Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2k6

THE BACKFILE

Extensions: CapitalismlFree Markets Key To Space
Capitalism is key to space
Space.com in '01 (Robert Roy, Science Writer, "The Top 3 Reasons to Colonize Space ", October 8, http:/lwww.space.comlmissionlaunches/colonize~why~O11008-4,htmI) But ultimately, many scientists say, finding signs of life on Mars might require human missions. The gargantuan cost of sending people to Mars, however, has prevented any firm plans from taking shape. Meanwhile, many space enthusiasts have given up hope that NASA will get us there. They think the economics of human space flight will be driven bv capitalism rather than science. Sid Goldstein thinks any effort to get a Kmart on Mars should also help cure social, environmental and economic woes back home. Yet he worries that if some decisions aren't made quickly to put humans permanentlv in space, we may never qo. "I believe that humans livina independently in space will be achievable in 10 to 15 vears, but only if we are serious,"Goldstein says. And he's got some ideas about how to get serious.

Free markets are key to space exploration - only they provide incentives
Garmona in '05 (Robert, Capitalism Magazine, "Privatize Space Exploration", July 22, http:llwww.capmag.com/article.asp?lD=4327)
As NASA scrambles to make Ihe July 31 windaw forthe troubled hunch of space sbnle Discovery,we S ~ O U M recall

thanthebaundaryofouierspace: Two yearsago, a Bush Administration panel on space explorationrecommendedthat NASA increasethe role of private conlraclors In the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfonunately, it appears unlkely that NASA will considerthe true free-marketsolution for America's ex~ensive soace oroaram. com~lete . ~rivatization. . There is a conIradictionat the heart of the space program:

the first privatelv funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, whch over a yearago shatleredmore it desfroved forever the myth that space exploration can onlv be done by the qovernment.

Space e ~ p l ~ r a t ias the,grandest of man's technobgiil advancements, l e q ~ i the kind of bold innovation possible 0nlv to minds ~n ~e~ left free to pursue the best of their creative thinkinq and iudoment, Yet, by fuMing the space program through taxation, we necessarilyplace it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all

overthe past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program IS a political anmal. marked by shifting, inconsistenl, and illdefined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintainedto please clashing special inlereslgroups, not to do a clearly defined lab for which there was an economicandtechnical need. The shunle was lo launch satellies tor the Department ol Defenseand private contractors--whichcould be done more cheaply by lightweight,d~sposable rockets. It was to carry scienlik experiments--whichcould be dane more elficintly by unmanned vehicles. But one "need came before all technical Issues: NASA's poltical need for showy manned vehcles. The result, as great atechnical achievement as it is. was an over-sized,over-complicated,over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing 4 1 . Indeed, the space shuttle programwas supposed to be phasedoul years ago, but the search for l s replacement has been halted, iagely because space contraclors enjoy coneclingon the overpriced shunle wiihoul the expense and bolher of researchingcheapw ailematives. A private industry could have fired them-but not so In a government proled, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf. There is reason to believe that the politicalnature of the space programmay have wen been directly responsiblefor the Columbia disaster. Fox News reportedthat NASA chose to stick wilh non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rackets, despae evaence mal this type olfoam causes up to eleven tlmes as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-basedfoam. Although NASA was exempled irom the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalistsbelieve causes ozone depletion,and desple the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have beentr~vial, space agency elected lo slick with the pollically correclfoam. the It IS impossibleto integrale the contradictory. To whatever exlent an englneer is forced to base his dectslons,nol on the realires of science but on the arbiirary, unpredictable,and offen bnpossrble demands of a politicizedsystem, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoklableconsequence of governmentalcontrol over sclentdic researchand development

Nor would it be difficult to sDur the ~rivate exploration of space--it's been happening, quietlv, for vears. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for, illst as it now does with traditional aircraft. commercialsatelYe launchesare now routine,and could easily befully privatized. The x Prize. which SpaceShipOnem,offered incentives
for private groups to break out of the Earth'satmosphere ~ ua11 private exploration is hobbled by thecrucialabsenceofasystem ofpropeny i m t s in space, Ima~line t this the incentive to a profit-mindedbusiness if, for instance, it Were qranted the right to any stellar bodv it reached and exploited. We often hear that the most ambitious proiects can only be undertaken bv qovernment, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-makinq steos--and freed from the unavoidable politicizinqof qovernment-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 industrv, it will onlv be bv unleashinq the creative force of free and rational minds. The creative minds that allowed SpaceShipOne to soar to triumph have made the first private steps toward the stars. Before them 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 minds, as onlv the free market can do.

HeidtlKeenanlPetersonlSilber

Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2 k6

THE BACKFILE

MarketslPrivate Business Kev To Space
Market expansion and funding are key to space transport and exploration
Space Access Societv Feburan, 2006 ("SAS's View oSThings, As Of 2115/06," http://www.space-access.org/updatcs/saspc~lcy.h~m1)

Why Do Wc Bclievc This Is Possible? Current US launch costs are dominated by large I'ixcd develovment. personnel, and facilities overheads amortized over a very small number of launches. plus the direct and indircct cosls ol' throwing awav or completely rebuilding the vchiclc every flight. These are all legacies oC the way we originally pol into spacc, hiring small armies to inspect-in adequate qualily to hastily-converted ballistic nlissiles. Fifty years later. we've institutionalized thcse methods into massive selfperpetuating bureaucracies rather than abandoning them as obsolete. Somewhat counterintuitively. fuel costs are not a major obstacle to radically cheapcr space launch. Current US launch costs are on the order of ten thousand dollars per pound delivered to low orbit. The total propellant cost for a generic liquid-oxygen/keroscnc launcher is on the rough order of ten dollars per pound delivered to low orbit. Airlines, flying reusable vchicles at high flight rates, typically operate at overall costs of two to three times their fuel costs. There is no law of physics that prevents reusable rockets from v because of fifty years of entrenched approaching similar cost ratios. We ~ a the crippling current cost of US launch lar~clv bureaucratic bad habits. OK, How Do We Go About Fixing This? We believe that radicallv cheaper access is possible in the near term with current tcchnologv, by operating reusable rockets with sufficiently lean organizations at sufficiently high Flight rates. Rocketry has become more medium-tech than high, as witness (among other things) growing third-world missile proliferation. At the same timc, modern lightweight materials and electronics greatly ease combining the necessary high performance, ability to abort intact in casc of problems, and fast-turnaround small-groundcrew reusabilily. This lets us break away from the traditional expendable-missile "ammunition" design and "standing army" operalions mindsets, with potential huge benefits to cost and reliability. What's been lacking to date has been the proper combination of reasonable goals (it's DC-3 time, not 747), sensible focussed management, inspired engineering (KISS!),.and fundinn. Much depends on a lcap 01faith - faith jn the studies that show large new markets emergin0 at lower launch cos~s support the necessarv higher flight rates - "if you build it, thev will come". to Market studies do strongly indicate that somewhere around one-tenth of current US launch costs, the market for space launch will reach a tipping point where demand for launches slarls expanding fast enough to more than makc up for reduced pcr-launch revenue. The overall launch market will start growing rapidly at that point, as investment in further launch cost reductions changes Krom a leap of faith to a sure thine. Further cost reductions will drivc furlher market expansion, to the point where the space transport market will rapidly begin to approach the air transport market in economic im~orlancc.[At least two such new markets, tourism and post revolution-in-military-affairs defense, are already growing steadily less speculalive. The chief thing we can predict about the other new markis that will appear as costs drop is that they'll surprisc us. Who would have predicted in 1952 that, say, fresh flowers would be profitably airfreighted across oceans?) Our Major Goal Our maior goal at Space Access Society is to help bootstrap space transportation costs downward to the poinl where' this virtuous circle nets underway. We see this as the approach to humanity vermanently expanding off this planet with by far the best chance of success. Government prosams come and go, but if there's profit in a thing it's here to stay.

Government control will fail -private markets are key to space , US Representative and former presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, 1988(Ron, "Space-Domestic & P
Paper." http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.spacc-dom.html)
Evenworse,

Policy, Position

this failed state m o n o ~ ois~ i now wrecking businesses toavoidwelldeservedembarassment. American companies desperately need to Pet their satellites into Space. They have been blockedfrom usingthe cheapest. mosl reliable launcher h the world which unforluneatelyhappns to be the Soviet Prolon. NASA has cost our nationa ful twenty years in spacedevelopment, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an exlent that may wel be ineparable. If is inconceivable that a private fhm could have committed such follies and survived. NASAdesewsnobeHer our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. w e must recopize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be burled as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the miMary, and the rest of NASA Should be sold to private operators. The reciepts wwld be applied to the nalimal debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed. It is not the business of the defense department oiafree society to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. m e interests of liberty WOUM be
well served by a bevy of mediasats that will put any iuture IranGontraaffair under the full ghre of live television coverage. Maybe, besidescompetition. that'swhat our government is afraid &There is realty only one proper role lor the millaw in

the new frontier 01' Space should be opened to all. Space pioneers willsenerate knowledge and wealth n that will improve the lot of all people O earth. We should not k t governmentget in their way. Our governmentis not only shoesighted in it'snegolilions on space issues, it's downright anti-american.
spa~oronEarth.IheprotectionofAmerica.Othe~se,
Sometimes it's hard to decide whose principles the State Departmentis defendmg.They certainlyaren't those of our FoundingFathers.

Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2k6

THE BACKFILE

MarketslPrivate Business Kev To Space

m,US Representative and former presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, 1988(Ron, "Space-International
Paper," http://www.islandonc.or~Pc~litics/LP.space-int.html)

Unrestrained business development will open up the solar system to exploration and commerce

Policy, Position

About the only anti-property trcary this countrv hasn't ratified is the odious "Moon Treaty", written by our own State Department. If not for an alert group of citizens (L5 Society), the United States would have ratified this treaty under Presiden~ Carter and embraced control ol'all thc rest of creation by a World Government. Under "the common heritage of all mankind" space would be the heritage of no one. The vast wealth of resources and energy in our solar system would remain untapped instead of being explored by entrepreneurs who would improve thc condition of all humanity. It's time this sick treaty is repudiated once and for all. We must also demand a revision or understanding to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty so individual property rights are recognized. IT there are no implimenting protocols for property rights within a specified time limit we should withdraw from the treaty entirely. In any case, we should immediately open a land office and accept claims of Americans to specific pieces of land, subjcct to occupancy within 15 years. Back in the late 1950's a project callcd Orion seriously considered using small nuclear explosions to power a spacecraft. The lifting capacity would have been vast, measured in thousands of tons instead of the miniscule abilities of today's mightiest rockets. This brute-force approach was simple enough to be considered feasible 30 years ago. Unfortuneately, the idea was shelved by thc 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. If we truly wish to see the opening of the space fiontier, we must not prevent businesses from working on futuristic ideas like fusion drives or matter-antimatter engines. Such technologies will one day open the solar system to commerce the way the clipper ship opened the oceans in the 19th century.

Central planning -government can't get us into space
Davidson. President of the Houston Space Society and member of the Atlantis Project," 1995(Jim, "Frcedom Needs Frontiers," January 1995, http://www.islandone.orplPolicy~heFutureWeWant.html) What I didn't realize at the time, and what many space activists still do not accept. is that our desires werc never reflected in the space program. Most of us felt that the way to make space settlement a reality was to support the government space program. We were encouraged in this view by Congressional staffers, aerospace industry leaders. and others involved in the complex of organizations surrounding NASA. Many still feel this way. We were wrong. Frontiers are not opened by aovernments. They are not opened by centrally planned cfforts. They are opened chaoticallv. bv the motives that can drive tens of thousands of people, by self-interest, by tens of thousands of different ideas of what is possible and desirable. Governments did not build clipper ships, railroads, covered wagons, riverboats, or any of the instruments that opened frontiers to settlement. Governments at best encouraged certain lines of inquiry. So supporting government space development was never very productive and in many ways counterproductivc.

Private commercial efforts are crucial for the colonization of space--government programs won't be sufficient
Davidson, President of the Houston Space Society and member of the Atlantis Project," 1995{Jim, "The Future We Want," June 1995,

http://www.islandone.org/Policy/TheFutureWeWant.html)
And in 1988, our inlcrests were completely betrayed. We, who want people to live and work in space. would have benefited enormously from the private efforts of Space Industries to develou a commercial man-tended space dalform. Funds were allocated for that project to provide an anchor tenant. Four Senators led an effort to kill it. And the leadership of one of the largest space activist groups chose lo Icl it die. We have all seen the subsequent events. NASA is now threatened not bv battlcs for funding allocation, but by the loss of its arch-rival and the end of the Cold War. Thc spacc station has been transformed so many times that it makes some of us weep, but it seems to be on the path to completion. The NASA space science program fell into disarray with Galileo and Mars Observer (and Hubblc), and had already pissed away half the science of the Ulysses mission by not requesting funds for the Solar Polar Probe. Perhaps that space science program will be fixed with the call for Fastcr, Cheaper, Better. But we have all lost an incredible amount of time. All of the momentum of Apollo is gone. in 1970, we were going to the Moon. In 1995, this country is going into Earth orbit. Then we dreamed of going on to Mars. with hundreds living in Earth orbit and dozens living on the Moon. Today we dream of keeping the flame lit, we hear about "next logical stcps," and we wonder why no one shares our dreams. What conclusions can we draw? Several spring to mind: Large government proiects create bureaucratic infrastructure. Bureaucracies fight for their own survival and guard their turf. Large vro!ects lack the many robust characteristics of small projects. Governmcni projects tend to grow. Until we demonstrate that ordinary people can net into space, very few will pay attention to us.

Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2 k6

THE BACKFILE

MarketslPrivate Business Kev To Space
Business development is key to space exploration and settlement-government programs won't generate enough will or resources
The Space Review 2005 (Stephen Ashworth, "The mission. the business. and the tandeni (part I)," January 3 1. htlp://www.thespacereview.con~drticle/31211)
Political will, however, is not the only relevant factor. For those who advocate the business or privalc enterprise model ol' spacctlinht, the future of humans in sDace does not hclong to official astronauts. wearing national flags on their shoulders and flying special government missions for science and technology. Rather it is one whose spacecraft simply carry crew and passengers on scheduled services, open LO all who can pay, tlying into and through space in pursuit of goals defined by those passengers. The current official attitude to exploration of the Moon and Mars clcarly leans towards spacc as holy ground. not to be defilcd by the masses or debased by an activity as mundane as making money. On the space agency model, a mission is affordable if its costs are covered by the budget of a program acceptable to politician and taxpayer. But on the business model, affordability is sought in terms of - matching thc revenue from passengers and cargo to the costs ol' operating a spacecraft plus a reasonable profit margin, in the same way as for any other commercial transport system-airliner. business jet, ship, railway, coach, bus, rental car, hot-air balloon. Again, on the space agency model, space infrastructure remains a mvernrnent monopoly for the foreseeable future, to be used only by a handful of spacc agency employees and occasional special guests, after years of training.JBu1 on the business model, the ownership of space infrastructure should be as diverse as the ownership of ships and aircraft, ports and harbors. on, say. the transatlantic route, queue up along with everyone else when they want to and used by increasing numbers of private citizens. Space agency en~ployees purchase a ticket. What, after all, are humans doing in space? There is an ideological question here: should one accept the views of those who bclieve that the human race is "destroying" Earth and must not be allowed to damage other planets? Their view is summed up in the motto: "Take only photos, leave only footprints." They are appalled by the mindsct that would bulldoze the Moon's craters flat, crash comets onto its surrace to provide volatiles, build a tlashy visitor center and attract uncomprehending visitors by the of millions, to use our natural satellite as a playground and drop litter on its ancient plains. Thc hope that the continuous ap~lication sizeable government space budgets will lead incrementally and inevitably to permanent extralerrestrial settlements is verv much a hostage to fortune. The goal of making it possible for adventurous spirits to live permanently away Crorn Earth, exploiting the vast untapped resources of space, is therehre at cross-purposes with another goal: that of keeping such people out of space, and allowing only scientific explorers access to the rest of the solar system. Those who would use thc asteroids, moons and planets to mine raw materials and build a holel, a frontier settlement, a thrivinz city, have first to run the gauntlet of those who demand that the extraterrestrial universe must be kept in pristjnc condition: uncontaminated, unpolluted, undeveloped, and uninhabited by anyonc but the purest-minded of scientific hermits. The current oflkial attitude to exploration of the Moon and Mars clearly leans towards space as holy ground. not to be defiled by the masses or debased by an activity as mundane as making money. They do not often say this explicitly, but it is implicit in every effort they make to drive up the cost of access and discourage entrepreneurs.

-

Block, professor and chair of economics, college of business administration, at Loyola University, 2000 (Waltcr, "Free Market Economies: Reply to Dwight Murphey," http://www.mises.or~~~ournals/scholarlWalter3.PDF)

Human innovation of the free market will develop space travel and colonization

Either human wants are without limit or they are not. There is no third possibility which is not a combination of these two. Let us. then, consider cach of these scenarios in turn. First, by far the more realistic one: human desires are without end. If this is true, we mav in our mind's eye compose a list, an infinitely long ledger of goals. This would include everything from more artistic and cultural development, to a cure for all diseases, to infinite life, to exceeding the speed of light, to exploring the ocean depths and the core of the earth, to creating new species, to engaging in intcr galactic travel and colonization. At any given time. the number of human and beings. their skills and effort. our technolo~v capital savings limits how far down on this "wish list" wc mav reach9. Every time a new innovation occurs, this is not the occasion for luddite gnashing of teeth; instead, we reioice. The economy does not become more "workerlcss"; rather, we are enabled to move a little hit further down the inventory ol'things we want but do not have. Labor is no longer nceded to do things the new technology (e-g., robotics) can now accomplish for us; instead it is freed up to engage in tasks which will garner for us that which was previously unobtainable. And this process continues ad infiniturn, given our assumption of endless desires.

Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2k6

THE BACKFILE

MarketslPrivate Business Kev To Space
Private market participation is key to space exploration, colonization, and development
Ashworth, journalist and Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society, && I(Stephen, The Space Review, "The mission, the business, and the tandem (part 2),"January 31, http:llwww.thespacereview.cornlarticle/316/1)
And so il was that no Chinese junk floaled in on the hde todisturb the sleep of the burghers of London, Portsmouth.Hamburg. Venice. Lsbon. Cadi, or Amsterdam. When globalitaion began In earnest, it was carried like a virus in the holds of Portuguese Spanish, Dutch. English,and French caravels, seeking gold. spices, slaves, silks, tea, cotton, and many other profi!ably tradablegaods. There is a lesson here for the 'multiglobafzation" of the future. It should be clear that me mosl immlant function of humans h soace-4he most signlicant one on a hiitorlcal timescale-w~ll be our use of extraleirestrialresourcesfor economic

nowth.

can only be founded on lhc dynamism and discipline of the market. It needs the markct's broad base, restinp as it does on the demand of the whole people, not iusl thc dreams of a visionary elite. The transformalion of societv from a regional to a global level of organization (say I~WZWO),w fromaglobal toa rmlt~globallevel (likev to beMe br3 themeof 2000-zs00), Cannot bc decreed from above. It must take place as an evolutionary, system-level &nomenon. one in which all Darts of society play a role. butwherenosmglepartsucwedsinwntrolllngme outcome Otherwise it will not be carried through to completion, but remaln a falled propct, a grandlose dream-perhaps one whose successes are later doubted, as some people now doubt whether
Ihe Apollo astronauts ever really walked on the Moon, pefiaps even one whose acnievementsare cornoletelyforgolien fnr haf a millenn~um more or This is nut to deny tne value of vislon. ot @vemment :eadersh~pMany voyages of pure explomlon were nEessaly beforethe mules to the Easf hdles M the West indies were able to returr a profit The aueston :Pat
IS crucbl for

L~nkmgpublicandpwatespace Interplanetary civilization

Me futuw yroulll

Space exuloration is like the vanguard of an armv, advancing into hostile territorv, commercial business is like that army's supplv train, generating new wealth faster than the vanguard can consume it. If the vanguard gets too far ahead of the supply train, it will run short of food, fuel and ammunition. It will suffer dekal and be forced into retreat. ThisiswhalhappenedtotheMhgtreasurejunksandtoApoUo. It is what threatens to befall A P O ~ ~ O ' S successors: m ~ m e r ~ cNASA'sVisionforSpace Exploraiion;in Europe,ESA'sAuromprogram.Iproposethat the kev to both affordability and sustainabilitv is to a, ensure that the supply traina~ances step with the vanguard. h ather words. wherever astronaut explorers go, entreureneurs. induslrialists, adventure tourists. and, in uHirralely, coloni~ts are never fXbehind. The solar system o f e n us a graded sequenceo i problems,Tke a giant staircasestretdrlngout towards the stars: suborbitalspace hops, low Earth orbit high orbit, lunar &by.
lunar landing. asteroid visits, Mars, and so on. Each step has greater energy and Me-support demands than the preceding one. On the space agency model, after govemment explorers have scaled each of these steps, il remalns subsequenny under the exclusive control of the agencies. They are unwillingto relinquish poweror propelty rights to the market. Private enterprise must be kept penned h on E a W r maybe, if it isvety, vely good, it will be allowed to cany out one or two very simple commerccalactidies in space. but only after many decades more of government research. The modeithat i am offeringhere is quite diierent. When hones are hamessed in tandem, or when cyclists tide in tandem, this means that the two are harnessed,or st, one directly behindthe other. They travel together. Like the vanguard and the supplytrain. whereoneleads,theoMerirnmedlatelyfollows. This

of our own civiluabonis therefore this: what k the correct reiatmship betweenthe space agency and private enterprise? How can the space mission and the space business work together, eflicientlyand creatively? If

relationship between the public vanguard, flying missions of exploration. and the urivate s u p ~ l v train. flying businesses into space, is what is necessary to achieve the goals of an affordable and sustainable space frontier. They must move together in tandem. Mfollowsthal each step of the cosnlic staircase should be colonized bv the market before the next steu is visited by human explorers. Agency astronauts should not be permitted to fly a~inbeyondlowEarthorbit until regular c o m e r c i a ] access tolowbrlh&it has heen assured. They should no1 fly bevond the Moon until commercial access to the Moon has been assured. The space agencv should alwavs he in the position of ~ i v i n g helping hand up to the entrepreneur, rather than making excuses: space is too expensive, too a dan~erous, ortoohagileforany butourhigh~-tminedastronaulstodaretoventureoutthere! agency nrograms of manned spaceflight are to achieve the reasonable goal 11' of making a permanent addition to the material wealth of mankind, theagenciesthemselvesneedto bedrasticallyr e f m d . They must be motivated to work with spacc entrepreneurs. rather than ignore or even actively frustrate them. as they have been doing in recent years. They must be farced to gve UP their natural
tendenciesto nmnapolizehuman spaceflightand to suppress innovation.

Private sector and market developments are key to sustainable space exploration and colonization
Foust, editor and publisher of The Space Review and Space Politics, November 2005 (Jeff, The Space Review, "Exploiting the Moon and saving the Earth," http:Ilwww.thespacereview.comlarticlel490/1) To achieve an affordable and sustainable exploration vision, Worden believes, "the private sector must play not just a role, but a dominant role." The government, Worden believes, is best fit for providinq the infrastructure needed for kmar exoloration, whathecalledtheLroa&andcommodes"itprovideson Ea*."That'sa
funMlon that governments do really well," he said. "It doesn'ttake a W of imagination bui it does take persistence." For the Moon, that lnfrastructurecomes m several forms, including communicatians. PNT (position, navjgation, and timing, provided (maps and other remotesensmg techniques), and power. on Earth by GPS),"situahonalawarenessU transcontinental railroad burfl in the US in the 1860s:it was built privately.financed by the large landgrants given to the builders by the government. Galileo system. a public-privateparhership,as "a move m the right diredion".

Even here there is a role for the private sector. One model for inffastructure buiMng. Worden noted, is the "With privafe ownership YOU Can finance iust about

anvthinq," he noted. The secondapproach is government-fundedandoperatedinfmstrvcture, such as GPS. However. Worden believes GPS hasn't reachedits lull potentiat because there is no private ownership; he sees Europe's That lnfrastructure,once in place, opens up a number of possible uses of the Moon, includinq options for the private sector usuallv associated only if h the qovernment. One example is astronomy: while normally linked wah govemmenteffolts funded by NASA and NSF. Worden noted that many terrestrial telescopes, even some of Me large nexl-generationtebscopes under
development,are Privately fundedto the tune of $500 million to $1 billion.A large liquid-minor telescope on the Mwn, 20 to 30 meters m diameter,could stare at one point in the sky and see objects as dim as magnitude 37 or 3&faim enough to look back to just 100 miillon years aner the Big Bang. Such a lelescope could cost about $t to 2 billion--wkhm the budgets of private financiers4 "significant infrastructure^to support the observatory is jn place. (Worden has been studying the developmentof such a telescope undera grantfrorn the NASA Insliiutr for Advanced Concepts.)

Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2 k6

THE BACKFILE

Extensions #8: Growth Key To Space
Growth is inevitable and will be key to future space colonization
Hanson, associate professor of economics at George Mason University,= http:llhanson.gmu,eduiwildideas.html) (Robin, "Fourteen Wild Ideas," October 18,

This claim is on this list not because of the usual concerns like nuclear war, ecological collapse, or bounded resources, but because so manv wild claims seem plausible if we lonq continue our economic, technical, or spatialimaterial growth. Two percent growth two thousand times is 1017, for example. So either this claim is likely, or several others on this list are. Alas, the most likely no-grow scenario seems to be obliteration. Our descendants will colonize millions of star systems within ten thousand years or so. If our qrowth does not stop, it must continue. And it cannot continue this long without enablina and encouraqina massive space colonization. Spatiallmaterial qrowth requires it, technical growth enables it, and economic qrowth induces technical qrowth.

Economic growth and sustainability are key to space colonization-colonies wilt need to be self-sufficient for adequate survival Hanson, Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University, 2001 (Robin, "Dreams of Autarky," September,
http:llhanson.gmu.eduldreamautarky. html) Visions of space colonization have dominated science fiction, and the public imaaination about the future, for a century. And on time-scales of thousands or tens of thousands of years, it seems clear that familiar qrowth rates will completelv saturate our planet, and so anv substantial orowth then must occur off planet. But for half a century rnanv futurists have been convinced that massive space colonization was onlv a decade or two They convinced the public to support huge government space programs in an effort to jumpstart a space colonization effort analogous to the way European governments helped Europeans to colonize the Americas a few centuries ago. For the foreseeable future, however, the relation between svace and Earth will be nothina like the relation between Europe and the Americas a few centuries aao. Farming communities back then were largely self-sufficient,and the American environment was similar enough to the European environment to allow farming technologies to be easily transferred. And substantial colonization didn't occur until the cost of moving from Europe to the new world was comparable to the cost of moving within Europe. Todav the costs of transporting material to and from orbit are much larqer than the costs of movinn material around on Earth, and few Earth technoloqies transfer easilv to space. Those who imaqine space colonization anytime soon have thus had to imaqine space economies almost entirely self-sufficient in mass and energy. While bits could be exchanged in great numbers with Earth, a space colonv could onlv import a tiny fraction of its ~hvsical inputs from Earth. This stands in sharp contrast to even the most isolated existing Earth economies, which share an atmosphere and biosphere with the rest of us, and import and export much more mass. It would be easier to create self-sufficient colonies under the sea, or in Antartica, yet there seems to be little prospect of or interest in doing so anytime soon. Spacecraft to create colonies around other stars require far more self-sufficiencv packaaed into a much smaller mass.

Growth is crucial to mastery of space
Zev in 94 (Michael - Ph.D in sociology, executive director of the Expansionary Institute - "Seizing the Future," p. 86-88)

In the MacroindustrialEra, the species will obliterate the restraints on human qrowth and expand human capabilities to a deqree never before achieved. Nothing better personifies this process than humanity's exploration and eventual masterv of outer space. On the day that we, humanity, lifted off the ground in a machine of our own design and manufacture, we changed our relationship to the planet and the universe forever. In demonstratingthat gravity would no longer restrict our freedom of movement, we declared this basic law of nature null and void. We also proclaimed that from that day forward the planets and the stars would now permanentlv be included in our travel plans. Zev continues.. . As the Macroindustrial Era unfolds, it will become evident that nations, corporations, and individuals are sheddinq this self-doubt and increasinqly directinq their enerav to a myriad of activities whose ultimate purpose is the translocation of man and machine to distant spheres and unknown qalaxies. What compels the human species to risk life and limb, time and money, to leave this planet and explore mysterious worlds?

Michigan 7 Week Juniors 2k6

THE BACKFILE

Extensions: Population Growth Key To Space
Population growth is key to space
Bainbridae in '01 (William Sims, Ph.D., "The Spaceflight Revolution Revisited, May 8, http:/lmysite.verizon.net~wsbainbridgeldl/spacerevisit.htm) Some sav that the pressure of population qrowth on Earth will force humanitv to colonize other worlds. Perhaps the most plausible version of this scenario was suggested in Kim Stanley Robinson's series of novels about terraforming Mars: The rich rulinq classes miqht want to develop Mars as a home for themselves when Earth becomes unendurablv overpopulated.[l6]

OVERCROWDING ON EARTH WILL FORCE OUR DESCENDANTS INTO OUTER SPAACE SHOSTAK, SET1 INSTITUTE, 2006
[SETH, WHY WE MUST FLEE THE PLANET, http:/lwww.space.com/searchforlife1060629~seti~thursday.html]

Such fanciful extrapolations are unrealistic, but so is the opposite extreme: to assume that, after 300 thousand Vears of increase, the number of humans will stabilize and staqnate, not iust for a while, but forever. More room is surelv needed, unless you can picture our proqenv endlesslv stuck on a sinale planet, fiqhtinq for space and hustlinq for the dwindlinq natural resources. That scenario seems so fanciful, so airy-fairy, we have no choice but to heed the siren call of other solar system habitats. However, even the best of these (Mars) wilt be difficult to terraform, and offers only a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Another well-known phvsicist. Dvson, weiqhed in on this issue vears-aqo, and suqaested that the small bodies of our solar svstem-asteroids and perhaps the diminutive worlds of the Kuiper Belt--could be choice future real estate. These obiects, like the planets, are approximatelv round, but beinq small they eniov a hiqher ratio of surface area to volume. All the asteroids toqether weiqh onlv as much as Earth, but these hunkv chunks of junk still sport ten thousand times as much square footaqe as our world. Dvson reckons that our descendants will migrate to where land is abundant.

re em an

HeidtlKeenan/Peterson/Silber