Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DDI 2011
***Prizes Mechanism***........................................................................................................................................3 1NC Prizes Shell......................................................................................................................................................3 XTPrizes Solve (1/4)............................................................................................................................................4 Prizes SolveSPS...................................................................................................................................................8 Prizes SolveMars.................................................................................................................................................9 2NC AT: Perm Do the CP..................................................................................................................................10 2NC AT: Links to Politics.....................................................................................................................................11 ***Property Rights Mechanism***.......................................................................................................................12 1NC Property Rights CP.....................................................................................................................................12 XT Property Rights Solve ..................................................................................................................................14 Space Settlement Prize Act Key Government Fails...........................................................................................15 Property Rights KeySpace Commercialization ................................................................................................................................................................................16 Property Rights SolveColonization ...................................................................................................................18 Property Rights SolveSpace Debris...................................................................................................................19 Property Rights SolveInternational Law............................................................................................................20 Property Rights SolveEconomy.........................................................................................................................21 2NC AT: Government First/Delay Perm ..............................................................................................................22 ***Tax Incentives Mechanism***........................................................................................................................23 1NC Tax Incentives CP......................................................................................................................................23 2NC Tax Incentives Solve ....................................................................................................................................24 2NC Tax Solvency Extensions..............................................................................................................................25 2NC AT: Links to Politics ....................................................................................................................................26 2NC AT: Links to Spending .................................................................................................................................27 1NC Liability Insurance CP................................................................................................................................28 2NC Liability Insurance Incentives Solve..........................................................................................................30 ***Generic Privatization Solvency***..................................................................................................................31 1NC Privatization Solves.......................................................................................................................................31 2NC Solvency Privatization Better than NASA.................................................................................................32 2NC Solvency Now Key.....................................................................................................................................37 XT Privatization Solves .....................................................................................................................................38 CP SolvesBetter than NASA.............................................................................................................................40 ***Specific Missions***.......................................................................................................................................42 CP SolvesAsteroids ...........................................................................................................................................42 CP SolvesConstellation .....................................................................................................................................43 CP SolvesExploration........................................................................................................................................44 CP SolvesSPS....................................................................................................................................................45 CP SolvesSPSAT: Private Industry Lacks Tech............................................................................................47 CP SolvesColonization......................................................................................................................................48 CP SolvesMoon Colonization/Mining...............................................................................................................49 CP SolvesMoon Colonization............................................................................................................................50 CP SolvesMoon Exploration..............................................................................................................................51 CP SolvesMars...................................................................................................................................................52 CP SolvesMarsAT: No Interest in Mission...................................................................................................53 CP SolvesISS.....................................................................................................................................................54 CP SolvesHelium-3 Mining...............................................................................................................................55
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesLunar Mining.....................................................................................................................................56 CP SolvesSpace Tourism...................................................................................................................................57 CP SolvesSpace Research..................................................................................................................................58 CP SolvesMilitary Satellites..............................................................................................................................59 CP SolvesWeather Satellites..............................................................................................................................60 ***Advantage Areas***........................................................................................................................................61 CP SolvesAerospace Industry............................................................................................................................61 CP SolvesBeating China....................................................................................................................................62 CP SolvesCompetitiveness................................................................................................................................64 CP SolvesEconomy ...........................................................................................................................................65 CP SolvesInnovation .........................................................................................................................................66 CP SolvesInternational Cooperation..................................................................................................................67 CP SolvesPublic Support...................................................................................................................................68 CP SolvesReadiness...........................................................................................................................................69 CP SolvesSpace Leadership...............................................................................................................................70 CP SolvesSTEM................................................................................................................................................72 CP SolvesEarth Sciences...................................................................................................................................73 CP SolvesSpace Shuttle.....................................................................................................................................74 ***AT: Aff Arguments***....................................................................................................................................75 AT: No Private Capacity........................................................................................................................................75 AT: Its Illegal........................................................................................................................................................78 AT: DAs to Privatization......................................................................................................................................79 ***Net Benefits***...............................................................................................................................................83 1NC Politics Net Benefit ...................................................................................................................................83 2NC CP Avoids Politics......................................................................................................................................84 2NC More Popular than NASA..........................................................................................................................86 1NC Spending Net Benefit ................................................................................................................................87 2NC CP Avoids Spending..................................................................................................................................88 1NC Soft Power Net Benefit .................................................................................................................................91 2NC DSCOVR Net Benefit...................................................................................................................................95 ***AFF***............................................................................................................................................................97 AFF No Private Industry Exists..........................................................................................................................97 AFF Privatization Fails.......................................................................................................................................98 AFF Privatization Kills Jobs, Heg ..............................................................................................................................................................................100 AFF Privatization Bad......................................................................................................................................101 AFF NASA Key................................................................................................................................................102 AFF CP Links to Politics..................................................................................................................................103 AFF CP Links to Spending...............................................................................................................................104 AFF CP Doesnt Solve Leadership...................................................................................................................105 AFF SPS Privatization=Normal Means.........................................................................................................106 AFF Lunar Mining Fed Key..........................................................................................................................107
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
10 million dollar prizes solve: precedent, expert consensus Presidents Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy, 04 (The Commission is made up of
a number of industry and government members, viewable in Appendix D of the liked document, 06/4/04, gd, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.pdf) Prizes. The Commission heard testimony from a variety of sources commenting on the value of prizes for the achievement of technology breakthroughs. Examples of the success of such an approach include the Orteig Prize, collected by Charles Lindbergh for his solo flight to Europe, and the current X-Prize for human suborbital flight. It is estimated that over $400 million has been invested in developing technology by the X-Prize competitors that will vie for a $10 million prize a 40 to 1 payoff for technology. The Commission strongly supports the Centennial Challenge program recently established by NASA. This program provides up to $50 million in any given fiscal year for the payment of cash prizes for advancement of space or aeronautical technologies, with no single prize in excess of $10 million without the approval of the NASA Administrator. The focus of cash prizes should be on The Commission recommends NASA aggressively use its contractual authority to reach broadly into the commercial and nonprofit communities to bring the best ideas, technologies, and management tools into the accomplishment of exploration goals. A space industry capable of contributing to economic growth, producing new products through the creation of new knowledge and leading the world in invention and innovation, will be a national treasure. Such an industry will rely upon proven players with aerospace capabilities, but increasingly should encourage entrepreneurial activity. maturing the enabling technologies associated with the vision. NASA should expand its Centennial prize program to encourage entrepreneurs and risk-takers to undertake major space missions. Given the complexity and challenges of the new vision, the Commission suggests that a more substantial prize might be appropriate to accelerate the development of enabling technologies. As an example of a particularly challenging prize concept, $100 million to $1 billion could be offered to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to Earth. The Commission suggests that more substantial prize programs be considered and, if found appropriate, NASA should work with the Congress to develop how the funding for such a prize would be provided
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Prizes Solve Price, Speed, Empirics Davidian 05, Ken Davidian is the director of Research at the FAA, previously asst. Director of Operations for NASA, MS
Mechanical Engineering from Case Western, 09/05, gd, http://sci2.esa.int/Conferences/ILC2005/Manuscripts/DavidianK-01-DOC.pdf Prize competitions throughout history have proven to be cost-effective and efficient means to stimulate technology development in a variety of socially beneficial areas. Review and study of these prize programs has been adopted by NASA to stimulate technology development for the U.S. government. A 1999 report from the National Academy of Engineering, U.S. space policy, the Vision for Space Exploration, and the Aldridge Commission report all encouraged the participation of private industry in the fulfillment of NASAs missions. These factors, plus the influence of prize activities in the private sector (i.e. the X PRIZE) and the government (i.e., the DARPA Grand Challenge), encouraged NASA to create the Centennial Challenges program. Centennial Challenges has divided its competitions into four categories: Flagship, Keystone, Alliance, and Quest. Flagship Challenges encompass entire missions or systems with purses in the tens of millions of dollars. Keystone Challenges focus on simple systems or individual technologies with purses in the ones of millions. Alliance Challenges are smaller versions of Keystone Challenges with purse values in the hundreds of thousands. Quest Challenges focus on outreach and education for the general public of all ages. Within the first year of its creation, Centennial Challenges has announced a number of competitions, including: the Tether Challenge, the Beam Power Challenge, the MoonROx Challenge, and the Astronaut Glove Challenge.
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
XTPrizes Solve(4/4)
Prizes stimulate a spectrum of innovation Bloch et all 99, Erich Bloch and his colleagues are members of the Steering Committee for the Workshop to Assess the potential
for promoting technological advance through Government-Sponsored Prizes and Contests, submitted and peer reviewed to the national Academy of Engineering, 04/30/99, gd, https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9724 Inducement prize contests may be used to pursue many different objectivesscientific, technological and societal. In particular, the steering committee believes they might be used profitably to identify new or unorthodox ideas or approaches to particular challenges, to demonstrate the feasibility or potential of particular technologies, to promote the development and diffusion of specific technologies, to address intractable or neglected societal challenges, or to educate the public about the excitement and usefulness of research and innovation. Moreover, prize contests can be designed to stimulate effort across the spectrum of research and innovation efforts, including basic research, technology development, technology deployment and diffusion, and managerial/organizational innovation. To encourage agencies to experiment with inducement prize contests, Congress should consider providing explicit statutory authority and, where appropriate, credible funding mechanisms for agencies to sponsor and/or fund such contests. Congress and federal agencies should approach contest structures and administration flexibly, and consider using a variety of contest models, including contests that are funded and administered by agencies, contests that are initiated and administered by agencies yet privately funded, and contests that are initiated by agencies but privately funded and administered. The design of any such experiment should include mechanisms for appropriating prize money, for flexibly distributing intellectual property rights, and for reducing political influence. Moreover, prize contest rules should be seen as transparent, simple, fair, and unbiased. Contest rewards should be commensurate with the effort required and goals sought. Finally, if such a policy experiment is initiated, it should be time-limited, and the use of prizes and contests should be evaluated at specified intervals by the agencies involved to determine their effectiveness and impact.
Prizes solveCreate incentive for innovation Garmong 04 Robert Garmong writes for the Ann Ryand Institute, Teaches philosophy at Texas A&M, Ph.D in philosophy in 2002
at UT-Austin, 06/27/04, gd, http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-marketsolution-for-america-039-s-space-program.html Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space--it's been happening, quietly, for years. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft. Commercial satellite launches are now routine, and could easily be fully privatized. The so-called X Prize, for which SpaceShipOne is competing, offers incentive for private groups to break out of the Earth's atmosphere.But all this private exploration is hobbled by the crucial absence of a system of property rights in space. Imagine the incentive to a profit-minded business if, for instance, it were granted the right to any stellar body it reached and exploited.We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds.We have now made the first steps toward the stars. Before us are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best engineering minds, as only the free market can do.
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Prizes SolveSPS
Prizes solve SPS spurs development NSSO 07, National Security Space Office, October 10,2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01.pdf, Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, pg c6. DKreus The private sector should be engaged. The new space companies working on reusable launch, space stations and other technologies should be consulted and encouraged as well as the traditional large aerospace companies. Both may have the vision, creativity and drive necessary to help make SBSP happen. Prizes for solutions to specific issues have been shown to be valuable. Appropriate prizes should be funded and publicized. A board of advisors should be created. It should consist of interested parties from a wide variety of industries who are committed to helping to make SBSP a reality.
Rouge, 7 Acting Director, National Security Space Office (Joseph D., 10/9. SpaceBased Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=100&ved=0CE8QFjAJOFo&url=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2Ffinal-sbsp-interim-assessment-release01.pdf&ei=9fIATrqrI83IswbOsOCyDQ&usg=AFQjCNHZbOQGqRh8gMo6OtfDmotWq-XNw&sig2=MHRakSQig4ZDGoYO00OxRg) All previous work on SpaceBased Solar Power, Solar Power Satellites and/or Space Solar Power should be reviewed. Much of that has already been done for this SBSP Architecture Study and C - 5 many of the writers of these reports have contributed valuable feedback, thoughts and advice to this process. An inventory should be created of who (individuals, corporations and organizations) has the expertise related to the various areas discussed in the studies and who is actively working on the research and development needed to make SBSP a reality. Areas where research is needed must be identified and funded. Debates have arisen amongst the contributors as to the value of various competing technologies. More details on the technological criteria need to be explored and tested. These must be compared and the most practical and viable, focused upon. The private sector should be engaged. The new space companies working on reusable launch, space stations and other technologies should be consulted and encouraged as well as the traditional large aerospace companies. Both may have the vision, creativity and drive necessary to help make SBSP happen. Prizes for solutions to specific issues have been shown to be valuable. Appropriate prizes should be funded and publicized. A board of advisors should be created. It should consist of interested parties from a wide variety of industries who are committed to helping to make SBSP a reality.
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Prizes SolveMars
Prizes solve a mission to mars. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Rather than build their own probes, even if they are carried into space by private launchers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and other NASA or government agencies should allow scientists to purchase data from the private sector. In effect, as part of a builddown of NASA, government science agencies would set a price for certain data and allow privatesector providers to compete with one another to acquire the data in a costeffective manner that would allow them to make a profit. That approach was considered for one of the toughest possible projects. In 1987 88 an interagency U.S. government working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise to rent to any private group that could deliver a permanent manned Moon base. When asked if such a station was realistic, private-sector representatives answered yes, but only if NASA stayed out of the way and did not force the private providers to use the shuttle or the proposed station. Needless to say, that approach never bore any fruit. It has been revived by Zubrin, who suggests that offering a $20 billion prize might be the best way to fund a manned mission to Mars.
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
b) Even if they win that normal means is ONLY prizes, they still need to win that normal means is 10 million dollar prizes. Any more, and they sever out of this additional funding. Current NASA prizes are 2,000 times more than 10 million Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Rather than build their own probes, even if they are carried into space by private launchers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and other NASA or government agencies should allow scientists to purchase data from the private sector. In effect, as part of a builddown of NASA, government science agencies would set a price for certain data and allow privatesector providers to compete with one another to acquire the data in a costeffective manner that would allow them to make a profit. That approach was considered for one of the toughest possible projects. In 1987 88 an interagency U.S. government working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise to rent to any private group that could deliver a permanent manned Moon base. When asked if such a station was realistic, private-sector representatives answered yes, but only if NASA stayed out of the way and did not force the private providers to use the shuttle or the proposed station. Needless to say, that approach never bore any fruit. It has been revived by Zubrin, who suggests that offering a $20 billion prize might be the best way to fund a manned mission to Mars.
2) It makes plan a moving targetX-apply our Bloch and Hudgins evidence as to how plan was funded in the 1AC. They literally change the plan funding by twenty orders of magnitude 3) The above reasons are voters for fairness
10
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
legislative agenda big on prize competitions and other government-backed efforts intended to foster commercial space transportation services. ProSpace has been lobbying Congress every March for the past decade, pushing initiatives meant in one way or another to open space to the average citizen. Prize competitions were featured prominently in ProSpace's 2005 "March Storm" agenda with the group urging lawmakers to give NASA authority to put up cash prizes in excess of $250,000 as a way to foster creative solutions to some of the agency's technological needs. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which became law late last year, granted the U.S. space agency $10 million in prizemaking authority and permits the agency to put up even bigger prizes if it first gets approval from its congressional oversight committees. ProSpace wants to see expanded use of prize competitions to spur space innovations. As such, the group is urging lawmakers to give NASA the full $35 million the agency originally envisioned spending on the Centennial Challenges prize-competition program in 2007. The White House budget request, sent to Congress Feb. 6, seeks only $10 million for the program. ProSpace will also be asking members of Congress to support the introduction and passage of legislation creating a new government entity called the National Space Prize Board and give it $100 million a year to sponsor prize competitions that NASA might see no reason to fund. "Centennial Challenges would not have offered the Ansari X Prize because NASA does not need a suborbital crewed spacecraft," ProSpace President Marc Schlather said. "But I don't think you will find anyone in the space industry who doesn't think it was a huge step forward when Burt Rutan won that prize." The National Space Prize Board, as envisioned by ProSpace, would consist of four presidential appointees and the heads of NASA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the departments of Commerce and Transportation. Schlather said the Space Prize Board would offer prizes of up to $250 million, for example, to the first nongovernmental team to conduct an orbital spaceflight with a crew. Another legislative initiative being pushed by ProSpace this year is the establishment of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Center for Entrepreneurial Space Access, or ACES. ProSpace will be encouraging members of the House Armed Services Committee to include language in this year's defense authorization bill establishing the center and giving it an initial $5 million budget. Schlather said the purpose of the center, which it is proposing be located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base outside Dayton, Ohio, would be to promote synergy between the Air Force and entrepreneurial space firms working on so-called operationally responsive spaceflight capabilities of interest to the Pentagon. "You only have to look at aviation in the first half of the last century and see how government and industry worked together to advance the state of the art," Schlather said. "Having a similar situation in spaceflight can only be advantageous." Schlather said the same mix of responsiveness and affordability that some of the entrepreneurial launch firms developing suborbital and orbital launch vehicles need to serve commercial markets are the same capabilities the Pentagon is trying to foster through efforts like the Falcon small launch vehicle program. Some of these same entrepreneurial space firms also are interested in helping NASA resupply the space station once the space shuttle retires come 2010. ProSpace volunteers will also be urging lawmakers to fully fund NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) flight-demonstration effort. NASA intends to spend $500 million through 2010 to help bring to market new launch services capable of delivering cargo and eventually crew to the space station. Schlather said keeping this long-sought effort on track is critical. "It is our feeling that should the Congress fail to fund COTS at its full level then it might as well cease flying the space shuttle and the space station program because without COTS the space station program will be untenable after 2010," he said. ProSpace, whose volunteers visited 250 lawmakers' offices last year and hope to visit at least that many again this year, is not the only space enthusiasts group that is walking the halls of the U.S. Congress this year to drum up support for space initiatives. In early February, 14 members of the National Space Society and allied groups visited 23 congressional offices over two days to urge increasing NASA's budget to the levels called for in last year's authorization bill. National Space Society Executive Director George Whitesides said he is working with the Space Exploration Alliance to organize three more lobbying blitzes this year.
11
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
12
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
13
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
14
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
15
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Property rights makes commercialization feasible status quo treaties are too unclear San Francisco Chronicle, Final frontier for lawyers property rights in space, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/c/a/2005/10/16/SPACE.TMP&ao=2, 10/16/05, JPW
For space buffs, the stickiest legal issue is property rights in space, the question of whether a private person can lay claim to property where there is no constituted government. And it involves not only land, but also the airless void of space. Entrepreneurship is the driving force. Space enthusiasts look forward to an age of space commercialization on a grand scale, ranging from orbital hotels with zero-gravity swimming pools that float in the middle of a room to lunar factories that mine nuclear fuel for terrestrial fusion reactors. They fear such dreams might be stillborn if the legal niceties -- especially property rights -- aren't worked out in advance. The legal status of property claims in space remains uncertain partly because of the ambivalent wording of the U.N. Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which called space "the province of all mankind." A subsequent U.N. document, the so-called Moon Treaty of 1979, was less ambiguous, as it implied that space resources should be commonly owned by all nations. The United States signed the first treaty but not the second one. Most space fans vehemently opposed the Moon Treaty, believing that its assertion that the moon could not become "property of any state, international intergovernmental or nongovernmental organization" was socialistic and would force space entrepreneurs to share their profits with all nations. In a potentially groundbreaking article on space property rights, space law expert Rosanna Sattler recently argued that an overhaul of current treaties and laws is needed to "stimulate commercial enterprise on the moon, asteroids and Mars." A major corporation "is not going to invest millions and millions of dollars for a communications system on the moon if there's no law up there to protect their assets," said Sattler, whose article, titled "Transporting a Legal System for Property Rights: From the Earth to the Stars," appeared in the summer issue of the University of Chicago Law School's Chicago Journal of International Law. Another lawyer trying to rewrite space law, UC Davis-educated Wayne White of Boulder, Colo., advocates revising space law via a legal theory that he calls "property rights without territorial sovereignty." White, who served on the U.S. State Department's legal subcommittee at a United Nations conference on space exploration in 2003, proposes that the United States pass a domestic law that recognizes the right of individuals to own and operate space industries, as long as they obey a "use it or lose it" provision: If they abandon the industry, they give up rights to it. In this way, he says, the United States could awaken other countries to the necessity for revised space laws and encourage them to negotiate a new international treaty that, he hopes, would clarify the legal status of property rights in space. "Space development and settlement will not happen if it's internationally taxed and controlled," White said. "I think space settlement is a social 'release valve' that we desperately need. ... It's only going to get more crowded here on Earth."
16
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
17
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
18
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
19
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
20
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
21
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
22
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
23
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
24
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Tax credits solve private sector development avoids government risk standards Raymond Keating, chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, October 2004, Has a new era of space
venture arrived?, http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/has-a-new-era-of-space-venture-arrived/ More important, though, were the three other proposals. If a real economy is going to flourish in space, then taxation, regulation, and property rights must be addressed. The commissions report started down this path. It called for tax incentives, including perhaps making profits from space investment tax free until they reach some pre-determined multiple (e.g., five times) of the original amount of the investment. The value of regulatory relief was also recognized. The commission pointed out: A key issue in the private space flight business is liability. There is a pressing need for a change in liability laws to set a reasonable standard for implied consent. . . . [I]t is not reasonable to impose governmental risk standards on people who are willing and eager to undertake dangerous or hazardous activities. The commission also suggested reviewing occupational and environmental laws to make sure that the government is not burdening new space industry unduly with irrelevant or unobtainable compliance requirements. Finally, the importance of property rights was acknowledged. The report noted that the 1967 UN Treaty on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which the U.S. government signed, prohibits claims of national sovereignty on any extraterrestrial body. Moreover, the 1979 Moon Treaty disallows any private ownership on the moon. The commission reported that the United States has not ratified the 1979 Moon Treaty, but at the same time, has not challenged its basic premises or assumptions. As a result, the legal status of a hypothetical private company engaged in making products from space resources is uncertain. The commissioners observed: Potentially, this uncertainty could strangle a nascent space-based industry in its cradle; no company will invest millions of dollars in developing a product to which their legal claim is uncertain. The report concluded that if property rights are not addressed appropriately, there will be little significant private sector activity associated with the development of space resources, one of our key goals.
25
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
26
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
27
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
The path of gradual commercialization of current space applications, such as launch services, satellite communication services, direct broadcasting services, satellite remote sensing and navigation services, and satellite weather monitoring services, will most likely be followed by future activities of use of space resources. Ventures, like mining the natural resources of the Moon and asteroids, are likely to become technologically feasible in the near future. The question is what would be the most appropriate approach to address the future needs of exploitation of space resources: should it remain the exclusive province of state governments; should the private sector take over such space activities; or should a public-private partnership type of venture be encouraged? As state governments are becoming constrained by budget deficits, an increased reliance on private sector involvement in space activities involving the extraction and use of space resources is to be expected. When deciding whether to invest in commercial ventures of resource use exploitation, any potential private investor will be faced with the issues of economic costs, risks, and perceived regulatory barriers. This study argues that the perceived regulatory barriers, i.e., the licensing requirement, the common heritage of mankind principle of international space law, and protection of intellectual property rights, are not obstacles to economic development. Governments should provide both policy and regulatory incentives for private sector participation in the area of space natural resource use by funding basic research and development and by sponsoring liability insurance for private ventures among other incentives.
Liability insurance solves the aff facilitates space exploration Fought 89 Bonnie Fought is a Candidate for J.D. 1989, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley; A.B. 1982,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, published in 1989 law review, gd, http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol3/fought.html Several problems have been identified in the area of domestic regulation of liability and insurance for the commercial launch industry. [FN270] The Launch Act grants authority to the Secretary of Transportation to establish insurance levels for private launch companies utilizing Government facilities and requires that operators of launch services obtain liability insurance at the required levels. [FN271] To date, the OCST has not issued regulations in this area. This is an area ripe for action by the OCST. [FN272] In developing its regulations, the OCST should, at a minimum, address the liability of private enterprises to the Government for damages which result from their use of Government facilities. The establishment of reasonable limits in this area would assist the private launch companies by lowering the costs of obtaining launch insurance, as well as bounding their potential liability. [FN273] While private launch companies should be held responsible for their own negligence and willful misconduct, the Government should assume responsibility for the negligence and willful misconduct of its employees and subcontractors. Most of the functions to be carried out by the Government are "routine industrial and technical functions in which the Government has every opportunity to maintain full control over its operations." [FN274] Holding the company liable for damages resulting from Government actions will not increase safety if the Government, and not the private company, has control over these operations. Furthermore, placing this type of liability risk on the domestic launch industry will only stifle its growth. In addition, new regulations should be issued to cap the liability of the launch company for damage to Government property. Such a proposal is set forth in the Space Policy which calls for a limit on the commercial launch operator's liability for damages to Government property to the insurance levels established by the OCST. [FN275] If the property losses of the Government exceed the maximum insured amount, it would waive its right to recover additional losses. [FN276] In the event losses to the Government are less than the insured level, it would waive its right to recover for damages caused by its own willful misconduct or reckless disregard. [FN277] This proposal is similar to agreements between NASA and commercial users of the shuttle. [FN278] Countering both of these proposals is an argument that holding the Government liable for damages when it is forced to act to protect the safety of lives and property (for example, during a vehicle test or launch) is unreasonable. [FN279] Because of the importance of these split-second decisions, it is argued, they should not be clouded by concern over potential liability imposed with the gift of hindsight. [FN280] Thus it is suggested that it may be necessary to create an exception to this rule of Government
28
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
29
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Empirics flow neg Liability insurance catalyzes exploration Berger 11, (Eric Berger is the Space reporter for the Houston Chronicle, this text origninally appeared in a blog, but no analysis is
provided outside of direct quotation, 05/11/11, gd, http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/05/texas-limits-liability-for-space-tourismproviders/) Texas limits liability for space tourism providersTexas lawmakers have taken a tentative step toward embracing space tourism by passing Senate Bill 115, which limits liabilities for commercial providers of spaceflight in the state.Essentially, if space tourists sign a waiver, unless the company shows gross negligence evidencing willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the space flight participant it is protected from lawsuits. So if a rocket launched from Texas blows up, theres no compensation for ones relatives.Can Texas get a piece of the space tourism business?Lobbyists for the bill included the secretive Blue Origin company, which has facilities in Culberson County, as well as the Texas Space Alliance, an organization formed to promote the Texas space industry.The space alliance, in a news release, acknowledged that it is playing catch-up to other states in the space tourism game:This is the beginning of a new effort on our part to awaken the sleeping giant of Texas when it comes to the emerging commercial space industry, said space alliance president Rick Tumlinson. But we have to move quickly. Other states such as Florida, Virginia and New Mexico are far ahead of us in courting and supporting this potentially multi-billion dollar industry, and if we want a part of it dramatic and determined action will be necessary as the deals are being cut right now that will determine its future for decades.Florida, for example, first passed its liability limitation law in 2008.The space alliance also plans to seek tax exemptions for spaceflight activities performed by space businesses operating in Texas, with the aim of promoting space commerce in the state. It will likely push for such legislation during the next session.With NASAs operations in Texas facing potentially very tough sledding, its a good move for space advocates in Texas to push forward with efforts to bring commercialization activities into the state. But it wont be easy getting the job done.For more on advocacy groups actions, see this recent op-ed from Tumlinson, its founder.
30
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Even NASA acknowledges the private sector would streamline missions Michael Schwartz, journalist for the Inside Business Journal, 2-12-2010, Inside Business, NASA's new direction could lift local
space assets, http://www.insidebiz.com/news/nasas-new-direction-could-lift-local-space-assets Perhaps most promising from a local economic development perspective is the administration's call for increased reliance on commercial industry to help NASA get to space. The logic is to let private industry build the vehicles NASA will use in the future, knowing this can be done more cheaply and likely faster outside government. NASA is fairly unique among federal entities in that it develops, constructs and operates much of its equipment and vehicles, including training and paying personnel. Rockets and astronauts don't come cheap. The Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority and its Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island on the Eastern Shore all of a sudden are in the right place at the right time. The MARS facility has slowly but steadily been growing as a viable commercial launch pad for private industry sending things into space for the government. "This [proposed] NASA budget very much reflects the new recognition of the commercial sector that has been out there believing in its capabilities for the past three decades but hasn't received a lot of support," said Laura Naismith, spokesperson for VCSFA and MARS. "Now our government is saying 'Wow, these commercial space entrepreneurs are on to something. How do we leverage that for our national economy?'"
31
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
32
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Privatization is more cost effective than the federal government and saves taxpayers the liability Adam Summers & Anthony Randazzo, policy analyst at Reason Found. &director of economic resources at Reason Found., February 2011, Reason Foundation, Annual Privatization Report 2010: Federal Government Privatization, ed. Leonard Gilroy
http://reason.org/files/federal_annual_privatization_report_2010.pdf PayPal and Tesla co-founder Elon Musks Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, developed its Falcon 9 rocket to handle these space transportation needs, and hopes to begin shuttling astronauts by the end of 2013. The company estimates that it will charge NASA about $20 million per astronaut for the voyage, a bargain compared to the $300 million per astronaut it would cost NASA, or even the $56 million a head on Russias Soyuz rockets in the near term after the shuttle fleet is retired. SpaceX completed a successful test launch of the Falcon 9 from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida in June 2010. Another successful test flight in December 2010 earned the Falcon 9 the distinction of being the first privately owned ship ever to return safely from Earth orbit. Speaking of the differences between traditional government funding of the space program and the newer public-private financing model, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell told ABC News in December 2010, If we overrun this program, we have to come up with the money through investment to cover the cost, which is
33
Privatization Generic dramatically different from contracts where if the contractor overruns, taxpayers have to pay the overruns.
DDI 2011
Private sector solves better than government avoids politicization Garmong 2004. (Robert Garmong Ph.D. in philosophy, was a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004. Privatize
Space Exploration: The Free-Market Solution For America's Space Program. http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-sspace-program.html) hss Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with homedistrict congressmen to lobby on their behalf. There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with nonFreon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.
34
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Private sector approaches to solving are superior to NASA Worden 2004. (Pete Worden 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. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions. Private Sector Opportunities and the Presidents Space Exploration Vision. The George Marshall institute. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf) hss The first different private sector aspect is that NASA and other government agencies can contract for services rather than systems. There is a model here that the Department of Defense has used with great success, and as a former Air Force officer I must reluctantly commend the Navy. The Navy has something called the UFO, Ultra-High Frequency FollowOn communications satellites. (So the X-files TV show really is right, the government does have UFOs!) The Navy bought these communications capabilities as services rather than systems. The systems themselves werent developed by a government program office, but were built by the private sector to provide the services the Government contracted for. This is an example of more private sector involvement in the sense that government money is spent in a different manner. It is a step in the private direction, but only a small one. It is a first way to involve the private sector in a different manner than traditional contracting. NASA has not used it much, although there have been a few examples such as the Lunar Prospector that were done on this sort of model.
35
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
36
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
37
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
XT Privatization Solves
The private sector is best space is becoming more about profit and less about policy. Profit incentives are key to development. Filho, 06 [Jos Monserrat Filho, 6-9 November 2006, United Nations/Ukraine Workshop on Space Law, Kyiv, Ukraine, Legal
Issues of Commercial Space Activities] Why commercial activities are necessary to the use of outer space? H.L. van Traa-Engelman15 stresses that since space operations need heavy investment, while carrying high risks, the economic factor that is inherently decisive in every commercialization process bears a special relevance to space activities. Commercial considerations became fundamental in the process preceding the appropriation of funds required to create new solutions and technologies, to initiate new fields of space applications, or to cover developments in existing fields. In the first decades of the space age, state security and military reasons have defined the content and the direction of national space programs. Now the development of space activities depends on quite large scale upon the possibility of recovering investments and making attractive profit.
Other domestic issues prove the private sector is more cost effective. Walker, Poole and Tumlinson, 01 [Walker, Poole and Tumlinson, March 15th, 2001, The CATO Institute]
Americans are fascinated by outer space. Most would take a trip into orbit if they could. But critics maintain that, in the three decades since men last walked on the Moon, NASA has gone from science and exploration to bureaucracy and politics, with high costs keeping space inaccessible to most entrepreneurs as well as to the general public. Privatization and deregulation of industries such as airlines, trucking, and telecommunications have reduced costs and created new economic opportunities. The communications and information revolution has transformed the economy and society. It is time to unleash the dynamics of free markets in the space sector. Entrepreneurs already are providing private launch services, satellites, and modules for broadcast and Internet services. Other planned innovations include collecting and beaming energy to Earth from orbit, a lunar rover sponsored by Radio Shack, and even space adventure travel for private citizens. But such profitable plans require radical reforms of America's space policy and the role of NASA.
Private companies ensure better access to scientific discovery, telecommunications technology, and big science projects Edward Hudgins, formerly director of regulatory studies for the Cato Institute and editor of Regulation magazine, is an expert on the regulation of space and transportation, pharmaceuticals, and labor, 2-4-2003, National Post, Private space: High costs have forced
NASA to cut projects and delayed the development of space. The way to open up the frontier is to involve the private sector, Factiva Further, in the 1970s, private companies asked NASA and other government agencies to purchase services from them. For example, in 1982 Space Sciences Inc. launched the first privately funded American rocket, named the Conestoga, since the pioneering days of Dr. Robert Goddard. NASA might have contracted with that company for services. But until the Challenger disaster, all government agencies, not just NASA, were required to send their payloads into orbit on government rockets. Thus, for example, if the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Interior Department wanted to put up weather or remote-sensing satellites, they had to go to NASA rather than to a private launch provider. As it became apparent in the early 1980s that the shuttle would cost far more than anticipated, NASA needed a mission to justify its continued existence. Regardless of any commercial or scientific benefits, an orbiting space station seemed to serve that purpose. But the estimated cost of the station, which was supposed to be up and running in the early 1990s, went from a promised US$8-billion in 1984 to nearly US$40-billion before a 1993 stripped-down US$30-billion redesign. Like the shuttle, the station, (now named the International Space Station (ISS), has not lived up to NASA's projections. One General Accounting Office report found that, through June, 2002, the actual cost of designing, building and launching the station would be US$48.2-billion. (The GAO included the sunk costs of the various discarded designs.) The cost of operating the station after its assembly through 2012 will add another US$45.7-billion to the price tag, for a total bill of US$93.9-billion. Congress has capped the station's budget at about US$25-billion, excluding many costs. Even so NASA has found that it will cost about US$30-billion to complete the station in its current design. Worse, the station went from a projected capacity for 12 full-time occupants down to three. But it takes the time of twoand-a-half astronauts to maintain the station. That leaves very little time for science and research, an original justification for the station. As station costs soared, NASA ignored the private sector. In the past ''big science'' projects were handled by the private sector. For example, the Carnegie Institution spent (in 1996
38
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
XT Privatization Solves
dollars) US$20.4-million between 1920 and 1929 on the Mt. Wilson Observatory, US$26.37-million from 1930 to 1939, and US$18-million between 1940 and 1949. The Rockefeller Foundation, starting in 1929, paid out US$60-million to build the Mount Palomar Observatory, which saw first light in 1948. Lower costs for access to space, and more space infrastructure and services, would benefit those wanting to use space for scientific investigations. The obvious way to bring down the high costs of space activities is to involve the private sector. After all, it is the private sector that generates and commercializes new goods and services from cars to computers, brings down costs, and makes them available to all consumers. The communications and information revolution produced a high demand for satellites, giving a boost to the private space sector. The Satellite Industry Association estimated that worldwide satellite industry revenues would be US$92-billion in 2001, up from US$83-billion in 2000 and US$69-billion in 1999, with the American portion currently valued at US$37.5billion. The Space Transportation Association chairman, Tidal McCoy, puts the number of employees in space-related industries at 497,000. Currently NASA fights with policymakers to maintain its budgets and is always under pressure to cut projects and missions. A market-based growth strategy would benefit any party that could benefit from low-cost access to space. Wouldn't it be great if a privatized Kennedy Space Center were as busy with launches as nearby Orlando International Airport is with take-offs and landings? It will certainly be a while before we see that level of private space operations.
39
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Private sector approaches to solving are superior to NASA Worden 2004. (Pete Worden 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. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions. Private Sector Opportunities and the Presidents Space Exploration Vision. The George Marshall institute. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf) hss The first different private sector aspect is that NASA and other government agencies can contract for services rather than systems. There is a model here that the Department of Defense has used with great success, and as a former Air Force officer I must reluctantly commend the Navy. The Navy has something called the UFO, Ultra-High Frequency FollowOn communications satellites. (So the X-files TV show really is right, the government does have UFOs!) The Navy bought these communications capabilities as services rather than systems. The systems themselves werent developed by a government program office, but were built by the private sector to provide the services the Government contracted for. This is an example of more private sector involvement in the sense that government money is spent in a different manner. It is a step in the private direction, but only a small one. It is a first way to involve the private sector in a different manner than traditional contracting. NASA has not used it much, although there have been a few examples such as the Lunar Prospector that were done on this sort of model.
NASA has failed the USISS, budget overruns (Hudgins 04, Edward L. Hudgins, director of The Objectivist Center, is the editor of the Cato Institute book, Space: The FreeMarket Frontier, 1/28/04, gd, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2514) The reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent moon base and a trip to Mars is, "Great! It's about time NASA stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration." Unfortunately, there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space station, decades behind schedule, at 10 times its original budget, a few hundred miles up in orbit, will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the moon. If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars, NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best, traveling to another world. In announcing NASA's new mission, President Bush echoed such sentiments, speaking of the American values of "daring, discipline, ingenuity," and "the spirit of discovery." But after the triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week; instead,
40
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
41
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Privatization solves asteroidsits profitable Meteorite USA, 10 (12/29, Saving the World One Meteorite at a Time http://www.meteoritesusa.com/meteorite-articles/savingthe-world-one-meteorite-at-a-time/) Steve Arnold of the Science Channels Meteorite Men recently did an interview for Yahoo News where he stated that scientists cant typically afford to hunt meteorites as often or spend as much time in the field, and thats where private sector meteorite hunters come into play. Meteorite hunting takes time, money, and a massive amount of effort to be successful. The huge time commitment involved makes it tough for most university researchers and scientists, because they usually cant afford the time or money to hunt meteorites full time. The private sector meteorite hunter has the opportunity and motivation to hunt meteorites for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the monetary value. In a word its profitable to hunt meteorites IF you know what youre doing.
42
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesConstellation Constellation fails privatization makes it effective David 10, N. David, freelance journalist, 2-6-2010, The NASA 2011 budget and the future of Americas Manned Space
Program, http://www.helium.com/items/1734055-nasa-2011-budget, DKreus NASA's budget is not being cut under the 2011 proposal. It is being increased, just not at the amount that Constellation required. With ambitious but achievable goals that spark the imagination of the American public, and the help of America's private sector, it may just be possible for NASA to revitalize America's manned space program. Right now there are more questions than answers, but perhaps the 2011 budget and its new direction for NASA will not be the serious blow to America's manned space program that some fear. If it truly results in proper use of the ISS, successful commercialization of low Earth orbit, and new technologies for manned exploration of deep space, we may one day look back and wonder why it didn't happen sooner.
43
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesExploration The private sector is key to exploration Presidents Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy, 04 (The Commission is made up of
a number of industry and government members, viewable in Appendix D of the liked document, 06/4/04, gd, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.pdf) Although many companies exist and more are emerging in the field of space, an increase in both the number and variety of such businesses would vastly increase the processes and materials available for space exploration. The private sector will continue to push the envelope to succeed competitively in the space field. It is the stated policy of the act creating and enabling NASA that it encourage and nurture private sector space. The Commission heard testimony on both positive incentives and potential bottlenecks encountered by the private sector as they attempt to exploit these commercial opportunities. A space industry capable of contributing to economic growth, producing new products through the creation of new knowledge and leading the world in invention and innovation, will be a national treasure. Such an industry will rely upon proven players with aerospace capabilities, but increasingly should encourage entrepreneurial activity.
44
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSPS
SPS should be privatized solves faster, costs less, and revitalizes the aerospace sector more effectively NSS 06, National Space Society, organization researching and analyzing various methods to explore and develop space, 12-6-2006,
Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors, http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf, DKreus Space Solar Power must be a commercial or public/private company, as Comsat was. Several organizations, such as NASA and DOE are vying to assume control of the space solar power / wireless power transfer research venue to enlarge their empires. Neither organization would move space solar power an inch closer to commercial reality because neither organization would "win" by doing that. Rather, placing space solar power / wireless power transfer research and development under their control will delay the formation of a power satellite industry, delay the lowering in cost of orbital space transportation, delay the formation of innumerable other cis-lunar industries, including asteroid protection, and, finally, incidentally for NSS, delay space settlement in general. NASA doing anything in space costs ten times as much compared to commercial enterprise doing it. IF commercial enterprise can do it, then commercial development is the way to go. (Some things, like the Apollo program, telescopes on the moon, or Mars development cannot be done commercially.) So Space solar power and many other goals await organizations chartered and committed to doing those things. For example, if NASA could support 6 settlers on the moon for 2 billion dollars per year, commercial (public/private) enterprises could do it for one tenth of that cost. The 10 to 1 ratio applies across the board. Most importantly the development is ten times more easily sustained by reason of the lower cost. And actually probably a hundred times more likely to be sustained, since NASA has no significant history of income-generating activity. A renaissance in commercial cis-lunar space markets beckons. If and when SSP is built, greatly reduced launch costs will provide unprecedented access to space and space operations - from in-situ resource utilization and improved observation and communications to space settlement, and many products we can only dream of today - beginning with SSP promising to provide reliable power delivery and global energy security with improved international prosperity at greatly reduced environmental impact. Therefore we present and commend the following motion to the Board of Directors: Motion to recommend the chartering by Congress of a Space Solar Power Corporation. The National Space Society recommends the enactment of legislation by the Congress to charter a Space Solar Power Corporation. This corporation would be directed to research, design, develop, build and operate a Space Solar Power System (SSPS). The corporation would receive special financial incentives designed to coordinate a lowering in commercial launch to orbit costs commensurate with, and as a direct result of a massively expanded market.
Private sector has sufficient technology could be completed within a year Business Green 08 (publication for firms wishing to improve environmental sensitivity, 4/30. Satellite solar panels promise grid parity power by next year http://www.businessgreen. com/businessgreen/news/2215513/satellite-solar-panels-promise)
Solar Concentrator Company Sunrgi is planning to undercut conventional grid electricity prices within twelve months, using the same solar technology designed for satellites. Sunrgi is planning a technology combining solar concentrators with space-class solar technology based on germanium, which it claims will produce energy costing five cents per kilowatt hour when amortised over 20 years. The company would not reveal the initial investment required in the equipment, which will be initially sold to utilities and large-scale industrial organisations. The technology, which uses lenses to focus sunlight onto solar material, has an efficiency of 37.5 per cent, the company said, compared to around 15 per cent for conventional crystalline solar panels. With sunlight generating 1MW per square metre, that means it can harvest 375 watts, said Sunrgi CEO Paul Sidlo. The company is using solar chips from Boeing Spectrolabs as the basis for the solar concentrator system. Spectrolabs has previously been credited with developing high-efficiency multi-junction solar material. The lenses used by the company will focus the power of 2,000 suns onto the solar material, said Sidlo, creating temperatures of 3,400 degrees. He added that the technology rests on two key pieces of intellectual propery. Firstly, Sunrgi uses a proprietary cooling technology to stop the intense heat from the lenses vapourising the solar material. "We have a nanomount on the back of the chip that has a tremendous ability to move thousands of thermal watts of energy away from the chip," explained Sidlo. "It uses nanotechnology that we developed." Once removed from the chip by the nanotechnology, the heat eventually reaches an aluminium heat sink that can help to move it out of the solar array. In future versions, the company is considering harvesting the waste heat and converting it back into power. The other proprietary technology is a tracking system that will minutely adjust the array's position to track the sun, increasing the energy that a unit will be able to harvest from the sun on a daily basis. The company said it hopes to begin commercial production in within 12 to 15 months.
45
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSPS
Market exists now to create cheap SPSrecent deal with PG&E and commercial competition prove. Bruce Dorminy, award-winning science journalist, former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week and Space Technology and former technology correspondent for Financial Times, October 25, 9. Snagging Free-Range Solar Power in Space Is an Option
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/snagging-free-range-solar-power-in-space-is-an-option-3382/ This past April, Pacific Gas and Electric signed the worlds first space solar power purchase agreement. Beginning in 2016, Solaren Corporation, a space solar power startup based in Manhattan Beach, Calif., will provide PG&E with 200 megawatts of space solar power per hour, or some 1,700 gigawatt/hours (GWh) per year. Thats significant, since one GWh roughly equals a sixth of Los Angeles peak electric demand. With a solar photovoltaic collecting array of an estimated kilometer in size, the satellite will use solar concentrators to focus sunlight onto a photovoltaic array. Energy from the photovoltaic array will then be converted into a radio frequency signal using solid-state power amplifiers. From there, it then forms a beam that can be transmitted to the ground. Located in a rural part of Fresno County, Calif., the PG&E/Solaren rectenna will be hooked into an onsite substation that will gather up the solar electricity and adjust voltages at a so-called delivery point. However, from the time the space solar power enters the PG&E system, the California utility projects that this new space electricitys 2016 wholesale price will be some 12.9 cents per kilowatt. Utilities are notoriously conservative, so we had to
convince PG&E that we knew what we were doing, said Solarens CEO Gary Spirnak. He refuses to give an exact cost for the project, except that it will be in the billions of dollars. And PG&E has only contracted to pay for energy it actually receives and none of the startup costs. Those costs will be huge. Spirnak, a former spacecraft project manager with the U.S. Air Force who later worked for both Hughes and Boeing, notes that Solaren will launch its estimated 100,000-kilogram geosynchronous space solar satellite in sections. This will require some three to four launches from Cape Canaveral; based on current launch cost estimates, the financial burden of launching such hefty payloads into geostationary Earth orbit would easily range into the hundreds of millionsof dollars. Spirnak said many previous space solar designs planned on moving gigawatts of electricity over many kilometers in space, and so wiring would make up a third of their systems weight. In contrast, his own team patented a design that alleviates such heavy on-orbit wiring, making the whole system significantly lighter. A possible competitor, Space Energy, an international space solar startup with offices in Switzerland and
Canada, hopes to reduce its costs at the launch pad. This might be achieved by using more economical ways of accessing space, perhaps with the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket (a new reusable commercial launcher). Space Energy already has some $10 million in seed capital, but is at least a couple of years away from building hardware for its projects. Amaresh Kollipara, Space Energys chief strategy officer, said plans call for a $180 to $280 million demonstrator satellite to be launched into low Earth orbit within two years of the venture being funded. Before 2025, Kollipara and colleagues would like to see their first phase of operation fully implemented that is, the on-orbit robotic construction of a space solar satellite stretching over several square kilometers. It would likely be divided into separate nodes that would either be linked physically or via laser transmissions. Space Energys current plan is to use such a platform to beam one gigawatt of microwave energy to the ground. Theres no way we are going to displace other forms of electricity, Kollipara said. Space solar will simply be one energy option. But Space Energys potential target markets would be China, India, portions of western Europe and niche regions of the U.S.Kollipara estimates the startups end-to-end cost per kilowatt-hour will be some 15 to 25 cents. Thats more expensive than power generated from hydroelectric and coal-burning plants, he said, but is on par with costs of terrestrial solar power and wind energy.
aliens yet? The answer is the same as it always is. The technology may exist, but the cost of getting it all up into space and working is simply staggering. There is no current solution, but the effort of companies to privatize the space exploration process is raising hopes that it will become viable at some point in the not to distant future.
46
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
47
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesColonization
Privatization key to colonization Dinkin 2004. Sam Dinkin is a writer for The Space Review. Space privatization: road to freedom. July 26, 2004.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/193/1) hss Some things may be worth that transportation cost. Colonization in order to assure that our species outlasts the dinosaurs is priceless. Opening Mars to colonization will also create new opportunities for religious freedom and personal freedoms as the Pilgrims found when they immigrated to the New World. Space entertainment might pay its own way, as might suborbital tourism. Orbital hotels may be viable. Space science might be able to tag along, but science would have to be heavily subsidized. Maybe astronomical observing frequencies could be sold off on Earth to pay for a site on the far side of the Moon, but that would require much lower transport prices and higher spectrum prices than weve seen since the 3G crash. Suborbital point-to-point service from New York to Tokyo with a flight time less than the Concordes New York-toLondon time may emerge some time. There are some valuable military uses to space being explored by the Pentagon with its FALCON and RASCAL programs in addition to earth observing satellites. Further weaponization of space will probably be required to defend the US in the most economical manner and to defend the new civilian space assets. If no weaponization occurs by the US, we can definitely expect terrorists or other states to do so and for space to be stunted by lack of defensive protection. With no privatization and no military protection, there will not be much colonization. Antarctica may be free of the intellectual pollution brought by property rights, but there are also no citizens, no development and very little in the way of commercial exports. Alaska, in contrast, hands out checks to its citizens rather than charging them taxes. Antarctica is also more inaccessible, so there may be another explanation for the disparity.
48
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesMoon Colonization/Mining
NASA has failed the US. Private companies quickest, cheapest way to moonISS, budget overruns Hudgins 04, Edward L. Hudgins, director of The Objectivist Center, is the editor of the Cato Institute book, Space: The FreeMarket Frontier, 1/28/04, gd, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2514 The reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent moon base and a trip to Mars is, "Great! It's about time NASA stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration." Unfortunately, there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space station, decades behind schedule, at 10 times its original budget, a few hundred miles up in orbit, will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the moon. If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars, NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best, traveling to another world. In announcing NASA's new mission, President Bush echoed such sentiments, speaking of the American values of "daring, discipline, ingenuity," and "the spirit of discovery." But after the triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week; instead, there have been about four per year. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion, house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. Instead, its price tag will be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three. Worse, neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services. Only private entrepreneurs can improve quality, bring down the prices, and make accessible to all individuals cars, airline trips, computers, the Internet, you name it. Thus, to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station, NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets, and perhaps conducting some basic research, which also might serve a defense function. This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector. Thus, the shuttle should be given away to private owners. The United Space Alliance, the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights, would be an obvious candidate. Let a private owner fly it for paying customers-including NASA, if necessary -- if it is still worth flying. NASA also should give up the money-draining space station, and sooner rather than later. The station might be turned over to international partners or, better still, to the mostly private Russian rocket company, Energia -- and the Western investors who were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir space station before the Russian government brought it down for political reasons. If need be, NASA can be a rentpaying station tenant. NASA centers that drive up its overall budget but do not directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. If the government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and resources or other such functions, they could be turned over to other agencies, such as EPA and Interior Department. NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch services with private companies, which would handle transportation to and from low Earth orbit. Contracting with private pilots with private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 1930s, which helped the emerging civil aviation sector
49
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesMoon Colonization
Private sector can get around international laws can colonize the moon. The Space Settlement Institute 2011. (The Space Settlement Institute is a non-profit association of professionals founded to
help promote the human colonization and settlement of outer space. Lunar Land Claims Recognition Strategy. http://www.spacesettlement-institute.org/strategy.html) hss International law bans governments from owning land on the Moon, but private entities could legally own such land. The possibility of acquiring a vast tract of undeveloped Lunar real estate would create a major incentive for the private sector to invest billions to independently finance and develop a regular space transportation system and permanent base on the Moon. Freeing the development of a Lunar transport system and base from dependence on government funding would not only provide significant taxpayer relief but would also help make the President's Moon-to-Mars proposal more sustainable.
Private sector best way to solve moon colonization too many problems with NASA. Schmitt 3. Harrison H. Schmitt is the chairman of the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc., Testimony of Hon. Harrison H. Schmitt:
Senate Hearing on "Lunar Exploration" http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10924) hss It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or sustain a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of circumstances as those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 1950s and throughout 1960s. Huge unfunded "entitlement" liabilities and a lack of sustained media and therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of resources and attention that such an effort requires. Even if tax-based funding commitments could be guaranteed, it is not a foregone conclusion that the competent and disciplined management system necessary to work in deep space would be created and sustained. If Government were to lead a return to deep space, the NASA of today is probably not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return humans to deep space, particularly the Moon and then to Mars. NASA today lacks the critical mass of youthful energy and imagination required for work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too risk-adverse. Either a new agency would needed to implement such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured using the lessons of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45 years ago. Of particular importance would be for most of the agency to be made up of engineers and technicians in their 20s and managers in their 30s, the re-institution of design engineering activities in parallel with those of contractors, and the streamlining of management responsibility. The existing NASA also would need to undergo a major restructuring and streamlining of its program management, risk management, and financial management structures. Such total restructuring would be necessary to re-create the competence and discipline necessary to operate successfully in the much higher risk and more complex deep space environment relative to that in near-earth orbit.
Private companies can colonize the moon studies prove David 2005. (Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than four decades. He is past editor-in-chief of the
National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE.com since 1999. Private Sector, LowCost Lunar Plan Unveiled. http://www.space.com/1793-private-sector-cost-lunar-plan-unveiled.html) hss A newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon, reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion - far less than a NASA price tag. The multi-phased three-year study was done by a private space firm, SpaceDev of Poway, California, and concluded that safe, lower cost missions can be completed by the private sector using existing technology or innovative new technology expected to be available in time to support human exploration of the Moon in the near-future. SpaceDev announced the results of its International Lunar Observatories Human Servicing Mission study last week at a meeting conducted by Lunar Enterprise Corporation (LEC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Age Publishing Company of Hawaii's Island, Hawaii, and Palo Alto, California. The study was funded by LEC.
50
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesMoon Exploration
Privatization is key to lunar exploration workforce flexibility and innovation Schmitt 03, Harrison H. Schmitt, Fulbright Fellow, National Science Postdoctoral Fellowship, NASA distinguished service medal, Caltech grad and Fairchild Fellow, Fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Engineer of the Year Award, National Space Society of Professorial Engineers, former US senator, former Astronaut, 6-30-03, Private
Enterprise Approach to Lunar Base Activation, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-4B82PJY-S1&_cdi=5738&_user=4257664&_pii=S0273117703005374&_origin=&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_sk=999689988&view=c& wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkWW&md5=9e41c9111a8bb0381cac273fe28e2ddd&ie=/sdarticle.pdf, DKreus Along with a highly motivated and capable young work force, the preparation of program, project, financial, engineering design, manufacturing, and risk management plans, and their systematic configuration control, was a key to the success of Apollo. Deep space is not yet as forgiving an environment for human activities as near-Earth space has become (and even there risk there is still very high). Only one of three attempts to forge the competent and disciplined management system necessary to function safely and successfully in lunar space has been successful, namely the mature Apollo Program. The former Soviet Union tried and failed, as did the Apollo Program until after the Apollo 1 fire in 1966. It does not appear that an existing government agency could create a management and personnel environment necessary to successfully undertake a return to the Moon. A new agency with the same flexibility that the early NASA had might do this, however, it is not clear that government, national or international, is capable of the sustained commitment of resources such an effort requires. Thus, of the various possible approaches to managing a return to the Moon, a largely private initiative would be desirable (Schmitt, 2000).
The workforce is in place for private development action is key Schmitt 03, Harrison H. Schmitt, Fulbright Fellow, National Science Postdoctoral Fellowship, NASA distinguished service medal, Caltech grad and Fairchild Fellow, Fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Engineer of the Year Award, National Space Society of Professorial Engineers, former US senator, former Astronaut, 6-30-03, Private
Enterprise Approach to Lunar Base Activation, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-4B82PJY-S1&_cdi=5738&_user=4257664&_pii=S0273117703005374&_origin=&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_sk=999689988&view=c& wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkWW&md5=9e41c9111a8bb0381cac273fe28e2ddd&ie=/sdarticle.pdf, DKreus Experience with young engineers, scientists and skilled workers strongly suggests that a large reservoir of potential employees exists for private sector hires to work on the Moon and in related activities on Earth. Criteria for selection, compensation, and training of employees will be developed in concert with the development of engineering designs and operational plans. One selection criterion that will be considered because of cost considerations will be employee interest in permanent settlement on the Moon. Also, lunar-based employees must realize that all medical and recreational requirements will be served on the Moon, with returns to Earth severely limited by costs. ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES The development and amortization of the capability to go to the Moon and return routinely using private capital resources will create several potential profit centers in support of ancillary activities. The cost of such activities, if carried out in conjunction with the support of Helium-3 production, would be at the margin. Scientific research on or from the Moon and tourism, as examples, would not have to bear the capital cost of launch and space vehicle development or of the creation and management of a lunar support base, but could piggy-back on resource related activities. There may be no other practical means for affordable scientific research on the Moon or for creating an economically viable opportunity for tourists. CONCLUSION A business/investor-founded approach to the establishment of a permanent lunar base represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or by a coalition of countries. A return to the Moon will require a sustained commitment for 10 to 15 years or until the base can be self-supportive indefinitely. Although not yet certain of success, a business/investor approach, supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power, offers the greatest likelihood of sustained commitment.
51
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesMars
Privatization is superior solves Mars exploration faster and more efficiently David 10, N. David, freelance journalist, 2-6-2010, The NASA 2011 budget and the future of Americas Manned Space
Program, http://www.helium.com/items/1734055-nasa-2011-budget, DKreus "Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously," Charlie Bolden, the current NASA Administrator, said at a February 1, 2010 press conference. He says this will be the outcome of the direction outlined in the 2011 proposal. It certainly sounds impressive, but can any of it really happen? The Commercialization of Space One encouraging sign is that the commercialization of low Earth orbit is part of the plan. The Space Shuttle fleet will be retired at the end of 2010. Rather than use NASA resources to develop a replacement for the Shuttle, the goal is to have the commercial sector develop the means to reach low Earth orbit. The commercialization of space is long overdue. Private enterprise will do it more efficiently and cost-effectively, and leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector frees up NASA resources to explore deep space. Billions of dollars are allocated to NASA in the 2011 budget and beyond for research and development of new technologies and approaches to space flight. Hopefully, breakthrough technologies will make space flight easier, faster, and more affordable.
Private companies can do mission to mars for much cheaper than the government. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Sensing that a less costly mission was possible, then Martin Marietta engineer Robert Zubrin and other scientists devised what they called a Mars Direct approach that would use existing technology and dispense with the space stations, Moon bases, and NASAs other expensive infrastructure. Zubrin saw that, instead of carrying return fuel to Mars, an unmanned ship could land first with a simple chemical laboratory to manufacture methane and oxygen (i.e., rocket fuel) from Marss carbon dioxide atmosphere. NASA put the cost of Zubrins approach at between $20 billion and $30 billion, some 95 percent less than the government approach. Yet NASA continues to squander its $13.5 billion annual budget on a space shuttle and a station that contribute little new, useful knowledge. That agency could mount two or three manned Mars missions for the cost of the space station.
52
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
53
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesISS
Privatizing the ISS would generate many more benefits. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Construction costs for the ISS are pegged at some $50 billion, with the station costing taxpayers at least another $2 billion to operate annually. In addition to these high costs, there are two other major problems with the station. First, there is no prospect of any profitable commercial venture coming from NASAs operation of the station, since no customers could pay the actual costs of renting space on the station. NASA will have to give away space at a loss. This is not to say that commercial use cannot be made of the station. For example, the American company Spacehab and Russias Energia plan to build a commercial module to be attached to the Russian part of the station to provide TV and Internet broadcasting. And Boeing and Russias Khrunichev State Research Production and Space Center also want to build a module to provide commercial and station services. The problem is that NASA has no incentive to operate or experience in operating an economically viable enterprise and likely will mismanage it to the detriment of commercial ventures.
CP solves the ISS betterNASA needs to get out of the way Boaz 08 (David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato
Institute. Space Privatizationfrom Cato to the BBC http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/space-privatization-from-cato-to-the-bbc/) In the premier issue of BBC Knowledge, the Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees makes several provocative arguments about manned space flight. They are: The completion of the International Space Station (ISS) comes with a price tag of $50 billion, with the only profit being the cooperation with foreign partners. There is no scientific, commercial, or military value in sending people to space. Future expeditions to the Moon and beyond will only be politically and financially feasible if they are cut-price ventures. He concludes that fostering good relations with other countries is insufficient justification for the expenditures, and that NASA should move aside and allow the private sector to play a role in manned space flight. The cost of these activities must lessen if they are to continue, and that will only happen with a decrease or removal of government involvement. Rees observes that only NASA deals with science, planetary exploration, and astronauts, while the private sector is allowed to exploit space commercially for things such as telecommunications. However, there is no shortage of interest in space entrepreneurship: wealthy people with a track record of commercial achievement are yearning to get involved. Rees sees space probes plastered with commercial logos in the future, just as Formula One racers are now. Those ideas may sound radical, but not if youve been following the work of the Cato Institute. As long ago as 1986, Alan Pell Crawford wrote hopefully that space commercialization is a reality, and looked forward to the country making progress toward a free market in space. The elimination of NASA was a recommendation in the Cato Handbook for Congress in 1999. Edward L. Hudgins, former editor of Regulation magazine, wrote a great deal about private options in space. In 1995, he testified before the House Committee on Appropriations that the government should move out of non-defense related space activities, noting the high costs and wastefulness incurred by NASA. In 2001, Hudgins wrote A Plea for Private Cosmonauts, in which he urged the United States to follow the Russians in rediscovering the benefits of free markets after NASA refused to honor Dennis Titos request for a trip to the ISS. Hudgins testified again before the House in 2001, this time before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. He noted that since the beginning of the Space Age, NASA has actively discouraged and barred many private space endeavors. This effectively works against the advancement and expansion of technology, while pushing out talent to foreign countries who court American scientists and researches to launch from their less-regulated facilities. In Move Aside NASA, Hudgins reported that neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. This makes the price tag of $100 billion for the ISS, far above its original projected cost, unjustifiable. Michael Gough in 1997 argued that the space shuttle is a bust scientifically and commercially and that both successful and unsuccessful NASA programs have crowded out private explorers, eliminating the possibility of lessening those problems. Molly K. Macauley of Resources for the Future argued in the Summer 2003 issue of Regulation that legislators and regulators had failed to take into account the ills of price regulation, government competition, or command-and-control management in making laws for space exploration.
54
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesHelium-3 Mining
Private sector can solve He3 mining Schmitt 3. Harrison H. Schmitt is the chairman of the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc., Testimony of Hon. Harrison H. Schmitt:
Senate Hearing on "Lunar Exploration" http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10924) hss I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to make such a "sustained commitment" absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth. Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a factor of eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. This factor represents the total of a factor of two to stay even with population growth and a factor of four or more to meet the aspirations of people who wish to significantly improve their standards of living. There is another unknown factor that will be necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, whether warming or cooling, and the demands of new, energy intensive technologies. Helium has two stable isotopes, helium 4, familiar to all who have received helium-filled baloons, and the even lighter helium 3. Lunar helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. It represents one potential energy source to meet this century's rapidly escalating demand. There is a resource base of helium-3 of about 10,000 metric tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11 in 1969. The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today's coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of the approximately $40 billion domestic electrical power market. These numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for helium-3 fusion power to compete for the creation of new electrical capacity and the replacement of old plant during the 21st Century. Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong base for initiating this enterprise. Such activities include access to and operations in deep space as well as the terrestrial mining and surface materials processing industries. Also, over the last decade, there has been historic progress in the development of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Progress there includes the production of over a milliwatt of steady-state power from the fusion of helium-3 and deuterium. Steady progress in IEC research as well as basic physics argues strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly more commercial viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion community. It will have inherently lower capital costs, higher energy conversion efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred megawatts upward, and little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. It should be noted, however, that IEC research has received no significant support as an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the Department of Energy in spite of that Department's large fusion technology budgets. The Office of Science and Technology Policy under several Administrations also has ignored this approach.
Private sector solves He3 mining best avoids international laws Schmitt 3. Harrison H. Schmitt is the chairman of the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc., Testimony of Hon. Harrison H. Schmitt:
Senate Hearing on "Lunar Exploration" http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10924) hss On the question of international law relative to outer space, specifically the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, that law is permissive relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Under the 1967 Treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining area. If the Moon Agreement of 1979, however, is ever submitted to the Senate for ratification, it should be deep sixed. The uncertainty that this Agreement would create in terms of international management regimes would make it impossible to raise private capital for a return to the Moon for helium-3 and would seriously hamper if not prevent a successful initiative by the United States Government.
55
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesLunar Mining
Privatization solves lunar mining its preferable to the aff Stone 09, William Stone, aerospace engineer, June 2009, Mining the Moon, http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/spaceflight/mining-the-moon, DKreus Lunar prospecting will cost a lot of moneyperhaps $20 billion over a decade. Rovers would have to descend into the polar craters to sample the deposits and test for ice, and then move on to other spots to form an overall map, much as wildcatters do every day in oil fields. At the moment, no country seems eager to foot the bill. But where governments fail to act on a vitally important opportunity, the private sector can and should step in. Two years ago, I and a group of like-minded businessmen, expeditionary explorers, and space-systems managers and engineers formed the Shackleton Energy Co. in Del Valle, Texas, to conduct lunar prospecting. Should we find significant reserves of ice, we would then establish a network of refueling service stations in low Earth orbit and on the moon to process and provide fuel and consumables. Like modern highway service stations, these celestial stations would be able to refuel space vehicles of all kinds and would be positioned at key transportation nodes; an obvious spot would be near the International Space Station. Such stations would radically change the way nearly every space system is designed. No longer would you have to carry your fuel and water into orbit with you. Entirely new classes of space vehicles would become possible, ones that operate only at and beyond low Earth orbit, such as vehicles for orbital transfer and satellite repair. Today launch systems must be designed to withstand the punishing effects of high-speed atmospheric drag, pressure, vibration, and heating that occur on the way to space. Protecting the rocket and its payload adds enormously to launch costs. But a vehicle that is designed from the start to operate only in spacesay, between low Earth orbit and the moonis not bound by the same design rules. We would also be able to clear up the ever-growing space debris problem. Thered be plenty of fuel for maneuvering satellites and other spacecraft to avoid debris, and you could also deploy cleanup vehicles to remove obsolete materials from orbit. Within a decade or two, we would soon see the dawn of a new age of space exploration, space tourism, and space business ventures.
Privatization is more efficient makes moon mining more cost efficient Stone 09, William Stone, aerospace engineer, June 2009, Mining the Moon, http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/spaceflight/mining-the-moon, DKreus Three elements are essential for the commercial success of our operation. First, to save about $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base, the first human team will take only enough fuel to land and establish the basenot enough for a return trip to Earth. This may sound radical, but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival depend on in situ fuel generation for the return. Should they fail, theirs will be a one-way trip; the risk is theirs to take. For government-sponsored space agencies, such a concept is unthinkable; they cannot tolerate the political risk of failure. Yet it is the only viable business choice. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the limits on land, sea, and air. Its time to carry it forward into space. This is not reckless bravado but calculated risk management to satisfy mission needs and affordability. Second, we need a relatively inexpensive means of returning to low Earth orbit. To do that involves the dissipation of nearly 3 kilometers per second of excess velocity. Decelerating with rocket propellant alone would be prohibitively expensivewed be eating the seed corn. So we plan to do it with actively controlled aerobraking. The water-laden spacecraft will repeatedly dip into and skip out of the upper atmosphere, losing some velocity with each dip, until it ultimately ends up in the orbit of the fueling station. This same maneuver was previously used only for much smaller planetary robotic missions, such as Magellan and the Mars Global Surveyor, but the physics and engineering are well understood. We intend to take the concept to an industrial scale, which would have obvious applications for other space missions. Third, we plan to rely on inflatable structures. Constructed of multilayer fabrics shielded with Kevlar or other strong materials and banded by steel exoskeletons, these structures could provide most of our habitation, storage, and transportation requirements. They would be both lighter and less expensive than traditional spacecraft. A number of companies have done extensive R&D on such inflatable space structures, including Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace, which has even lofted two test modules to low Earth orbit. Reliance on such technologies will decrease the cost of our operation, but it still will not be cheap. We estimate that establishing a lunar mining outpost and low-Earth-orbit fueling network will cost about $20 billion and take about a decade to put in place. That may sound like a lot, but in terms of complexity its comparable to a North Sea oil production complex. And its just a third of what the state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco said it will spend on oil and gas projects over the next five years.
56
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSpace Tourism
The private sector can solve for space tourism. Worden 2004. (Pete Worden 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. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions. Private Sector Opportunities and the Presidents Space Exploration Vision. The George Marshall institute. http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf) hss Other groups are looking at substantial orbital complexes. The Space Island Group is talking about using shuttle main tanks left in orbit as construction building blocks for an orbital complex. There are at least a dozen groups that have pretty substantial financing and support and pretty good technical credibility behind them that are looking at privately developed stations in Earth orbit that could support manufacturing, tourism and so forth. These are the kinds of ideas that are really moving along.
The private sector can build rockets and promote space tourism. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Lockheed-Martin in the past decade has successfully commercialized its Atlas rocket launch services. It used to sell nearly all of its services to the government; now as many as two-thirds of its customers are private parties. It has held costs down and has had a yearlong backlog of orders for launches. Further, Boeing, which builds and launches the Delta rocket, is also competing for cargo and providing private-sector services. A number of smaller companies also are trying to enter the launch market. Rotary Rocket rolled out a prototype of a planned fully reusable rocket in 1999, but problems have caused a suspension of activities. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the lunar module pilot on the first Moon landing, has developed what he hopes will be a totally reusable craft. Aldrin also is a major advocate of space tourism and commercialization. Kistler Aerospace Corp., using refurbished Russian rocket engines, plans to soon launch what it hopes will be a cost-effective cargo rocket.
Only privatization can catalyze the launch market its comparatively more effective NSS 06, National Space Society, organization researching and analyzing various methods to explore and develop space, 12-6-2006,
Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors, http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.pdf, DKreus Question 7: To What Extent Would This Duplicate, Overlap Or Conflict With NASA Launchers? Answer 7: NASA launchers will never be cost competitive. There is no overlap. Only commercially developed and operated reusable space vehicles will be in the cost class necessary. (This is the purpose of NASAs COTS awards, but a handful of launches is not the answer. We need thousands to really lower costs.) There are none in the market today and it will probably take around 3-4 years to get where we need to be to fly those thousands of flights per year. But it is imminently doable, as the space transportation community is well aware. Read the Space Transportation chapter at http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/
CP solves bestmakes space flight financially viable Trevor Brown, MSc, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Masters in Asian Studies, specializes in political, economic, and military strategy for the medium of space, 3-1-2009, Air and Space Power Journal,
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html The Air Force could also use space transportation, another emerging industry, to maximize its resources. Private ventures now under way are reducing the costs of space access considerably. It is possible that one enterprise could become an alternative to Russian Soyuz spacecraft for NASAs missions to the International Space Station.39 Such enterprises could prove attractive, cost-effective options for delivering the Air Forces less-sensitive payloads to Earth orbit. Space tourism, a growing industry, could enable the Air Force to procure affordable capabilities to routinely operate 60 to 90 miles above Earth.40 Advances that entrepreneurs are making in suborbital space flight could eventually evolve to a point where the Air Force would find it far easier, politically as well as financially, to acquire platforms capable of delivering munitions from
57
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSpace Research
Commercial spaceflights provide a better mechanism for researching in space Katharine Sanderson, PhD in organometallic chemistry from Cambridge University, 'new business features journalist of the year' by the Periodicals Publishing Association in 2005, and journalist for Nature News, February 2010, Nature News, Science lines up for
a seat to space, http://oea.citadel.edu/newsclips/archive20092010/26258.pdf In time, commercial carriers might give scientists and their projects cheaper and more reliable access to orbit than the ageing space shuttle can offer. They could also provide a better platform for experiments than the International Space Station (ISS), where astronauts had little time to attend to experiments after crew numbers temporarily fell from six to three for several years after the Columbia space-shuttle disaster in 2003. "You can't do good science when you're focusing on keeping the ISS from falling out of the sky," says Mike Gold, director of operations at the Washington DC office of Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas, Nevada, which aims to build a commercial space station. Stern argues that science will turn out to be a bigger customer for commercial spaceflight than tourism. "Tourists will typically fly once or twice they're going to buy tickets in small numbers. But when governments or industry buy tickets they will buy them by the dozens or hundreds," he says. "The prices are now down in the range of single-investigator grants." Seats aboard SpaceShipTwo go for $200,000.
58
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesMilitary Satellites
Private companies can make military communication satellites Clark 2011. Stephen Clark is Reliability Engineer at Serco North America, he Researched and designed a model for a new
supersonic missile, and developed a report with theoretical data to support the design and he designed and created a theoretical test model of a space craft for a hypothetical mission, and gave a presentation to a board made of NASA professionals. February 17, 2011. U.S. military turns to private sector for SATCOM capacity. http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/17milsatcom/) hss "The commercial marketplace for procuring commercial satellite technologies is maturing very rapidly, and in some cases may be eclipsing what the military can do," Pino said at a commercial space conference in Washington last week. Pino said government-owned satellites should focus on nuclear-hardened communications, contested environments and anti-jamming capabilities. Commercial satellites can provide the bulk of everyday communications for the military. Military satellite communications, or MILSATCOM, was ahead of commercial technology 15 years ago, but Pino said he believes industry can provide better benign communications than the government can today. "I used to always think the role of commercial was to augment MILSATCOM," Pino said. "I'm unlearning what I used to think I knew. Commercial is here to stay.
59
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesWeather Satellites
Private companies can gather accurate weather information. Intriligator 2007. Devrie Intriligator is the Director, Space Plasma Laboratory at Carmel Research Center, Inc. Collaboration
Between Government and Commercial Space Weather Information Providers. Space Weather Journal. 12 October 2007. http://www.agu.org/journals/sw/swa/news/article/?id=2007SW000348) hss Thomas Bogdan, director of SWPC, opened the meeting stating that the commercial providers and SWPC were convening at a historic moment, just as the space weather enterpriseincluding space tourism, commercial satellites, and commercial aviationis opening up to new customers who are reliant on space weather information. He mentioned that many people do not know that they are or will be in need of space weather information; rather, they will wake up with a surprise in 2012 at solar maximum when a solar flare shorts out their gadgets, requiring them or the companies that service them to seek help from new products and warnings. Bogdan stated that in the current era of constrained budgets, SWPC requires key partnerships to function effectively so as to coordinate and leverage SWPC capabilities. Thus, SWPC may need to move away from certain activities in order to address the growing needs of new customers. He acknowledged that commercial providers stand ready to fill any gaps and ensure continuity of products and services. Bogdan emphasized that SWPC personnel present at the meeting were seeking to understand what products and services the commercial providers wanted and the financial and operational impacts on the SWPC if certain products were emphasized or discontinued. John Kappenman, of Metatech Corporation and chair of CSWIG, discussed the importance of growing the commercial sector for space weather into a thriving industry, citing the National Space Weather Program assessment report (http://www.nswp.gov/nswp_acreport0706.pdf) commissioned by the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. He stressed that commercial providers, because they are running a business, focus on their investments and whether infrastructure exists to support these investments. Thus, the reliability, promptness, lack of latency, high cadence, and validation of spacecraft data, such as those from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) series and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE), as well as ground-based data, such as from magnetometer networks and the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS), are "musts" for commercial providers in order that they can expand their own capabilities. Further, Kappenman emphasized that commercial providers must know what SWPC considers its "core" versus "noncore" capabilities, so that steps can be taken to ensure continuity of data given to the commercial space weather providers should the SWPC choose to cut programs.
60
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
61
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesBeating China
The private sector best ensures American space dominance Musk, 11, Elon Musk is an industrial Entrepreneur, also known for PayPal, and CEO of SpaceX, 5/4/11, gd,
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php Whenever someone proposes to do something that has never been done before, there will always be skeptics. So when I started SpaceX, it was not surprising when people said we wouldnt succeed. But now that weve successfully proven Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon, theres been a steady stream of misinformation and doubt expressed about SpaceXs actual launch costs and prices. As noted last month by a Chinese government official, SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they dont believe they can beat them. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates. I recognize that our prices shatter the historical cost models of government-led developments, but these prices are not arbitrary, premised on capturing a dominant share of the market, or teaser rates meant to lure in an eager market only to be increased later. These prices are based on known costs and a demonstrated track record, and they exemplify the potential of America's commercial space industry. Here are the facts: The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www.spacex.com). We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated, we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time, as is the case with every other technology. The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115m in todays dollars, and we have a firm, fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch, the Dragon spacecraft, all operations, maintenance and overhead, and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.) The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million, which includes all the development costs for the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon. Included in this $800 million are the costs of building launch sites at Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral and Kwajalein, as well as the corporate manufacturing facility that can support up to 12 Falcon 9 and Dragon missions per year. This total also includes the cost of five flights of Falcon 1, two flights of Falcon 9, and one up and back flight of Dragon. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million. The Falcon 9 is an EELV class vehicle that generates roughly one million pounds of thrust (four times the maximum thrust of a Boeing 747) and carries more payload to orbit than a Delta IV Medium. The Dragon spacecraft was developed from a blank sheet to the first demonstration flight in just over four years for about $300 million. Last year, SpaceX became the first private company, in partnership with NASA, to successfully orbit and recover a spacecraft. The spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket that carried it were designed, manufactured and launched by American workers for an American company. The Falcon 9/Dragon system, with the addition of a launch escape system, seats and upgraded life support, can carry seven astronauts to orbit, more than double the capacity of the Russian Soyuz, but at less than a third of the price per seat. SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007, despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. These are the objective facts, confirmed by external auditors. Moreover, SpaceX intends to make far more dramatic reductions in price in the long term when full launch vehicle reusability is achieved. We will not be satisfied with our progress until we have achieved this long sought goal of the space industry. For the first time in more than three decades, America last year began taking back international market-share in commercial satellite launch. This remarkable turn-around was sparked by a small investment NASA made in SpaceX in 2006 as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. A unique public-private partnership, COTS has proven that under the right conditions, a properly incentivized contractor even an all-American one can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis, significantly beating historical industry-standard costs. China has the fastest growing economy in the world. But the American free enterprise system, which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete, is what will ensure that the United States remains the worlds greatest superpower of innovation.
62
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesBeating China
Only privatization solves China riseAmerican free enterprise ensures we stay ahead of the curve Colony Worlds, 11 (5/4, SpaceX to Skeptics: We Can Beat China. http://www.colonyworlds.com/2011/05/spacex-to-skeptics-we-can-beat-china.html)
Colony Worlds seeks to highlight the innovation in technology, medicine and science that will help our species discover new homes upon new worlds. SpaceX has sent out a press release aimed at silencing the chatter that the young rocket company prices are too good to be true (since not even China can match SpaceXs prices). However in the process of defending the reputation of his rocket company, CEO Elon Musk does reveal a few interesting tidbits about SpaceX that may have rivals rethink their current practices within the industry. The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www.spacex.com). We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated, we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time, as is the case with every other technology. The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115m in todays dollars, and we have a firm, fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch, the Dragon spacecraft, all operations, maintenance and overhead, and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.) [...] SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007, despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. [...] China has the fastest growing economy in the world. But the American free enterprise system, which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete, is what will ensure that the United States remains the worlds greatest superpower of innovation. (SpaceX) Truthfully SpaceX probably would not post prices online if they were not confident that they could service their clients at those rates (as changing prices midway can open ones self to a plethora of lawsuits). While SpaceXs press release will not satisfy skeptics (something their first successful rocket launch was supposed to do), it may help encourage the rocket industry to become much more transparent with their prices (as forcing tax payers to fork out extra cash is a great to kill off public trust for private space companies).With the space race heating up between the US and China (note: Russia is apparently having a few difficulties), America will need companies like SpaceX to help us not only get back to the Moon, but also help our species settle Mars without breaking the bank.
63
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesCompetitiveness
Privatization solves competitiveness only free enterprise guarantees continued innovation Colony Worlds, 11 (5/4, SpaceX to Skeptics: We Can Beat China. http://www.colonyworlds.com/2011/05/spacex-to-skeptics-we-can-beat-china.html)
Colony Worlds seeks to highlight the innovation in technology, medicine and science that will help our species discover new homes upon new worlds. SpaceX has sent out a press release aimed at silencing the chatter that the young rocket company prices are too good to be true (since not even China can match SpaceXs prices). However in the process of defending the reputation of his rocket company, CEO Elon Musk does reveal a few interesting tidbits about SpaceX that may have rivals rethink their current practices within the industry. The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www.spacex.com). We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated, we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time, as is the case with every other technology. The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115m in todays dollars, and we have a firm, fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch, the Dragon spacecraft, all operations, maintenance and overhead, and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.) [...] SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007, despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. [...] China has the fastest growing economy in the world. But the American free enterprise system, which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete, is what will ensure that the United States remains the worlds greatest superpower of innovation. (SpaceX) Truthfully SpaceX probably would not post prices online if they were not confident that they could service their clients at those rates (as changing prices midway can open ones self to a plethora of lawsuits). While SpaceXs press release will not satisfy skeptics (something their first successful rocket launch was supposed to do), it may help encourage the rocket industry to become much more transparent with their prices (as forcing tax payers to fork out extra cash is a great to kill off public trust for private space companies).With the space race heating up between the US and China (note: Russia is apparently having a few difficulties), America will need companies like SpaceX to help us not only get back to the Moon, but also help our species settle Mars without breaking the bank.
64
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesEconomy
Promoting more private space industry increases jobs and the economy. The Huffington Post 2010. Commercial Spaceflight: Creating 21st Century Jobs Written by guest staff writer Governor Bill
Richardson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/commercial-spaceflight-cr_b_473509.html) hss Picture how different your life would be if commercial air travel didn't exist -- and imagine the millions of jobs that would vanish. Fortunately, commercial passenger aviation does exist and it exists because the U.S. government in the 1920s wisely decided to begin flying "air mail" on commercial airplanes, accelerating the growth of the entire passenger airline industry. President Obama's bold, new plan for NASA, announced earlier this month, makes an equally wise decision by promoting the growth of commercial spaceflight. This is a win-win decision; creating thousands of new high-tech jobs and helping America retain its leadership role in science and technology. President Obama's decision to invest in this growing industry comes at a perfect time. Entrepreneurial companies like Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Space Systems, Masten Space Systems, Armadillo Aerospace, XCOR Aerospace, and Blue Origin are investing their own money, right now, to create new jobs across the nation, including my home state of New Mexico, as they roll out innovative space vehicles. Even the larger, more traditional firms that build launch vehicles for government satellite missions are throwing their hat into the ring to launch new commercial space activities. Commercial spaceflight represents the type of dynamic innovation that we need to create 21st century jobs. Indeed, commercial space companies are one of the few industries that have continued to hire people during the recession.
Allowing for privatization of space industry allows fan explosion of new business opportunitiessolves the economy P Collins & A Autino, 25 May 2008, "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic
Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace", Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space, held at Arcachon in France, 25-28 May 2008. Reducing the cost of space travel to 1% of existing launch vehicles' costs, in combination with the growth of a new consumer service market in space, would greatly aid the growth of many commercial space activities, thereby creating numerous new business opportunities both on Earth and in space. This process is already at work on a small scale in relation to sub-orbital ight services: in addition to a large number of travel companies acting as agents for sub-orbital ights (including JTB, the largest travel company in Japan), Zero-G Corporation supplies parabolic ight services, Bigelow Aerospace is developing the first space hotel, Spaceport Associates advises on spaceport design, Orbital Outfitters Inc. supplies customised ight suits, spaceports are being developed in several places, and several support organisations have been established. All of this activity is occurring some years before the first high-priced services even start, so a much wider range of different space travel-related businesses are sure to grow in future.
65
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesInnovation
Private sector development solves innovation News Journal Online, 11 (6/6. NASA needs clear plan for the future. http://www.newsjournalonline.com/opinion/editorials/n-j-editorials/2011/06/06/nasa-needs-clear-plan-for-the-future.html)
For now, the general game plan is to use the private sector's considerable space program to get astronauts to the International Space Station, or to get cargo into space. That's a good idea -- one that encourages private-sector innovation regarding our very important maintenance of satellites and scientific research in space. But even the private sector isn't planning on the kind of missions that the space shuttles were doing. And there certainly is no private plan for exploration on the moon, Mars or the asteroids of this solar system.
66
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesInternational Cooperation
The private sector can boost international coopcommercial transcontinental alliances
Peeters, International Space University professor, July/August 2001. To the Stars, http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume13/v13n4/contents/v13n4f1.pdf The next steps in the direction of international coopera- tion are transcontinental alliances. SeaLaunch is undoubted- ly one of the most striking examples, because in this specific case cooperation has led to an innovative concept. It is evident that composing a consortium of this type would not have been possible without a geopolitical envi- ronment conducive to it. Indeed, restrictions on strategically sensitive technologies in the past would never have allowed the companies in question to undertake such cooperation. Other examples of transcontinental alliances are strategic alliances such as: Alcatel (F), Loral (U.S.) and NPO-PM (Russia) Starsem: Aerospatiale and Arianespace (F) with RAKA and Progress (Russia) OHB (D) with Fiat-Avio (I) and Yuzhnoe (Ukraine). Technological alliances such as: Joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Khrunichev for the construction of launch boosters A United Technologies (UTC) and Energomash joint venture for the production of a new booster rocket engine, the RD-180. Geographical alliances, e.g.: ASTRA - AsiaSat merger in 1998 EurasSpace Joint Venture between Astrium and the China Aerospace Corporation. EuropStar Joint Venture between Alcatel (F) and Loral (UK) There is no reason to doubt that this trend will continue during the next decade. Enterprises with end-to-end capacity, such as those resulting from the mergers described above, will penetrate the different markets even further, where at present such capacity is not readily available. In order to increase their chances of success, they will most probably enter into partnerships with local companies. Such combinations will satisfy both parties: the prime company will be able to deliver its main product and the local partner deals with local interfacing, while benefiting from the technology transfer.
67
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesPublic Support
By driving costs down, private companies can revitalize the waning interest in space New Scientist, staff writers, New Scientist vol 205 pg 5, 2-13-2010, A turning point for space exploration., Ebsco
If private companies succeed in developing reliable vehicles for routine tasks, more adventurous space exploration will be the long-term winner. Private-sector companies already reckon that they will be able to launch astronauts for a fraction of the cost of a space shuttle flight - and they could even undercut Russia's Soyuz craft. Competition between them could drive down prices even further. As time goes on, there will be new commercial opportunities for space tourism, contract research, even private exploration beyond low-Earth orbit for manufacturing, minerals and more. A few decades from now, human space flight could be supported more by commercial activities than government funding - and we'll look back in amazement to the days when cumbersome national agencies were allowed to monopolise our exploration of the final frontier.
68
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesReadiness
The private sector helps improve the military forces. Space Policy 2001 (Privatization and militarization in the space business environment Space policy Journal. Volume 17, Issue
1, February 2001, Pages 19-26. Science Direct.) hss We have tried to underline the close connection that exists between privatization and militarization, which is completed by a connection between militarization and exacerbated commercial competition. Intentionally, we did not touch on cooperation programs in order to underline the very real risks that naked competition can entail. We believe that many commercial space developments could be a lead to further military deployment by the nation fostering such commercial development. How can the proposition that one nation can have a greater interest in outer space than any other nation be sustained? It is still possible to slow down or redirect the irrepressible rush towards a substantial militarization and weaponization of outer space, especially in low-Earth orbits, in total contradiction of the words and spirit of the Outer Space treaties. Is cooperation the answer? Certainly, but cooperation as the result of forced political or industrial partnership is not an objective. The illustration provided by the ISS venture remains incomplete, with its spots of national sovereignty within the station itself, its complex patent dispositions and its features as an industrial partnership [44, 45 and 46]. Beyond the whole ISS venture, one should really question the need to rush into deep space projects, while ongoing and urgent development issues still plague three-quarters of humanity on Earth. Cooperation works if it is accompanied by some dose of devolution of power to a central a-national authority and is geared towards real needs [47]. For example, in the wake of Unispace III, proposals to consider Earth observation as a public good vs. Earth observation as a commercial venture should be explored further and given much more attention than they are now [48].
69
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSpace Leadership
Privatization is vital to space leadership a market-based solution is best Messier, 11 founder of Earth and Space Foundation, International Space University graduate, masters in public policy and science
and technology from George Washington University (Douglas, 11/29. Witt: Privatization Absolutely Required to Progress in Space. http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/11/29/witt-privatization-absolutely-required-progress-space/) The Obama administration, Congress, NASA and the private sector are finally voyaging toward a market-based space industry. Admittedly, the new policys vision is not bold enough nor its exploration schedule aggressive enough, but it does as the Great One advised skate to where the puck is going, not to where its been. It dismantles a cost-plus quagmire that has left Americans traveling in space far less often, far less safely, at far greater expense and, most ironically, not so very far at all. Much must be done to maintain U.S. space leadership, but privatization is absolutely required. In a world of declining revenues and budget-crushing entitlements, NASA as a sleepy jobs program for aging engineers is unsustainable. We understand that putting all our eggs into a newly woven basket of private space firms is taking a risk. However, risk-taking has defined Americas space accomplishments. President Obama took a risk when he chose to fight the vested interests for this private-sector solution, and it would be mad to imagine a Republican-led House opposing it. Yet, in a through the looking glass moment, some GOP members are resuscitating socialized space as a high-tech pork delivery vehicle for loyal Southern states.
Commercial space reliance solves space leadership Worden, 2004 former Brigadier General in the USAF, Research Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona (Simon, 4/7. Private Sector Opportunities and the Presidents Space Exploration Vision, http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf)
Ill leave you with some final thoughts on space exploration. This time its really different. Ive been involved in past attempts to revitalize space exploration. I want to point out, and weve already seen a lot of evidence of this, that the Presidents 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 governments 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. Thats pretty obvious. Countries that we didnt 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. Americas destiny has always been to lead in the frontier. This is one frontier I think we cant 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.
CP solves space leadership NASA should get back to its roots Gingrich and Walker 10 senior fellow at AEI; chairman of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (Newt and Robert S, 2/12. Obamas Brave Reboot for NASA. AEI Online. http://www.aei.org/article/101651)
Newt Gingrich and Robert S. Walker applaud the Obama Administration's 2011 spending plan for NASA, and view the White House vision for the space program as an excellent opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. The Obama plan echoes the opinion of many experts that greater commercial activity in space is the proper way forward for the United States to remain the dominant force in space exploration. For example, getting the agency out of the low-earth-orbit launch business--where the technology is developed but operational costs are still high--frees up the NASA budget so that the program can go back to its roots in advanced technology development, experimentation and exploration. Despite the shrieks you might have heard from a few special interests, the Obama administration's budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans. The 2011 spending plan for the space agency does what is obvious to anyone who cares about man's future in space and what presidential commissions have been recommending for nearly a decade. The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry in 2002 suggested that greater commercial activity in space was the proper way forward. The Aldridge Commission of 2004, headed by former Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, made clear that the only way NASA could achieve success with President
70
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSpace Leadership
George W. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration was to expand the space enterprise with greater use of commercial assets. Most recently, the Augustine Commission, headed by Norman R. Augustine, former chief executive of Lockheed Martin, made clear that commercial providers of space-launch services were a necessary part of maintaining space leadership for the United States. NASA consistently ignored or rejected the advice provided to it by outside experts. The internal culture within the agency was actively hostile to commercial enterprise. A belief had grown from the days when the Apollo program landed humans on the moon that only NASA could do space well and therefore only NASA projects and programs were worthy. To his credit, former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin adopted a program to begin to access commercial companies for hauling cargo to the International Space Station. That program existed alongside the much larger effort to build a new generation of space vehicles designed to take us back to the moon. It has been under constant financial pressure because of the cost overruns in the moon mission, called Constellation. With the new NASA budget, the leadership of the agency is attempting to refocus the manned space program along the lines that successive panels of experts have recommended. The space shuttle program, which was scheduled to end, largely for safety reasons, will be terminated as scheduled. The Constellation program also will be terminated, mostly because its ongoing costs cannot by absorbed within projected NASA budget limits. The International Space Station will have its life extended to at least 2020, thereby preserving a $100 billion laboratory asset that otherwise was due to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean by middecade. The budget also sets forth an aggressive program for having cargo and astronaut crews delivered to the space station by commercial providers. The use of commercial launch companies to carry cargo and crews into low earth orbit will be controversial, but it should not be. The launch-vehicle portion of the Constellation program was so far behind schedule that the United States was not going to have independent access for humans into space for at least five years after the shutdown of the shuttle. We were going to rely upon the Russians to deliver our astronaut personnel to orbit. We have long had a cooperative arrangement with the Russians for space transportation but always have possessed our own capability. The use of commercial carriers in the years ahead will preserve that kind of independent American access. Reliance on commercial launch services will provide many other benefits. It will open the doors to more people having the opportunity to go to space. It has the potential of creating thousands of new jobs, largely the kind of high-tech work to which our nation should aspire. In the same way the railroads opened the American West, commercial access can open vast new opportunities in space. All of this new activity will expand the space enterprise, and in doing so, will improve the economic competitiveness of our country.
71
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSTEM
Private business in space allows the government goals to be met and also promotes education in math and science. The Huffington Post 2010 (Commercial Spaceflight: Creating 21st Century Jobs Written by guest staff writer Governor Bill
Richardson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gov-bill-richardson/commercial-spaceflight-cr_b_473509.html) hss Our modern economy depends on space -- it is woven into our social fabric, from bank transactions and weather forecasts that depend on satellite signals, to GPS and the latest overhead images by commercial spacecraft that will help us rebuild Haiti. America's commercial space industry can bring private investment to the table and enable government dollars to go much further in meeting our goals. Our nation's military already benefits from the use of commercial communications and remote sensing satellites, and trusts the commercial sector to launch critical military satellites on rockets designed and built commercially. Now NASA is poised to follow in the same direction by placing an emphasis on commercial space. In New Mexico, our support for commercial spaceflight is already reaping benefits. About 500 New Mexicans are now on the job, creating the first commercial spaceport in the world. Another 300 new jobs are expected this year. The spaceport is fulfilling its promise of inspiring young people to study math and science and developing our statewide economy. Our anchor tenant, Virgin Galactic, recently unveiled its completed, environmentally friendly spacecraft, and has over forty two million dollars deposited in reservations. The demand is there, and New Mexico will get its return on investment. Americans will get their return on investment, too. The excitement of commercial spaceflight is already inspiring kids to pursue careers in science and technology, something our nation desperately needs to remain competitive with emerging powers like China.
Privatization solves STEM education Weeks 10(Edythe Weeks is an adjunct professor of international space law at Webster University
in St. Louis and coordinator of Webster's online international relations program. She is a member of the International Institute of Space Law and researches international outer space policy and development. http://www.e-ir.info/?p=6286) The first step toward accomplishing this goal is to expose students, teachers, administrators, civic leaders and public officials to cutting-edge research which highlights emerging industries in the field of outer space development. Exposing students to this type of knowledge while it is being created, is cutting-edge and likely to have a seriously positive impact of their future careers. Preparing them now to lead in newly emerging industries at a time when outer space settlements are being constructed can serve as a powerful motivating force to enable them to want to excel in school. Budding abilities, gifts and talents can be are recruited, nourished and developed. Outer space development studies involves many disciplines including technology, physics, geology, science, engineering, business, law, politics, hotel and restaurant management, space stations, space hotels, life support systems, psychology, sociology, medicine, international law, physiology, chemistry, intergovernmental organizations, institutions and industries, computer science, astronomy, and many more subject areas. Applying problem solving techniques usually involves several fields being integrated. Usually space studies require that students be fluent in several disciplines and this is good practice for interdisciplinary studies. Math, chemistry, science, architecture and other subjects can take on new meanings for students as they are taught to help solve problems related to outer space development. Space has been known to engage and interest students, and it is time to take these possibilities to a place beyond mere fascination and engagement. It is time to take students to a new level actual meaningful participation in outer space development resulting in tangible careers opportunities.
72
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesEarth Sciences
Private companies should take on Earth sciences. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss NASA in recent years has seen environmental projects as potential cash cows. It has fought with other agencies through its Mission to Planet Earth, a project to study Earths ecology for jurisdiction over satellites to monitor the environment. Typical of its tactics, in February 1992 NASA made screaming headlines with its announcement that a huge ozone hole could be in the process of opening over the Northern Hemisphere. In fine print, the data were skimpy at best. Still, the agency got the politically correct headlines as well as funding. There were few headlines months later when no ozone hole developed. The mission itself is of questionable value. It seems to be aimed at selectively acquiring data to push politically correct agendas. Even if the mission is not shut down, it does not belong in NASAs portfolio. Some other department should direct the project. And if the government needs data, it should take bids from the private sector to provide those data.
73
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
CP SolvesSpace Shuttle
Private companies will create a cheaper shuttle flight than NASA Peter Diamandis, chief executive of the X Prize Foundation, a nonprofit that conducts incentivized competitions, 2-13-2010, Wall
Street Journal, Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536.html The challenge faced by all space-related ventures is the high cost of launching into orbit. When the U.S. space shuttle stands down later this year, NASA will need to send American astronauts to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of more than $50 million per person. The space shuttle, on the other hand, costs between $750 million to $2 billion per flight (for up to seven astronauts) depending on the number of launches each year. Most people don't realize that the major cost of a launch is labor. Fuel is less than 2%, while the standing army of people and infrastructure is well over 80%. The annual expense NASA bears for the shuttle is roughly $4 billion, whatever the number of launches. The government's new vision will mean the development of multiple operators, providing the U.S. redundancy as well as a competitive market that will drive down the cost of getting you and me to orbit. One of the companies I co-founded, Space Adventures, has already brokered the flight of eight private citizens to orbit, at a cost of roughly $50 million per person. In the next five years we hope to drive the price below $20 million, and eventually below $5 million.
Commercial space companies are the only way to replace the space shuttle program Sheridan 11 by Kerry Sheridan, Kerry Sheridan is a health and science reporter for Agence France-Presse, Washington, DC.
March 2, 2011, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-unafraid-commercial-spaceflight-nasa.html, US must be 'unafraid' of private spaceflight: NASA NASA chief Charles Bolden, pictured here on January 2011, told lawmakers Wednesday he is confident that commercial industry will be able to make a new spacecraft for taking humans into orbit after the US shuttle program ends. NASA's chief said Wednesday that America must be "unafraid" of a new future in spaceflight and vowed full confidence that private business can come up with a solution to replace the space shuttle. Charles Bolden faced some skepticism as he testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology to discuss President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. "I am certain that commercial entities can deliver," said Bolden, who fielded questions about cost, safety and how long it will take to forge a new mode of access to the International Space Station after the US shuttle program retires later this year. "We have got to develop commercial capability to get into low Earth orbit," said the former astronaut. "The nation needs to become unafraid of exploration. We need to become unafraid of risks." In December 2010, SpaceX became the first private company to successfully launch its own space capsule into orbit and back, a feat Bolden described as "awesome." The Dragon capsule carried no crew, but SpaceX is working on a cargo launch to the orbiting international space lab for later this year. Bolden said NASA was sticking to its planned 2015-2016 timeframe for developing a new mode of travel for taking crew into orbit, but added that is "dependent" on private industry. Industry leaders have promised it would take "three years to the day after they sign a contract" to get a spacecraft up and running for crew transport, he said. No one has yet signed such a contract. Obama's draft budget proposes $850 million in 2012 as seed money to help companies devise a new crew capsule for orbital travel, a $350 million increase over 2010 levels. Asked by one Florida lawmaker what he should tell the thousands of his constituents who will lose their jobs at Kennedy Space Center once the shuttle program ends, Bolden answered: "You should tell them the future of human spaceflight is bright and robust and we need their help in rapidly developing new systems so we can go and explore."
74
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Commercial Space is creating a robust space economy in Florida and saving the US millions of dollars Stern 11 By S. Alan Stern, Alan Stern is a planetary scientist and aerospace consultant. He is NASAs former Associate
Administrator in charge of Science, and he serves as the chair of the Commercial Spaceflight Federations Suborbital Applications Researchers Group. Monday, June 27, 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1871/1 Commercial space, whats good for Florida, and 2012 For too long the economy of Floridas Space Coast has been too heavily dependent on a very small number of huge government projects. This narrow business model calls to mind the adage if you only own one stock, you probably deserve what you get when it goes down. Tragically, the state and the nation failed to learn this very lesson when the end of Apollo program devastated Central Floridas economy in the 1970s, and as a result the Space Coast is now losing 9,000 Space Shuttle jobs. Fortunately though, the dawning era of commercial American space efforts is giving flower to a far wider variety of new space systems and projects with refreshingly diverse markets and backers. This has the opportunity to create a Florida space economy that will be far more robust than any in the past 50 years. Consider how these examples of American commercial space development could help reinvigorate the Space Coasts economy: This has the opportunity to create a Florida space economy that will be far more robust than any in the past 50 years. Suborbital Spaceflight: This new sector has over $1 billion in private investment behind it among five separate suborbital space lines (XCOR Aerospace, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, Armadillo Aerospace, and Masten Space Systems), each of which plan to begin flying frequent tourist and research missions as soon as 2012 or 2013; several have shown interest in flying from the Cape. Orbital Launch: Here, a company called SpaceX is taking the lead by pouring hundreds of millions of private dollars into its line of Falcon launchers, which are already flying, and which are under contract by NASA, DOD, and commercial satellite companies. New commercial launchers that could base in Florida are also under consideration by Virgin Galactic and XCOR, and United Launch Alliance hopes to launch commercial and government astronauts aboard Atlas V vehicles from the Cape by 2015. Crew Transport: Four companies (Sierra Nevada, Boeing, SpaceX, and Blue Origin) are vying to become one of NASAs astronaut transportation service providers to the International Space Station, which will relieve us from paying the Russians hundreds of millions to get our astronauts to space. These firms hope to also exploit purely commercial markets to transport tourists, researchers, and commercial research equipment to low Earth orbit. Satellite and payload integrators such as Astrotech and Astrogenetix will also benefit from this effort. A recent market survey showed that that these commercial applications are likely to outstrip NASAs crew transport demands. Private Space Stations: At least two companies (Bigelow Aerospace and Excalibur Almaz) are planning to field space stations. Both will earn their
75
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
revenues from private sector and from the approximately 180 nations that are not a part of the International Space Station,
The private sector is ready to fill-in for NASA. Rudaksky, 10 [Gil Rudawsky, 7:45PM 04/15/10, Free Market to Take Over Space Travel in Obama's NASA Overhaul,
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/15/free-market-to-take-over-space-travel-in-obamas-nasa-overhaul/] Say goodbye to taxpayer-funded space shuttle. NASA budget is $100 billion over the next five years, an increase of $6 billion, and its primary focus will be robotic exploration, scouting missions, increased earth-based observations, and extending the life of the international space station. Morningstar analyst Anil Daka said you can count on the "big boys" to fill the gap and keep landing the lucrative NASA contracts. "There are a lot of moving parts, but you can bet that Lockheed and Boeing will figure out ways to make it work to their advantage," Daka said. Private-sector companies have had a difficult time creating a profitable "space taxi" program since NASA, which held the monopoly, had an endless supply of taxpayer funding. "I wouldn't want to say the plan is perfect, but the timing is right to make a change and shake up the agency," Spaceport's Ketcham said. "NASA has turned into another bureaucracy, and this will bring a little creative disruption from the private sector."
The Private space industry is more innovative, cost effective and reliable Davis 10 By Leonard Davis, Space Insider Columnist, He has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He
is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE.com since 1999, 29 December 2010 Time: 07:51 AM ET, http://www.space.com/10548-private-spaceflight-ready-2011.html, Private Spaceflight Ready to Take Off In 2011 The private space industry has long been viewed as fledgling. But this once-pejorative term has taken on new meaning this year, as a roster of successes and fast-paced growth throughout 2010 suggests private spaceflight is ready to take off in 2011. This year saw the very first launch of commercial space company SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster, and later the first liftoff of the firm's Dragon spacecraft, which launched atop a Falcon 9 to Earth orbit and then was recovered from the Pacific Ocean. Another company, Virgin Galactic, achieved some major milestones, including the first glide test of its suborbital spaceliner, SpaceShipTwo. [Gallery: First Solo Flight of SpaceShipTwo] Multiple private-sector space firms are moving into full power, going well beyond powerpoints and hand-waving. Still, the coming year, according to experts and analysts contacted by SPACE.com, is likely to feature battles between "same old space" and the ascension of "new space." Commercial landscape "The space industry has never seen such a rich and varied commercial landscape," said Carissa Bryce Christensen, managing partner of consulting firm The Tauri Group in Alexandria, Va. "New markets are emerging and established ones are changing." Christensen said that entrepreneurs are testing new launch and on-orbit capabilities in the real world, trying to move beyond development and demonstration and into sustainable, profitable operation. Large firms are changing their game plans in response. "The successes and setbacks of 2011 are going to make it the most interesting year in the history of commercial space," Christensen predicted. Commercial space is finally coming into its own, and 2011 represents a year of enormous potential for this developing industry, said David Livingston, founder and host of the radio/Internet talk show "The Space Show." "The key will be to systematically move forward, building success upon success," Livingston said. "I believe the coming year will reward patience, achievable goals, business fundamentals, reasonable business risks and a safety mindset." In terms of trends for the space industry, Livingston foresees a move away from big government programs in favor of economically managed and leaner commercial space ventures and projects. "I believe this trend will continue through 2011 and beyond. That said, I do not think our space program should be one or the other, government or private," Livingston said."I believe we can now, more than ever, effectively create public/private partnerships to guide us into space and our future." Squarely in the spotlight The scheduled retirement of NASA's threeorbiter space shuttle fleet next year will also likely affect the landscape. "I think the environment for 2011, although much improved from the religious war in 2010, will still see continued debate about the future direction of NASA with shuttle retirement," said Brett Alexander, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, an industry group that includes commercial spaceflight developers, operators, spaceports, suppliers and service providers. Alexander said he thinks commercial space will be "squarely in the spotlight" with an expected ramp-up of both suborbital flight testing and multiple orbital launches and re-entries under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) partnership agreements
76
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
with U.S. industry. NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is investing financial and technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate safe, reliable and cost-effective space transportation
77
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
78
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
NASA is currently giving private companies more influence and posture on space objectives, creating a more privatized space now. Dinerman, 09 (Taylor Dinerman, 5/11. He wrote a syndicated weekly column for the Space Review. He was an author of the
textbook Space Science for Students and has been a part time consultant for the US Defense Department NASA Approves Partial Privatization of the Space Program http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519609,00.html#ixzz1Se9cuDRI) When the Justice Department or the Centers for Disease Control want to send employees somewhere, they don't specify the aircraft types, let alone design the airframes, engines and avionics. They just buy plane tickets. Even the military finds it cheaper to use civilian aircraft for certain missions. So why should space transportation be any different? NASA's beginning to agree. For the first time, after nearly a half century of building its own rockets and orbiters, it has approved the outsourcing of some of the equipment that enables its manned space missions to private contractors. Last week, acting NASA Administrator Chris Scolese told a congressional subcommittee that the agency plans to give $150 million in stimulus-package money to private companies that design, build and service their own rockets and crew capsules spacecraft that could put astronauts in orbit while NASA finishes building the space shuttle's replacements. On Thursday, the White House ordered a top-to-bottom review of the entire manned space program, one that will be led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, long considered a friend of private space ventures. Both developments show that the once-reluctant space agency and the Obama administration are ready to support commercial human spaceflight. It's a dramatic change, one that could reduce America's dependency on Russia for the next half-decade after the space shuttle program ends, and one that could kick-start a space program that some see as having stalled for 40 years. "Our government space program has become over-burdened with too many objectives, and not enough cash," says William Watson, executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation, a Houston-based group promoting commercial space activities. Watson said that allowing private companies to handle routine orbital duties could free up NASA to focus on returning to the moon and going to Mars. Scolese said that $80 million of the stimulus money will be awarded to the company that demonstrates the best "crewed launch demo" a prototype, based on existing cargo-capsule designs, modified for humans. The agency was careful to note that the competition will be an open one.Two well-positioned spaceflight companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, are seen as the leading contenders. Each already has a full line of rockets and cargo capsules ready to go, and each company's capsules can be converted to transport astronauts. Both firms were tight-lipped about their suddenly increased opportunities. Orbital Sciences didn't respond to queries; SpaceX said only that it was "encouraged by NASA's commercial crewed services initiative."But NASA's savings in cost and time could be significant. The two leading contractors are building their launch vehicles from scratch. Their designs emphasize very efficient business models and low manufacturing costs. And they operate with at most a few dozen employees at their launch sites, as opposed to the space shuttle program's standing army of almost 15,000 workers. NASA's hostility toward other American space ventures goes
79
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
80
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Privatization inevitable- natural development will prove Weeks 10(Edythe Weeks is an adjunct professor of international space law at Webster University in St. Louis and coordinator of
Webster's online international relations program. She is a member of the International Institute of Space Law and researches international outer space policy and development. http://www.e-ir.info/?p=6286)
Recently we have seen news images of billionaires taking $20,000,000 trips to outer space. Various entrepreneurs are developing fleets of private spaceships. In 2010, President Barack Obama announced that NASAs Constellation Program would be cancelled, yet NASAs budget would also be increased by $6,000,000,000. Vast quantities of natural resources such as gold, iridium, osmium, platinum, helium 3 and many others have been found in abundant quantities in outer space. The International Space Station has been in Low Earth Orbit since 1998 and humankind has come to understand what it needs to know regarding human space habitats and living in outer space. Space laws and policies have existed for decades and are ever growing. Outer space is in the process of being developed. The first phase of outer space development has already taken place. This phase involved satellite telecommunications industries and the global widespread acceptance of cable television, cell phones, the Internet and a multitude of goods and services linked to these space technologies. Bill Gates and others became very wealthy as the result of the first phase of outer space development. The Geostationary orbit has been colonized and developed. Key thinkers are looking towards the development of other regions of
outer space including, Low Earth Orbit, Near Earth Orbit, asteroids, Earths Moon, Mars and elsewhere. Only a handful of experts and students are aware of the outer space development phenomenon. The vast majority of people around the world are still thinking of outer space as an elite field for government astronauts and scientists, not for them. Meanwhile,
unemployment is high, inspiration is low, economies are crashing (even the United States), job loss is increasingly common, school systems are failing, outdated school curriculum programs are unable to motivate students to lead, and people are searching for ways to create prosperous futures for themselves and their families. So, why not expose more people to outer space development? The term
used herein, outer space development involves a culmination of forces historical, legal, ideological, institutional, political, economic, psychological and structural all operating together in the post Cold War era so that space commercialization and privatization are widespread accepted norms.[i] Recently, a new trend is being set by U.S. policy. In 2004
a new policy was instituted in accordance with the Presidents Commission Report which lays the foundation of U.S. development of the outer space territory[ii]. Also in 2004 a new U.S. law[iii] was passed facilitating the legality of private space travel as a new industry being called space tourism. In addition the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 made funding available to carry out the New Vision U.S. Space Exploration Policy.[iv] This policy, to a large extent calls for more participation from the private-sector in space exploration and other programs. Already a critical number of space entrepreneurs have paved the way towards new space industries, as they
did during the satellite telecommunications revolution during the 1980s and 1990s. This is only the beginning of a new trend towards further space commercialization and privatization. The result so far has been millions of dollars are being offered through
various prizes to spur increased privatization of space. For example the $10,000,000 Ansari X Prize and many other cash prizes are being offered to spur space entrepreneurship/space privatization. Examples include, the NASA Centennial Challenges Prizes ($100,000,000), the Americas Space Prize ($50,000,000 million), the Heinlein Prize for Practical Accomplishments in Commercial Space Activities ($500,000) and the NASA Ralph Steckler/Space
81
Privatization Generic
Grant Space Colonization Research and Technology Opportunity involved awards totalling $1,000,000.
DDI 2011
82
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
83
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
The CP is massively popular with the public they hate NASA wasting money and prefer free enterprise Healy 7/12/11(Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's
Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power. Space Program Was Our Biggest Bridge to Nowhere https://store.cato.org/pub_display.php?pubid=13342) More by Gene Healy Outside of avoiding the hypothetical horror of Martian gulags, what does the ordinary taxpayer get from the space program? Not much, says Robin Hanson, a George Mason University economist and research associate at Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute: The benefits are "mostly like the pyramids national prestige and being part of history." Space partisans often point to the alleged technological breakthroughs that come from solving hard problems like keeping humans alive in an environment never meant to sustain them. But, as Hanson points out, you could get similar technological boons from any ambitious project you convince the feds to spray money at whether it's robot butlers or floating cities. If we wanted to, we could surely "find other projects with larger direct payoffs." The argument for federally funded spaceflight ultimately boils down to "spacecraft as soulcraft," the quasi-religious notion that, as Post columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it, we go "not for practicality," but "for the wonder and the glory of it." Space must be an alluring muse indeed, given that it makes Krauthammer, normally a hardheaded neoconservative, sound like a yoga instructor gone lightheaded during a juice fast. He calls space skeptics "Earth Firsters," deaf to "the music of the spheres." Apparently there's nothing more "isolationist" than wanting to stay on your own planet. Krauthammer's obsession makes sense, in a way, since federally funded spaceflight is the quintessential neoconservative project: a giant, wasteful crusade designed to fill Americans' supposedly empty lives with meaning. Sorry, Charlie: The public's not buying it. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that more Americans think private enterprise should pay for space exploration than think government should fund it. By nearly 2-to-1 margins, they also oppose sending federally funded astronauts to the moon or Mars. As far as Americans are concerned, space is the ultimate "bridge to nowhere." It's true that, with a $1.5 trillion deficit, NASA's $18 billion isn't what stands between us and our fiscal day of reckoning. But every little bit counts, and this is the rare cut that won't make the public squeal. Moreover, there's a matter of principle at stake here. The threat of force lies behind every tax dollar the government collects. You might demand that your neighbor help defend us against a foreign invader but would you really hold a gun to his head to help him appreciate "the music of the spheres"?
84
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Rep. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania said, If we really want to win the future, we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through the American entrepreneur. Task Force chairman Rand Simberg, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said, By opening space up to the American people and
their enterprises, NASA can ignite an economic, technological, and innovation renaissance, and the United States will regain its rightful place as the world leader in space.
Senators want private space flight to increase jobs and economic growth Garcia 10 By Melissa Garcia, A graduate of the University of Colorado Denver, Melissa earned her B.A. in Communication with a certificate in
Conflict Management, Published: 12/15/2010 5:54 pm, http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Senator-files-bill-in-advance-of-commercialspace/suXn8JU1_EyuDVQDy8gV3g.cspx, Senator files bill in advance of commercial space travel
SAN ANTONIO -- Blasting off in a rocket ship won't just be for NASA astronauts. Average Joe's will someday go into outer space on commercial spaceships. And maybe, sooner than you think. One Texas senator is already preparing for it. Senator Carlos Uresti has filed Senate Bill 115,
also known as the "Space Flight Liability" bill. It would protect private space flight companies from being sued if passengers on board are injured or killed. Uresti says if he would have waited to file the bill until the next legislative session in two years, that could be too late. The start of commercial space flight has been taking off around the country. Last week, a private ship that took off from Florida orbited the Earth in just a few hours. "We've talked about rocket ships and space
since we were children," commented space travel enthusiast Raz Hernandez. "And now, it's here." But along with the excitement come risks. "If you go on a space flight, there's a chance you may not come back," commented Senator Uresti. And some of his constituents question the flights' safety. "Who are the people that are going to be flying these commercial space ships?" commented Kristina Quijano. "And how qualified are they?" On the edge of
Uresti's district, the space flight company "Blue Origin" has been launching test flights from their West Texas Launch site. Engineers expect to send up the first human being in 2012. Uresti says the thrust behind Senate Bill 115 and the legal backing it would provide Blue Origin, could help stimulate the economy. "It helps the county, it helps the community, and hopefully it will bring more jobs," said Uresti.
Senators support the commercial space industry because it attracts thousands of jobs in innovative fields Senate. Gov 10 August 17, 2010, http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=327226&, Senator unveils new plan for
boosting commercial space ventures U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, in a move to further lessen the impact from the wind-down of the space shuttle, this morning announced a plan aimed at boosting the commercial rocket industry and attracting thousands of jobs to Floridas Space Coast. In meetings with representatives from NASA and various commercial aerospace ventures at Cape Canaveral on Tuesday, Nelson touted a new measure that would create up to five regional business enterprise zones around the country as magnets for commercial space ventures which in turn would attract jobs to areas where there are lots of scientists and engineers. More specifically, his office said, the
Commercial Space Jobs and Investment Act would allow space-related businesses - situated around places like the Kennedy Space Center ( KSC ) - to qualify for major tax breaks and other incentives. President Kennedy was right when he predicted that space exploration would create a great number of new companies and strengthen our economy, Nelson said. What were doing now is everything we can to ensure
KSCs continued importance to our nations space exploration effort, while also broadening the economic opportunities along our Space Coast. Nelson said this new measure ( below ) is the next critical step to spurring space-industry job growth in the region. Earlier this month, the U.S. Senate quickly and unanimously passed a different Nelson-engineered plan, and the U.S. House of Representatives is considering a comparable measure. The Senate-approved plan provides enough money for another space shuttle flight next year, for jump-starting NASAs new heavy-lift rocket, and for developing the commercial rocket industry all of which will save jobs of
thousands of displaced shuttle workers. The new proposal - to give tax breaks to commercial space entrepreneurs - is drawing the support of aerospace industry leaders including those from Space Florida, the state-backed organization charged with promoting the development of commercial rocketry and related undertakings. "The Commercial Space Jobs and Investment Act symbolizes a significant step forward in ensuring the right incentives are in place to attract industry to Florida, and the broader domestic marketplace," said Frank DiBello, Space Florida president. "This bill will stimulate the commercial space industry to create jobs in our state, at a time when we need it
85
DDI 2011
Congress supports private space firms NASA is too inefficient Whittington 11 By Mark R. Whittington who Is The author of Children of Apollo Moonwalker and The Last. He has
Written on space subjects for a Variety of periodicals, Including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and The Weekly Standard, 05/13/2011, http://nursingclasses.typepad.com/myblog/2011/05/newt-gingrich-prefersspace-prizes-over-nasa-exploration-projects-to-continue.html Newt Gingrich Prefers Space Prizes Over NASA Exploration Projects to Continue One Of The Things That Makes the presidential CANDIDACY form of House Speaker Newt Gingrich notable Is That He Is One Of The Few American Politicians Who Has Given a great deal of Thought to space issues. Gingrich not only disdain now the Apollo model of NASA Sending astronauts back to the Golden Moon to Mars, goal has Some Interesting Ideas How To Do Those Things Outside the NASA infrastructure, According to a 2006 interview in Space Review. "I am for a Dramatic Increase In Our efforts to reach out Into space, I am goal for doing Virtually all of it Outside of NASA-through prizes and tax incentives. NASA Is an aging, unimaginable, bureaucracy Committed to over-engineering and riskavoidance Which Is Actually diverting resources from The Achievement and stifling We Need The Entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit Necessary to lead in space exploration. " Prizes Have Been Used to advance space technology Already in the 21st Century.The Privately Funded Ansari X Prize led to The First Privately Funded Space Flight in 2004. Google is running a Lunar X Prize That Would Pay Cash To The first private group to land a robot probe On the surface of the Moon. NASA has run a series Itself of prizes from under the Centennial Challenge Program. Gingrich has taken The Idea of Space prizes To The ultimate conclusion by Proposing a $ 20 trillion prize For the first group to land a person on Mars and return to Earth Safely HIM, The Cato Institute reports. Later, he Added The Idea of a lunar base prize for $ 5 trillion. Under the Gingrich vision for space, NASA Would Be relegated to technology development and little else. Prizes and Tax Incentives Would drive space and exploration, Eventually, The Settlement of Humans from Earth on Other Worlds.Gingrich has come out in Publicly aussi Favor of President Obama's plan to foster commercial space-through Government subsidies.
86
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Private space companies provide much cheaper and reliable systems Theobald 09 by Bill Theobald, FLORIDA TODAY, 19 June 2009 Time: 12:55 PM ET, Private Companies Claim Better,
Cheaper Options for New NASA Rocket, http://www.space.com/6868-private-companies-claim-cheaper-options-nasa-rocket.html WASHINGTON -- Executives from several private space companies said Wednesday that they could provide cheaper, more reliable launch systems than those of NASA's Constellation program. The executives made their comments about alternatives to NASA's plan for sending astronauts to the moon and on to Mars during the first meeting of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee created by President Barack Obama. After the daylong meeting, committee Chairman Norm Augustine, a former CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., said some commercial launch efforts appear "further along than I thought." Michael Gass, the CEO of United Launch Alliance, told the committee that the company could use an existing Delta rocket to launch the Constellation project's Orion capsule into space sooner and at a lower cost than NASA's planned Ares I rocket. And Gary Pulliam at Aerospace Corp., which was hired to look at other ways to launch Orion, said a modified Delta IV Heavy rocket could save between $3 billion and $6 billion compared with the Ares I. But Pulliam also noted that NASA has said canceling the Ares I project would add $14.1 billion to $16.6 billion to the cost of developing the larger Ares V rocket, which NASA hopes to use to take the Orion capsule farther into space, including to Mars. Executives with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences told committee members that they could help NASA ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, filling the gap between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the start of Constellation. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk also said that using private firms to service the space station -- both for supplies and people -- would free up NASA to spend its funds on more ambitious space exploration. NASA has contracted with both firms for a total of 20 missions to service the station. Steve Metschan, part of a group called Direct, offered the most provocative presentation, which proposed using existing shuttle components to create a new launch system that would be cheaper and already tested.
87
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
Space X rocket is designed initially for cargo, it satisfies NASA's current safety requirements for carrying humans, and after several launches it could carry people, Musk said. He has said that if NASA does buy rides on commercial rockets, he would be able to fly astronauts to the space station in his smaller Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule within three years. Potential customers for the new larger rocket are NASA, the military, other governments and satellite makers. Musk said Falcon Heavy will be far cheaper than government or private rockets. Launches are about $100 million each. He said the Air Force pays two older more established aerospace firms about $435 million for each of its launches. Over its 40 year design history, the space shuttle program has cost about $1.5 billion per launch, according to a study by the University of Colorado and an Associated Press analysis of NASA budgets. Musk, who has a contract to supply the space station with cargo using the smaller Falcon 9, said his pricing is more fixed than traditional aerospace firms. He joked: "We believe in
everyday low prices." To get costs that low, Musk said he needs to launch about four Falcon Heavy rockets a year but plans on launching about 10. He does not have a paying customer for his first launch, but is in negotiations with NASA and other customers for flights after his company proves the new rocket flies. "It would be great if it works, if it's safe," said Henry Lambright, a professor of public policy and space scholar at Syracuse University. "I don't want to come across as skeptical, but I am." Lambright said companies have often made big claims about private space without doing much. But, he said, Musk has some credibility because of his successful Falcon 9. If Musk's plans work, it will give President Barack Obama's space policy a needed boost, Lambright said. Obama has been battling some in Congress over his plans to use more private space companies, like Space X, for getting people to orbit with NASA concentrating on missions to send astronauts to new places, such as nearby asteroids. Several companies are vying to launch private rockets that could replace the shuttle. NASA is now paying Russia to send astronauts to and from the space station on Soyuz spacecraft. Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert at American University, said of Musk: "If he's not in the lead, he's well positioned for the finish." McCurdy said
NASA's space shuttle was a technological marvel, but had a bad business model and was not cost effective. He said Musk, who is using his own money in his privately held firm, has incentive to be more financially savvy.
NASAs launching costs too much, competitive markets are more cost effective Diamonds 10 By Peter Diamonds, FEBRUARY 13, 2010 Peter Diamandis is chief executive of the X Prize Foundation, a
nonprofit that conducts incentivized competitions. He is also CEO of Zero Gravity, which offers weightless flights; and chairman of the Rocket Racing League, an interactive entertainment company. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536.html Space: The Final Frontier of Profit? A debate on the pros and cons of commercializing the cosmos; valuing asteroids at $20 trillion each. Peter Diamandis makes a case for private space. The challenge faced by all space-related ventures is the high cost of launching into orbit. When the U.S. space shuttle stands down
later this year, NASA will need to send American astronauts to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of more than $50 million per person. The space shuttle, on the other hand, costs between $750 million to $2 billion per flight (for up to seven astronauts) depending on the number of launches each year. Most people don't realize that the major cost of a launch is labor. Fuel is less than 2%, while the standing army of people and infrastructure is well over 80%. The annual expense NASA bears for the shuttle is roughly $4 billion, whatever the number of launches. The government's new vision will mean the development of multiple operators, providing the U.S. redundancy as well as a competitive market that will drive down the cost of getting you and me to orbit. One of the companies I co-founded, Space Adventures, has already brokered the flight of eight private citizens to orbit, at a cost of roughly $50 million per person. In the next five years we hope to drive the price below $20 million, and eventually below $5 million. Within the next several decades, privately financed research outposts will be a common sight in the night sky. The first one-way missions to Mars will be launched. Mining operations will spring up on the moon. More opportunities we have yet to even comprehend will come out of the frontier. One thing is certain: The next 50 years will be the period when we establish ourselves as a space-faring civilization. As the generation that has never known a world without "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" matures, it will not be content to watch only government astronauts walk and work on the moon. A "let's just go do it" mentality is emerging, and it is that attitude that will bring the human race off this planet and open the final frontier.
88
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
NEAP proves that private development is cheaper Zinsmeister, 98 (Jeff Zinsmeister, Global Notebook Editor, Harvard International Review, (Private space: a free-market
approach to space exploration, Spring 1998, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb137/is_2_20/ai_n28713165/) The anatomy of the NEAP project itself is a novel concept. Since the project is funded entirely with private money, profit and investor security is the overriding concern. Returns on investments are critical, which has been a difficult task given the high costs and risks normally involved in space exploration. Costs have been kept to a minimum, with projected expenditures pegged at around US$40 million. Innovative programs to ensure NEAP's success and control costs have been implemented to attract investors, such as SpaceDev's cooperation with the academic world. Students and professors at the University of California at San Diego, New Mexico State University, and the University of Texas at Austin have been working with SpaceDev on all aspects of spacecraft design and flight logistics. Although Benson has invested a significant amount of his own money in the expedition, more has been raised through the sale of equity in the company, via a private placement of stock in an existing trading company. However, given the difficult logistics and high risks involved, putting NEAP in space will require some creative business decisions. The academic teams are making every effort to ensure success in a mission in which countless mishaps can occur. Furthermore, Benson is insuring equipment and investments on board NEAP to assuage fears of mission failure and the loss of scientific equipment. No longer will scientists suffer the uncompensated loss of equipment like that following the failure of the Mars Observer. Although NEAP, unlike NEAR, will actually land on an asteroid, the information retrieved will be remarkably similar. A camera will measure the size of the asteroid, a neutron spectrometer will search for traces of water vapor, and deployable probes with on-board spectrometers will measure the asteroid's composition. What will be done with the data, however, is entirely new. Unlike NEAR, NEAP was brought into existence for a very unique task: to explore and exploit both the enormous reservoir of scientific wealth and valuable elements found in near-earth asteroids. The data collected will be sold on the market not only to the scientific community at considerably reduced prices, but also to mining and space flight industries interested in commercial exploitation of the asteroid. The idea of resource extraction from other worlds has long remained the domain of science fiction, and it is true that there is little reason to think that ferrying materials to Earth will be possible or cost-effective even in the fairly distant future. Although one asteroid may be worth anywhere from US$1 to US$4 trillion in gold, platinum, cobalt, and other metal ores, transportation costs would be astronomical and would make the process quite unprofitable. Water is the most valuable resource to be found in the short-term; its extraction becomes extremely valuable when used to produce rocket fuel. Water is the major component in rocket propellant, a cheap commodity on Earth; what costs cents to produce and use on this planet, however, costs US$6,000 a pint in space due to the immense costs of transportation. Producing fuel in space from space-based water deposits promises to be substantially cheaper. When functional, the proposed Space Station Alpha could be the first step in establishing demand for fuel in orbit and consequently a demand for space-based water deposits. Benson is hoping that SpaceDev will help satisfy this demand.
89
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
90
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
91
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
92
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
93
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
94
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
NASAs current solar storm detector, ACE, does not solve Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Administrator of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), 1/28/10, Natural
Disasters and Solar Storms: Why Space Weather Matters, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conrad-c-lautenbacher-phd/naturaldisasters-and-sol_b_440128.html Efforts to predict this space weather -- and prevent such catastrophes -- currently rely on data from a single spacecraft, which is wearing out. While NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) has fuel through 2024, top scientists and military strategists have found that during space storms several key instruments have failed to report data in real time This is like having a fire department that breaks down just when there is a fire, just when you need it the most.. The DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory), replacement spacecraft for ACE, was built to monitor Earth weather and global warming, and also features equipment that can measure -- and help predict -- solar and space weather. DSCOVR was evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences and their report called this mission "strong and scientifically vital." However, due to budgetary concerns, this $100+ million DSCOVR program is at risk as a potpourri of federal environmental, space, defense, and budgetary agencies attempt to pare down federal expenditures. In Congress, efforts to fund space weather in the "Critical Electric Infrastructure Protection Act," which also addresses cyber security, languishes in committee. Space weather remains an under-appreciated challenge. Spacecraft along with other space and ground assets can detect the arrival of these storms; but, without an ACE replacement, there will be no warning in time to prevent potentially catastrophic damage. This is a serious life-threatening matter that demands our attention. We simply cannot afford to let DSCOVR's launch funding be eliminated.
DSCOVR satellite can replace ACE, and can measure solar/space weather Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Administrator of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), 1/28/10, Natural
Disasters and Solar Storms: Why Space Weather Matters, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conrad-c-lautenbacher-phd/naturaldisasters-and-sol_b_440128.html The DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory), replacement spacecraft for ACE, was built to monitor Earth weather and global warming, and also features equipment that can measure -- and help predict -- solar and space weather. DSCOVR was evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences and their report called this mission "strong and scientifically vital."
Solar Flares will be disastrous- destroys economy, knocks out electrical grid for years, kills thousandsand the timeframe is soon- flares will peak in 2013 Vastag, 6/21/11 (Brian Vastag, , reporter for the Washington Post June 21, 2011 Sunburst could be a big blow The
Washinton Post, lexis) The sun is waking up. And on June 7, it woke up Michael Hesse. At 5:49 a.m., the solar scientist received an alert on his smartphone. NASA spacecraft had seen a burst of X-rays spinning out from a sunspot. The burst was a solar flare - and a "notably large one" at that, Hesse said later. The sun has been quiet for years, at the nadir of its activity cycle. But since February, our star has been spitting out flares and plasma like an angry dragon. It's Hesse's job to watch these eruptions.If a big one were headed our way, Hesse needed to know, and fast, so he could alert the electric power industry to brace for a geomagnetic storm that could knock some of the North American power grid offline. Hesse gathered his team at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, where he is chief of the Space Weather Laboratory, and fed the latest data from four sun-staring satellites into powerful computers.At 7:49 Hesse got his answer. An animated chart traced the predicted path of a huge arc of plasma - hot gas - hurtling through the inner solar system. But only the tail of the plume would lick Earth, arriving June 9 and driving a dazzling display of the northern lights from Alaska through Maine.While a video of the
95
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
96
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
97
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
The private sector fails at space development empirically proven Butler, 10 lead writer at greenopia.com and at MNN (Katherine, 3/8. The Pros and Cons of Commercializing Space Travel, http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/the-pros-andcons-of-commercializing-space-travel)
Further, Dinerman points out that private efforts into space have failed again and again. He refers to dozens of private startups that never got off the ground, let alone into space. Dinerman points to Lockheed Martin's X-33 design, which was supposed to replace the space shuttle in 1996. The design never succeeded and ultimately cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. Amazon.com Chief Executive Jeff Bezos company Blue Origin set up the DC-X program in the early 1990s. Its suborbital test vehicle was initially successful but was destroyed in a landing accident. Dinerman claims, The Clinton administration saw the DC-X as a Reagan/Bush legacy program, and was happy to cancel it after the accident.
The private sector fails empirics Taylor Dinerman, columnist for The Space Review and member of the board of advisers of Space Energy, February 13th, 2010,
Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059263418508030.html | AK President Barack Obama's proposed plan for NASA bets that the private sectorsmall, entrepreneurial firms as well as traditional aerospace companiescan safely carry the burden of flying U.S. astronauts into space at a fraction of the former price. The main idea: to spend $6 billion over the next five years to help develop new commercial spacecraft capable of carrying humans. The private sector simply is not up for the job. For one, NASA will have to establish a system to certify commercial orbital vehicles as safe for human transport, and with government bureaucracy, that will take years. Never mind the challenges of obtaining insurance. Entrepreneurial companies have consistently overpromised and underdelivered. Over the past 30 years, over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the launch business. The only one to make the transition into a respectably sized space company is Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va. Building vehicles capable of going into orbit is not for the fainthearted or the undercapitalized. The companies that have survived have done so mostly by relying on U.S. government Small Business Innovation Research contracts, one or more angel investors, or both. Big aerospace firms tempted to join NASA's new projects will remember the public-private partnership fiasco when Lockheed Martin's X-33 design was chosen to replace the space shuttle in 1996. Before it was canceled in 2001 this program cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. Of the smaller failures, there was Rotary Rocket in
98
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
The government must come in first before private companies. Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer, 30 October 2010, Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon,
http://www.space.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon.html However, government leadership and investment will likely be needed to get these businesses off the ground, several panelists said. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations, Spudis said. To get them onboard, government should demonstrate the necessary technologies and know-how. "Let the government lead the way, and let the private sector follow," Spudis said. Government could also prime the pump for private industry, some panelists said, spurring demand for rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it," Greason said. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the supply." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction.
99
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
100
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
101
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
The government must come in first before private companies. Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer, 30 October 2010, Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon,
http://www.space.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon.html However, government leadership and investment will likely be needed to get these businesses off the ground, several panelists said. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations, Spudis said. To get them onboard, government should demonstrate the necessary technologies and know-how. "Let the government lead the way, and let the private sector follow," Spudis said. Government could also prime the pump for private industry, some panelists said, spurring demand for rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it," Greason said. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the supply." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction.
102
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
103
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
104
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
105
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
106
Privatization Generic
DDI 2011
No investment in the counterplan investors wont jump on Schmitt 03, Harrison H. Schmitt, Fulbright Fellow, National Science Postdoctoral Fellowship, NASA distinguished service medal, Caltech grad and Fairchild Fellow, Fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Engineer of the Year Award, National Space Society of Professorial Engineers, former US senator, former Astronaut, 6-30-03, Private
Enterprise Approach to Lunar Base Activation, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-4B82PJY-S1&_cdi=5738&_user=4257664&_pii=S0273117703005374&_origin=&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_sk=999689988&view=c& wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkWW&md5=9e41c9111a8bb0381cac273fe28e2ddd&ie=/sdarticle.pdf, DKreus INVESTOR BASE Identification of the required investor base for the long-term lunar energy enterprise, as well as the nearer term business bridges is essential to the development of the requisite business plans. Both long- and short-term investors, however, generally will be those who invest in entrepreneurial initiatives rather than those who are part of or investors in established enterprises in related fields. For, example, recent experience by the author has shown that existing energy companies are unwilling to consider investing in a competing long-term lunar energy initiative with delayed returns on investment and based on unproved technology. In addition, established businesses and potential competitors in the business bridges will not invest in a future competing technology, at least until that technology appears as a threat in the market place.
107