spaceflight remains a risky business and it’s amazing that after 50 years of experience with it, seemingly minor malfunctions or
glitches can and do destroy the well-laid plans, work and dreams of hundreds of scientists and engineers. Every launch of a spacecraft is a
heart-stopping moment for the people who have worked (often for years) on the mission – a hope against hope that somehow, their “baby”
will survive this baptism of fire and safely navigate the treacherous shoals of interplanetary space. Most malfunctions occur early
in flight, either in launch failures or during the deployment of structures, such as antennas and solar arrays. With those early
events safely behind them, the mission team can breathe easier and begin data collection.¶ Once the
nominal mission data is “in the can,” the mission team has safely cleared another hurdle and eagerly looks forward to the collection of
additional data. In some cases, spacecraft are flexible enough to be programmed to collect data or conduct experiments that were not thought
about prior to flight. In other cases, spacecraft designed to collect partial data for a planet can end up collecting global data sets, or at least
greatly improve an existing data product through repeated additional observations. In the 1970s, the Viking Orbiters had imaging systems much
improved over the previous Mariner 9 camera, but the mission was not designed to make a global map of Mars. Nonetheless, the Viking
Orbiters ended up mapping the entire planet in unprecedented resolution and image quality during their extended missions.¶ Another reason
for continuing an extended mission is if there are no immediate plans for any future missions to the object of study. For example, the
Cassini mission has been extended repeatedly not only for the excellent science it is producing, but
also because no future missions to Saturn are currently planned by any space faring nation. In the case of
LRO, it is the last remnant of what was to be a series (now cancelled) of robotic missions to the Moon. Moreover, the LRO spacecraft is in a
stable “frozen” orbit that requires no maintenance; its instruments continue to work superbly and we are conducting new and innovative
experiments, such as using the large radio dish antenna at Arecibo (Puerto Rico) to undertake “bistatic” radar measurements of various locales
and geological units, including most interestingly, polar deposits. Bistatic radar measurements of diffuse backscatter can distinguish between
those caused by rocky surfaces and ice; this particular experiment was not planned when LRO was launched five years ago. We have obtained
new data that portrays a moon unlike the one we thought it to be. This “new” Moon is drawing the attention of the world’s space powers.¶ The
camera on LRO constantly returns detailed, high-resolution images of astonishing beauty and utility. We have completely mapped the Moon at
medium resolution (about 100 meters per pixel); the Narrow Angle Camera on LRO can resolve objects on the surface as small as one meter
(pixel size 25-100 cm). These data have given us spectacular views of fresh flows of impact melt (twisted landforms caused by the flow of liquid,
shock-melted rock), entrances to subterranean (sublunarian?) voids (possibly intact lava caves), unusual and enigmatic landforms that may be
created by recent and violent venting of gas from the lunar interior, and newly formed impact craters, known to be new because previous
images show nothing at these sites. Virtually all of these features were completely unknown prior to being imaged by the LROC. Thus, ongoing
extended missions can and often do make new and unexpected discoveries, in some cases discoveries that could not even have been
anticipated prior to flight.¶ At a recent meeting, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden claimed that extending old missions was “not as
invigorating” for young scientists than starting new ones. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most
students in planetary
science and space engineering cut their teeth by working on extended missions. Students and young
investigators get few opportunities to work directly on new missions – most mission teams are made up of experienced scientists and engineers
(read: greybeards). It is only during the extended mission that the less experienced people get their chance
(“It’s done its job – let the kids play with it!”). Moreover, for ongoing missions like LRO, student workers are a critical and large part of the team
for ongoing operations. They plan data collects, monitor the downlinks and store and archive the data. The loss of an extended mission asset
doesn’t increase opportunities for students – it decreases them.¶ We do not yet know how the Senior Review will turn out. NASA is famous for
wanting to “move on” to the next thing and often abandons working spacecraft.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
but as things currently stand, there isn’t much in the mission pipeline to move on to. Planetary Science has
taken several massive budgetary hits in the past few years, with more on the way.¶ The termination of LRO and MER will not help move new
missions off the drawing board. Money not spent on these extended missions will probably slide into SMD’s Black
Hole of Funding (the James Webb Space Telescope) or be dissipated on new paperwork, committee meetings and concept studies. It
would be both fiscally prudent and programmatically responsible for NASA to fund and retain these working and still productive extended
missions.

Earth sciences solves multiple scenarios for extinction, including

climate change.
Killeen 5 – (Phd. , Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Timothy, 28th April
2005, “Senate Hearing on NASA's Earth Science Program”,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16382) NAR)

It is clear after decades of pioneering satellite observations that Earth

is a system of tightly coupled parts that interact in
complex ways to produce the whole. The study of such interactions has become known as Earth system science, and has led to numerous
insights about how the Earth functions and how it is evolving and changing over time. To understand how the atmosphere supports and
protects life, for example, one must appreciate the complex and tightly coupled circulation dynamics, chemistry, interactions with the oceans,
ice, biosphere, and land surface: all driven by solar radiation. And today, the
natural system is clearly susceptible to
changes due to human activity, creating still more complexity and variability over many scales of time and space. In any foreseeable
future, we will have to understand this "system of systems" in order to help create, maintain, safeguard,
and guide human societies. Earth system science, based on comprehensive and accurate ground- and space-based
observations , is the toolkit that enables such investigation. Furthermore, the manner in which we explore other worlds will be
informed by the understanding of our own. For me personally, this "blue marble" photograph taken over 30 years ago by Apollo 17 astronauts
on the way to the moon perfectly represents this complex system. You have all seen this incredible picture hundreds of times in
advertisements, reports and public media. It is perhaps one of the most significant, but under-sung, societal icons we possess. At NCAR, it is
featured in a wall mural. There are many ways to illustrate the importance of NASA's role in supporting Earth system science in the U.S. In sheer
budgetary terms, NASA is the single largest environmental science program supported by the federal
government. The widely respected budget analyses of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) indicate that
NASA provided 34 percent of the total funding for the environmental sciences in 2004. Much of this spending is devoted to the
design, development, and operation of scientific instruments, the spacecraft that carry them, and the data
systems required to process, analyze, archive, and distribute data to the scientific community and
other users. But it should also be remembered that NASA provides significant resources to university
investigators through the research and analysis component of its program. In fact, leaving spacecraft and data
system costs aside, AAAS analyses show that NASA was the third largest provider of competitively awarded extramural funding for the
university environmental science community in 2004, trailing only the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Even
small reductions in the NASA program have large effects in the university community. This matters both because research
and analysis
is the process by which useful information is derived from remote sensing systems, and because
university-based research activities provide the human capital (undergraduates, graduate students, young researchers
and engineers) that underpins the entire space program. The effects of funding perturbations reach far beyond the year in which they occur.
The design and development of an Earth observation satellite takes a decade or more, and keeping young
scientists and engineers engaged in such work requires some degree of steady ongoing support. Another way of
showing NASA's importance to this field is by looking at what has been accomplished. The scientific and practical results from
NASA's Earth science program are much too extensive for me to catalogue here, but two examples can illustrate the unique
contribution that NASA has made to our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere and its variations. Example 1: Ozone depletions The first
example is probably well known to you. The
ozone "holes" in the Antarctic and Arctic were monitored from space by
various NASA satellite systems, including the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). The diagnosis of the physical and
chemical mechanisms responsible for these dangerous changes to our protective ozone shield was made possible by the combination of
observations, modeling, and theory supported by NASA. In fact,
it was a NASA high-altitude aircraft that made the
"smoking gun" measurements that convinced the scientific and policy communities that chlorine
compounds produced by various human activities were centrally responsible for the observed ozone loss. Following these
observations, international protocols were put in place that are beginning to ameliorate the global-scale ozone loss. The TOMS instrument has
provided an ongoing source of data that permits us to track the level of ozone in the stratosphere, the annual opening and closing of the "ozone
hole," and how this phenomenon is changing over time. These continuing measurements and analyses and the effective regulatory
response have led, among other things, to a reduction in projected deaths from skin cancer worldwide . Example 2: Air
Pollution Observations Last week, President Bush mentioned proposed rules to limit air pollution from coal-fired power plants. Air pollution is
clearly an important concern. NASA has played a major role in the development of new technologies that can
monitor the sources and circulation patterns of air pollution globally . It is another tremendous story of science serving society
through innovation. In this case, through an international collaboration, NASA deployed a one-of-a-kind instrument designed to observe global
carbon monoxide and its transport from the NASA Terra spacecraft. These animations show the first global observations of air pollution.
Sources of carbon monoxide include industrial processes (see, for example, source regions in the Pacific Rim) and fires (for example in
Amazonia). These global-scale data
from space have helped change our understanding of the relationship
between pollution and air quality we now know that pollution is not solely or even primarily a local or regional problem.
California's air quality is influenced by industrial activity in Asia, and Europe's air quality is influenced by activities here in America. From such
pioneering work, operational systems can now be designed to observe pollution events, the global distribution of chemicals and particulate
matter in the atmosphere, and the ways in which these substances interact and affect the ability of the atmosphere to sustain life such a
system will undoubtedly underpin future efforts to understand, monitor, and manage air quality globally. Without
NASA's
commitment to innovation in the Earth sciences, it is hard to believe that such an incredible new capability
would be available today. B. The Promise of Earth Observations in the Next Decade The achievements of the last several decades
have laid the foundation for an unprecedented era of discovery and innovation in Earth system science. Advances in observing technologies
have been accompanied by vast improvements in computing and data processing. When the Earth Observing System satellites were being
designed, processing and archiving the data was a central challenge. The Terra satellite produces about 194 gigabytes of raw data per day,
which seemed a daunting prospect at the time of its definition. Now laptop memories are measured in gigabytes, students can work with
remote sensing datasets on their laptops, and a large data center like NCAR increases our data holdings by about 1000 gigabytes per day. The
next generation of high performance computing systems, which will be deployed during the next five years or so, will be petascale systems,
meaning that they will be able to process millions of gigabytes of data. The ongoing revolution in information technology has provided us with
capabilities we could hardly conceive of when the current generation of Earth observing satellites was being developed. We have just begun to
take advantage of the synergies between these technological areas. The U.S., through NASA, is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this
technological opportunity. Example 3: Weather Forecasting Weather forecasting in the Southern Hemisphere has been dramatically improved
through NASA's contributions, and this experience illustrates the power of remote sensing for further global improvements in weather
prediction. The lack of surface-based data in the Southern Hemisphere once meant that predictive skill lagged considerably behind that
achieved in the Northern Hemisphere. The improvement in the accuracy of Southern Hemisphere weather forecasting is well documented and
almost entirely due to the increased use of remote-sensing data. But improvements in the quality of satellite data were not sufficient.
Improvements in data assimilation a family of techniques for integrating observational results into predictive models were also necessary. The
combination has resulted in rapid improvement in Southern Hemisphere forecasting, which is now nearly equal to that in northern regions.
Data assimilation capabilities continue to advance rapidly. One can now easily conceive of forecast systems that will fuse data from satellites,
ground-based systems, databases, and models to provide predictions with unprecedented detail and accuracy perhaps reaching natural limits
of predictability. A
new generation of weather forecast models with cloud-resolving spatial resolution is
coming on line, and these models show significant promise for improving forecast skills across the board.
Use of new NASA remote sensing data from upcoming missions such as Calipso (Cloud-Aerosol and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite) and CloudSat
will be essential to fully validate and tune these
new capabilities which will serve the nation in providing improved
hurricane and severe storm prediction, and in the development of numerous decision support systems reliant on state-of-the-
art numerical weather prediction capabilities. Example 4: Earth System Models Data from NASA missions are central to constructing more
comprehensive and detailed models that will more realistically represent the complexity of the Earth system. Cloud observations from MODIS
(the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and precipitation measurements from GPM (the Global Precipitation Mission), for
example, are critical to improving the representation of clouds and the water cycle in such models. Observations from MODIS and Landsat are
fundamental to the development of more sophisticated representation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems and atmosphere land surface
interactions. The inclusion of this detail will help in the creation of true Earth system models that will enable detailed investigation of the
interactions of Earth system processes and multiple environmental stresses within physically consistent simulated systems. In general terms,
Earth system observations represent the only means of validating Earth system model predictions. Our confidence in short-term, regional-scale
weather predictions is based on how closely they match observed regional conditions. Assessing the performance of global-scale, longer-term
model predictions likewise depends on comparing model results with observational records. Scientific confidence in the ability of general
circulation models to represent Earth's climate has been greatly enhanced by comparing model results for the last century with the
observational records from that period. At the same time, the sparse and uneven nature of past observational records is an ongoing source of
uncertainty in the evaluation of model results. The existence of much more comprehensive and consistent global measurements from space
such as the data from the NASA Terra, Aqua, and Aura satellites is a giant step forward in this regard, and, if maintained, will enable much more
rigorous evaluation of model performance in the future. In summary, Earth system models, with increasing temporal and spatial resolutions
and validated predictive capabilities, will be used by industry and governmental decision makers across a host of domains into the foreseeable
future. This knowledge base will drive new economies and efficiencies within our society. I believe that requirements
flowing from the needs and capabilities of sophisticated Earth system models will be very useful for NASA in developing strategic roadmaps for
future missions. C. The Importance of Careful Planning The central role of NASA in supporting Earth system science, the demonstrated success
and impact of previous and current NASA missions, and the promise of continued advances in scientific understanding and societal benefits all
argue for a careful, analytical approach to major modifications in the NASA Earth science program. As noted above, the development of space
systems is a time-consuming and difficult process. Today's actions and plans will have long-term consequences for our nation's capabilities in
this area. The link between plans and actions is one of the most important points I want to address today. From the outside, the interagency
planning process seems to be experiencing substantial difficulties in maintaining this link. The NASA Earth science program is part of two major
Presidential initiatives, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). With regard
to the CCSP, it is not apparent that the strategies and plans developed through the interagency process are having much impact on NASA
decision-making. In January 2004, then-Administrator of NASA, Sean O'Keefe, called for acceleration of the NASA Glory mission because of the
direct relevance of the mission to understanding the roles of aerosols in the climate system, which is one of the highest-priority science
questions defined in the CCSP research strategy. NASA is now proposing cancellation of the mission. As I have emphasized throughout this
testimony, the progress of and benefits from Earth system science research are contingent upon close coordination between research,
modeling, and observations. The close coordination of program planning among the agencies that support these activities is also a necessity.
This coordination currently appears to be fragile. The effect of significant redirections in NASA and reduction in NASA's Earth
science effort are equally worrisome in the case of the Administration's GEOSS initiative, which is focused on improving the
international coordination of environmental observing systems. Both NASA and NOAA satellite programs are vital to this effort. The science
community is very supportive of the GEOSS concept and goals. There are over 100 space-based remote-sensing systems that are either
operating or planned by various nations for the next decade. Collaboration among space systems, between space- and ground-based systems,
and between suppliers and users of observational data is critical to avoiding duplication of effort and to getting the most out of the investments
in observing technology. The tragic example of the Indian Ocean Tsunami demonstrates the need for such coordination. The tsunami was
detected and observed before hitting land, but the absence of effective communication links prevented warnings from reaching those who
needed them in time. A functioning GEOSS could lead to major improvements in the rapid availability of data and warnings, and the U.S. is right
to make development of such a system a priority. But U.S.
credibility and leadership of this initiative will be called into
question if our nation is unable or unwilling to coordinate and maintain the U.S. programs that make up
the core of our proposed contribution. D. Answers to Questions Posed by the Committee My testimony to this point has
outlined my views on a series of key issues for the NASA Earth science program. Much of the text found above is relevant to consideration of
the specific questions posed by the Committee in its letter of invitation. In this section, I provide more direct answers to these questions to
the extent possible and appropriate. How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What criteria should NASA use in
doing so? I believe that NASA should work with the scientific and technical community and its partner agencies to define a NASA Earth
science plan that is fully compatible with the overall CCSP and GEOSS science strategies. In my view, the interaction with the scientific and
technical community should include both input from and review by the National Research Council (NRC) and direct interaction with the
strong national community of Earth science investigators and the aerospace industry who are very familiar with NASA capabilities and
developing technological opportunities. Competitive peer review processes should be used appropriately in assessing the merit of
competing approaches and in key decision-making. I believe NASA should also find a means of involving users and potential users of NASA-
generated data in this process, perhaps through public comment periods or a series of workshops. Sufficient time should be allotted to this
process for a careful and deliberative evaluation of options. This science plan should then guide the process of setting mission priorities.
Defining criteria to use in comparing and deciding upon potential missions would be an important part of this planning exercise. I would
recommend consideration of a set of criteria that include: * compatibility with science priorities in the CCSP and GEOSS science plans *
potential scientific return from mission * technological risk * direct and indirect societal benefits * cost. I believe that the decadal planning
activity underway at the NRC in response to a request from NASA and NOAA is a valuable step in this process. What are the highest priority
unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth science observations from space? I believe this question is most appropriately addressed
through the community process suggested above. There are many important Earth science questions, and prioritizing among them is best
done in a deliberative and transparent process that involves extensive input from and discussion by the science community. I would
personally cite soil moisture, three-dimensional cloud characteristics, global vector tropospheric winds, pollutant characteristics and
transport, carbon fluxes, and aerosol distributions as all high priority measurements to make on a global scale. What have been the most
important contributions to society that have come from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?
NASA Earth science
programs have played a key role in developing our understanding of the Earth as a coupled system of inter-
related parts, and in the identification and documentation of a series of global-scale changes in the Earth's
environment, including ozone depletion, land use and land cover change, loss of biodiversity, and
climate change. Other examples of societal contributions include improved weather forecasting, improved understanding of the large-
scale climate variations, such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation that alter seasonal patterns of rainfall,
and improved understanding of the status of and changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystems that contributes to more effective
management of natural resources. What future benefits to the nation (societal applications) are possible that NASA Earth sciences could
provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we fill before those future benefits are possible? In a broad sense, NASA Earth science activities
are part of developing a global Earth information system that can provide ongoing and accurate information about the status of and changes
in the atmosphere, oceans, and marine and terrestrial ecosystems that sustain life, including the impact of human activities.
The
continued development of observation systems, sophisticated Earth system models, data assimilation methods, and
information technologies holds the promise of much improved predictions of weather and climate variations
and much more effective prediction and warning of natural hazards. Much has already been accomplished to lay
the groundwork for such a system, but many important questions remain. Some of the most important have to do with
the functioning and human alteration of the Earth's carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles, and how these
cycles interact; the regional manifestation of global scale climate change; and the reactions of
ecosystems to simultaneous multiple stresses.
 AT: Biological Contamination
Safeguards prevent biologic contamination from Cassini
Blaber and Verrechia 14 (April 3, Philippa and Agelique both hold international Master’s Degrees in
Space Science and have worked extensively in private space industry, “Cassini-Huygens: Preventing
Biological Contamination” in FOCUS Magazine, published here
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2014/04/03/cassini-huygens-preventing-biological-
contamination/, accessed 5/7/2014)

Initially the end of the Cassini mission was scheduled for 2008 but it benefited from two mission extensions: Equinox and “Solstice. The Cassini
mission end is now planned for 2017 and is intended to complete a “controlled impact” into the atmosphere of Saturn. This solution has been
selected among several options including impacting on an icy satellite and impacting on the main ring. Cassini has already observed the Saturn
system for almost 10 years and remains in remarkably good condition. In the next three years, it will continue to orbit Saturn and will also
complete additional flybys of Titan and Enceladus.¶ The strategy for end of life of Cassini is the result of scientific study goals and the mitigation
of planetary protection issues. Jean-Pierre Lebreton has worked at ESA-ESTEC, in the Netherlands, for 27 years and was the project scientist of
the Huygens mission. Lebreton explained that “Cassini will perform 20 orbits around Saturn between the planet and its rings in order to make
unique observations of the planet.” Cassini will dive between Saturn and its iconic rings, gathering more data on the planet’s magnetosphere
and gravity field.¶ Lebreton also explained that Cassini does not comply with the planetary protection principles. Accordingly, care
will be
taken to ensure that Cassini does not crash into a body which has a significant chance for hosting life,
such as Enceladus. Cassini’s mission scientists decided to impact the probe into the atmosphere of
Saturn to ensure biological contamination will not occur. Saturn should not suffer any damage from
this impact. Although the possibility that Saturn might host life is unlikely, the spacecraft will not risk
even that unlikely scenario; Cassini will disintegrate and be scattered into the giant gaseous planet’s
atmosphere, preventing possible contamination from Earth.
 2nc* Asteroid Scenario
Budget Cuts snowball
Brady, 9 [Kyle Brady; “The Decimation of a Generation’s Future,” Daily Kos, http://colonialserf.blogspot.com/2009/06/decimation-of-
generations-future.html, DA 7/24/11]//RS

Programs are going to be cut, funding to states lessened, and our dreams shattered, since all of history shows us the
lawmakers will protect themselves and their interests first, and be concerned about the general welfare of the population at a later
point. NASA, the ultimate embodiment of American frontierism, is
already on the chopping block, with massive
budget cuts and restrictions likely coming down the pipe – despite being a crucial part of our
future, both in terms of space exploration and technological innovation. And it will likely be a
vicious cycle. Funding cuts results in less interest and progress, creating less gains in a given
area, which, in turn, will result in more funding cuts.

Asteroid program allows us to get to Mars and stops inevitable extinction from
collision – further funding cuts would derail

Prigg 5/16 (2014, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2630931/How-Nasas-asteroid-

mission-save-planet-Mission-test-technology-push-objects-away-Earth.html, Mark, How Nasa's 2030
asteroid mission could save the planet: Project will test technology that could move space rocks on a
collision course with Earth, DAILY MAIL, accessed 5/19/14)

Nasa's mission to land on an asteroid could help save the Earth, the space agency has revealed.¶ The mission is
expected to test an 'enhanced gravity tractor', that could be used to push away an asteroid on a collision course
with Earth.¶ The technique would use a a robotic probe to fly alongside a space rock for months or years, gradually nudging it off course
with slight gravitational changes caused by taking boulders from the surface.¶ 'We'd go into this enhanced gravity tractor position after we
retrieve the boulder and demonstrate that we have even more gravity attraction capability by doing that,' Lindley Johnson, program executive
for Nasa's Near-Earth Object (NEO) observations program, told reporters in March.¶ the
mission is being touted as a major step on
the way to Mars.¶ Nasa hopes to find an asteroid which is between seven and 10m wide for its mission.¶ They would then tow
or push it towards Earth so that it ends up in a stable orbit near the moon.¶ In 2021 astronauts would then use an
Orion capsule - a manned spacecraft - to land on the asteroid and bring back soil and rock samples for analysis.¶ This asteroid would also,
probably in the 2030s, be used as a stop-off point for astronauts on their way to Mars.¶ Exact details on how Nasa plans to pluck an asteroid
out of its trajectory are not yet known, but the most recent rendering rendering shows it is captured and held inside what looks like a giant
plastic bag.¶ Nasa has revealed two of its astronaut's have started training for an ambitious real life mission to land on an asteroid as a stepping
stone to Mars.¶ Today, it revealed preparations for the mission were underwater in a giant water tank used to simulate weightlessness.¶ The
space agency plans to land astronauts on an asteroid in the 2030s.¶ Wearing modified versions of the orange space shuttle launch and entry
suits, two astronauts took to the water in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, a 40-feet-deep swimming pool
that helps provide the lack of gravity needed for astronauts to practice for spacewalks.¶ 'Stan Love and Steve Bowen have between them spent
more than 62 hours in the vacuum of space on nine shuttle mission spacewalks, and they’re putting that experience to use here on Earth by
helping engineers determine what astronauts will need on NASA’s next step toward Deep Space,' Nasa said.¶ The pool contains a mockup of the
Orion spacecraft that will carry astronauts to the asteroid, docked to a mockup of the robotic spacecraft that will be used to capture an asteroid
and bring it into a stable orbit near the moon.¶ 'We’re working on the techniques and tools we might use someday to explore a small asteroid
that was captured from an orbit around the sun and brought back by a robotic spacecraft to orbit around the moon,' Love said. ¶ 'When it’s
there, we can send people there to take samples and take a look at it up close. ¶ 'That’s our main task; we’re looking at tools we’d use for that,
how we’d take those samples.'¶ For instance, one of the primary goals of visiting an asteroid will be to obtain a core sample that shows its
layers, intact – such a sample could provide information on the age of the solar system and how it was formed. ¶ But the tools geologist use to
collect core samples or even chips of rocks aren’t a good idea in space – swinging a hammer in front of your face isn’t safe when the sheet of
glass between you and it is necessary to keep you alive.¶ Instead Love and Bowen tried out a pneumatic hammer to give them a feel for
whether a battery-powered version might be useful.¶ And while they did so, they also evaluated a version of the spacesuit that could be worn
on an asteroid.¶ 'We need some significant modifications to make it easy to translate,' Bowen said. ¶ 'I can’t stretch my arms out quite as far as
in the [space station space suit].¶ 'The work envelop is very small. So as we get through, we look at these tasks. ¶ 'These tasks are outstanding
to help us develop what needs to be modified in the suit, as well.Ӧ NASA is already working to identify an asteroid that
could be reached by a robotic mission to capture it and bring it into a stable orbit around the moon.¶ In a recent video Nasa revealed the
missions, technologies and developments that will make a manned mission to Mars possible.¶ The footage shows how current technology such
as the International Space Station (ISS), in tandem with future endeavours - including visiting an asteroid - will see humans take the first steps
on the fourth planet from the sun.¶ In the video Nasa highlights the development of the heavy-lift rocket known as the Space Launch System
(SLS) as being integral to a Mars mission.¶ This rocket, when complete, will be the most powerful ever built - dwarfing even the Saturn V that
took humans to the Moon.¶ The huge lifting power of the SLS - up to 130 ton - will enable it to take the components and fuel needed for a nine-
month trip to Mars. This will be accompanied by other vehicles that will carry unmanned cargo spacecraft.¶ Some of these could be powered by
innovative means such as Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP), an emerging technology that is a form of ion propulsion.¶ Meanwhile, advanced
vehicles such as the Orion spacecraft will handled the manned aspects of the mission.¶ On 4 December this year, Orion will launch on its first
ever mission, completing two orbits of Earth without a crew before returning home.¶ The mission is important as the capsule will be raised to
an altitude of 3,600 miles (5,800 km), over 13 times higher than the orbit of the ISS.¶ This will give it a very high re-entry speed of about 20,000
miles (32,000 kilometres) per hour - the fastest since the days of the Apollo mission.¶ The purpose of this will be to test the re-entry capabilities
of the spacecraft, as it will need to be able to handle these speeds when returning a crew from a Mars mission.¶ 'Our next step is deep space,
where NASA will send a robotic mission to capture and redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon,' Nasa said in the announcement last week. ¶
'Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft will explore the asteroid in the 2020s, returning to Earth with samples. ¶ 'This experience in human
spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit will help Nasa test new systems and capabilities, such as Solar Electric Propulsion, which we’ll need to send
cargo as part of human missions to Mars.'¶ A House subcommittee recently approved an authorisation bill that would allow Nasa to redirect an
asteroid into the moon’s orbit, land astronauts there and use the asteroid as a testing outpost and way station on the way to Mars.¶ 'Beginning
in FY 2018, Nasa’s powerful Space Launch System rocket will enable these “proving ground” missions to test new capabilities,' Nasa said.¶
'Human missions to Mars will rely on Orion and an evolved version of SLS that will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown.'¶ The agency
will now have to spell out the cost and details of the mission as part of an exploration 'roadmap' to Mars that Nasa will have to submit to
Congress.¶ Associate Nasa Administrator Bill Gerstenmaier told members of a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation subcommittee
that the agency remains on target to launch an uncrewed mission in 2017 to test the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion multi-purpose
crew vehicle that will carry astronauts to Mars.¶ Avionics testing of solid rocket boosters was completed last week at Kennedy Space Center in
preparation for tests of the SLS rocket's components, and acoustic testing is also underway.¶ 'There is real hardware in manufacture for the
path to Mars,' Gerstenmaier told senators.¶ 'Our architecture is designed for long-term human exploration of our solar system, including the
goal of human missions to Mars.'¶ The hearing, called 'From Here to Mars,' outlined intermediate space missions being planned as steps toward
long-duration space travel. ¶ 'With
the technologies and techniques we develop, we will enable expeditions to
multiple destinations, ultimately allowing us to pioneer Mars and other destinations as we lay the
groundwork for permanent human settlements in the solar system,' Gerstenmaier said.One planned mission is to a
near-Earth asteroid, Gerstenmaier said. ¶ 'Nasa will employ SLS and Orion for an early human exploration mission to perform pioneering human
operations further from the Earth than ever before, rendezvousing with and returning samples from an asteroid redirected to at stable orbit
around the Moon by the robotic segment of the Asteroid Redirect Mission (Arm),' he explained.¶ 'We're going to grab a piece of the solar
system, we're going to deflect it around the moon and insert it into a distant retrograde orbit around the moon where our crews can go visit,'
he said.¶ 'To think we're moving a piece of the solar system for our use that will allow us to learn skills and techniques that we need to push the
human presence into the solar system, that's a pretty awe-inspiring statement.'¶ However, the ambitious Mars mission could
be delayed or derailed if funding from a budget-conscious Congress continues to erode , or if other
countries’ plans for a lunar mission force the U.S. to change course for security reasons.
 Ext to Asteroid on Chopping Block
Asteroid funding could be on the chopping block

Foust 3/31 (Jeff Foust is the editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates
theSpacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and NewSpace Journal weblogs. SPACE REVIEW, After
a year, NASA’s asteroid mission still seeks definition, Jeff Foust Monday, March 31, 2014, accessed
5/19/14)

One of the criticisms of what was originally called the

Asteroid Retrieval Mission—since renamed the Asteroid Redirect Mission
(ARM)—is the lack of details about it that NASA released last April and in subsequent months. Critics, particularly in
Congress,
complained that NASA was unable to provide many details on the mission, including a schedule or budget. In the House, members went as
far to incorporate language into its draft of a NASA authorization bill, as well as its fiscal year 2014 appropriations
bill, that would block NASA from spending money on the program.¶ The final 2014 spending bill,
completed in January, didn’t include the House language, but did offer a mild rebuke to NASA about ARM.
“While the ARM is still an emerging concept, NASA has not provided Congress with satisfactory justification materials such as detailed cost
estimates or impacts to ongoing missions,” the report accompanying the bill stated, adding that NASA needed to complete “significant
preliminary activities” before Congress would be willing to support it. As NASA kicks off an effort to solicit technologies that could be used in
the ARM, some in Congress remain as skeptical now of the mission as they were last year.
Affirmative
 2ac Frontline
Cassini Funding Inevitable – Congress will decide to fund Cassini because of the pretty
pictures of Saturn

Coren 13 (Courtney, NEWSMAX, 12/26, Budget Restraints Could Delay or Abort Major NASA
Projectshttp://www.newsmax.com/SciTech/nasa-budget-cassini-
hubble/2013/12/26/id/543841#ixzz32AfvBova, accessed 5/19/14)

For example, the Cassini spacecraft currently orbiting Saturn will run out of fuel in about four years. To continue that mission, now
focused on exploring Saturn's rings, it would take about $60 million a year, according to The Washington Post. But the NASA
budget presently has no funding designated for the mission, which could bring it to an early end next year. "I think it would be the height of
folly to terminate such a profoundly successful mission when we're not done yet," said Carolyn Porco, planetary scientist at the Space Science
Institute in Boulder, Colo. Porco works on the project. NASA
officials believe the administration and Congress will
likely share that view and in the end will allow the mission to continue with the appropriate funding .

No Link – our plan does not spend an immense amount of money

Cassini’s extended mission won’t be decided until 2015

Kane 13 (Van Kane has followed planetary exploration since he opened his newspaper in 1976,
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20130410-proposed-nasa-planetary-science-
budget.html, First Analysis: the NASA Planetary Science Budget for 2014, THE PLANETARY SOCIETY,
accessed 5/19/14)

As mentioned above, the proposed budget appears to fully fund all operating missions through the end of their currently approved missions.
Where a spacecraft is expected to still be operational at the end of the currently approved funding, the document states that future mission
extensions can be funded if approved by NASA’s Senior Review process. (This is a review by senior scientists to evaluate and rank the value of
continued mission operations and funding.) ¶ For the Mars program, the budget proposal shows the operating budget for FY14 for each
mission, and then has a large (>$80M per year) line item to support extended mission after that. Other programs do not have this type of
funding bucket to pull from for extended missions. This may be particularly important for the Cassini mission, where the
Outer Planets budget drops from a projected $79M (FY14) to around $25M by FY16. ¶ Per the budget documents, “The [Cassini] Solstice
mission [now funded] will continue to operate and conduct data analysis through September 2015, at which
time it will undergo competitive Senior Review with all other PSD operating missions . Pending successful
Senior Review in 2015, the mission will conclude in 2018, after another 155 revolutions around the planet, 54 flybys of Titan, and 11 flybys of
Enceladus.” However, if operations are to be funded from 2015 to 2018, NASA will need to find new funds to
support Cassini.

No Impact – long term decline of US satellite exploration inevitable

NASA OPAG 14 (OPAG stands for Outer-Planets Assessment Group, a conglomeration of NASA
personnel assessing future needs, January 2014 Report, accessed 5/19/14
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jan2014/meeting-report.pdf)

The future of outer solar system exploration is bleak, however. With the completion ¶ of the Juno and
Cassini missions in 2017 there remains only the New Horizons flyby ¶ of a yet-to-be found Kuiper Belt
Object in its path. There are a few bright spots: the ¶ Pu238 domestic production restart, the European
JUICE mission, and the potential ¶ opening of Discovery mission opportunities to outer solar system
destinations. But ¶ there are no new US missions to the outer solar system on the drawing board. The ¶
2013 – 2022 decade will take spacecraft only as far as the asteroid belt, not beyond, ¶ ending the era of
American leadership in exploration of the outer planets. ¶ ¶ A flagship-class mission to Europa was a very
high priority in the 2003 and 2013 ¶ Decadal Surveys. The original Europa mission (as described in the
2013 Decadal ¶ Survey) however was too expensive. As a result, more focused and cost-effective ¶
mission concepts have been developed. OPAG was briefed on the Europa Science ¶ Definition Team's
(ESDT) continuing efforts. We were also briefed on the ¶ potentially paradigm-shifting new discovery
(released at AGU): the detection of ¶ possible water vapor plumes erupting from Europa. We continue to
support the ¶ Europa Clipper mission as a scientifically compelling, technologically feasible and ¶ fiscally
responsible approach to exploration of Europa. The Europa Clipper mission ¶ meets the requirements of
the 2013-2022 Decadal Survey: it will accomplish ¶ flagship-worthy science by investigating Europa and
its subsurface ocean, a ¶ potential habitable zone.

NO real shortage in STEM leadership and any problems are structural

Charette 5/12 (2014, Robert, http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/at-work/tech-careers/exposing-

the-roots-of-the-perpetual-stem-crisis-
?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrum+(IEEE+Spectru
m), IEEE SPECTRUM, accessed 5/19/14,

Okay, here are your choices: 1957, 1982, and 2014. Match each year to when the following statements were made:¶ a. “It is pretty generally
realized that our country faces a serious scientific and engineering manpower shortage. We have at present about half the engineers which we
need, and each year we are graduating only about half our annual needs.”¶ b. “Science, technology, engineering and math form the foundation
of the global economy. Yet, … if educational trends continue, fewer qualified candidates will be available to support growth in these areas.”¶ c.
“We appear to be raising a generation of Americans, many of whom lack the understanding and the skills necessary to participate fully in the
technological world in which they live and work.Ӧ Well, for the record, the order of the year when each statement was made is1957, 2014 and
1982. However, as explained in Michael Teitelbaum’s new book, Falling Behind?: Boom, Bust & the Global Race For Scientific Talent (Princeton
University Press:2014), whatever order you chose is as good as any other. Teitelbaum is a Senior Research Associate in the
Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School (and whom I interviewed for my IEEE Spectrum feature, The STEM Crisis is a
Myth). According to him, since the end of the Second World War there have been regular proclamations of shortfalls in
the graduation rates of engineers and scientists, as well as prophecies of the imminent loss of U.S. technical leadership caused
by the abysmal education of U.S. students in math and sciences. ¶ Teitelbaum writes that these recurring concerns could well
be cut and pasted into one sentence:¶ “The United States, long a leader in the number and quality of its scientists and engineers, has been
falling behind its international competitors, and is thereby risking serious deterioration in its future prosperity and security.Ӧ However, as
Teitelbaum clearly demonstrates in his well-researched book, the
past and current cries of an engineering and science crisis “are
quite inconsistent with nearly all the available evidence,” going back to the early 1950s.¶ Teitelbaum begins Falling
Behind? by examining the many hyperbolic claimsof the current so-called science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) crisis. He
expertly dissects these assertions and clearly demonstrates the weak assumptions and sloppy reasoning underlying each.¶ Teitelbaum next
turns his attention to previous declarations of engineer and scientist shortages over the previous seventy years in a chapter aptly titled, “No
Shortage of Shortages.” Teitelbaum has been debunking these claims since the 1980s. In Falling Behind?, he shows that the
fear sown by
the false alarms of impending doom did achieve their political goals of successfully spurring governmental actions
to alleviate the supposed crisis by pouring more money into research and education. However, those crying wolf have also produced a
series of (at least) five alarm boom-busts episodes that have predictably—if unintentionally—destabilized the U.S. science and engineering
workforce. In addition, Teitelbaum argues, when the artificially created demand for engineers and scientist goes bust, it serves to discourage
those very same sought-after students from pursuing engineering and science careers in the first place.¶ Teitelbaum's analysis shows that the
basic problems in attracting students to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are structural in origin, and
“cannot be cured simply by providing additional resources.” He devotes a full chapter describing how the U.S. engineering and science
“academic production process” operates, and how that process is insulated, especially at the graduate degree level, from the needs of the
market. As Teitelbaum demonstrates, the current system of higher education has been geared for some time towards producing PhDs and
postdoctoral students “irrespective of whether there is sufficient demand for such highly educated personnel in the market place.”¶ Especially
useful is the light Teitelbaum shines on the many financial and political incentives that motivate industry, academia and government to
proclaim an engineering and science crisis. He dedicates most of a chapter to, for example, exposing incessant lobbying efforts to increase the
number H-1B visa workers to meet the supposed STEM shortage. Teitelbaum describes in detail the various lobbying organizations, interest
groups and companies involved and how they are spending tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to change immigration policy.¶
Teitelbaum also distressingly, but accurately, points out how “advocates of these shortage claims have had a nearly open field in politics and
the media,” and that while there have been decades of credible evidence debunking shortage claims, those making them are far less
“organized, funded or politically connected” than those making those claims. This disparity in resources, organization and political power make
the fight for the truth, “really no contest.”¶ This was apparent in a recent “STEM Crisis Debate” sponsored by the Information Technology and
Information Foundation (ITIF), a Washington, D.C. think tank. The ITIF insists there is a shortage of STEM students and workers, and is an
advocate of increasing the number of H-1B visas. Robert Atkinson, ITIF president, for example, was quoted as saying, “If you don’t say there is a
shortage, you don’t drive improvement.” That sort of admission (as do others) goes unnoticed in much of the press, as exemplified by the
newspaper USA Today, which has been strongly beating the U.S. STEM crisis drum for quite some time.

The plan is new spending – PAYGO doesn’t guarantee trade-offs – each committee
allocates its own funds guaranteeing funding for each project

Riedl 5 (Brian, Grover M. Hermann fellow in federal budgetary affairs @ Heritage, 1/25/5,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/01/whats-wrong-with-the-federal-budget-process)
The budget process is designed with a bias toward higher spending and taxes. Public choice theory recognizes that how democracies
make decisions has a substantial effect on what is decided. Multi-year constraints, such as PAYGO and discretionary spending caps,
represent an attempt by policymakers with a long-term view to constrain the decisions of annual budgeters who are focused only on the short
term. However, these multi-year constraints fail to settle the question of whether the budget process should
be used to limit spending (as discretionary caps suggest) or to slow the growth of the budget deficit, regardless of government size
(as PAYGO suggests). This confusion created odd situations whereby even policies that would achieve both goals of reducing
spending and reducing the budget deficit (such as a discretionary spending cut accompanied by a smaller tax cut) have not been allowed.
Furthermore, PAYGO did not successfully blunt the pro-spending bias of annual budget writers because it
focused only on the effects of new policies and ignored current policies-because it was rarely enforced. Public choice theorists also note the
pro-spending bias caused by the decentralization of spending committees. Although a single appropriations committee in the House and the
Senate annually approves all discretionary spending, nearly a dozen different committees in each body of Congress write mandatory
spending programs. The lack of coordination between these committees creates a "tragedy of the commons," whereby each
committee
is responsible only for the funding of its own pet programs with no obligation to trade off their
costs with the costs of other committees' programs.[3] Accordingly, each committee over-prioritizes
and consequently over-funds its own programs. A single committee reviewing all legislation would solve this bias by
taking on the responsibility to make the difficult trade-offs.[4]

Any tradeoffs would come from other budgets

SVITAK 11 (3/29. Amy; Senior Writer – Space.com, “NASA’s Budget Could Get Infusion From Other U.S.
Departments,” http://www.space.com/11247-nasa-budget-funding-commerce-justice-
departments.html, 2011, RZ)

Congressional appropriators could tap the funding accounts of the U.S. departments of Commerce and
Justice to help cover what some see as a $1 billion shortfall in NASA’s $18.7 billion spending plan for 2012, which
allocates less money for a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule than Congress directed last year. “There’s over a billion-dollar difference
between the budget request and the authorized levels in [20]12 for the launch system and the crew vehicle, and now that falls squarely back
on the shoulders of [the appropriations committees] to try and figure out where to come up with that money,” said a panelist at a March 23
breakfast on Capitol Hill. Sponsored by Women in Aerospace (WIA), the breakfast was held under the Chatham House Rule, an 84-year-old
protocol fashioned by the London-based nonprofit think-tank to promote frank discussion through anonymity. [What Obama and Congress
Should Do for Spaceflight] The panelist, one of six whose names and job titles were circulated by WIA prior to the meeting, said funding
requested in NASA’s 2012 spending plan does not square with levels Congress set in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that U.S. President
Barack Obama signed into law in October. Specifically, the request called for spending $1.2 billion less than the $4 billion Congress
authorized for the heavy-lift launch vehicle and crew capsule in 2012. At the same time, the request includes $350 million more than the
$500 million Congress authorized to nurture development of commercial vehicles to deliver cargo and crews to the International Space
Station after the space shuttle retires later this year. Consequently, the panelist said, it is
now up to congressional
appropriators “to find a billion dollars in other places in NASA to pay for those activities or to decide to make those tradeoffs
and take that money out of the departments of Commerce or Justice or the other agencies that are
funded in the same bill as NASA.” NASA’s annual appropriation is part of a broader spending package
totaling nearly $65 billion that funds the U.S. Commerce and Justice departments, the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and related agencies. But with NASA and
other federal agencies operating in a fiscally constrained environment, the panelist said Congress could struggle to fund new multibillion-
dollar programs next year. “It’s not impossible but the ability to do that is severely constrained in the environment we’re working in now,
and that’s exacerbated by budget requests coming up from the administration that don’t track with the authorization,” the panelist said.
Congress has yet to pass an appropriations bill for 2011, leaving NASA and most federal agencies to subsist at 2010 spending levels in the
current budget year. The panelist said passing spending legislation for NASA “is a complicated and challenging thing this year, and it will be
again next year” given a fiscal climate that has changed dramatically authorized funding levels for the space agency were set last fall.
However, the panelist said the appropriations subcommittees that fund NASA are “very supportive of the agency, they’re supportive of the
authorization, they want to see NASA get as close as possible to those authorized levels, so that will be a work in progress.”

Cuts don’t get kill programs – NASA will find a way to fund everything

Bodzash 11 (Dennis, writer @ Space News Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/space-news-in-

national/last-ditch-effort-to-avoid-government-shutdown-involves-nasa-cuts) JPG

Ever since the space race ended with Apollo 11, NASA
has found itself on the chopping block as only science, not
national pride, has
been at stake. Since NASA's budget (as a part of the total federal budget) peaked in the mid 1960s, NASA has been
operating under less and less money relative to the government as a whole. However, even as its relative budget has
shrank, NASA has always found ways to probe the mysteries of the cosmos. No doubt, regardless of what
the next government spending bill offers, NASA will continue on its quest.
 Ext to No Link
No one follows PAYGO—Congress finds loopholes and it exempts trade-off of
expensive initiatives

The Daily News 11(2/22, Editorial, http://tdn.com/news/opinion/article_034e181c-1da9-11df-b772-

001cc4c002e0.html, accessed 6-29-11, CH)
A couple of weeks ago, congressional leaders and the administration tried to calm those investors, along with an increasingly nervous
American public, by signaling a new commitment to fiscal restraint. The principal vehicle they chose was the old "pay as you go" budget rule
that supposedly requires lawmakers to offset any new spending or tax cut with spending cuts and/or tax increases in other areas. The rule,
commonly referred to as PAYGO, can be an effective restraint when strictly applied. It was helpful during ‘90s in turning large
budget deficits into significant budget surpluses. The rule was abandoned in 2002 to accommodate the previous administration's tax cuts
and post-9/11 spending in Afghanistan and on homeland security. It's doubtful that the PAYGO rule enacted earlier this
month will be nearly so effective as the ‘90s version. Unlike its predecessor, this Congress'
budget exempts many costly
spending initiatives. It will allow Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration without any
corresponding spending cuts or tax increases. The rule allows Congress to restrain the growth of the alternative minimum tax, lower the
estate tax and cancel scheduled payment cuts for Medicare physicians - all without corresponding cuts in spending of tax hikes. Maya
MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, was dismissive of this porous budget rule
during last year's debate. "This is like quitting drinking," she said, "but making an exception for beer and hard liquor." Advocates
acknowledge the new PAYGO rule's flaws, but argue that it is preferable to no rule at all. It's true, we suppose, that the budget rule has value
if it helps focus congressional attention on the need to restrain spending and convinces foreign investors that U.S. lawmakers are indeed
committed to getting the nation's fiscal house in order. But this
budget rule will do little restrain spending or
reassure investors unless congressional leaders are willing to follow it to the letter. Unfortunately, that
doesn't appear to be happening. About a week after enacting PAYGO, congressional Democrats were attempting to carve out a
loophole large enough to slip a costly jobs bill through the rule.
 Private Investment Answers
Government involvement stifles private innovation

Harris, 8 [Philip R., Visiting Professor in the California School of International Management. He
received his Ph.D. and M. S. in psychology from Fordham University, and a B. B. A. in business from St.
John’s University., management/space psychologist, as well as a prolific author and futurist. He is
president of Harris International, Ltd., Space Policy, “Overcoming obstacles to private enterprise”,
Volume 24, Issue 3, August 2008, Pages 124-127,
http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V52-
4T3KTHB-
1&_user=655046&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1428157950&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=sear
ch&_cdi=5774&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=8&_acct=C000034138&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&
_userid=655046&md5=7a95914891501a5231fd7e6afc7a51ae]
Abstract It is clear that encouraging enterprise and ultimately settlement in outer space cannot be left to

governments . The existing legal regime is also not conducive to private enterprise. Noting the increasing involvement of the private sector in space activity,
this article argues for a greater bottom-up effort, synergistically linking all interested parties, to convince politicians of the need for policies to facilitate ‘‘offworld’’
private enterprise. 1. Introduction As the Space Age matures and develops, it is my belief that it will be private enterprise that truly opens up the space
frontier for commerce. The history of exploration confirms a pattern—a small number of explorers and traders move first into the new frontier; then
governments take an interest in the territorial acquisition prospects, so military outposts are established, often with the help of missionaries, and a basic
infrastructure emerges. But it is large commercial trading companies that bring settle- ment—as opposed to occasional visits—in the form of colonists seeking to
improve their life prospects. The opening and development of the American frontier by Europeans demonstrates this pattern. Similarly with regard to outer
space, it was the explorers in science fiction and the rocket enthusiasts who opened our minds to the possibi- lities beyond Earth. Then it was governments, like
those of the USA and the USSR, which got into a competitive political race to use the opportunities in outer space. In the former country, space leadership came
from two govern- ment agencies, the Department of Defense and NASA, both of whom employed civilian contractors. Pioneering astronauts and cosmonauts
were usually from a military background, while the actual unmanned exploration resulted from civilian teams of scientists, engineers and academics. Growing
from the birth and maturity of world- wide aviation, the big aerospace industry arose. And these big corporations innovated and succeeded in ventures to build
rockets and spacecraft that could take humans to the Moon, or the far corners of the universe. Today, as NASA moves away from the Space Shuttle and towards
develop- ment of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), there is still a general consensus that, when CEV operations begin, government will be responsible for the
more difficult missions, such as spaceflights to the Moon and Mars, while giant aerospace contractors and entrepreneurs will most likely build a commercial
presence. Unfortunately, too
many of these companies, despite advantages from mergers and acquisitions, have become overly
dependent on their government contracts. Thus, like those businesses in the military–industrial complex,
they often are less creative and risk-taking, and so end up on ‘‘government welfare’’. Their efforts are
concentrated on lobbying and obtaining the next contract supported by public funds, rather than
becoming more enterprising. Yet it was entrepreneurs, often working out of their garages, who built
the global, high-tech industries of today. And it appears that the same is now happening with regard to space
enterprise. The entrepreneurial space industry is commonly called NewSpace by its advocates [1]. The emphasis at the moment is on
suborbital and orbital vehicles, space travel and tourism, orbital services and structures. The industry will address emerging
needs in space and on the ground, e.g. by building and improving spaceports. It will cover a wide range from safe spaceflight and accident prevention, to coping
with varied amounts of radiation, and government regulations. In addition to the early industrial sectors of communications, transportation, remote sensing and
materials processing, the NewSpace industry is likely to become engaged in five emerging sectors:
 Asteroid Answers
Asteroid has no funding

Wolford 5/10 (Ben, NASA 'Asteroid Lasso' Mission Finds Few Fans In Congress; Other Funding Gets
Boost, http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/7188/20140510/nasa-asteroid-lasso-mission-congress-
mars.htm, INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE TIMES, 2014, accessed 5/19/14)

On Friday, two astronauts at Johnson Space Center were practicing an asteroid spacewalk in a swimming
pool 40 feet deep. They wore bright orange spacesuits and simulated work with a mock Orion spacecraft
— the ferry that would bring human beings to a captured asteroid in lunar orbit. No one has ever seen
an asteroid up close before.¶ Like Us on Facebook ¶ But just one day earlier, members of Congress
expressed grave doubts about the asteroid mission, one of NASA's most ambitious and publicized in
years. While recommending an overall funding boost to the space agency for planetary exploration, the
House Appropriations Committee said the so-called "asteroid lasso" mission has questionable "strategic
relevance." The committe wrote that "funding associated with the mission must be carefully
constrained."¶ The Asteroid Redirect Mission proposes locating a small asteroid in orbit around the sun,
capturing it with a spacecraft, and pulling it into orbit around the moon. From there, a spacecraft called
Orion would shuttle two astronauts to the asteroid to examine it up close. NASA hopes the technology
and experience of visiting an asteroid will help the agency achieve its ultimate goal of sending humans
to Mars by the 2030s. The lasso part of the mission is estimated to cost $1.25 billion. Congress,
however, appears skeptical. Members of the appropriations committee want to give the space agency
$17.9 billion in 2015, which is $435 million more than the White House asked for. One priority is
launching a rover to Europa, a frozen moon of Jupiter that could support life. "This is really great news
for [the Jet Propulsion Laboratory], but more broadly, great news for those who want America to
maintain its preeminence in planetary science," U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told the The Los Angeles
Times.¶ Yet, it's unclear what the committee's directives will mean for the asteroid mission. "NASA may
only expend funds on those portions of the ARM mission that are also applicable" to current programs
or that are "clearly extensible" to a Mars mission, the committee wrote. And there was no mention of
near-Earth objects — undetected asteroids or comets that could collide with Earth. Most governmental
efforts to locate these objects have stalled.¶ Nonetheless, the exercises on Friday marked tangible
progress toward a human rendezvous with an asteroid. NASA reported that the two astronauts, Stan
Love and Steve Bowen, were experimenting with tools that will be used to obtain core samples of the
asteroid's layers. There are some things they won't be able to replicate on Earth, however. There are
extremely basic unknowns.¶ "The biggest unknown for going out and doing a spacewalk on a captured
asteroid is what the asteroid is going to be like," Love told a NASA interviewer. "The small asteroids that
we could go and get with a robot ship are tiny. They're, you know, a few yards across. And even in the
world's finest telescopes, they're a dot. So you may not know till you get there whether you're dealing
with a pile of sooty gravel that's loosely held together by its own weak self-gravity, or it could be a solid
chunk of nickel-iron."
 Satellites – No Impact – Fail
EOS satellites fail—crashes prove

Morello 11 (Lauren, staff@ClimateWire, Scientific American, 3/7,

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=failure-climate-satellite-sets-back-earth-science,
accessed 7-1-11, CH)
The crash Friday of NASA's Glory satellite couldn't have come at a worse time. The incident is a blow for climate science and the
space agency's efforts to rebuild an Earth observation program weakened by years of lean budgets. It also comes during a
protracted spending fight on Capitol Hill in which science agencies have become prime targets for House Republicans' budget ax.
According to NASA, problems with Glory's launch vehicle, a Taurus XL rocket, sent the climate probe crashing into the Pacific
Ocean early Friday morning. The agency has begun an investigation, expected to take months, into what went wrong (Greenwire, March
4). Preliminary data suggest that the rocket's fairing, a nose cone designed to shield Glory during the journey through Earth's
atmosphere, did not detach the way it was supposed to. A similar problem two years ago caused the crash of another NASA climate
satellite, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO).

No impact to warming—even if satellites are accurate, scientists exaggerate collected

statistics

Dunetz 11 (Jeff, writer for Washington Post, Big Government, 5/13,

http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/05/13/nasa-gets-caught-faking-climate-change-data-again/,
accessed 7-1-11, CH)
The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because
of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet). But Mother Nature was never good at computer
science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for
the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some
Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is
way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any
other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean
Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–
decelerating. The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group is coming to their rescue. The NASA-funded group claims glacial
melt is removing weight that had been pressing down on land masses, which in turn is causing land mass to rise. This welcome
news mitigates sea-level rise from melting glacial ice, meaning sea level will rise less than previously thought. However, it is very
inconvenient for alarmist sea level predictions. Therefore, instead of reporting the amount by which sea level is rising in the real
world, the Sea Level Research Group has begun adding 0.3 millimeters per year of fictitious sea level rise to “compensate” for
rising land mass. The extra 0.3 millimeters of fictitious sea level rise will add up to 1.2 inches over the course of the 21st century.
While this is not monumental in and of itself, it will allow alarmists to paint a dramatically different picture of sea level rise than is
occurring in the real world. For example, the current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different
than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists
can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century. This isn’t the first time NASA climate-change scientists have
fudged data. James Hansen is famous for it. James Hansen of NASA is not just any global warming Moonbat, he is Al Gore’s global
warming Moonbat. It was Hansen’s data that was used in Gore’s Oscar/Peace prize winning film. Hansen’s work is ruled by one motto:
“If God gives you rotten apples, tell everyone it’s champagne. In October of 2008, Hansen made the announcement that it was
warmest Oct. in history. A few days later after all the doom and gloom headlines passed he announced “Oops, never mind, I was
wrong.” He only admitted the mistake after he was “outed” by other scientists. In reality, Oct. 08 was quite an average October. It
Ranked 70th in the last 114 years.

The crash of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory doomed effective information gathering

Huettaman 6/25 (Emmarie, writer @ Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012404892.html) JPG
Shortly after it lifted off in February 2009, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory crashed into the Pacific Ocean near Antarctica.
With that, a $250 million investment became scrap metal on the ocean floor and an effort to begin using satellites to measure
atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace emission-reduction actions was dealt a huge setback. Scientists say the information the OCO
was intended to collect is a crucial piece of the data needed not only by those monitoring the Earth's environment but also by
federal officials struggling to understand possible national security implications of those climate changes. But the OCO's failure
highlighted an even broader problem: Understanding climate change requires a breadth of information on variables from
atmospheric carbon dioxide to the condition of Arctic ice, and scientists say that satellites are vital for this. Yet at a time where the
 massive Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica seems intact one day and then collapses into the sea the next, the system of continuous, reliable
satellite observation of Earth is at risk, with some aging satellites in dire need of replacement. The OCO was "the only satellite in the
world that will do the kind of global collection we need," said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and one of the authors of a 2010 report on satellite monitoring of climate change. "And we haven't thought about
how to replace it."

EOS fails—not functional, multiple launch failure, no solution in the status quo

The Telegraph 11 (3/4, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8362163/Nasa-earth-observation-

satellite-fails-to-reach-orbit.html, accessed 7-2-11, CH)
The satellite, which cost $424 million (£261m) to produce, was too heavy to reach orbit with its clamshell-like nose cone cover
clinging on and plunged into the South Pacific Ocean, leaving engineers puzzled as to why it failed. "We encountered no anomalies"
leading up to the launch, Nasa launch director Omar Baez told reporters. But a few minutes into the flight, it became apparent that
separation had not occurred. "We didn't see the indication of fairing separation," said Mr Baez. "We failed to make orbit and all
indications are that the satellite and rocket are in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere." The launch of the satellite – which was to
measure aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere to help clarify their impact on climate – was delayed on February 23 after an
unexpected ground control reading 15 minutes before lift-off. On Friday it rocketed away from Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California aboard a four stage Taurus-XL rocket at 2:09am (10.09 GMT), but NASA soon reported that it was slowing down
and would not reach orbit. A similar mishap took place in February 2009, when a satellite designed to monitor global carbon
dioxide emissions plummeted into the ocean near Antarctica after failing to reach orbit, in a setback for climate science. There too,
a fatal mission error occurred minutes after lift-off when the fairing, which protects the satellite during its ascent, failed to separate
properly. But experts said it was too early to say if the Glory failed for the exact same reason, and that more analysis was needed. "Right
now we are crunching the data but there is not enough data that has been processed to tell any more than the fairing did not
deploy," said Rick Straka, deputy general manager at Orbital Sciences Corp., which made the Taurus rocket and satellite.

Satellites fail—have faced opposition since OCO crash

Huetteman 11 (Emmarie, staff, Washington Post, 1/24, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012405139.html, accessed 7-2-11, CH)
Shortly after it lifted off in February 2009, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory crashed into the Pacific Ocean near Antarctica.
With that, a $250 million investment became scrap metal on the ocean floor and an effort to begin using satellites to measure
atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace emission-reduction actions was dealt a huge setback.