The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

,-.(/!0.12342(/35.2(

,-.(6/7(/35.(

Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment.

!"#$%&'()*++(
1

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Table of Contents
Topic Overview Definitions Pro Cases Con Cases Pro Extensions Con Extensions Pro Blocks Con Blocks Preflows 3 5 10 14 18 28 37 41 45

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Topic Overview
Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment.
This resolution comes at a time when private sector investment in space exploration has been at its greatest and when public sector investment is probably at its lowest. In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the primary public sector agency that is designated for public, or governmental, space exploration. NASA is a federal administrative agency like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And like all other federal administrative agencies, NASA accomplishes several of its objectives because it obtains money from the federal government. The federal government gets its money through market activities, such as but also through federal taxation, for example, on income taxes of its citizens. Thus, the public sector investment in the United States comes from the resources of the federal government. An alternative to public sector investment is private sector investment. This is investment that is done by non-governmental actors, such as private companies, private individuals, and groups of private individuals. The most important aspect of the private sector, for purposes of this resolution, is that it is non-governmental. The private sector gets its resources, primarily, from markets in the private sector. However, the private sector also gets money from the government in the form of grants, subsidies (arguably), and through contracting with the government to complete projects for the government. The fact that private companies receive funding from the government can complicate things for the purposes of this resolution. It forces you to ask the question: What is private investment? Is private investment really public investment because the government provides resources to private companies? Conversely, is public investment really private investment because the government gets many of its resources from the private sector? One bright-line approach may be to delineate the two sectors based on who is actually spending the money on directly space exploration. For example, if the US is giving money to NASA for exploration, this could be considered public sector investment. And on the other side, if it is private companies that are spending money on space exploration, this could be considered private sector investment. As with most (but as you probably have experienced, not all) topics, there seems to be substantial ground for both sides to argue the superiority of one sectors investment. Predictably, there will be arguments about public vs. private investment generally. The libertarian position is that everything should be privatized, and thus libertarian arguments would support private investment and condemn public investment. These arguments generally come in the form of private rights. For example, the government is wrong to take money away from private individuals because those people might have objections to spending it on space exploration and would not do so if the choice of how to spend the

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

money was up to them. These arguments will also encompass general economic theory, such as the economic inefficiencies of the government. On the flip side will be socialism-types of arguments in support of public sector investment. Such arguments might include that the private sector is untrustworthy because of profit motives and lack of security measures. Another argument might be that space exploration has always been thought of as for the purpose of promoting the welfare of humanity generally rather than private individuals. In fact, many, if not most, countries have signed a treaty recognizing this goal. Other arguments in support of public investment are that NASA has more institutional experience than any private firm. NASA has been exploring space for decades whereas most private firms are brand new. The cards in this File explore these arguments and more. TFF wishes you the best of luck in October!

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Definitions Private
Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others Designed or intended for one's exclusive use Of or confined to the individual; personal Undertaken on an individual basis Of, relating to, or receiving special hospital services and privileges Not available for public use, control, or participation Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or the government 8. Of, relating to, or derived from nongovernment sources 9. Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or groups not affiliated with governmental agencies or corporations 10. Enrolled in or attending a private school Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Private
used only by a particular person or group, or available only to them controlled or owned by individual people or companies, rather than by the government Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011 1. 2.

Sector
A division of a defensive position for which one military unit is responsible. 2. A part or division, as of a city or a national economy Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1.

Sector
1. a part of a countrys economic or business activity 2. a group that is part of a larger group Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011

Private Sector
all the businesses, industries, and services that are not owned or managed by the government Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011 1.

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Private Sector
businesses and industries that are not owned or controlled by the government Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011 1.

Private Sector
the area of the nation's economy under private rather than governmental control. Source: Random House Dictionary 2011 1.

Investment
The act of investing. An amount invested. Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. 4. A commitment, as of time or support. 5. A military siege. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1. 2. 3.

Investment
The money used in a way that may earn you more money, for example money used for buying property or stock in a company 2. an amount of money that is invested 3. the process of spending money in order to improve something or make it more successful 4. something that you are willing to spend money on now because it will give you benefits in the future 5. the amount of time, energy, or emotion needed in order to make something successful Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011 1.

Human
1. 2. 3. 4. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. A person Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals

The Forensics Files October 5.

The PFD File Space

Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans 6. Having the form of a human 7. Made up of humans Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011

Human
1. of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2. consisting of humans Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2011

Human
1. of or typical of people Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011

Space
The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the universe. 2. The region of this expanse beyond Earth's atmosphere. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1.

Space
1. the whole of the universe outside the Earths atmosphere. Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011

Space
an empty area which is available to be used that which is around everything that exists and which is continuous in all directions 3. land, especially in a town, which has no buildings on it Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011 1. 2.

Exploration
1. The act or an instance of exploring Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Exploration
a trip to a place to learn about it or to search for something valuable such as oil 2. a thorough examination or discussion of a subject, idea, etc. Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011 1.

Exploration
1. the act or an instance of exploring Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2011

Exploration
1. when you search and find out about something Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011

Preferable
1. better or more suitable Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011

Preferable
1. More desirable or worthy than another; preferred Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011

Preferable
1. having greater value or desirability Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2011

Preferable
1. more appropriate or useful than something else Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011

Public
1. of, concerning, or available to the people as a whole.

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

2. of or involved in the affairs of the community, especially in government or entertainment. 3. done, perceived, or existing in open view. 4. of or provided by the state rather than an independent, commercial company. Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2011

Public Sector
the industries and services, for example schools, that are supported by tax money and controlled by the government of a country or an area Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011 1.

Public Sector
1. businesses and industries that are owned or controlled by the government Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011

Public Sector
the area of the nation's affairs under governmental rather than private control. Source: Source: Random House Dictionary 2011 1.

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Pro Cases
PRO CASE #1 [Economy 1 of 2] Because private sector investment in human space exploration provides for the most economical way to promote space exploration, we believe the following resolution is true: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. The thesis of our case is that human space exploration is a good goal to have and that whichever sector can most economically promote space exploration should be the sector whose investment is more preferable. As our following contentions show, the private sector is the more efficient sector. Our first contention is that private commercial space launch will boost economic competition, open up new jobs, and reduce the cost of human space exploration. William Harwood, writes in an article entitled Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, for CNet News on February 1, 20101: "The budget funds NASA to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to the International Space Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk of relying solely on foreign crew transports for years to come," the budget summary stated. "A strengthened U.S. commercial space launch industry will bring needed competition, act as a catalyst for the development of other new businesses capitalizing on affordable access to space, help create thousands of new jobs, and help reduce the cost of human access to space." Our second contention is that private investment is better because it budgets its resources better. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, writes in an article, Exploration initiatives from the private sector, from the The Space Review, on August 29, 20112: The human exploration program is rudderless, and the robotic exploration program is foundering due to over-budgeted, unaffordable mission plans. The plans for the next set of Mars missions after MSL keeps getting whittled down by budget cutters and we are not at all sure of what missions may fly, if any, in the second half of the current decade. The proposal for a Red Dragon (the SpaceX capsule to Mars) is a shot in the arm and ought to stimulate some new thinking for the future of Mars exploration. Maybe it can be a private-public partnership like those being planned for post-shuttle US Earth orbit transportation, and maybe the robots really can pave the road for humans.

1 2

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1 10

The Forensics Files October PRO CASE #1 [Economy 2 of 2]

The PFD File Space

Our third and final contention is that the private sector is a viable industry. Private companies are developing ideas for space exploration. Lou Friedman continues: Elon Musk, who entered the space business driven by a personal goal of sending humans to Mars, has made the bold suggestion that his Dragon capsule can be a Mars lander for both humans and their robotic precursors. Its bold: NASA has never recognized that human and robotic space exploration are a pair of eyes providing the same space vision. Its bold also because it proposes that a design optimized for Earth entry can also work at Mars. Usually trying to meet two sets of diverse mission requirements with one system doesnt work out. But the suggestion here is that the Mars lander will not be driven by such requirements but by whatever capabilities it may offer for the robotic precursor. The precursor will be an explicit pathfinder for humans. Thus, the private sector is a viable sector that can use its resources more efficiently than the public sector. The most efficient sector will promote the most space exploration at the lowest cost to society. For those reasons, the resolution is true that private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. We thank you for your time and attention. (And we are now ready for cross-fire.)

11

The Forensics Files October PRO CASE #2 [NASA Bad 1 of 2]

The PFD File Space

Public sector investment has primarily meant that public funds will be sent to NASA for its waste. In the United States, NASA is the federal agency designed to promote space exploration. Yet, in the several decades since humans went to the moon, NASA has failed to increase US accomplishments. But we still continue to poor millions of dollars into the agency. Why do we keep doing this? The Con side will fail to provide sufficient explanation for you to vote for them. Instead, the thesis of our case is that NASA has failed miserably and will inevitably fail. This is because investment should not be tied to the public sector. The resolution assumes that investment in space exploration is good: the only question is which sector is a better investor? We believe that it is the private sector. Thus the following resolution is true: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. Our first contention is that NASA has had several missions that have been paid for, but failed. Robert Zimmerman, writes in an article, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, for USA Today, on September 23, 20043: Each failure makes a strong case for turning to private enterprise, as we did so successfully in the 1960s and with less success in the 1990s. The National Aerospace Plane was proposed by President Reagan in 1986 during his State of the Union address. This cutting-edge technology, Reagan proclaimed, would "by the end of the decade take off from Dulles Airport, accelerate up to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low-Earth orbit, or fly to Tokyo within two hours." After spending $1.7 billion, and building nothing, the program was canceled in 1992. The X-33 was announced with much fanfare by Vice President Al Gore on July 4, 1996. The program was going to produce a single-stage-to-orbit reusable spacecraft. "This is the craft that can carry America's dreams aloft and launch our nation into a sparkling new century," Gore enthused. After five years and $1.2 billion, the X-33 was canceled when cracks were found in the spacecraft's experimental fuel tanks. During the same years as the X-33, NASA pursued the X-34, a smaller two-stage reusable rocket launched from a belly of a L-1011 jet, and the X-38, a reusable lifeboat for the International Space Station. After four years, more than $1 billion but little hardware production, both were scrubbed. In 2000, even as the previous projects were being put to the torch, NASA came up with another program, the Space Launch Initiative. For two years, the agency spent $800 million drawing blueprints for a plethora of proposed shuttle replacements. Nothing was built. In 2002, the Space Launch Initiative was scrapped like the rest.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmerman-edit_x.htm 12

The Forensics Files October PRO CASE #2 [NASA Bad 2 of 2]

The PFD File Space

Our second contention is that the public sector is risk averse because it is tied to public sentiments. Thus, private investment is better because only the companies bear the costs of their failures. Bart Leahy, writes for National Space Society, and in an article called Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, on May 12, 2006, he argues4: Stephenson said that NASA is risk-averse because the voting public does not want to lose another astronaut, and that the risk-averse nature of the program is the biggest stumbling block to inspiring an environment of development or inspiration. Even Bill Nye the Science Guy remarked that "It's easy to bust NASA's chops." Finally, Public investment trades off with other resources needed for the public. The European Space Agency reports in an executive summary of its research in 20055: One major implication of this directive is that, if space exploration costs overrun the agency's dedicated budget, NASA must fill the gap by reducing the financial resources dedicated to its other programmes. Another implication is that the exploration programme should confirm US independent human access to space. For theses reasons the resolution is true. We thank you for your time and attention. (And we are ready for crossfire.)

http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-private-investment-public-fundingdebate.html 5 The Future of European Space Exploration TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LONG-TERM STRATEGY, Executive Report 2005 13

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Con Cases
CON CASE #1 [NASA is Better 1 of 2] Because NASA has more promise than any individual company in the private sector, the following resolution is false: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. The thesis of our case is that NASA, which is part of the public sector because it is a federal administrative agency, is a better place to invest money in space exploration than in the private sector. Our first contention is that NASA is better for deep space exploration, it is only handing off low-orbit development to private firms. Larry Dignan, writes in an article entitled, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, for TechRepublic on July 7, 20116: But we have to do things differently. For one, we have to get out of the business of owning and operating low Earth orbit transportation systems and hand that off to the private sector, exercising sufficient oversight to ensure the safety of our astronauts. We need to focus on deep space exploration, while empowering todays innovators and entrepreneurs to carry out the rest. This new approach to getting our crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for the American economy. Our second contention is that NASA is handing off travel to the space station to the private sector. This shows that the private sector is always a step behind the public sector. Mike Wall, a Senior Writer for Space.com, wrote an article called "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" on May 24, 2011, in which he reported7: "The NASA Authorization Act lays out a clear path forward for us by handing off transportation to the International Space Station to our private sector partners, so we can focus on deep space exploration," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement. "As we aggressively continue our work on a heavy lift launch vehicle, we are moving forward with an existing contract to keep development of our new crew vehicle on track."

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-thismean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 7 http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-space-exploration-vehicle-announcement.html 14

The Forensics Files October CON CASE #1 [NASA is Better 2 of 2]

The PFD File Space

Third, and finally, preferring private investment over government investment would destroy national identity and US competitiveness in the space exploration market. William Harwood explains in an article, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, for CNet News on February 1, 20108: "Basically, you're burning the bridge behind you. Even if it's successful, now what you've done is you've created not a space program for the United States, you've created a capability to get to low-Earth orbit but there's nothing to do there because there's no government program," Griffin said. "Where's the market?" Griffin said, "For the U.S. government to deliberately give up its lead in something that is fundamentally an enterprise of governments...for the United States to give up something that's an important part of our national identity in favor of outsourcing it to commercial enterprises when and as they come into being is bizarre." The above three contentions show how NASA is a better bet than private companies in terms of investing in human space exploration. We thank you for your time and attention. (And we are ready for crossfire.)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html 15

The Forensics Files October CON CASE #2 [Public Key to Private1 of 2]

The PFD File Space

We all know that private companies compete with each other and are thus less likely to share their technological developments with others. However, with NASA everything is public, thus all public investment in NASA is returned right to the public. And heres the kicker, the public includes the private sector. Essentially, the public sector is necessary to the private sector, but the converse is not true. As our case will show, the private sector is not necessary to the public sector. Thus, the resolution is false: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. First, the private sector is only making advancements because of public funding. NASA reports in 20069: NASA is making an unprecedented investment in commercial space transportation services with the hope of creating a competitive market for supply flights to the International Space Station (ISS). Two industry partners will receive a combined total of approximately $500 million to help fund the development of reliable, cost-effective access to low-Earth orbit. The agency is using its Space Act authority to facilitate the demonstration of these new capabilities. NASA signed Space Agreements Aug. 18 with Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of El Segundo, Calif., and Rocketplane-Kistler (RpK) of Oklahoma City to develop and demonstrate the vehicles, systems, and operations needed to support a human facility such as ISS. Once the space shuttle is retired, NASA hopes to become just one of many customers for a new, out-of-this-world parcel service. Second, the private sector is only following NASA. Prior to NASAs help to the private sector, the private sector was not exploring space. NASA continues: The venture marks a break with tradition for the 48-year-old space agency. This is the first opportunity NASA has taken to engage entrepreneurs in a way that allows us to satisfy our needs and lets commercial industry gain a foothold. It could, and should, have profound impacts on the way NASA does business, said Marc Timm, acting Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program executive in NASAs Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.

NASA Invests in Private Sector Space Flight with SpaceX, Rocketplane-Kistler, August 18, 2006, http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html. 16

The Forensics Files October CON CASE #2 [Public Key to Private 2 of 2]

The PFD File Space

Third, and finally, relying on the private sector destroys governments capabilities by deferring to private industries. William Harwood writes in an article, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, in CNet News on February 1, 201010: Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, chief architect of the now-canceled moon program, told CBS News the shift to commercial space operations was a profound mistake. "I'm one of the biggest proponents of commercial spaceflight that there is, but it doesn't yet exist," he said. "I would like an enlightened government policy to help bring it about, but I don't believe you get there by destroying all your government capability so there's no option but for the government to do whatever necessary to get the 'commercial operators' to succeed. Thus, there can only be but one conclusion: that public investment in human space exploration is superior and preferable to private investment. We thank you for your time and attention. (And we are ready for crossfire.)

10

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html 17

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

18

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Pro Extensions
NASA has ended its missions leaving room for private sector development. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 An Associated Press account rounds up how NASA legends Neil Armstrong and John Glenn are leading a group of critics who say that the U.S. space program is ignoring a long-held belief that there should be a backup plan. Indeed, the end of the Shuttle program leaves a manned flight vacuum. Private companies are the future of manned spaceflight. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 In other words, the future of manned flight will depend on companies like SpaceX, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. If the U.S. can go through the transition to private loworbit vehicles, maintain leadership and keep focused on going to Mars and deep space perhaps this three-year hiatus is worth it. In the meantime, many folks will wonder if that Atlantis lift-off is a time to celebrate or mourn. Private space exploration will result in more exploration than public exploration. James Heiser, The Private Sector and the future of Space Exploration, The New American, August 21, 2009, http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/space/1706 The nature of the market, of course, is that if such commercial space programs are not viable, they will not survive. For a public increasingly frustrated watching a space bureaucracy that seems dedicated to going nowhere and spending lots of money in the process, such private ventures are a refreshing alternative. Open and fair competition for government and corporate contracts offer possibilities to these new companies that may allow them take the next steps out into the new frontier of the solar system. New frontiers offer new possibilities for human freedom, and these new companies may help to open those new frontiers.

19

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Private space exploration companies are already emerging. James Heiser, The Private Sector and the future of Space Exploration, The New American, August 21, 2009, http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/space/1706 SpaceX is one of several private ventures (including Mohave Aerospace Ventures and Virgin Galactic) which have been launched in recent years to develop launch vehicles for satellites, cargo, and human crews. These private companies have already made significant advances toward a non-governmental option for manned space flight, most notably SpaceXs successful flight of a multistage rocket, and deployment of a satellite to orbit. The companys Dragon module (which is projected to be capable of carrying seven passengers) is scheduled for testing, including a fly-by of the International Space Station, this year. Public exploration requires expending billions of dollars of public money. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html On the seventh anniversary of the Columbia disaster, President Obama unveiled a sweeping change of course for the nation's space program Monday, putting an end to NASA's post-Columbia moon program and shifting development and operation of new rockets and capsules from the government to private industry. Requesting some $19 billion for NASA in fiscal 2011, the administration announced plans to pump an additional $6 billion into NASA's budget over the next five years to kick-start development of a new commercial manned spaceflight capability, including some $500 million in 2011. NASAs technology isnt sophisticated enough to do many manned missions. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html The only U.S. rockets currently flying that are powerful enough to step into the roll of crew transport in the near term are the Boeing-built Delta 4 and Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 boosters used to launch military, scientific, and commercial satellites. Neither family of rockets is certified to carry humans.

20

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA has left a void for private sector investment. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1 Where is the US commitment to space exploration? Lack of leadership in our government and the resulting disarray in NASA has created a vacuum. All of the past four Presidents recognized what Mary Lynne Dittmar wrote about in her recent Space Review series: that human space exploration is justified by its importance to the geopolitical interests of the United States (see An enduring value proposition for NASA human spaceflight (part 3), The Space Review, August 22, 2011). Both Presidents Bush proposed visions for humans to return to the Moon and then travel to Mars as manifestations of American greatness. President Clinton was more specific: he got the International Space Station built in order to engage the post-Soviet Russian aerospace capability in a peaceful venture serving Americas strategic interests. President Obama tried a broader scientific and technical rationale, proposing step-by-step American leadership into the solar system with a first-ever mission to an asteroid then on to Mars. Yet, today, we have no idea where we are going. The public sector has failed and public officials have given up. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1 The space station was built, but the visionary long-range programs have all faltered. They failed to create any political resonance. The situation is now worse than ever with no one on a national stage advocating human space exploration goals. The Administration seems to have given up, and Congress is focused only on special interests. The private sector has a better vision for future exploration than the government. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1 The Lockheed proposal, like that of SpaceX, is driven by their interest in marketing their new human space transportation vehicle. For Lockheed, the vehicle is Orion, and for SpaceX, it is Dragon. They both have a long way to go from cargo resupply vehicle to human transportation vehicle, and even longer to meeting planetary mission requirements, but, they seem to know where they are goingmuch more so than does the government.

21

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

The private sector already has 60 missions a year. Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race Even as doubts swirl about a return to the moon, NASA officials on Thursday marked the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar mission by pointing to the inspiration and lessons drawn from the historic flights. Another lunar trip may be controversial today, but officials link the lunar legacy to the modern era's growth in private investment in space travel, which features about 60 rocket launches a year, more satellite development and even space tourism. Public sector support for space is dwindling. Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race Since Apollo 11, the NASA budget has fallen to less than 0.6% of the annual federal budget from its height of 4% at the height of the Apollo program, according to a report by the Houston Chronicle. The public sector wants the private sector to take over. Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race A review underway by the Obama administration is expected to cast a critical eye on big government outlays to return to the moon, he said. He's more optimistic about private ventures such as Virgin Galactic, which has a partnership with Scaled Composites to build SpaceShip Two, with plans to charge about $200,000 for a flight into space.

22

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

The public sector needs the private sector to invest otherwise the public sector cannot complete its missions. Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race Meanwhile, NASA has hired Space Exploration Technologies, also called SpaceX, to send unmanned cargo to the International Space Station after the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle. SpaceX was launched by PayPal founder Elon Musk. Last year, computer game developer Richard Garriott, the son of an astronaut, paid $35 million to visit the International Space Station on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft via a company called Space Adventures Ltd. of Vienna, Va. Caceres said large aerospace firms such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin are too dependent on government contracts and are unlikely to take on the risk of space tourism. However, Boeing is working with NASA on a number of space exploration projects, including aspects of the government's Constellation program, a spokesperson said. Using taxpayer dollars on space exploration makes little sense. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html If you were to believe many of the speakers at this year's International Space Development Conference (ISDC), entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan and non-profit CEOs like Peter Diamandis are prepared to go it alone into space. In his opening remarks, Rutan stated that "Taxpayer-funded research makes absolutely no sense" and likened the current Vision for Space Exploration to an exercise in archeology. Diamandis said, "We need to get off the government dole." The public sector has failed to inspire young people about going into space. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html Even the large aerospace companies--who most keenly felt Rutan's barbs--had to admit that NASA has not been particularly inspiring. John Stevens from Lockheed-Martin Space Systems expressed concern that the current national space program has failed to inspire young people. He lamented the fact that "there's no excitement in NASA manned programs." Art Stephenson, Sector Vice President, Space Exploration Systems, NorthrupGrumman, admitted, "we don't always pick the hard thing."

23

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA has sufficiently explored space to turn things over to the private sector. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html However, some advocates believe the time for businesses to take over space operations is now. According to space policy consultant Jim Muncy, the $500 million Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program represents a breakthrough in NASA thinking about space operations because it really offers the private sector a chance to do what only Russia does now: resupply the International Space Station. Muncy cautioned, however, that private entrepreneurs need to prove their abilities through success first. Prior to the award of COTS, no small aerospace company out of the current group of aspirants has yet launched a payload to orbit. NASA lacks the institutional creativity to come up with new projects. It frequently turns to the private sector for ideas. Michael Cooney, Network World, "NASA, DARPA want public input for futuristic space exploration ideas" NetworkWorld Online, June 17, 2011, http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/061711-nasa-darpa.html DARPA and NASA Ames Research Center today said they are soliciting abstracts, papers, topics and members for discussion panels, to be part of the 100 Year Starship Study Symposium to be held in Orlando, Fla., from Sept. 30 through Oct. 2. "This won't just be another space technology conference -- we're hoping that ethicists, lawyers, science fiction writers, technologists and others, will participate in the dialog to make sure we're thinking about all the aspects of interstellar flight," David Neyland, director of the Tactical Technology Office for DARPA, said in a statement. "This is a great opportunity for people with interesting ideas to be heard, which we believe will spur further thought, dreaming and innovation."

24

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA lacks an investment strategy that will ultimately threaten its program. The Honorable Sherwood Boehler, Chairman of the Government Accountability Office, GAO Report, July 17, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-817R Although NASA is continuing to refine its exploration architecture cost estimates, the agency cannot at this time provide a firm estimate of what it will take to implement the architecture. The absence of firm cost estimates is mainly due to the fact that the program is in the early stages of its life cycle. NASA will be challenged to implement the architecture recommended in the study within its projected budget. Whether using the architecture study estimates of funds available or NASA's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Submission for ESMD that was based on the architecture study cost estimates, there are years when NASA does not have sufficient funding to implement the architecture. NASA's current acquisition strategy for the CEV places the project at risk of significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls because it commits the government to a long-term product development effort before establishing a sound business case. NASAs accomplishments are overshadowed by its failures. The Honorable Sherwood Boehler, Chairman of the Government Accountability Office, GAO Report, July 17, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-817R Despite many successes in the exploration of space, such as landing the Pathfinder and Exploration Rovers on Mars, the loss of life, unsuccessful missions, and unforeseen cost overruns have recently increased the level of concern over the benefits of such exploration, particularly with regard to human spaceflight activities. NASA has had difficulty bringing a number of projects to completion, including several efforts to build a second generation of reusable human spaceflight vehicle to replace the space shuttle. The government fails at running an effective space program. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm Despite their outrage, the members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation made no comments during the hearing about what is probably the most damning section in the recently released Columbia accident report and for good political reasons. Had they brought it up, it would have revealed Congress' own culpability in the failure of the United States' space program during the past two decades.

25

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA funding is spent and wasted because it results in no space exploration. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm The report described how, since the 1980s, nearly $5 billion practically as much as it cost to build the original shuttle fleet had been wasted in an effort to build some form of shuttle replacement. None of the programs NASA started and that Congress had approved ever got off the ground. Most of the programs never even built usable hardware. Politicians vote to waste taxpayer money on poorly planned missions that end up failing. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23zimmerman-edit_x.htm Not much. Mindlessly, they rubber-stamped each new program. Partisanship wasn't involved in this failure of oversight. Members of both political parties willingly participated in these wastes of the taxpayers' money. The private sector can more cost-effectively build new spacecraft. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm During the same years that NASA was wasting a fortune, a handful of new American rocket companies struggled to finance their own reusable launch systems. Two companies built hardware; one, Rotary, actually completed several manned test flights. Their designs were lean and mean; their estimated combined construction costs were about the same as what NASA had spent on blueprints. Government investment destroys the market for private investment. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm When the commercial launch industry went bust and their sources of venture capital went dry, these firms offered their services to NASA as cheap shuttle alternatives. But NASA was not interested. Funding these upstart and independent projects would have meant siphoning money from NASA's bloated bureaucracy. The companies went bankrupt, and no new launch system was ever completed.

26

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

History proves that private companies can be successful at space exploration. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm Yet in the '1960s, when NASA was supposedly bold and innovative and got things done, the real work was accomplished by companies just like these, not NASA. The agency merely laid out general specifications for competing private companies, which quickly and cheaply produce new rockets, capsules and lunar landers, hoping that the government would buy their good, economical products for decades to come. But once the race to the moon was over, NASA ended this practice and, like most government agencies, instead used the money it received from Congress to fund its own ever-growing bureaucracy. Public funds are better spent investing in private firms will then invest in space exploration. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm For the United States to get a shuttle replacement soon and at a reasonable cost, it is imperative that Congress force NASA to return to its roots. Had the nearly $5 billion the government wasted in the past two decades gone instead to some of the upstart private companies struggling to build new commercial spacecraft, we might already have a shuttle replacement flying right now.

27

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Con Extensions
There is federal support for public space exploration. Kenneth Chang, "The Future of NASA? Once Again, Obama Says Nothing" New York Times, July 20, 2009, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/the-future-of-nasaonce-again-president-obama-says-nothing/ The three Apollo 11 astronauts appeared at the White House today, and just as he had at a speech at the National Academy of Sciences in April, President Obama spoke in glowing platitudes of NASAs past and said almost nothing of NASAs future. He made a brief mention of Charles Bolden, the newly confirmed NASA administrator, and Lori Garver, the new deputy administrator: We are confident that they are going to be doing everything that they can in the decade to come to continue the inspirational mission of NASA. NASA needs to lead space exploration so that the US does not have to rely on the Russians. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 The Wall Street Journal notes that the International Space Station now depends solely on Russia, the historic rival to the U.S. in the space race. The U.S. and European Space Agency will depend on Russias Soyuz for a lift. In other words, Russia has a monopoly on manned space flight. Jean-Jacques Dordain, director of the European Space Agency, is quoted as saying that the situation is uncomfortable and a collective mistake. NASA promotes American jobs. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS News notes. So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA, its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan.

28

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA is not giving up on space exploration. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, Im here to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success - and for NASA failure is not an option. Once again, we have the opportunity to raise the bar, to demonstrate what human beings can do if we are challenged and inspired to reach for something just out of our grasp but not out of our sights. NASA is recommitting itself to space exploration. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 When I hear people say - or listen to media reports - that the final Shuttle flight marks the end of U.S. human spaceflight, I have to say . . . these folks must be living on another planet. We are not ending human space flight, we are recommitting ourselves to it and taking the necessary - and difficult - steps today to ensure Americas pre-eminence in human space exploration for years to come. The private sector needs NASA to get to the International Space Station. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 American companies and their spacecraft should send our astronauts to the International Space Station, rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments. That is what this Administration is committed to, and that is what we are going to do. Along with supporting the ISS and commercial crew transportation, NASA will pursue two critical building blocks for our deep space exploration future - a deep space crew vehicle and an evolvable heavy-lift rocket. And we will make the technology investments required to begin the era of deep space exploration today.

29

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA is already further ahead of the private sector in terms of deep space exploration. Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html NASA on Tuesday announced a plan to develop a new deep space vehicle, one based on an earlier capsule concept, in order to send astronauts on expeditions to an asteroid, and then on to Mars. The spaceship, known as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), will be based on designs originally planned for the Orion spacecraft, NASA officials announced today (May 24). Orion was part of NASA's now-canceled Constellation program, which aimed to return astronauts to the moon by the 2020s. NASA is re-shifting its focus to deep space exploration. Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html President Barack Obama shut down the Constellation program last year, tasking NASA instead with sending people to an asteroid by 2025, and then to aim for crewed Mars missions by the 2030s. Modifying the Orion capsule design rather than drawing up plans for an entirely new spaceship should help make that feasible, agency officials said. "We made this choice based on the progress that's been made to date," Doug Cooke, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in Washington, D.C., told reporters today. "It made the most sense to stick with it [the Orion design]." NASA is gearing up for more ambitious space exploration. Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html Since the MPCV is based on existing designs, it won't require a radical rethink. And that thread of continuity may be welcome at NASA, which is in a period of dramatic transition. The agency's space shuttle program, for example, will draw to a close this summer after three decades of service. The shuttle Atlantis' STS-135 mission in July will be the last for NASA's workhorse orbiter fleet, which will soon be put on display in museums around the country. [Most Memorable Space Shuttle Missions] In the short term, NASA astronauts will get rides to the space station aboard Russian Soyuz vehicles. But over the long haul, Obama's vision calls for commercial American spaceships to provide this taxi service. NASA is working with and funding several private companies, such as California-based SpaceX, to help them develop these new craft. That move is intended to free NASA up for more ambitious exploration efforts.

30

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA contracts with the private sector, so the both should work together and are equally valuable. Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html Lockheed Martin Corp., NASA's prime contractor for Orion, will continue work to develop the MPCV spacecraft. So far, NASA has already invested a little more than $5 billion in the spaceship, which is pretty far along, Cooke said. For example, Lockheed has already built a full-size mock-up vehicle, called a Ground Test Article, and will soon subject it to a series of rigorous trials at a facility in Colorado. The gumdrop-shaped MPCV is about 16.5 feet (5 m) wide at its base and weighs about 23 tons. The space capsule will have a pressurized volume of 690 cubic feet (20 cubic meters), with 316 cubic feet (9 cubic m) of habitable space, according to an official description. It's designed to carry four astronauts at a time and return to Earth with splashdowns in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. The spacecraft will be NASA's primary vehicle for delivering astronauts to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit, such as asteroids or Mars. Such journeys would take months, and the four astronauts won't be cooped up in the cramped MPCV the entire time. Rather, the capsule will meet up with some type of habitation module in space, making the trip much more comfortable. NASA is handing off travel to the space station to the private sector. This shows that the private sector is always a step behind the public sector. Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html "The NASA Authorization Act lays out a clear path forward for us by handing off transportation to the International Space Station to our private sector partners, so we can focus on deep space exploration," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement. "As we aggressively continue our work on a heavy lift launch vehicle, we are moving forward with an existing contract to keep development of our new crew vehicle on track."

31

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

History proves that NASAs exploration is necessary for opening up markets for the private sector. NASA, NASA Invests in Private Sector Space Flight with SpaceX, Rocketplane-Kistler, August 18, 2006, http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html NASA expects that purchasing commercial space transportation services will be more economical than developing government systems of comparable capability. This could free up additional resources for lunar missions and other activities beyond low-Earth orbit. The biggest benefit of the anticipated cost savings is the opening of new markets for an emerging industry, according to Lindenmoyer. "If we had cost-effective access, many new markets -- biotechnology, microgravity research, industrial parks in space, manufacturing, tourism -- could start to open. That's what is so important about this effort." The president is capable of cutting back over-expenditures in NASA. The problem is self-correcting. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html The Obama administration concluded the Constellation program, which has cost taxpayers more than $9 billion so far, "was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies," according to a budget summary. "Using a broad range of criteria, an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA's program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era...was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives." Deferring to the private sector costs the government millions more, and all that money is going to the Russians, not back into the private sector for US economic development. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html In a startling break with the past, the Obama administration ordered NASA to focus on a new initiative that would effectively outsource manned flight, turning to private industry to design and develop the rockets and spacecraft needed to carry U.S. astronauts to and from the space station. Between the shuttle's retirement and the emergence of a new manned rocket system, U.S., European, Japanese, and Canadian astronauts will be forced to hitch rides on Russian Soyuz rockets at more than $50 million a ticket.

32

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

There is no timeframe for private commercial development. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html Other companies are in the process of developing new spacecraft to carry supplies to the space station after the shuttle's retirement. But it remains to be seen how long it might take any of the commercial interests to develop, test, and deploy a manned rocket system. The private sector is not controlled or overseen by NASA. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html It also is not yet clear what sort of control and oversight NASA will have in the new commercial arena, whether astronauts will remain government employees or private contractors, or how the agency's decades of operational experience might be leveraged by commercial operators. The private sector will lack necessary safety measures. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html Bolden and Garver provided no details into how the new program will be executed, but Bolden insisted safety will remain a top priority. "NASA will set standards and processes to ensure that these commercially built and operated crew vehicles are safe," he said. "No one cares about safety more than I. I flew on the space shuttle four times. I lost friends in the two space shuttle tragedies. The government can refocus its missions and rely on technological developments in the private sector. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1 Not only do these ideas need study and encouragement (and seed funding), but their context as private company contributions to a national vision needs to be harnessed and used. That is happening in Earth orbit in communications, navigation, remote sensing, and, now, in transportation. We can do that beyond Earth orbit, tooit just requires government investment to be refocused from the rocket to nowhere to missions to somewhere.

33

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

The public sector has to provide incentives for the private sector to even go to space. This means that it is best if the public sector proceeds because the private sector lacks the will to do so without economic incentives. Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps? Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race As funding shrinks, the government will likely provide incentives and guidance for private enterprise fixed on space, similar to its role in regulating and encouraging other industries, said Marco Caceres, an analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace research firm. Caceres said he's looking toward commercial space tourism, rather than government programs, to seed future space exploration. NASA has the institutional experience and capabilities that are not yet available in the private sector. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html What is fuelling this libertarian streak in the space advocacy community? For starters, NASA has been struggling to get the Shuttle returned to flight, while small private ventures like Rutan's success with SpaceShipOne in 2004 have generated excitement in a way the Vision for Space Exploration has not. It should be noted, however, that advocates continue to lobby Congress to support the Vision, partially out of loyalty, partially from an understanding that NASA can still do things that smaller operators like Scaled Composites or SpaceX cannot do--yet. Conventional wisdom supports that NASA must lead the way before private investment can get off the ground. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html The conventional wisdom among the NASA/prime contractor community is that government has to plow the way first, and then businesses can take over--a sentiment that was echoed by both John Eldon Vice President and Program Manager, for Boeing's Constellation program and NASA's Deputy Director Shana Dale.

34

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA has opened up doors for private investment, thus the public sector should stay ahead of the private sector. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html NASA has also opened up its development process to private and academic innovation by sponsoring the Centennial Challenges, echoing the prizes that built early aviation and, of course, the X-Prize. The latest Centennial Challenge--the Lunar Lander Analog--will be administered by the X-Prize Foundation in October of this year. That Challenge will occur during the X-Prize Cup in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where Diamandis and company will be presiding over the latest round of suborbital tourist hopefuls as well as rocket-powered aircraft races. The State of New Mexico itself has passed legislation to build a $225 million spaceport to provide a base for space tourism companies when they finally open for business. With multiple private events like this happening, it is hard for advocates to repress the belief that privately funded spaceflight is just around the corner. Both sectors will inevitably have to work with each other. But the public sector will be the one that needs to do the more advanced missions first. Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html Once the Shuttle is retired and CEV begins operations, advocates and entrepreneurs will most likely see a mixed space economy: one where government does the more difficult activities, like flying first to the Moon and Mars, while the private sector--both the aerospace giants and the newcomers--slowly builds a respectable commercial presence in Earth orbit. As Jim Muncy put it, "He (Griffin) doesn't want to need us, but NASA can't do it all." Government space exploration will be needed to promote international peace. European Space Agency, The Future of European Space Exploration TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LONG-TERM STRATEGY, Executive Report 2005 On a global scale, space exploration provides a visible and unifying challenge to humanity and offers opportunities for broad international engagement and participation. It can contribute to global societal security through sharing of knowledge, international cooperation and economic development.

35

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

NASA is dedicated to gender equality. Irene Vitale , NASA Promotes Science and Technology For Girls, March 21, 2007, http://www.girlstalk.com/blog/2011/03/22/nasa-promotes-science-and-technology-forgirls/ NASA wants to inspire the next generation of women to pursue careers in aeronautics and space exploration. They recently gave 200 female elementary and high school students in the Washington D.C. area a chance to interact with astronaut Tracy Caldwell Dyson, who just returned from a six-month stay aboard the international space station. Dyson shared her experiences on the orbiting laboratory and talked about who inspired her to become an astronaut: Teacher in Space Christa McAuliffe, who died in the space shuttle Challenger in 1986. Also on hand were NASA aerospace education specialist Trena Ferrell, who joined a panel of other women working in NASAs science and technology arena. Women have made tremendous contributions to NASA over the years, says NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, who hosted the event. Theyve been astronauts, scientists, engineers, program managers, and served in many other capacities. We have an obligation to reach out to the next generation and inspire todays girls to pursue science and technology careers. NASAs new missions will inspire youth. Catalina Camia, reporter, Obama promotes new NASA plans, USA Today, April 15, 2010, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/04/obama-promotesnew-nasa-plans/1 "Exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation," he said. "If we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future." He said that by 2025 he expects U.S. astronauts to reach an asteroid for the first time, and then to orbit Mars by the 2030s. Obama's message was unmistakable: He wants the U.S. to be thinking beyond a return to the moon. The president has been criticized for his decision to abandon a manned mission to the moon, which was an idea of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Obama candidly told the crowd of about 200 NASA workers, politicians and guests that "we've been there" already and that NASA's sights should be trained higher and farther. NASAs plans will substantially expand human space exploration, we should not leave this just to the private sector alone. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html "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 in a steady stream of firsts," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters. "And imagine all of this being done collaboratively with nations around the world. That is what the president's plan for NASA will enable, once we develop the new capabilities to make it a reality."

36

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Pro Blocks
A/T: Federal Government Supports NASA 1. This does not matter. Just because our federal official support something does not mean that it is true. Our federal officials once supported slavery; this does not make slavery preferable. 2. The public sector has failed and public officials have given up. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1 The space station was built, but the visionary long-range programs have all faltered. They failed to create any political resonance. The situation is now worse than ever with no one on a national stage advocating human space exploration goals. The Administration seems to have given up, and Congress is focused only on special interests.

37

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Pro Blocks
A/T: NASA Ahead of the Private Sector 1. This just isnt true. NASAs technology isnt sophisticated enough to do many manned missions. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_310445227-239.html The only U.S. rockets currently flying that are powerful enough to step into the roll of crew transport in the near term are the Boeing-built Delta 4 and Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 boosters used to launch military, scientific, and commercial satellites. Neither family of rockets is certified to carry humans. 2. If NASA is ahead its only because the government has maintained a monopoly on space exploration and excluded private companies. This is a reason why the public sector is worse; it is more anti-competitive than the private sector could possibly be.

38

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Pro Blocks
A/T: Private sector viable only because of NASA 1. This is not true. Private companies are just now becoming rich enough to invest in space exploration. For example, Googles economic growth as allowed it to sponsor its own space race. 2. This does not mean that NASA is still viable. NASA had a good legacy up until we landed on the moon. After that, NASA has been irrelevant.

39

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Pro Blocks
A/T: Space is humanitys common heritage. 1. If this were true, then efforts at the International Space Station should have been more successful. Rather, nations are still engaged in a space race. 2. But even assuming space is humanitys common heritage, our governments certainly arent getting us there. Rather, they are standing in the way of us recognizing and benefiting from humanitys common heritage and thus we should turn to the private sector.

40

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Con Blocks
A/T No Federal Support 1. Even if this is true, our argument is that there should be more federal support and public investment. Just because there might be little federal support, this does not mean that things should be that way. 2. Their argument is wrong: There is federal support for public space exploration. Kenneth Chang, "The Future of NASA? Once Again, Obama Says Nothing" New York Times, July 20, 2009, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/the-future-of-nasaonce-again-president-obama-says-nothing/ The three Apollo 11 astronauts appeared at the White House today, and just as he had at a speech at the National Academy of Sciences in April, President Obama spoke in glowing platitudes of NASAs past and said almost nothing of NASAs future. He made a brief mention of Charles Bolden, the newly confirmed NASA administrator, and Lori Garver, the new deputy administrator: We are confident that they are going to be doing everything that they can in the decade to come to continue the inspirational mission of NASA.

41

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Con Blocks
A/T NASA is dying away.

1. This is because NASA lacks funding. We are arguing that NASA needs more funding. 2. NASA promotes American jobs. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS News notes. So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA, its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan.

42

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Con Blocks
A/T Private sector is better for the economy.

1. This does not mean that the private sectors investment will get us any further into space. 2. NASA also promotes American jobs. Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323 The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS News notes. So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA, its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan.

43

The Forensics Files October

The PFD File Space

Con Blocks
A/T Public Spending

Public spending on public space exploration goes to technological development and opening up of private markets. It is not spent just so NASA astronauts can visit space. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html Over that same five years, some $7.8 billion will be earmarked for new technology development, including autonomous rendezvous, orbital fuel transfer systems, and closed-loop life support systems. Another $3.1 billion will support development of new propulsion technologies needed by future heavy-lift rockets. And $3 billion will go to pay for a series of robotic missions to the moon and beyond to test systems needed for eventual manned flights.

44

The Forensics Files October PRO CASE #1 PREFLOW Private sector investment in human space exploration provides for the most economical way to promote space exploration

The PFD File Space

CI: Private commercial space launch will boost economic competition, open up new jobs, and reduce the cost of human space exploration. William Harwood, 2010 C2: Private investment is better because it budgets its resources better. Lou Friedman, 2011

C3 Private companies are developing ideas for space exploration. Lou Friedman 2011

45

The Forensics Files October PRO CASE #2 PREFLOW Private sector is the better investor CI: NASA has had several missions that have been paid for, but failed. Robert Zimmerman 2004

The PFD File Space

CII: the public sector is risk averse because it is tied to public sentiments. Thus, private investment is better because only the companies bear the costs of their failures. Bart Leahy 2006 CIII: Public investment trades off with other resources needed for the public. The European Space Agency 2005

46

The Forensics Files October CON CASE #1 PREFLOW NASA has more promise than any individual company in the private sector

The PFD File Space

CI: NASA is better for deep space exploration, it is only handing off loworbit development to private firms. Larry Dignan 2011 CII: NASA is handing off travel to the space station to the private sector. This shows that the private sector is always a step behind the public sector. Mike Wall, 2011

CIII: preferring private investment over government investment would destroy national identity and US competitiveness in the space exploration market. William Harwood 2010

47

The Forensics Files October CON CASE #2 PREFLOW The public sector is necessary to the private sector, but the converse is not true CI: The private sector is only making advancements because of public funding. NASA 2006

The PFD File Space

CII: The private sector is only following NASA. Prior to NASAs help to the private sector, the private sector was not exploring space. NASA continues CIII: Relying on the private sector destroys governments capabilities by deferring to private industries. William Harwood 2010

48