Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

***Prizes Mechanism***........................................................................................................................................3 1NC Prizes Shell......................................................................................................................................................3 XT—Prizes Solve (1/4)............................................................................................................................................4 Prizes Solve—SPS...................................................................................................................................................8 Prizes Solve—Mars.................................................................................................................................................9 2NC AT: Perm – Do the CP..................................................................................................................................10 2NC AT: Links to Politics.....................................................................................................................................11 ***Property Rights Mechanism***.......................................................................................................................12 1NC – Property Rights CP.....................................................................................................................................12 XT – Property Rights Solve ..................................................................................................................................14 Space Settlement Prize Act Key – Government Fails...........................................................................................15 Property Rights Key—Space Commercialization ................................................................................................................................................................................16 Property Rights Solve—Colonization ...................................................................................................................18 Property Rights Solve—Space Debris...................................................................................................................19 Property Rights Solve—International Law............................................................................................................20 Property Rights Solve—Economy.........................................................................................................................21 2NC AT: Government First/Delay Perm ..............................................................................................................22 ***Tax Incentives Mechanism***........................................................................................................................23 1NC – Tax Incentives CP......................................................................................................................................23 2NC Tax Incentives Solve ....................................................................................................................................24 2NC Tax Solvency Extensions..............................................................................................................................25 2NC AT: Links to Politics ....................................................................................................................................26 2NC AT: Links to Spending .................................................................................................................................27 1NC – Liability Insurance CP................................................................................................................................28 2NC – Liability Insurance Incentives Solve..........................................................................................................30 ***Generic Privatization Solvency***..................................................................................................................31 1NC Privatization Solves.......................................................................................................................................31 2NC Solvency – Privatization Better than NASA.................................................................................................32 2NC Solvency – Now Key.....................................................................................................................................37 XT – Privatization Solves .....................................................................................................................................38 CP Solves—Better than NASA.............................................................................................................................40 ***Specific Missions***.......................................................................................................................................42 CP Solves—Asteroids ...........................................................................................................................................42 CP Solves—Constellation .....................................................................................................................................43 CP Solves—Exploration........................................................................................................................................44 CP Solves—SPS....................................................................................................................................................45 CP Solves—SPS—AT: Private Industry Lacks Tech............................................................................................47 CP Solves—Colonization......................................................................................................................................48 CP Solves—Moon Colonization/Mining...............................................................................................................49 CP Solves—Moon Colonization............................................................................................................................50 CP Solves—Moon Exploration..............................................................................................................................51 CP Solves—Mars...................................................................................................................................................52 CP Solves—Mars—AT: No Interest in Mission...................................................................................................53 CP Solves—ISS.....................................................................................................................................................54 CP Solves—Helium-3 Mining...............................................................................................................................55

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

1

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—Lunar Mining.....................................................................................................................................56 CP Solves—Space Tourism...................................................................................................................................57 CP Solves—Space Research..................................................................................................................................58 CP Solves—Military Satellites..............................................................................................................................59 CP Solves—Weather Satellites..............................................................................................................................60 ***Advantage Areas***........................................................................................................................................61 CP Solves—Aerospace Industry............................................................................................................................61 CP Solves—Beating China....................................................................................................................................62 CP Solves—Competitiveness................................................................................................................................64 CP Solves—Economy ...........................................................................................................................................65 CP Solves—Innovation .........................................................................................................................................66 CP Solves—International Cooperation..................................................................................................................67 CP Solves—Public Support...................................................................................................................................68 CP Solves—Readiness...........................................................................................................................................69 CP Solves—Space Leadership...............................................................................................................................70 CP Solves—STEM................................................................................................................................................72 CP Solves—Earth Sciences...................................................................................................................................73 CP Solves—Space Shuttle.....................................................................................................................................74 ***AT: Aff Arguments***....................................................................................................................................75 AT: No Private Capacity........................................................................................................................................75 AT: It’s Illegal........................................................................................................................................................78 AT: DA’s to Privatization......................................................................................................................................79 ***Net Benefits***...............................................................................................................................................83 1NC – Politics Net Benefit ...................................................................................................................................83 2NC – CP Avoids Politics......................................................................................................................................84 2NC – More Popular than NASA..........................................................................................................................86 1NC – Spending Net Benefit ................................................................................................................................87 2NC – CP Avoids Spending..................................................................................................................................88 1NC Soft Power Net Benefit .................................................................................................................................91 2NC DSCOVR Net Benefit...................................................................................................................................95 ***AFF***............................................................................................................................................................97 AFF – No Private Industry Exists..........................................................................................................................97 AFF – Privatization Fails.......................................................................................................................................98 AFF – Privatization Kills Jobs, Heg ..............................................................................................................................................................................100 AFF – Privatization Bad......................................................................................................................................101 AFF – NASA Key................................................................................................................................................102 AFF – CP Links to Politics..................................................................................................................................103 AFF – CP Links to Spending...............................................................................................................................104 AFF – CP Doesn’t Solve Leadership...................................................................................................................105 AFF – SPS – Privatization=Normal Means.........................................................................................................106 AFF – Lunar Mining – Fed Key..........................................................................................................................107

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

2

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

***Prizes Mechanism*** 1NC Prizes Shell
The United States Federal Government should substantial monetary prizes for [insert mechanism of the plan]. Prizes solve development better than USFG—private sector takes the risk, USFG takes the benefit Stine, 09 – [Deborah D. Stine, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy, June 29, 2009, Federally Funded Innovation
Inducement Prizes, Page 19] In addition, NASA states that “Centennial Challenge competitions have spurred the creation of new businesses and products, including innovations in pressure suit gloves and reusable rocket engines.”54NASA makes the following assessment of the Centennial Challenge competitions: Prize programs encourage diverse participation and multiple solution paths. A measure of diversity is seen in the geographic distribution of participants (from Hawaii to Maine) that reaches far beyond the locales of the NASA Centers and major aerospace industries. The participating teams have included individual inventors, small startup companies, and university students and professors. An example of multiple solution paths was seen in the Regolith Excavation Challenge. NASA can typically afford one or two working prototypes but at this Challenge event, sixteen different working prototypes were demonstrated for the NASA technologists. All of these prototypes were developed at no cost to the government. The return on investment with prizes is high as NASA expends no funds unless the accomplishment is demonstrated. NASA provides only the prize money and the administration of the competitions is done at no cost to NASA by non-profit allied organizations. For the Lunar Lander Challenge, twelve private teams spent nearly 70,000 hours and the equivalent of $12 million trying to win $2 million in prize money. Prizes also focus public attention on NASA programs and generate interest in science and engineering. During the recent Lunar Lander Challenge, a live webcast had over 45,000 viewers and over 100,000 subsequent downloads. Prizes also create new businesses and new partners for NASA. The winner of the 2007 Astronaut Glove Challenge started a new business to manufacture pressure suit gloves. Armadillo Aerospace began a partnership with NASA related to the reusable rocket engine that they developed for the Lunar Lander Challenge, and they also sell the engine commercially.

10 million dollar prizes solve: precedent, expert consensus President’s Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy, 04 (The Commission is made up of
a number of industry and government members, viewable in Appendix D of the liked document, 06/4/04, gd, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.pdf) Prizes. The Commission heard testimony from a variety of sources commenting on the value of prizes for the achievement of technology breakthroughs. Examples of the success of such an approach include the Orteig Prize, collected by Charles Lindbergh for his solo flight to Europe, and the current X-Prize for human suborbital flight. It is estimated that over $400 million has been invested in developing technology by the X-Prize competitors that will vie for a $10 million prize – a 40 to 1 payoff for technology. The Commission strongly supports the Centennial Challenge program recently established by NASA. This program provides up to $50 million in any given fiscal year for the payment of cash prizes for advancement of space or aeronautical technologies, with no single prize in excess of $10 million without the approval of the NASA Administrator. The focus of cash prizes should be on The Commission recommends NASA aggressively use its contractual authority to reach broadly into the commercial and nonprofit communities to bring the best ideas, technologies, and management tools into the accomplishment of exploration goals. A space industry capable of contributing to economic growth, producing new products through the creation of new knowledge and leading the world in invention and innovation, will be a national treasure. Such an industry will rely upon proven players with aerospace capabilities, but increasingly should encourage entrepreneurial activity. maturing the enabling technologies associated with the vision. NASA should expand its Centennial prize program to encourage entrepreneurs and risk-takers to undertake major space missions. Given the complexity and challenges of the new vision, the Commission suggests that a more substantial prize might be appropriate to accelerate the development of enabling technologies. As an example of a particularly challenging prize concept, $100 million to $1 billion could be offered to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to Earth. The Commission suggests that more substantial prize programs be considered and, if found appropriate, NASA should work with the Congress to develop how the funding for such a prize would be provided

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

3

and make accessible to all individuals cars. which also might serve a defense function. Only private entrepreneurs can improve quality. gd." Unfortunately. Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services. to facilitate a strong private space sector. For example. airline trips. is the editor of the Cato Institute book.if it is still worth flying. The federal government used such an approach for aircraft before World War II. speaking of the American values of "daring. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week. prizes solve Hudgins 04. If the government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and resources or other such functions.and the Western investors who were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir space station before the Russian government brought it down for political reasons. export licensing and remove other barriers to entrepreneurs. Contracting with private pilots with private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 1930s. at 10 times its original budget. NASA can be a rentpaying station tenant. and sooner rather than later. Hudgins. Dana Rohrabacher proposes a "Zero Gravity. bring down the prices. "Great! It's about time NASA stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best. if necessary -. they could be turned over to other agencies. NASA should partner with consortia of universities. 1/28/04. Zero Tax" plan that would remove an unnecessary burden from "out-of-this-world risk-takers. Instead. neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. if a certain technology is needed for a moon mission. http://www. a few hundred miles up in orbit. In announcing NASA's new mission.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT—Prizes Solve (1/4) NASA has failed the US—Private Exploration is needed.php?pub_id=2514 The reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent moon base and a trip to Mars is. NASA could offer a cash prize for any party that can deliver it. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion. Further. would be an obvious candidate. NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. ingenuity. director of The Objectivist Center." NASA will also need to do business in new. there have been about four per year. The United Space Alliance. Rep. house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. The station might be turned over to international partners or. If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars. and perhaps conducting some basic research. computers. President Bush echoed such sentiments. Even if the federal government foots the bill for a moon base. Let a private owner fly it for paying customers-including NASA. Rather. Creating enterprise zones in orbit would help make up for government errors of the past. to the mostly private Russian rocket company. Edward L. there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space station. innovative ways. traveling to another world. the government needs to further deregulate launches. to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station. Thus. NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets. it should not own it. NASA centers that drive up its overall budget but do not directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. Thus.cato. NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. the Internet. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 4 . instead. NASA also should give up the money-draining space station. the shuttle should be given away to private owners. the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights." But after the triumphs of Apollo. modeled after private prizes that helped promote civil aviation. discipline. Space: The FreeMarket Frontier. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power. Worse. private foundations and even businesses that are interested in advancing human knowledge and commercial activities.org/pub_display. such as EPA and Interior Department. This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector. its price tag will be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three." and "the spirit of discovery. Energia -. decades behind schedule. will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the moon. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. which helped the emerging civil aviation sector. better still. which would handle transportation to and from low Earth orbit. you name it. If need be. NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch services with private companies.

Centennial Challenges has divided its competitions into four categories: Flagship.esa.pdf True support for the burgeoning commercial human spaceflight industry would significantly limit the amount of government intervention in the infant marketplace. or near-monopsonistic government domination of demand and capital markets swamp free market signals. Alliance Challenges are smaller versions of Keystone Challenges with purse values in the hundreds of thousands. a master's degree in Security Policy Studies and a master's degree in Political Science from The George Washington University.S. the MoonROx Challenge.int/Conferences/ILC2005/Manuscripts/DavidianK-01-DOC. the X PRIZE) and the government (i. Marshall Institute. such as carrying three people to the ISS orbit and demonstrating the ability to rendezvous and dock with another space object. A 1999 report from the National Academy of Engineering. the best approach may be to follow the XPrize model and create an award for the first company that meets certain very simple mission goals. This differs from the COTS program in that the goal of COTS is to meet NASA-unique requirements for access to the space station. Eric R. lest the distortions created by real-. including: the Tether Challenge. Area Studies and International Studies with School Honors from The American University. Quest Challenges focus on outreach and education for the general public of all ages.pdf Prize competitions throughout history have proven to be cost-effective and efficient means to stimulate technology development in a variety of socially beneficial areas..R. mandating considerably less government oversight. gd.S. served on the Committee on Science in the U. it would reduce government financial risk by withholding cash until a winner had actually earned the prize.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT—Prizes Solve (2/4) Prizes solve—reduces risk.e. Within the first year of its creation. At the same time. U. Centennial Challenges has announced a number of competitions. Prizes Solve – Price. (The FAA would still be involved to regulate safety of passengers and the public. gd. Speed. Such an approach would theoretically reduce the cost of private capital by improving the possible returns on an investment. These factors. House of Representatives. Keystone Challenges focus on simple systems or individual technologies with purses in the ones of millions.e. and the Astronaut Glove Challenge.S. In the long run. Policy and Planning and Acting Chief of Strategic Communications at NASA. Flagship Challenges encompass entire missions or systems with purses in the tens of millions of dollars. the Vision for Space Exploration.marshall. Empirics Davidian 05. Keystone. space policy. Sterner is a policy analyst at the George C.S.S. Director of Operations for NASA. Review and study of these prize programs has been adopted by NASA to stimulate technology development for the U. House of Representatives. served as the lead policy staffer for the Committee on Armed Services in the U. MS Mechanical Engineering from Case Western. plus the influence of prize activities in the private sector (i. previously asst. Ken Davidian is the director of Research at the FAA. http://www. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 5 . the DARPA Grand Challenge). and the Aldridge Commission report all encouraged the participation of private industry in the fulfillment of NASA’s missions. 09/05. government. served as Associate Deputy Administrator.org/pdf/materials/798. and Quest. Alliance. whereas the prize program’s goal is to foster private sector innovation for its own sake. encouraged NASA to create the Centennial Challenges program. the Beam Power Challenge. where he worked on all major space-related received a bachelor of arts degree in Russian/U.S. http://sci2. which requires intensive government oversight. April 2010. allows private sector growth Sterner 10.

Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT—Prizes solve (3/4) Prizes Solve – empirics – Contest Design checks back your solvency deficits Davis and Davis 04. To return to Kremer’s analysis of the vaccine proposal. grants. depending on the nature of the contest design. Whirlpool’s development of ExacTrack benefited the utilities sponsoring SERP. the prize for energy efficient refrigerators is valuable for what it demonstrates about the use of incentives to achieve the most efficient prize outcome (if not for its successful commercialization). https://download. http://www. A biotech firm that wins a widely recognised prize for a anti-AIDS vaccine might reap many millions in saved marketing costs and extra sales. our findings demonstrate a need to investigate more closely the spillover and reputation signaling effects from prize activities. and technology deployment toward specific societal ends. The early aviation contests stimulated the innovation of bigger and better aircraft. Erich Bloch and his colleagues are members of the Steering Committee for the Workshop to Assess the potential for promoting technological advance through Government-Sponsored Prizes and Contests. What areas of future investigation are suggested by these results? First of all. and the optimal design of federal R&D programs. gd. Through designing contests aimed at noncore R&D activities. Thus prizes have important positive externalities for their sponsors. even should the prize never be awarded. prizes signal a “sponsor profile” to the world at large. At present the U. procurement contracts. Dupont reaped sufficient reputational gains from the Gossamer Albatross that it backed MacCready’s later solar powered aircraft. and provided inputs into military and space programs.nap. submitted and peer reviewed to the national Academy of Engineering. For one thing. most privately sponsored. For another.dk/conferences/summer2004/papers/ds2004-114 The prize systems in our cases represent a variety of motivations and outcomes. as fledgling firms competed to achieve ever increasing performance goals (thus a prize to cross the English Channel was followed fifteen years later with a prize for the first trans-Atlantic flight). the recent history of inducement prizes. Finally. Such a strategy might not yield significant R&D savings. a firm can draw on outside resources while reducing internal R&D overheads. not only for the vaccine concerned but for other products also identified with the prize winning firm. gd.druid. and international air service. suggest that it may make sense for the federal government to make more extensive use of explicit inducement prizes to advance research. A major theme in the technology management literature concerns the puzzle of how utilise scarce R&D resources to maximise corporate R&D returns. The prizes for human-powered flight provided no immediate commercial gain. Jerome Davis is affiliated with Dalhousie University. However. but. Thus prizes contributed to the development of two huge industries: aircraft manufacture. paper was published for the 2004 DRUID conference. in a sense "outsourcing" R&D. federal government makes very little use of inducement prizes in science and technology. give the firm’s R&D managers access24 to a wealth of informative material which otherwise might not be obtainable.php?record_id=9724 The steering committee recommends that Congress encourage federal agencies to experiment more extensively with inducement prize contests in science and technology— competitions designed to foster progress toward or achievement of a specific objective by offering a named prize or award—as a complement to their existing portfolio of science and technology policy instruments. 04/30/99. This literature ignores the possibilities for augmenting existing R&D efforts with prize contests. but did stimulate related innovation in environmentally friendly technologies. XT—Prizes Solve (3/4) Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 6 . prizes promote innovative activities of sponsor interest and divert societal resources towards these ends. Lee Davis is a professor at the Copenhagen Buisness School. and a growing body of research on contests.S. 06/14/04.edu/catalog. the marketing costs of new drugs can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Free Market combined with Prizes spurs innovation Bloch et al 99. technology development.

Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT—Prizes Solve(4/4) Prizes stimulate a “spectrum” of innovation Bloch et all 99.php?record_id=9724 Inducement prize contests may be used to pursue many different objectives—scientific. where appropriate. 04/30/99. the more it demands to be broken into achievable.We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government. the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. it should be time-limited. technology deployment and diffusion. submitted and peer reviewed to the national Academy of Engineering. to promote the development and diffusion of specific technologies. Prizes solve—Create incentive for innovation Garmong 04 Robert Garmong writes for the Ann Ryand Institute. prize contests can be designed to stimulate effort across the spectrum of research and innovation efforts. technological and societal. prize contest rules should be seen as transparent. and consider using a variety of contest models. and for reducing political influence. The so-called X Prize. Commercial satellite launches are now routine. The design of any such experiment should include mechanisms for appropriating prize money. credible funding mechanisms for agencies to sponsor and/or fund such contests. Erich Bloch and his colleagues are members of the Steering Committee for the Workshop to Assess the potential for promoting technological advance through Government-Sponsored Prizes and Contests. Imagine the incentive to a profit-minded business if. simple. including contests that are funded and administered by agencies.nap. Moreover.D in philosophy in 2002 at UT-Austin. including basic research.capitalismmagazine. for which SpaceShipOne is competing. and unbiased. http://www. but in fact the opposite is true. quietly. 06/27/04. fair. the steering committee believes they might be used profitably to identify new or unorthodox ideas or approaches to particular challenges. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 7 .edu/catalog. just as it now does with traditional aircraft. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry. gd. Finally. Congress should consider providing explicit statutory authority and. Contest rewards should be commensurate with the effort required and goals sought.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-marketsolution-for-america-039-s-space-program. Teaches philosophy at Texas A&M. for years. America must unleash its best engineering minds. it were granted the right to any stellar body it reached and exploited.html Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space--it's been happening. Before us are enormous technical difficulties. The more ambitious a project is. and the use of prizes and contests should be evaluated at specified intervals by the agencies involved to determine their effectiveness and impact. and managerial/organizational innovation. as only the free market can do. if such a policy experiment is initiated. Ph. profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. In particular. offers incentive for private groups to break out of the Earth's atmosphere. Congress and federal agencies should approach contest structures and administration flexibly. it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds. and could easily be fully privatized. Moreover. contests that are initiated and administered by agencies yet privately funded. technology development. to address intractable or neglected societal challenges. To solve them. for flexibly distributing intellectual property rights. to demonstrate the feasibility or potential of particular technologies. and contests that are initiated by agencies but privately funded and administered. To encourage agencies to experiment with inducement prize contests. or to educate the public about the excitement and usefulness of research and innovation. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for. gd.But all this private exploration is hobbled by the crucial absence of a system of property rights in space.We have now made the first steps toward the stars. for instance. https://download.

“Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”.5 many of the writers of these reports have contributed valuable feedback. These must be compared and the most practical and viable.nss. It should consist of interested parties from a wide variety of industries who are committed to helping to make SBSP a reality. space stations and other technologies should be consulted and encouraged as well as the traditional large aerospace companies.google. Appropriate prizes should be funded and publicized. thoughts and advice to this process. DKreus The private sector should be engaged. creativity and drive necessary to help make SBSP happen. Much of that has already been done for this SBSP Architecture Study and C . Areas where research is needed must be identified and funded.. October 10.pdf&ei=9fIATrqrI83IswbOsOCyDQ&usg=AFQjCNHZbOQGqRh8gMo6OtfDmotWq-XNw&sig2=MHRakSQig4ZDGoYO00OxRg) All previous work on Space‐Based Solar Power. National Security Space Office.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 8 . The private sector should be engaged. An inventory should be created of who (individuals. It should consist of interested parties from a wide variety of industries who are committed to helping to make SBSP a reality. pg c6. A board of advisors should be created. Appropriate prizes should be funded and publicized. focused upon. http://www. Debates have arisen amongst the contributors as to the value of various competing technologies. A board of advisors should be created. 10/9. The new space companies working on reusable launch. space stations and other technologies should be consulted and encouraged as well as the traditional large aerospace companies. creativity and drive necessary to help make SBSP happen. More details on the technological criteria need to be explored and tested.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=100&ved=0CE8QFjAJOFo&url=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2Ffinal-sbsp-interim-assessment-release01. Prizes for solutions to specific issues have been shown to be valuable. 7 – Acting Director.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Prizes Solve—SPS Prizes solve SPS – spurs development NSSO ’07.nss.” http://www. corporations and organizations) has the expertise related to the various areas discussed in the studies and who is actively working on the research and development needed to make SBSP a reality. National Security Space Office (Joseph D.2007. Prizes for solutions to specific issues have been shown to be valuable. Solar Power Satellites and/or Space Solar Power should be reviewed. Rouge. Both may have the vision. Both may have the vision.pdf. The new space companies working on reusable launch. “Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security.

Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Rather than build their own probes. private-sector representatives answered yes. that approach never bore any fruit. In effect. government working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise to rent to any private group that could deliver a permanent manned Moon base. who suggests that offering a $20 billion prize might be the best way to fund a manned mission to Mars. director of regulatory studies – CATO. government science agencies would set a price for certain data and allow privatesector providers to compete with one another to acquire the data in a costeffective manner that would allow them to make a profit. In 1987– 88 an interagency U. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 9 . Hudgins 2001 (Edward L. Needless to say.S.. the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and other NASA or government agencies should allow scientists to purchase data from the private sector. even if they are carried into space by private launchers. It has been revived by Zubrin. but only if NASA stayed out of the way and did not force the private providers to use the shuttle or the proposed station. as part of a builddown of NASA.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Prizes Solve—Mars Prizes solve a mission to mars. That approach was considered for one of the toughest possible projects. When asked if such a station was realistic.

submitted and peer reviewed to the national Academy of Engineering. government working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise to rent to any private group that could deliver a permanent manned Moon base. procurement contracts. gd. as part of a builddown of NASA. private-sector representatives answered yes. In effect. and a growing body of research on contests. that approach never bore any fruit. which involves a) Other funding mechanisms than CP action—this severs out of normal means funding mechanisms Normal means is not substantially prizes Bloch et al 99. and the optimal design of federal R&D programs. who suggests that offering a $20 billion prize might be the best way to fund a manned mission to Mars. and technology deployment toward specific societal ends. Any more. https://download. most privately sponsored. the recent history of inducement prizes. However.. Erich Bloch and his colleagues are members of the Steering Committee for the Workshop to Assess the potential for promoting technological advance through Government-Sponsored Prizes and Contests.php?record_id=9724 The steering committee recommends that Congress encourage federal agencies to experiment more extensively with inducement prize contests in science and technology— competitions designed to foster progress toward or achievement of a specific objective by offering a named prize or award—as a complement to their existing portfolio of science and technology policy instruments. federal government makes very little use of inducement prizes in science and technology. That approach was considered for one of the toughest possible projects. When asked if such a station was realistic. The plan funds by normal means. grants. even if they are carried into space by private launchers.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC AT: Perm – Do the CP 1) It is severance— Our President’s Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy evidence indicates that only 10mn dollars would be spend by CP action. They literally change the plan funding by twenty orders of magnitude 3) The above reasons are voters for fairness Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 10 . 04/30/99.S.edu/catalog. suggest that it may make sense for the federal government to make more extensive use of explicit inducement prizes to advance research. government science agencies would set a price for certain data and allow privatesector providers to compete with one another to acquire the data in a costeffective manner that would allow them to make a profit. At present the U. In 1987– 88 an interagency U.000 times more than 10 million Hudgins 2001 (Edward L. and they sever out of this additional funding. Current NASA prizes are 2.S. Needless to say. they still need to win that normal means is 10 million dollar prizes.nap. but only if NASA stayed out of the way and did not force the private providers to use the shuttle or the proposed station. 2) It makes plan a moving target—X-apply our Bloch and Hudgins evidence as to how plan was funded in the 1AC. b) Even if they win that normal means is ONLY prizes. the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and other NASA or government agencies should allow scientists to purchase data from the private sector. It has been revived by Zubrin. director of regulatory studies – CATO. technology development. Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Rather than build their own probes.

Another legislative initiative being pushed by ProSpace this year is the establishment of the U. 2/27. “Space Groups Lobby Congress To Support Entrepreneurs. As such. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005.000 as a way to foster creative solutions to some of the agency's technological needs. to the first nongovernmental team to conduct an orbital spaceflight with a crew. would be to promote synergy between the Air Force and entrepreneurial space firms working on so-called operationally responsive spaceflight capabilities of interest to the Pentagon. or ACES. Schlather said the purpose of the center." Schlather said. the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In early February.S. Prize competitions were featured prominently in ProSpace's 2005 "March Storm" agenda with the group urging lawmakers to give NASA authority to put up cash prizes in excess of $250. ProSpace will also be asking members of Congress to support the introduction and passage of legislation creating a new government entity called the National Space Prize Board and give it $100 million a year to sponsor prize competitions that NASA might see no reason to fund. space agency $10 million in prizemaking authority and permits the agency to put up even bigger prizes if it first gets approval from its congressional oversight committees. National Space Society Executive Director George Whitesides said he is working with the Space Exploration Alliance to organize three more lobbying blitzes this year. sent to Congress Feb. and the departments of Commerce and Transportation. seeks only $10 million for the program.org/2010/04/21/obama-champions-private-enterprise-in-space-over-bipartisan-support-for-socialist-nasaprogram/) About 40 members of the grassroots space advocacy group ProSpace are descending on Capitol Hill to promote a legislative agenda big on prize competitions and other government-backed efforts intended to foster commercial space transportation services. "You only have to look at aviation in the first half of the last century and see how government and industry worked together to advance the state of the art. ProSpace will be encouraging members of the House Armed Services Committee to include language in this year's defense authorization bill establishing the center and giving it an initial $5 million budget.com (Brian. pushing initiatives meant in one way or another to open space to the average citizen. "But I don't think you will find anyone in the space industry who doesn't think it was a huge step forward when Burt Rutan won that prize. 14 members of the National Space Society and allied groups visited 23 congressional offices over two days to urge increasing NASA's budget to the levels called for in last year's authorization bill. for example. ProSpace wants to see expanded use of prize competitions to spur space innovations. Ohio." ProSpace President Marc Schlather said. Some of these same entrepreneurial space firms also are interested in helping NASA resupply the space station once the space shuttle retires come 2010.” http://spacefrontier. ProSpace has been lobbying Congress every March for the past decade. The White House budget request. granted the U. ProSpace volunteers will also be urging lawmakers to fully fund NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) flight-demonstration effort. "Having a similar situation in spaceflight can only be advantageous. 6. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 11 .S. "It is our feeling that should the Congress fail to fund COTS at its full level then it might as well cease flying the space shuttle and the space station program because without COTS the space station program will be untenable after 2010." Schlather said the same mix of responsiveness and affordability that some of the entrepreneurial launch firms developing suborbital and orbital launch vehicles need to serve commercial markets are the same capabilities the Pentagon is trying to foster through efforts like the Falcon small launch vehicle program. Congress this year to drum up support for space initiatives. which became law late last year." The National Space Prize Board. NASA intends to spend $500 million through 2010 to help bring to market new launch services capable of delivering cargo and eventually crew to the space station. Schlather said the Space Prize Board would offer prizes of up to $250 million." he said. is not the only space enthusiasts group that is walking the halls of the U.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC AT: Links to Politics The space lobby loves the CP – prevents backlash Berger. as envisioned by ProSpace. "Centennial Challenges would not have offered the Ansari X Prize because NASA does not need a suborbital crewed spacecraft. Schlather said keeping this long-sought effort on track is critical. the group is urging lawmakers to give NASA the full $35 million the agency originally envisioned spending on the Centennial Challenges prize-competition program in 2007. ProSpace. Air Force Research Laboratory Center for Entrepreneurial Space Access. whose volunteers visited 250 lawmakers' offices last year and hope to visit at least that many again this year. which it is proposing be located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base outside Dayton.S. 06 – staff writer for space. would consist of four presidential appointees and the heads of NASA.

but also to the much. The good news is that researchers at The Space Settlement Institute have found solutions and legal precedents that address every major objection.) Official recognition by U. the companies that tried would obviously go bankrupt. which will cost billions to construct. Included in the legislation is the requirement that these companies build an Earth-Moon or Earth-Mars space line open to all paying passengers. if the proper laws were in place to enable ownership. not later after settlement has already happened. The most potentially valuable asset on the Moon and Mars is the land itself. the incentive is obviously needed now. It is obvious the government cannot. help humanity settle space . a multi-billion dollar incentive for private companies to finance and build permanent settlements on the Moon and/or Mars.but not before .S. regular commercial access. and a system of space property rights. courts will accept the settlement's claim to ownership of a substantial share of that land. This is a hugely difficult mandate and help is needed. This could begin as soon as . No company can throw billions into a project without a huge profit waiting down the line. Someday in the future.S. Enter the Space Settlement Price Act The U. gd. asteroid or Lunar mining.even if their intention were to do so. Courts of a private claim of land on the Moon or Mars (based legally on the occupation and use by a permanent settlement) would allow the settlement to sell deeds to their Lunar land back on Earth. to spark the outward push. The objective now is to find individuals with the necessary connections to bring the legislation from a draft into real law. Lunar and Martian real estate will acquire a multi-billion dollar value. repair shops. budget. This concept has come to be known as "land claims recognition". at no cost to taxpayers. needs to promise.that is the enabler for humanity's expansion into the Solar System. the rest will be up to the private sector. Constructing the missing space infrastructure . Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 12 . as real estate. or will not. (Incidentally. and in fact the burgeoning space activity should provide a big boost to certain sectors of the economy. much larger market of land speculators and investors who hope to make a profit on Lunar land deeds. worked previously at the jet propulsion Laboratory of NASA. One reason the legislation is not on their radar screen.org/space-settlement-prize-act.space-settlement-institute. The settlement company could sell to those who intend to book passage on the settlement's ships and use their land. One thing has become very clear in the last 30 years. leaving Earth. the text is from a non-peer-reviewed website. However. space tourism.html The Space Settlement Prize Act is a draft law proposed by The Space Settlement Institute that would create. Not one dime is required from the U. however. At best. Space Settlement Prize Act provides costless framework for private development—Government Fails Infeld et all 11. Infeld is affiliated with the Space Settlement Institute. Samantha Infeld is a Phd in Systems Optimization from Stanford. now. Building Space Infrastructure Is the Key The problem continues to be that there have been proposed no conceivable ventures in space that would return billions of dollars in any reasonable timeframe.only it would be a lot harder to get to. is the contentious nature of the international space laws that currently exist. For the space frontier to be opened in our lifetimes. that when and if anyone succeeds in establishing a permanent. The Space Settlement Prize Act would cost politicians nothing at all to pass. The only way to interest investors in building space settlements is to make doing so very profitable. themselves. http://www.S. privately funded space settlement and space line.S. There is actually one asset in space that could produce a multi-billion dollar return for investors. NASA may help us get there. private enterprise must begin to invest heavily in space development very soon. But without the existing space infrastructure. MS in Aeronautics from Stanford. and rest stops on the Earth-Moon and Earth-Mars superhighways . Even if they could convince investors to do it. the same incentive would also apply to asteroids and any other object on which a permanent space settlement could be built. supply depots. building a hotel on the Moon right now would be like building a hotel in the Sahara Desert . without ever. and so on will one day be viable businesses. Space solar power. 2006.the actual settlement and space line was built. U. Dr.the gas stations.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***Property Rights Mechanism*** 1NC – Property Rights CP Counterplan Text: The United States Federal government should pass the Space Settlement Prize Act. once there is a true permanent settlement.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 13 . will be very expensive and will probably require financing from private as well as public sources. Finally. speaking at the Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space conference. This article proposes a regime of real property rights which would provide an element of legal certainty and incentive for private ventures. “Real Property Rights in Outer Space”. The concept of real property rights is intimately tied to the sovereignty which nation states exercise over territory.shtml. Even those countries which do not have launch capability would benefit from a property regime. Selling property rights for living or business space on the habitat would be one way of obtaining private financing. that states exercise jurisdiction over space objects and personnel. in some cases even requires. most nations have not signed or ratified the Moon Treaty. Private law condominiums would seem to be a particularly apt financing model -. Space habitats. for example. Why Real Property Rights are Necessary The 1967 Outer Space Treaty[1] does not provide a positive regime for the governance of space development. A development regime which provides some form of property rights will become increasingly necessary as space develops. This author therefore proposes a form of property rights which would not require states to establish territorial sovereignty. if private companies begin building subsidiary facilities around space stations. and habitation in outer space. but that regime prohibits real property rights. 1997.spacefuture. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits states from establishing territorial sovereignty.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC – Property Rights Mechanism A property right regime will be beneficial for everyone – solves the case Wayne N. private entities will begin to appropriate resources and in-habit outer space. Professionals foresee an integrated system of solar power generation.inhabitants could hold title to their living space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance of common areas. while remaining within the jurisdictional limitations set forth in the Outer Space Treaty. In the midst of this complexity. knowing that other nations would respect their right to remain at a given location. JPW Introduction At some point in the future. Settlers and developers would also be reassured. Initially. and other orbits with unique characteristics may become scarce in the future. and owners will want to protect the proximity value of their facility location. orbital industrialization. Eventually large public facilities will become the hub of private space development. It also seems likely that at some point national governments and/or private companies will clash over the right to exploit a given mineral deposit. http://www. Investors and settlers could predict the outcome of a conflict with greater certainty by analogizing to terrestrial property law. Such conflicts may arise sooner than we expect. the right to maintain a facility in a given location relative to another space object may create conflict. lunar and asteroidal mining. For that and other reasons. Existing inter-national law provides limited legal protection and little incentive for investment in outer space. The 1979 MoonTreaty[2] provides a regime for development. the geosynchronous orbit is already crowded with satellites. White.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space. A regime of real property rights would provide legal and political certainty. The institution of real property is the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resource of location value. Private entities from the developing nations could obtain property rights by purchasing obsolete facilities from foreign entities that are more technologically advanced. but authorizes and. such activities will be risky and expensive. Attorney.

Property rights would resolve uncertainty about legality of certain activities. business plans. Sam Dinkin is a columnist and the CEO of SpaceShot.I have been beating the drum for Lunar property rights for nearly a year. 04/18/05. In addition to real estate.thespacereview. This would allow them to benefit from providing transportation to the Moon the way land grants to railroad companies facilitated the building of the trans-American railroad. if not a renewed emphasis on private alternatives to NASA transportation and services.The price of establishing property rights is low. then very little regulatory effort is warranted. mineral rights.) Establishing Lunar property rights would accomplish several things:A market price would be established.Lunar property rights can predate settlement by decades and still be very effective at coordinating R&D. Inc. a market price for acreage on the Moon would provide a barometer of how far away settlement is and how viable and valuable it would be.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT – Property Rights Solve Property Incentives Solve—Empirics. many of the following should be auctioned also: spectrum rights. Establish international coordination. gd. 2004. The benefit may be high. at least at the Apollo sites and the poles. and government policy. air space (space space?) and the Lagrange points. (See “Property rights and space commercialization”.Lunar property rights would bootstrap a default industrial policy that would allow industrialists to buy up lunar property rights if they are cheap.The property rights should have no residence or build-out requirements but they should be subject to eminent domain of FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. then more legal efforts are warranted.The price of establishing property rights is low. http://www. investment. If the price is bid up to show that settlement is impending. Like inflation-indexed bonds. The Space Review. which would make it more likely for business to participate jointly with government in exploration and colonization efforts. The benefit may be high. to establish a Lunar property rights regime. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 14 .com/article/358/1 3. If the price of Lunar acreage is zero. with a threat of unilateral action by a certain date. May 10. Tech spillover Dinkin 4.

" Among other things. the text is from a non-peer-reviewed website. Private venture capital will support such expensive and risky research and development ONLY if success could mean a multibillion dollar profit.000 square km. or put their name on a crater. decides not to contest . Unfortunately. but there will be a much bigger speculative and investment market. taxes.spacesettlement. recognition to help raise the venture capital to develop the ships needed to make the claim. Infeld is affiliated with the Space Settlement Institute. recognized by the U.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Space Settlement Prize Act Key – Government Fails Space Settlement Prize Act MAKES money. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 15 . So Lunar land deeds. under this plan.It will be offered for sale after months of worldwide press coverage produced by the race to be the first to settle the Moon.the product that has always rewarded those who paid for human expansion: land ownershipLunar and Martian real estate is currently worthless. etc.In the mid 1960's. raising billions of dollars. But that real estate will acquire enormous value after there is a settlement. the treaty says nothing against private property. But that could be changed! The legislation proposed on this web site would:save NASA and the taxpayers the cost of developing affordable space transport by allowing private enterprise to assume the burden of settling spacemake it possible for ordinary people to purchase tickets and visit the Moon as tourists. but would be worth almost 100 billion dollars at only $260 an acre (4047 square meters). There will be land buyers with business purposes for buying and using land. so the Budget Office will score this legislation as a revenue producer. there is no profit potential in developing space transport. could recognize land claims made by private companies. they might claim ownership of the Moon. if that let the Russians win the race to the Moon. regardless of nationality. He feared that. might be much more by then. just "recognizes" .and re-sell to those back home on Earth -.000 square miles. How? By making it possible for a settlement to claim and own -. gd.S. Neither Congress nor the taxpayers wants the government stuck with that expense. space settlement will not happen soon enough for any of us to see it. and the U. the U. 2006. or entrepreneurscreate vast wealth from what is now utterly worthlessSpace development has almost stopped.and the U. Entrepreneurs could use that promise of U. it seems clear that. reliable.The profits on land sales which take place in the U.) would be only around 4% of the Moon's surface. of course. but we have the power to change that. The settlement itself says "because we are the first to actually occupy this unowned land. can be offered for sale only after there is a transport system going back and forth often enough to support a settlement and the land is actually accessible.The proposed legislation would commit the U. USFG fails Infeld et all 11. not pie in the sky. what became known as the 1967 "Outer Space Treaty. primarily because no one has a sufficient reason to spend the billions of dollars needed to develop safe.600. Some in hopes of making a profit. negotiated.S. wouldn't be "granting" or giving the land to anyone. It will finally be understood to be land in the sky. as things stand now. Today. http://www. So he proposed. quite deliberately. This is a plan to be sure that money is used as an incentive and reward for those who invest in a way to get there and stay there. President Johnson saw he was going to be forced to take money from the space race to fund the Vietnam War.The dollar value of a Lunar land claim will only become big enough to be profitable when people can actually get to the land. that establish human settlements on the Moon or Mars. about the size of Alaska (just under 1.'s to give. others just to be part of the excitement or to leave an acre to their grandchildren.S. Dr. and a system of space property rights. be subject to U. energizing our society.S. regular commercial access. especially the best land. It isn't the U.S. affordable transport between the Earth and the Moon. to granting that recognition if those who have established settlements meet specified conditions.S. worked previously at the jet propulsion Laboratory of NASA.the settlement's claim of private ownership.S.S. At $500 an acre it would be worth $192 billion. a claim of 600. but there is growing sentiment for extending private property and the benefits of free enterprise to space. solves treaty conflicts. to attract and reward whatever companies can be the first to assemble and risk enough capital and talent to establish a "space line" and lunar settlement. The U. Therefore no nation can claim or "grant" land in outer space. MS in Aeronautics from Stanford. Therefore.We have the power to create a "pot of gold" waiting on the Moon. but there is an amazingly large amount of land out there waiting to be claimed. providing room and resources for the growth of the human race without despoiling the Earth.It would take a really large land claim to be worth that huge investment. acquiesces to. such as offering to sell passage on their ships to anyone willing to pay a fair price. WE claim ownership of it" .accepts. Samantha Infeld is a Phd in Systems Optimization from Stanford. Senate ratified. It sounds strange because we haven't done it yet. this treaty prohibits any claims of national sovereignty on the Moon or Mars.But. will. and creating a lifeboat for humanity that could survive even a planet-wide catastrophe.S.S. For example. scientists. Many people who will never leave Earth will buy Lunar land. of course.S. Lunar or Martian property ownership could then be bought and sold back on earth.org/ The settlement of space would benefit all of humanity by opening a new frontier. Of course the price of the land. without claiming sovereignty. not a cost to the U.

which prohibits claims of national sovereignty on any extraterrestrial body. as it implied that space resources should be commonly owned by all nations." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 16 . In a potentially groundbreaking article on space property rights.com/cgi-bin/article. “Final frontier for lawyers – property rights in space”. They fear such dreams might be stillborn if the legal niceties -. as long as they obey a "use it or lose it" provision: If they abandon the industry. whose article.pdf) Property Rights in Space. but also the airless void of space.. The Commission recommends that Congress increase the potential for commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space. In this way." appeared in the summer issue of the University of Chicago Law School's Chicago Journal of International Law.unt. Because of this treaty regime." A subsequent U.especially property rights -. The legal status of property claims in space remains uncertain partly because of the ambivalent wording of the U. advocates revising space law via a legal theory that he calls "property rights without territorial sovereignty. http://govinfo.. It's only going to get more crowded here on Earth." White said. The most relevant treaty is the 1967 UN Treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (the “Space Treaty”). who served on the U. the question of whether a private person can lay claim to property where there is no constituted government." said Sattler.sfgate.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.S. "Space development and settlement will not happen if it's internationally taxed and controlled. The United States signed the first treaty but not the second one. no company will invest millions of dollars in developing a product to which their legal claim is uncertain. The issue of private property rights in space is a complex one involving national and international legal issues.library. JPW For space buffs. they give up rights to it. the stickiest legal issue is property rights in space.aren't worked out in advance. has not challenged its basic premises or assumptions. http://www." A major corporation "is not going to invest millions and millions of dollars for a communications system on the moon if there's no law up there to protect their assets. Additionally. And it involves not only land. titled "Transporting a Legal System for Property Rights: From the Earth to the Stars. Space enthusiasts look forward to an age of space commercialization on a grand scale.. Entrepreneurship is the driving force.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Property Rights Key—Space Commercialization Property Rights ensure commercial development of space President’s Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy. but at the same time. by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space missions and/or technology developments and by assuring appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure. it has not ratified the 1979 Moon Treaty. the United States could awaken other countries to the necessity for revised space laws and encourage them to negotiate a new international treaty that. ranging from orbital hotels with zero-gravity swimming pools that float in the middle of a room to lunar factories that mine nuclear fuel for terrestrial fusion reactors. document. he says. this uncertainty could strangle a nascent spacebased industry in its cradle.TMP&ao=2. Another lawyer trying to rewrite space law. UC Davis-educated Wayne White of Boulder.N. space law expert Rosanna Sattler recently argued that an overhaul of current treaties and laws is needed to "stimulate commercial enterprise on the moon." White. 04 (The Commission is made up of a number of industry and government members. he hopes. "I think space settlement is a social 'release valve' that we desperately need. would clarify the legal status of property rights in space.N. viewable in Appendix D of the liked document. was less ambiguous. the so-called Moon Treaty of 1979. . some of which address aspects of property ownership in space. the so-called “Moon Treaty” of 1979 prohibits any private ownership of the Moon or any parts of it. The United States is signatory to many international treaties. asteroids and Mars. Colo. Potentially. State Department's legal subcommittee at a United Nations conference on space exploration in 2003. the legal status of a hypothetical private company engaged in making products from space resources is uncertain. 10/16/05. it is imperative that these issues be recognized and addressed at Property rights makes commercialization feasible – status quo treaties are too unclear San Francisco Chronicle. 06/4/04. proposes that the United States pass a domestic law that recognizes the right of individuals to own and operate space industries. Most space fans vehemently opposed the Moon Treaty. international intergovernmental or nongovernmental organization" was socialistic and would force space entrepreneurs to share their profits with all nations. However. believing that its assertion that the moon could not become "property of any state. gd.cgi? f=/c/a/2005/10/16/SPACE. Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The United States is a signatory to the 1967 Space Treaty. which called space "the province of all mankind.

126 The time has come to reject the old space law whose "pro-state. 99 – [Ezra J.tional political body in an effort to use space development as a wealth. launch costs may drop by 30 percent in the just next few years.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Property Rights Key—Space Commercialization Expanded property rights open up space for commercial exploration – this solves the case Reinstein. while governmental investment has shrunk.redistribution mechanism.25 Commercial activities in space now generate more revenues than government con. whether the ones outlined in this essay or others I have not considered. it must embrace the principle of private property. has passed. If humanity hands control of the exploitation of space over to an interna. Thanks to the development of a new generation of "single.private-enterprise hue. Vol. has grown apace. unforeseen at the inception of the Outer Space Treaty's dominion. could satisfy fuel needs for return flights.verted into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. the entire project is likely to fall on its face and there won't be any wealth to redistribute.129 The recent discovery of large quantities of water on our moon might cut the cost of lunar missions in half again: the water.stageto-orbit" launchers. 20. Private commercial space investment. 2000.darkly colors space activities to this day.. Reinstein.128 Companies are researching opportunities in new uses of the GSO. adventure. living room.tracts. if we are to push our species out to the stars. One small legal step permitting the private ownership of space territory would be one giant leap for mankind. even in tourism: a consortium including Lunacorp and Carnegie Mellon University hopes to send two camera-equipped rovers to the moon. anti. 30 The moon could even end up as a refueling station for more distant journeys. or even to governments. Humanity will lose out on knowledge. the greatest good for the greatest number will occur if property rights are expanded and clarified in the ways suggested throughout this essay. Associate. con. in mining.'27 I believe that some changes. 59-98] The notion that our future in space is reserved to the superpowers. In contrast. are necessary. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 17 . Space law must take into account private needs and build on private opportunities. but to let virtual tourists experience a lunar drive. Kirkland & Ellis (New York Office). Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business. Issue 1 (Fall 1999). and resources. to do this. pp. not for geological surveying. .

the official magazine of the Explorers Club. The real purpose is to enable the expansion of the habitat of the human species beyond the Earth by offering a huge financial reward for privately funded settlement. Property Rights. Space Governance published a rough draft of the proposed legislation. make settlement even harder than it would be now. They would require that. Alan was also a member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace. SMU Law School's Journal of Air Law & Commerce. most recently in The Explorers Journal. July 2011. He is the author of numerous articles on the subject of space property rights. not on how elegant the resulting property rights system is. He was the Chairman of the Executive Committee (CEO) of the National Space Society. and is an Advocate of the Space Frontier Foundation. the oldest and most respected law journal in its field. It is the only way to create an economic incentive sufficient to encourage private investment to develop affordable human transport to the Moon and Mars. Ad Astra. entitled Space Settlements. except that settlement just isn't happening without them. Space Governance. and therefore possible in our lifetime. Alan Wasser is a former broadcast journalist at ABC News and CBS News. instead. Space News. JPW What is the real purpose of enacting a land claims recognition law? The creation of a legal system of property rights for space is not the long-term objective. recently published an article Alan co-wrote with Douglas Jobes. “The Space Settlement Initiative”. who then owned and operated a successful international business. There are alternative space property rights schemes being proposed by some lawyers that would.org/#02.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Property Rights Solve—Colonization Property rights are key to colonization Alan Wasser. Alan is the originator of the idea of using land claim recognition to make privately funded space settlements potentially profitable. Property rights legislation should be judged by how well it encourages space settlement. The establishment of a property rights regime for space is only a means to an end.spacesettlement. not an end in itself. and International Law: Could a Lunar Settlement Claim the Lunar Real Estate It Needs to Survive?. http://www. if you do pay to develop space transport. so we need something like this legislation to jumpstart it. Space Times and Space Front among others. Property laws could be left to evolve after settlement. you would then have to pay the UN or some other body even more for the land you want to settle. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 18 . which he sold.

shtml. fixed points of origin. speaking at the Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space conference.g. and the prohibition against harmful interference with other states' activities provides states with a similar. rights would be limited to the area occupied by the space object. plotting titled orbital locations as constants would permit controllers to concentrate on space vehicles and satellites in less stable orbits. and exist only for the security of the facility and to promote safe navigation in its vicinity. and not to its entire orbital path. and the permissible deviation of an orbital facility from its proper location. In outer space. nevertheless. be almost identical to terrestrial property rights. and require owners to maintain a facility (and/or conduct certain activities) in a fixed location. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 19 . JPW Under a regime of functional property rights. if a space object was abandoned or returned to Earth. http://www. fixed orbits discourage indiscriminate dumping of debris. It seems likely that some sort of "space traffic control" will evolve to track and direct space objects. these rights would. White. one to five years).Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Property Rights Solve—Space Debris Property rights solve collisions and debris Wayne N. They could follow the example of the United States' Homesteading Acts. Finally. right of exclusion. Property rights legislation would extend this right to a state's citizens. but rather upon its control over the space objects and personnel at that location. and they can tailor that legislation to conform to their existing property laws. First. Safety zones may extend to a reasonable distance around a facility. because debris can be more easily tracked to plotted. courts would sometimes be able to assess liability for debris-caused damage. as for example. Hence. and to a reasonable safety area around the facility. Functional property rights permit free access to all areas of outer space and celestial bodies because they do not necessitate territorial sovereignty and its consequent appropriation of large areas of space. title would arise on the basis of a principle entirely different from traditional property rights. The regime is attractive because it is so easy to implement. Hence. first-served occupation. for a specified period of time (e. On Earth the exclusion of others from the use and enjoyment of a given area is the principal right associated with real property ownership. Nations can unilaterally enact legislation. 1997. Attorney. States would determine the conditions necessary to establish and maintain property rights. albeit less clearly defined. “Real Property Rights in Outer Space”. The regime would have to specify the period of inactivity or abandonment necessary to extinguish a property right. In other respects a real property regime could be structured at a state's discretion.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space. Once conferred. These rights would terminate if activity were halted. requiring facility owners to maintain a fixed orbit offers several advantages. it will reduce the probability of collision. Secondly. In space first-come. Conferral of title would not depend upon a government's control over a specific area. The regime will cost states virtually nothing to implement.spacefuture. to establish a property right. orbital property rights would extend only to the moving "envelope" occupied by a facility. Facility owners would benefit from this arrangement if non-titled space objects (or space objects exceeding their parameters) were held presumptively liable in a collision. Functional property rights would be subject to the limitationsof Article VIII jurisdiction. yet it will encourage citizens to enter what promises to be a very lucrative field.

ask that the US and other signatories closely monitor non-governmental activities. These pseudo property rights in outer space would be just like the rights afforded by patents in the US patent system. spectrum rights and airport takeoff and landing slots among myriad property rights that are bought and sold. mineral rights. If the US only authorizes one of the entities to do so. Sam Dinkin is a columnist and the CEO of SpaceShot. The Outer Space Treaty says some things that the US and other signatories cannot do. There are a couple of ways the property rights can work. Here on Earth. gd. there needs to be a property rights regime established. One way is like title deeds that entitle the property holder to non-interference from the United States and all of its citizens in perpetuity. the US can create pseudo property rights in outer space for other US citizens and corporations that are not excluded from doing so. The Treaty does. If there are two US non-governmental entities that both want to use a particular plot of land or a particular slice of radio spectrum in space. By excluding US citizens and corporations from doing certain things. Inc. We should hold the money in trust until the international community decides who should get it. Specifically. The US cannot stake a sovereign claim in outer space. mineral rights or spectrum licenses that entitle the holder to lease for a specific use for a specific amount of time and require the licensee to undertake development of the lease within a set amount of time or lose the lease. We will be expanding an American way of doing business into space. intellectual property. that authorization could create a transferable property right that could be bought and sold like a US spectrum license or a piece of real estate.thespacereview. the US should recognize individual and corporate pseudo property rights. This effectively limits the property rights that the US can grant to its citizens.” The Outer Space Treaty demands that we do this. “The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space. We should hold hearings on them. The President should establish a property rights regime by executive order that is later written into law by Congress. We should register them. I propose that we extend that regime into the heavens. That authorization would have the force of law. Excluding others from using something is creating a right that is tangible and valuable even if it is not technically a property right. While it is not really a property right—since those are forbidden—these pseudo property rights would have the same effect as one if only US entities were in space. Another way is more like water rights. we can bootstrap a private property regime by only granting a single US entity the right to exploit a certain tract on Mars. http://www.com/article/141/1 In order to facilitate commercialization and colonization. There are some impediments to private property in space. however. we have property rights regimes for real estate. they need to obtain authorization from the United States. including the moon and other celestial bodies. a company can exclude all other rocket companies from using a certain novel process or technique. A property right is a right to exclude someone from doing something. 05/04/04.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Property Rights Solve—International Law Property rights stimulate space development—Limited legal framework solves ILAW Dinkin 4. In the United States. We should auction them off in some cases where there is contention just like for spectrum licenses or government land. By filing a patent. Depending on how we regulate activities of US entities. water rights. The US should begin to regulate these pseudo property rights. we have always monitored and supervised activities using a capitalist system. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 20 . shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. but they may not be insurmountable. But an outer space pseudo property right is also just like the title deed to a house—the deed gives me the right to exclude others from using my house.

in terms of yet-to-be-born buffalo.p. As applied to outer space. The problem is one of ownership Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 21 . Prof of Economics at Rutgurs. 3 The problem is a common one in economics.org/pubs/journal/cj6n3/cj6n3-10. will conserve the orbital slots even in the absence ofwell-defined property rights. for example. the overhunting ofthe buffalo on the Great Plains. the failure to assign property rights to the scarce resources will inevitably lead to an inefficient use of the resources. A common counterargument is that the nations of the world.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 Property Rights Solve—Economy Property Incentives create economic efficiency unobtainable with public sector. Prof Economics at Princeton. External costs to firms and nations that may want subsequently to occupy these orbits will not be fully taken into account. allowing for development Scheraga 87. was zero.cato. Conversely. Joel D. 330—31).pdf The argument for establishing property rights in outer space is an application of what McCloskey (1985. the opportunity cost to any one nation of occupying these locations is lower than if property rights were assigned. Scheraga is a visiting asst. Orbital paths for geosynchronous sate]lites will be overused by individual countries and congestion problems will worsen. the assignment and voluntary exchange of rights to scarce resources will result in an efficient allocation. Asst. Winter 1987 edition of the Cato journal. pp. operating in their own selfinterests. Smith’s generalization implies that an efficient use of scarce orbital slots will result once property rights are assigned unambiguously to a particular country (or coalition of countries) and free exchange is permitted so that the country can sell the property rights for whatever the market will offer. But this argument is mistaken: if the price of an orbital slot is zero and the orbital paths are not owned by anyone. gd. The few remaining buffalo survived only because laws that established property rights to the remaining buffalo and their unborn offspring finally protected them (McCloskey 1985. Consider. They were overhunted and killed almost to the point of extinction because no one owned them. The opportunity cost of hunting the buffalo. http://www. 330) has called Adam Smith’s generalization: If transactions costs are low.

or if it must be equally shared with the international community standing idly by. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 22 . most individuals will not grow beyond what is absolutely necessary to their lives. 1994. Rev. “Space Law: Legal Restraints on Commercialization and Development of Outer Space”. Investors must be guaranteed that the material they mine is their own to profit and use. or colonies will remain the investor's property. B. As a result.Kansas City School of Law. 589. Without incentive. Rather.D. Public Admin istration. which may be the downfall of the current corpus juris spatialis. should be certain and predictable. JPW Currently. they must be answered before the beginning of such ventures. n188 Celestial property issues will not arise or be answered after the advent of colonization on the Moon or Mars and the mining of asteroids and comets. accordingly. Southwest Missouri State University.. 65 UMKC L.S. pg. J. we are ingrained with the notion that there is always an underlying reason for everything that we do. at least so long as the principles of maritime jurisdiction remain in tact. the motivation to invest is significantly reduced. 610. most ventures are performed in the vacuum of space with little or no question regarding celestial property rights. n189 The rewards for commercial space activities. Through this system of rewards for successes. While space ventures are already expensive. the colonies built will remain under a particular nation's sovereignty. published in 1997. mining operations. The capitalist (or pseudo-capitalist) notions that dominate the economics of the developed world attempt to provide reward based on individual effort. high risk also exists for investors uncertain as to whether the mined material. 1998. Heidi Keefe articulates her universal understanding of human motivation and the weakness of international space law as follows: [Space law does not] really take into account the human need to be fairly certain of the task required. and to be rewarded for what is accomplished. and the ship or colony built of mined material from unclaimed celestial bodies will not fall under the control of other. Candidate. The underlying reason always ends up being money. University of Missouri.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC AT: Government First/Delay Perm Can’t wait – property rights must be resolved as a prerequisite to substantial private development Ty Twibell.

" the United States government would not be in the business of picking winners and losers. (2) allow an investment tax credit for the purchase of stock in a space company that has average annual gross receipts not exceeding $100 million and that derives more than 70 percent of its gross receipts from space-based business. Zero Tax Act of 2008. Under the Obama "commercial" space policy. it is illuminating to look at what the bill proposed to do. the government would not only promise launch contracts to the International Space Station for those firms able to fulfill them. Whittington. of the Obama plan. Perhaps a better way to enable a commercial space industry would be a combination of the Bush era COTS program and "Zero Gravity. Newspaper writer.R. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Associated Content. However. but would provide funding to subsidize the development of private space craft.associatedcontent. and demanded that the same firms meet certain milestones was more sensible and more hands-off than the Obama plan. Zero Tax Act would spur private development of space Whittington 10 (Mark R. freeing up sources of private capital. The bill died in that Congress and has not. GovtrackUS Why Obama's Commercial Space Initiative is Not Commercial. Zero Tax Act for private companies to [insert plan mechanism]. Zero Taxes" would. as with the recent deal between Boeing and Space Adventures to take paying customers on Boeing's proposed space craft. companies that failed. the Bigelow private space station. in or from outer space.passage of the Zero Gravity. Contrast this approach to the Obama approach.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***Tax Incentives Mechanism*** 1NC – Tax Incentives CP Text: The United States federal government should pass the Zero Gravity. Zero Tax Act of 2008. the government would spend what it takes to make the selected space firms succeed. been introduced in the current Congress. In the last Congress. 2010 Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 23 . Associated Content. Under the COTS program. gd/al.html?cat=15) The debate raging about how best to support the growth of a commercial space sector seems to focus around how much money should be spent on subsidies for commercial space firms. as NASA administrator Charles Bolden is reported to have told Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan. Beyond certain guidelines of what constitutes a "space company. http://www." "Zero Gravity. and researcher with a BA in History. once advocated a slightly different method of supporting commercial space. excluding from taxes. in effect. this may be a way to place their own stamp on commercial space policy and answer the calumnies that they are somehow anti-commercial space for opposing the Obama plan. and (3) exclude from gross income gain from the sale or exchange of any stock of certain space corporations. for example. or services provided. which limited the amount of money paid out to space firms to help develop private space craft. 5310: Zero Gravity. Mark R. were allowed to fail. The Obama plan does not lift a finger to assist in the development of private sources of capital for space firms or the development of private markets. turn outer space into an enterprise zone. We’ll clarify. such as RP/Kistler. Sources: H. Under the Obama plan. The fight over how and how much the government should spend to support commercial space enterprises should allow for a step back and a reexamination of how that should be accomplished. September 6th. rather than because. Whittington. 1) Solvency. But perhaps the tax code provides a better answer. September 10th. The Bush era COTS program. Any such would happen despite. Mark R. Whittington is a writer. author. the bill was HR 5310 The Zero Gravity. Zero Taxes." With the Republicans on the verge of taking over at least the House. According to the summary: "Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) exclude from gross income space-related income from products or articles produced. but perhaps the Senate as well. ironically one of the few members of Congress from either party who supports the Obama administration plan to spend nearly $6 billion in subsidies to private space firms such as SpaceX to build commercial space craft. 2010 Commercial Space Deal Between Space Adventures and Boeing to Be Announced.09/17/10. Rohrabacher proposed giving commercial space companies tax breaks to enable their development. so far as anyone can tell. It would furthermore provide tax breaks for investment in private space firms.com/article/5803020/zero_taxes_zero_gravity_a_better_way.

Dana Rohrabacher proposes a "Zero Gravity. to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station. there have been about four per year. its price tag will be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three. Thus. airline trips. NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. and sooner rather than later. Let a private owner fly it for paying customers-including NASA.php?pub_id=2514 The reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent moon base and a trip to Mars is. Hudgins. innovative ways. Zero Tax" plan that would remove an unnecessary burden from "out-of-this-world risk-takers. export licensing and remove other barriers to entrepreneurs. a few hundred miles up in orbit." and "the spirit of discovery. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion. This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector. and make accessible to all individuals cars. bring down the prices. NASA should partner with consortia of universities. to the mostly private Russian rocket company. such as EPA and Interior Department. the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights. they could be turned over to other agencies. NASA could offer a cash prize for any party that can deliver it.if it is still worth flying. modeled after private prizes that helped promote civil aviation. it should not own it. The station might be turned over to international partners or. The federal government used such an approach for aircraft before World War II. the government needs to further deregulate launches. would be an obvious candidate. if a certain technology is needed for a moon mission. gd. If we're true to our nature. and perhaps conducting some basic research." Unfortunately. there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space station. NASA could simply be a tenant on the base.org/pub_display. NASA can be a rentpaying station tenant. The United Space Alliance. if necessary -. NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services." NASA will also need to do business in new. the shuttle should be given away to private owners. In announcing NASA's new mission. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. The federal government wouldn't need to spend any taxpayer dollars if it gave the first business to construct a permanent lunar base with its own money a 25-year exemption from all federal taxes on all of its operations. is the editor of the Cato Institute book. NASA also should give up the money-draining space station. which also might serve a defense function.cato. we will explore and settle planets. computers. Contracting with private pilots with private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 1930s. 1/28/04. Rep. the Internet. Even if the federal government foots the bill for a moon base. If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars. Energia -. Space: The FreeMarket Frontier. President Bush echoed such sentiments. private foundations and even businesses that are interested in advancing human knowledge and commercial activities. NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch services with private companies. Thus. Instead. Edward L. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 24 . For example. which would handle transportation to and from low Earth orbit. neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. instead. speaking of the American values of "daring." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best. Only private entrepreneurs can improve quality. not just those on the Moon. Or consider a radical approach proposed by former Rep.NASA has failed the US—Private Exploration by tax incentives is needed Hudgins 04. If need be. you name it. Rather. to facilitate a strong private space sector." But after the triumphs of Apollo. house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. discipline. will make us a truly space-faring civilization. Creating enterprise zones in orbit would help make up for government errors of the past. will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the moon. Worse. better still. If the government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and resources or other such functions. Further. But only individuals with vision. traveling to another world.and the Western investors who were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir space station before the Russian government brought it down for political reasons. NASA centers that drive up its overall budget but do not directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. "Great! It's about time NASA stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration. http://www. decades behind schedule. ingenuity. Think of all the economic activity that would be generated if a Microsoft or General Electric decided to build a base! And the tax revenue from that activity probably would offset the government's revenue losses from such an exemption. acting in a free market.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Tax Incentives Solve Solvency. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power. at 10 times its original budget. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week. Bob Walker. which helped the emerging civil aviation sector. NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets. director of The Objectivist Center.

thefreemanonline. gd. the importance of property rights was acknowledged. five times) of the original amount of the investment. There is a pressing need for a change in liability laws to set a reasonable standard for implied consent. To help persuade Boeing to build its new 7E7 jetliner in Everett. “Has a new era of space venture arrived?”. one of our key goals. “the legal status of a hypothetical private company engaged in making products from space resources is uncertain. but at the same time. . The report noted that the 1967 UN Treaty on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.com/business/article/Boeing-Tax-breaks-no-bargaining-chip-1157806. The commission pointed out: “A key issue in the private space flight business is liability.” As a result. the “7E7” is an early designation of the 787. It called for tax incentives. "As to whether or not the tax incentives in Washington state are a subsidy or not is something that will be argued long and hard. and property rights must be addressed. which the U. The commission’s report started down this path.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Tax Solvency Extensions Tax Incentives have empirically aided aerospace Wallace 04.” The value of regulatory relief was also recognized.g. including tax breaks.'s conference call with analysts and the media to report on third quarter earnings. the 1979 Moon Treaty disallows any private ownership on the moon.php His comments came in response to a question during The Boeing Co. regulation. . October 2004. including perhaps making “profits from space investment tax free until they reach some pre-determined multiple (e." Stonecipher said. no company will invest millions of dollars in developing a product to which their legal claim is uncertain. Moreover. prohibits claims of national sovereignty on any extraterrestrial body. James Wallace writes for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. If a real economy is going to flourish in space. were the three other proposals. The United States also unilaterally pulled out of a 1992 bilateral agreement that allows Airbus to receive government loans of up to 33 percent of the costs of developing new or derivative jetliners.” Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 25 . Germany and Britain. this uncertainty could strangle a nascent space-based industry in its cradle. 10/27/04.” The commission also suggested reviewing occupational and environmental laws “to make sure that the government is not burdening new space industry unduly with irrelevant or unobtainable compliance requirements. The commission reported that the United States “has not ratified the 1979 Moon Treaty.. chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. the European Union cited the Washington state incentives for Boeing. Tax credits solve private sector development – avoids government risk standards Raymond Keating.S. has not challenged its basic premises or assumptions. worth about $3. government signed.” The commissioners observed: “Potentially. as we consider it nothing more than lowering the cost of doing business in the state of Washington and is general to aerospace. .” The report concluded that if property rights are not addressed appropriately. In a counter claim with the WTO.” Finally.2 billion over 20 years.org/featured/has-a-new-era-of-space-venture-arrived/ More important. The long-running dispute between Boeing and Airbus over subsidies escalated earlier this month when the United States filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization over direct jetliner launch aid that Airbus gets from France. “there will be little significant private sector activity associated with the development of space resources. the state last year approved an incentive package. [I]t is not reasonable to impose governmental risk standards on people who are willing and eager to undertake dangerous or hazardous activities.seattlepi. then taxation. though. http://www. http://www.

"I know they [NASA] have an idea what it's going to look like. Burns." Burns said. Conrad Burns (R-Mont. 06/13/03. The U.S. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 26 .Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC AT: Links to Politics Tax Incentives solve.. ). oversight hearings on the return to flight could begin sooner.. )." he said.)." Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) already has recommended that NASA use advanced non-destructive testing techniques on the shuttle's carbon panels (DAILY.). even though the board investigating the .53. Burns also said that NASA should start consulting with lawmakers on its return to flight. said . " . Brett Davis is a writer for Aerospace Daily. Sen. ". If NASA begins talking with lawmakers now about the report. has been pushing tax incentives to promote commercial investment in space (DAILY. chairman of the House Science Committee's space subcommittee. we could accelerate that. We ought to be going through the consulting phase now. Maybe we could move those oversight hearings up a little bit..gd. CAIB plans to release its final report before the congressional recess. a (R-Calif.. popular with republicans Davis 03. Senate should consider tax incentive bills to spur investment in space. Factiva. Aerospace Daily Vol. Burns did not mention specific proposals the Senate might consider. loss of the shuttle Columbia hasn't finished its report. Burns said. “B urns: Senate should consider tax incentives for space”. 206. No.

edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal. the tax law could be changed to make profits from space investment tax free until they reach some pre-determined multiple (e.pdf) . viewable in Appendix D of the liked document.unt. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 27 . A historical precedent to such an effort was the use of federal airmail subsidies to help create a private airline industry before World War II.library. each tax incentive keyed to a specific technical milestone. five times) of the original amount of the investment. corporate taxes could be credited or expenses deducted for the creation of a private space transportation system. Tax Incentives. technical progress. Creation of tax incentives can potentially create large amounts of investment and hence. In a like manner.g.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC AT: Links to Spending Tax incentives cost nothing and stimulate private sector President’s Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy. 06/4/04.. an increase in private sector involvement in space can be stimulated through the provision of tax incentives to companies that desire to invest in space or space technology. gd. As an example. In this case. http://govinfo. 04 (The Commission is made up of a number of industry and government members. A time-honored way for government to encourage desired behavior is through the creation of incentives in the tax laws. all at very little expense or risk to the government.

Liability insurance solves the aff – facilitates space exploration Fought ’89 Bonnie Fought is a Candidate for J. the OCST should. This study argues that the perceived regulatory barriers." [FN274] Holding the company liable for damages resulting from Government actions will not increase safety if the Government. University of California.informaworld. such as launch services. will most likely be followed by future activities of use of space resources.html Several problems have been identified in the area of domestic regulation of liability and insurance for the commercial launch industry. risks. When deciding whether to invest in commercial ventures of resource use exploitation. Most of the functions to be carried out by the Government are "routine industrial and technical functions in which the Government has every opportunity to maintain full control over its operations. the licensing requirement. Ann Arbor. A. and protection of intellectual property rights. it is argued. an increased reliance on private sector involvement in space activities involving the extraction and use of space resources is to be expected. Professor Kakhu is the chairman of the legal and regulatory committee of international association for the advancement of space safety and a member of the board of the international institute of the space law international astronautical federation. Maria Buzdugan is a member of the institute of air and space law.B. In addition. Berkeley. http://www. University of Michigan. The establishment of reasonable limits in this area would assist the private launch companies by lowering the costs of obtaining launch insurance. it would waive its right to recover for damages caused by its own willful misconduct or reckless disregard. the Government should assume responsibility for the negligence and willful misconduct of its employees and subcontractors. [FN272] In developing its regulations. Boalt Hall School of Law. [FN275] If the property losses of the Government exceed the maximum insured amount. should the private sector take over such space activities. published in 1989 law review. during a vehicle test or launch) is unreasonable. The question is what would be the most appropriate approach to address the future needs of exploitation of space resources: should it remain the exclusive province of state governments.law. [FN278] Countering both of these proposals is an argument that holding the Government liable for damages when it is forced to act to protect the safety of lives and property (for example.e. the “common heritage of mankind” principle of international space law. http://www. Governments should provide both policy and regulatory incentives for private sector participation in the area of space natural resource use by funding basic research and development and by sponsoring liability insurance for private ventures among other incentives.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol3/fought. [FN270] The Launch Act grants authority to the Secretary of Transportation to establish insurance levels for private launch companies utilizing Government facilities and requires that operators of launch services obtain liability insurance at the required levels. [FN279] Because of the importance of these split-second decisions. i. This is an area ripe for action by the OCST. satellite remote sensing and navigation services. Furthermore. satellite communication services.berkeley.D. any potential private investor will be faced with the issues of economic costs. or should a public-private partnership type of venture be encouraged? As state governments are becoming constrained by budget deficits. [FN277] This proposal is similar to agreements between NASA and commercial users of the shuttle. [FN271] To date. and perceived regulatory barriers.. they should not be clouded by concern over potential liability imposed with the gift of hindsight. [FN276] In the event losses to the Government are less than the insured level. are not obstacles to economic development.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC – Liability Insurance CP CP Text: The United States federal government should sponsor liability insurance for private ventures to [insert plan action]. and not the private company. gd. has control over these operations. new regulations should be issued to cap the liability of the launch company for damage to Government property. placing this type of liability risk on the domestic launch industry will only stifle its growth. Such a proposal is set forth in the Space Policy which calls for a limit on the commercial launch operator's liability for damages to Government property to the insurance levels established by the OCST. 1982. [FN280] Thus it is suggested that it may be necessary to create an exception to this rule of Government Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 28 . it would waive its right to recover additional losses. the OCST has not issued regulations in this area. The CP solves – incentives spur private space exploration Jakhu and Buzdugan 08 (Ram and Maria. [FN273] While private launch companies should be held responsible for their own negligence and willful misconduct. Ventures. direct broadcasting services. at a minimum.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905076663) The path of gradual commercialization of current space applications. address the liability of private enterprises to the Government for damages which result from their use of Government facilities. as well as bounding their potential liability. like mining the natural resources of the Moon and asteroids. and satellite weather monitoring services. are likely to become technologically feasible in the near future. 1989. “Development of the Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Economic and Legal Aspects”.

[FN287] Similarly. the private launch companies' liability should exclude liability for damages which result from acts of negligence or willful misconduct committed by the Government or its agents. [FN285] Adoption of such proposals would not mark the first time the Government has shared third party liability risks with industry.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC – Liability Insurance CP liability in emergency public safety situations. there is the problem of the launch company's and its customer's liability to third parties. Moreover. a liability cap would limit the total overall exposure of the company and eliminate the necessity of putting the company on the line for each launch. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this limitation on liability noting that such limitations were rationally related to the Congressional purpose of promoting private-sector development in the new area of nuclear power. have Government-sponsored third party liability insurance at little or no added cost which covers both the launch provider and the user. The Space Policy endorses a partial cap on third party liability. it would be within Congress' power to provide for this type of liability limitation to promote the development of the commercial launch industry. In addition to the potential liability of private launch companies to the Government. [FN283] To remain competitive. [FN282] Foreign launch services.000 maximum on noneconomic damages to third parties. [FN284] While this assists the companies by limiting liability for punitive damages. Recent legislation before Congress proposes a cap on the third party liability of private launch companies equal to the lesser of $500 million or the maximum liability insurance available on the open market. against which the domestic launch industry is competing. Such a cap would place a limit on the amount of coverage the company would need to secure for any launch and thus would make it easier for companies to obtain insurance because the insurance companies would have a fixed amount of liability. American launch providers must be able to offer similar benefits to their customers and to their own operations. it still leaves the company with unlimited potential liability for non-punitive damages. in general. A similar allocation of risk was adopted under the Price-Anderson Act [FN286] to encourage the commercial development of the nuclear power industry in this country. One potential solution would be for the Government to limit the liability exposure of launch companies to third parties. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 29 . by suggesting a $200. [FN281] While this type of exemption may be necessary to preserve the interests of public safety.

Regulatory Relief. People throughout society do dangerous things for fun and profit. numerous laws covering occupational safety and environmental concerns should be reviewed carefully to make sure that the government is not burdening new space industry unduly with irrelevant or unobtainable compliance requirements. acknowledged that it is playing catch-up to other states in the space tourism game:“This is the beginning of a new effort on our part to “awaken the sleeping giant” of Texas when it comes to the emerging commercial space industry. otherwise there will be little significant private sector activity associated with the development of space resources. Other states such as Florida. 05/11/11.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.The space alliance also plans to seek tax exemptions for spaceflight activities performed by space businesses operating in Texas.chron. with the aim of promoting space commerce in the state. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 30 .The Commission is made up of a number of industry and government members.pdf . its founder. Government regulation of the nascent private sector space industry is ongoing and will be necessary in the future. But it won’t be easy getting the job done. it is not reasonable to impose governmental risk standards on people who are willing and eager to undertake dangerous or hazardous activities. one of our key goals.With NASA’s operations in Texas facing potentially very tough sledding. viewable in Appendix D of the liked document. for example. which limits liabilities for commercial providers of spaceflight in the state. as well as the Texas Space Alliance. Virginia and New Mexico are far ahead of us in courting and supporting this potentially multi-billion dollar industry. gd.For more on advocacy group’s actions. see this recent op-ed from Tumlinson. there’s no compensation for one’s relatives. It will likely push for such legislation during the next session. There is a pressing need for a change in liability laws to set a reasonable standard for implied consent.”Florida. So if a rocket launched from Texas blows up. “But we have to move quickly. it’s a good move for space advocates in Texas to push forward with efforts to bring commercialization activities into the state. in a news release. http://blog.library. unless the company shows “gross negligence evidencing willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the space flight participant” it is protected from lawsuits. (Eric Berger is the Space reporter for the Houston Chronicle. A key issue in the private space flight business is liability.The space alliance. this text origninally appeared in a blog.Essentially.” said space alliance president Rick Tumlinson. but no analysis is provided outside of direct quotation. 06/4/04. first passed its liability limitation law in 2008.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC – Liability Insurance Incentives Solve Liability reform encourages private exploration President’s Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy.Can Texas get a piece of the space tourism business?Lobbyists for the bill included the secretive Blue Origin company.unt. http://govinfo. which has facilities in Culberson County. In addition. an organization formed to promote the Texas space industry. 04 . if space tourists sign a waiver. an early stage in the implementation of the vision. and if we want a part of it dramatic and determined action will be necessary — as the deals are being cut right now that will determine its future for decades. but it is important to ensure that this industry not become overregulated. gd.com/sciguy/2011/05/texas-limits-liability-for-space-tourismproviders/) Texas limits liability for space tourism providersTexas lawmakers have taken a tentative step toward embracing space tourism by passing Senate Bill 115. Empirics flow neg – Liability insurance catalyzes exploration Berger ’11.

the private sector can and should step in. journalist for the Inside Business Journal. It’s time to carry it forward into space. http://www. This is all going to be – if it ever happens – it will all be private investment." said Laura Naismith. In a June 2009 article in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers magazine Spectrum. ‘For government-sponsored space agencies. Henry Gass.’ writes Stone. (http://www.theecologist. NASA is fairly unique among federal entities in that it develops.’ says Tietz. 2-12-2010. Yet it is the only viable business choice. "Now our government is saying 'Wow. How do we leverage that for our national economy?'" Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 31 . first-comefirst-serve. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the limits on land. privately. no country seems eager to foot the bill. we believe.insidebiz. sea. “Plans to strip mine the moon may soon be more than just sciencefiction”. and air.org/News/news_analysis/962678/plans_to_strip_mine_the_moon_may_soon_be_more_than_just_sciencefict ion. Writer for the Ecologist.com/news/nasas-new-direction-could-lift-local-space-assets Perhaps most promising from a local economic development perspective is the administration's call for increased reliance on commercial industry to help NASA get to space. to save $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base. can move very quickly – almost like our internet companies – if they have the right funding and the right regulatory environment to go do what they want to do they can go do it very fast and effectively. governments are at present neither politically inclined nor financially able to carry out prospecting missions in space. these commercial space entrepreneurs are on to something. 7-11-11. spokesperson for VCSFA and MARS. Should they fail.’ According to Tietz. The MARS facility has slowly but steadily been growing as a viable commercial launch pad for private industry sending things into space for the government. ‘Private enterprise. Rockets and astronauts don't come cheap. ‘Where governments fail to act on au vitally important opportunity. such a concept is unthinkable. the risk is theirs to take. and are basically only beholden to their Board of Directors and investors. Tietz says governments have different priorities – most research-oriented – they have to fund with limited budgets. Inside Business. they cannot tolerate the political risk of failure.’ continues Tietz. theirs will be a one-way trip. ‘It’s openly sourced to all of humanity. ‘This may sound radical. The logic is to let private industry build the vehicles NASA will use in the future. the first human team would only take enough fuel to land and establish the base—not enough for a return trip to Earth. "This [proposed] NASA budget very much reflects the new recognition of the commercial sector that has been out there believing in its capabilities for the past three decades but hasn't received a lot of support. NASA's new direction could lift local space assets.’ Stone outlined that. knowing this can be done more cheaply and likely faster outside government. ‘Governments would then be the beneficiaries of the products that [private industries] would produce if [they] were then successful. ‘At the moment.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***Generic Privatization Solvency*** 1NC Privatization Solves Private companies/investors are the best actor for space industry development.’ Even NASA acknowledges the private sector would streamline missions Michael Schwartz. including training and paying personnel. ‘This will not be funded by any government or any federal agency like NASA. Tietz says ‘there’s a great deal of interest out there’ from potential investors.’ writes Stone. constructs and operates much of its equipment and vehicles. The Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority and its Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport on Wallops Island on the Eastern Shore all of a sudden are in the right place at the right time.’ continues Tietz. The Ecologist. but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival depend on in situ fuel generation for the return. Shackleton founder Bill Stone wrote that lunar prospecting could cost as much as $20 billion over a decade.html) .

building computers. Anyone who rereads the Paine Commission report today almost aches for the vision set forth as a roadmap to the future in this amazing document. better managed. space programs in a February 2010 Washington Post article and explained why he felt this was the best way forward in humanity's greatest adventure: “I applaud President Obama's bold decision for NASA to focus on building a space exploration program that can drive innovation and provide inspiration to the world.perhaps a few thousand dollars per pound to low-Earth orbit.and this is for a very good reason. This is the path that can make our dreams in space a reality” [4]. After grounding the Space Shuttle for some 2. The programs that NASA has given up on now include the Delta Clipper.S. might one day see Earth from space. In the field of space research NASA has a long and distinguished career.5 years (from February 2004 to August 2006) and expending $1. or running airlines . Commercial organizations are. The first step. 10 – Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute. George Washington University (Joseph. Any honest assessment of its performance over the past two decades leads to the inexorable conclusion that it is time for some serious reviewdand even more serious reform. and with its ability to adapt to current circumstances as well as its ability to embark on truly visionary space goals for the future.namely space science and truly long range innovation” [1]. with its handling of its various space transportation systems. which was quickly buried by NASA. People as diverse as movie maker James Cameron and Peter Diamandis feel that the best way forward is to let space entrepreneurs play a greater role in space development and innovation. It seemed then that. Science Direct. X-33. he was exaggerating.is well into middle age and seemingly experiencing a mid-life crisis. Cameron strongly endorsed a greater role for commercial creativity in U. and more market responsive than government agencies. XPrize Founder Peter Diamandis has noted that we don't have governments operating taxi companies.. One multi-billion dollar Government program after another has failed.) NASA . National U. since Musk was seeking to develop his own launch capability. X-37. on balance. One of the more eloquent yet haunting calls for change came some six years ago. In the area of space transportation and space station construction its record over the past 30 years has largely been a record of failure. One of the key messages from the 2004 Aldridge Commission report. and X-43 after billions of US funds and billions more of private money have been sacrificed to the cause [6].And for space entrepreneurs too?” Space Policy. It is no longer sufficient to move some boxes around and declare this is the new and improved NASA. Spaceplane projects have been started by NASA time and again amid great fanfare and major expectations and then a few years later either cancelled in failure or closed out with a whimper. of course.When America landed on the Moon. True there have been outstanding scientific success stories. the X-34. After the Columbia accident NASA spent years and billions more dollars to correct serious safety problems with the Space Shuttle and still was never able to fulfill the specific recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. that's correct. Space Study Commissions have been recommending major reform for some years and finally someone has listened. President Obama has had the political and programmatic courage to make some serious shifts in how NASA does its business.now past 50 . The Space Shuttle was supposed to have been an efficient space truck that would fly every two weeks and bring cargo to orbit at a fraction of the cost of early space transportation systems . The first step would be to explore what space activities can truly be commercialized and see where NASA could be most effective by stimulating innovation in the private sector rather than undertaking the full mission itself. Billions of dollars have gone into various spaceplane and reusable launch vehicle developments by NASA over the past 20 years. I believe that we made a promise and gave people a dream.S. The occasion was when Space X founder Elon Musk testified before the US Senate in April. but these have been the exception and not the rule. but a review of the record suggests otherwise. the HL-20.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Solvency – Privatization Better than NASA NASA empirically fails at rejuvenating space programs – commercial organizations are far superior Pelton. One might think that. more agile. Yes. not an Astronaut with the “Right Stuff”. but just a normal person. If we do not now take action different from the past. “A new space vision for NASA . was words to this effect: “Let enterprising space entrepreneurs do what they can do better than NASA and leave a more focused NASA do what it does best .someone who was not a billionaire. the fully allocated cost of the Shuttle is over $1 billion a flight and it is by far the most expensive space transportation system ever.75 Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 32 . If one goes back almost 25 years to the Rogers Commission [2] and the Paine Commission [3] one can find deep dissatisfaction with NASA productivity. we find that the recommendations for NASA to develop a reliable and costeffective vehicle to replace the Shuttle is somewhere between being a disappointment and a fiasco. Today nearly 25 years after the Rogers and Paine Commission reports that followed the Challenger disaster. it will remain that way” [5]. May. such as the Hubble Telescope. more innovative. In fact. X-38. That dream is nothing but broken disappointment today. 2004 at a Hearing on The Future of Launch Vehicles: “The past few decades have been a dark age for development of a new human space transportation system. would be to retool and restructure NASA from top to bottom and not just tweak it a little around the edges.

would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Florida in June 2010. In all three cases the US Congress has been told by NASA essentially what it wanted to hear rather than the grim facts as to cost. The cost of a Mars mission with a refueling station on Mars would be dramatically lower.pdf PayPal and Tesla co-founder Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. &director of economic resources at Reason Found. accurately described by former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin as “Apollo on Steroids” provided little new technology or innovation and had an astronomical price tag. It was clearly too much for too little. Reason Foundation.org/files/federal_annual_privatization_report_2010. Annual Privatization Report 2010: Federal Government Privatization. it probably wasn't going to work. if we think what could have been done with an extra $100 billion of space funds). Project Constellation.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Solvency—Privatization Better than NASA billion dollars in the wake of the CAIB report. Henry Spencer. . which wasn't going to be funded [9]. When this experimental spaceplane landed at Edwards Air Force Base in 2004. dumping it defies argument. We at Intelsat presented testimony that strongly contradicted NASA's statements on cost and performance. Wrapped in Denial.another mega-project always over budget. the ISS deployment and spaceplane development. Any private company with NASA's record on the Space Shuttle. February 2011. Project Constellation. the programme was already deep into a death spiral of “solving” every problem by reducing expectation of what the systems would do. I personally remember when Congress was being told quite unbelievable things about the cost and expected performance of the Space Shuttle. and hopes to begin shuttling astronauts by the end of 2013. a bargain compared to the $300 million per astronaut it would cost NASA. The first rendition of a space station was scheduled during the Reagan years to have been completed in 1991 for several billions of dollars. Privatization is more cost effective than the federal government and saves taxpayers the liability Adam Summers & Anthony Randazzo. The projected completion date extended to 1994 when the project was redesigned and it became the International Space Station (ISS). known as SpaceX. Dr. Actually reaching the moon would probably have required a major redesign.. SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell told ABC News in December 2010. bringing the grand total to over $2 billion [7].A private. NASA was not able to correct the identified problems and complete the tasks asked of it.NASA Zero”. “If we overrun this program. CO-based company called the External Tanks Corporation (ETC) suggested in the 1980s that we could just add a little more thrust to the External Tanks for the Space Transportation System (i. SpaceX completed a successful test launch of the Falcon 9 from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral. The truth is just the reverse.e. . There are dozens of examples of entrepreneurial space enterprises that have generated innovative ideas that seemed to show us how we could have gotten ourselves into space faster. Even so early in its life. Speaking of the differences between traditional government funding of the space program and the newer public-private financing model. Today the ISS is not only late. policy analyst at Reason Found.Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites took a few million dollars of backing from Microsoft's Paul Allen and developed the White Knight carrier craft and the SpaceShipOne spaceplane. If the opportunity costs of Project Constellation are examined (i. . has characterized Project Constellation as an “Illusion. hundreds of millions more dollars were spent to solve the problem again. always late. Another successful test flight in December 2010 earned the Falcon 9 the distinction of being the first privately owned ship ever to return safely from Earth orbit. seemed to loom as an eerie repetition of the ISS . Then. after the foam insulation problem re-emerged with Discovery and STS flight 114. a spectator's sign said it all: “SpaceShipOne . developed its Falcon 9 rocket to handle these space transportation needs. schedule and performance. set the stage for a space adventures industry that will begin launches in 2011. and with constantly lowered expectations.. This vehicle system. which won the X Prize. but its total cost has ballooned to over $100 billion [8]. cheaper and better. the Space Shuttle) and lo and behold we could put them into Low-Earth Orbit. ed.e. writing for the New Scientist. we have to come up with the money through investment to cover the cost. and much more quickly as well. Some have suggested that President Barack Obama's cancellation of the unwieldy and expensive Project Constellation to send astronauts back to the Moon for a few exploratory missions was a blow to NASA and the start of the end of the US space program. The company estimates that it will charge NASA about $20 million per astronaut for the voyage. Boulder. with a projected cost of over $100 billion until its recent cancellation by President Obama. which is Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 33 . Leonard Gilroy http://reason.Bob Zubrin has for years championed the idea of sending methane generators to Mars to produce the fuel for the astronauts' return trip. or even the $56 million a head on Russia’s Soyuz rockets in the near term after the shuttle fleet is retired.” His specific observations about the NASA Moon/Mars program were as follows: First. Randolph “Stick” Ware of the ETC explained that one could then strap these tanks together and create the structure of a space station at a fraction of the cost of the ISS.

since it funds white-elephant projects. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. director of tax policy studies at Cato and editor of www. and it is four years behind schedule. Cato Institute. that have no clear policy goals.428 Scrapping that project alone would save taxpayers $70 billion over the next 12 years. he is stymied.427 For example.43 Private sector solves better than government – avoids politicization Garmong 2004. such as the space station.capitalismmagazine. which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion. unpredictable. There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. which is common to many federal agencies. Americans do not need NASA in order to further advance the space age. the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older.D. in philosophy.org. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with nonFreon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets. with homedistrict congressmen to lobby on their behalf. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions. but the search for its replacement has been halted.html) hss Indeed. the International Space Station’s construction costs have skyrocketed from $17 billion in 1995 to $30 billion today. 15. and often impossible demands of a politicized system. and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial.pdf A big problem with NASA. the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago. “Privatize Space Exploration: The Free-Market Solution For America's Space Program”. largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. taxpayers have to pay the overruns.429 Congress shares the blame for NASA’s waste. is that large projects go far over budget and lag far behind schedule. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use.DownsizingGovernment.Privatization Generic dramatically different from contracts where if the contractor overruns. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 34 .com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-sspace-program. 6-4-2004. Space should be opened up to private entrepreneurs eager to move forward with space tourism and other space businesses of the future. The GAO concludes that the agency has “debilitating weaknesses” in its management of large projects.org/pubs/pas/pa515. not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary.” DDI 2011 2NC Solvency—Privatization Better than NASA NASA suffers from the inefficiency and debilitating management that the free market solves Chris Edwards. (Robert Garmong Ph. was a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004. Freon-based foam.cato. http://www. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development. Policy Analysis No. Downsizing the Federal Government. http://www.

including the first moonwalker. Four months later. which carried the first American into orbit in 1962. a Mercury craft successfully flew into space. Maybe the rest of us will be able to go too. A structural problem in the attachment of the capsule to its Atlas rocket triggered an explosion that destroyed both capsule and rocket. 12-18-2010. The success of SpaceX's Dragon capsule and the Falcon 9 rocket that carried it suggests otherwise. the success of the Dragon capsule's first flight is striking. Commercial space flight has been a charged issue in the US since President Barack Obama announced in February that he wanted to outsource trips to the International Space Station to private companies. Unlike the Dragon test flight.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Solvency – Privatization Better than NASA Private companies have a better success rate than most NASA projects New Scientist. Compared to this. in part to test its heat shield. Workers then gingerly moved in to disarm the rocket and drain its fuel. but were built by the private sector to provide the services the Government contracted for.org/pdf/materials/230. the Mercury capsule dutifully followed its flight plan. This is an example of more private sector involvement in the sense that government money is spent in a different manner. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions. he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs. on the third attempt –. Neil Armstrong. NASA first tried to launch a fully equipped Mercury capsule in July 1960. and as a former Air Force officer I must reluctantly commend the Navy. Finally. a small California-based company called SpaceX did something that had previously been the domain of governments: it launched a space capsule with a pressurised cabin into orbit. The George Marshall institute. on 19 December 1960 –.marshall. It is a step in the private direction. Lexis The first flight of a fully equipped Dragon space capsule. as only they know how to do it properly. although there have been a few examples such as the Lunar Prospector that were done on this sort of model. Some day soon it will. Now that picture is changing –. until the batteries on the rocket's self-destruct mechanism ran down. An error in the wiring of the Redstone rocket it was sitting on caused the rocket to lift only a few centimetres from the launch pad. Despite this. launched by SpaceX last week. The systems themselves weren’t developed by a government program office. As the staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration's National Space Council.pdf) hss The first “different” private sector aspect is that NASA and other government agencies can contract for services rather than systems. Critics of the plan. the next attempt at sending Mercury into space also failed. There is a model here that the Department of Defense has used with great success. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 35 . (So the X-files TV show really is right. NASA has not used it much. however. Henry Spencer n Private sector approaches to solving are superior to NASA Worden 2004. In the 50 years since NASA's first successful capsule test. the government does have UFOs!) The Navy bought these communications capabilities as services rather than systems. These were left dangling from the fully fuelled rocket overnight. then brought it back down again intact. The Dragon capsule could have carried a crew. and about time too. Maybe somebody other than NASA understands this stuff after all. (Pete Worden was Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center. Los Angeles Air Force Base. but only a small one. before settling back and shutting down. it has become clear that government space agencies have no interest in making that happen. The Navy has something called the UFO. The feat is all the more impressive when you consider the launch history of NASA's Mercury capsule. claim that only NASA can be trusted to build spacecraft that carry astronauts. it was a complete failure. The flight is exciting because of its implicit promise that it will not always be just test pilots and rich space tourists that get to blast into orbit. has gone one better than NASA's Mercury capsule ON 8 December. http://www. It is a first way to involve the private sector in a different manner than traditional contracting. “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision”. Ultra-High Frequency FollowOn communications satellites. SpaceX capsule succeeds where NASA failed. jettisoning its escape tower and deploying its parachutes.

It can never be the case that all entrepreneurs find a particular resource "too expensive" to use. For example.. There would be no way to determine whether the chosen output goals were good ones. The government spent billions of dollars putting Neil Armstrong on the moon. Consumers are willing to pay enough for golden necklaces (versus silver or copper ones) that it makes it worthwhile for jewelers to buy gold for this purpose. 05 – [Robert Murphy. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 36 . is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute. that could have been alternatively produced? The short answer is. For example. if no entrepreneurs were buying it. and even if it had access to all of the technical conditions (such as resource supplies and technological recipes) of the economy. "That Which Is Seen. but isn’t that true of any undertaking? Why should this be a unique drawback for government endeavors? The crucial difference is that private projects are subject to the profit and loss test. this is the market’s signal that the resources are more urgently needed in other lines (according to the consumers). the extra money motorists would pay to drive across a golden bridge would not cover the additional expense. this seems to be a difficult question to answer. The principle is the same when it comes to space travel. A Free Market in Space. it would be unprofitable—"wasteful"—to use gold in the construction of bridges. scientists’ labor. the benefits of the additional shoes. the scientists. that went into NASA in the 1960s were all diverted from other industries and potential uses. because the scarce resources necessary for their production were devoted to the government project. it is certainly difficult in practice to tell whether the Apollo program (or any other government project) is worth its cost. By seizing tax dollars and financing the Apollo program. fuel. where he teaches at the Mises Academy. would be better devoted to other ends. This is just a specific example of the more general principle elaborated by Ludwig von Mises: the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Or to use a more mundane example. they would have preferred to the space adventures. simply forced Americans to forgo the thousands of products that.e. etc. Yet this is just the market’s way to tell these entrepreneurs that the computers. the value consumers place on the goods that now cannot be produced)? At first glance. Yet it is profitable to use gold in the construction of necklaces or rings. the high price of gold is (among other things) a signal to engineers not to use gold in building bridges. say. then the price of this resource would fall until some did. This is just another example of what Frédéric Bastiat described in his famous essay. we can’t. because consumers would rather the scarce metal be used in jewelry. Profit and loss margins make the private sector most efficient. But what does this really mean? The Apollo moon program certainly didn’t create labor and other resources out of thin air. What people can’t see are the thousands of other goods and services that now won’t be enjoyed. Even if a central planning board were truly benevolent. etc. consumers necessarily must curtail their enjoyments of other goods. After all. On the contrary. according to their own spending decisions. Thus the question becomes: Was the Apollo program (or new stadium) sufficiently valued by consumers to outweigh its opportunity cost (i. The owner of a private firm must pay market prices for all of his or her scarce resources. diapers. and consequently the American taxpayers had billions fewer dollars to spend on other goods and services. Hence. steel.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Solvency – Privatization Better than NASA Government spending can’t cover future space endeavors. fuel. computers. everyone can see the obvious benefits.January 2005. etc.] Prior to the exploits of SpaceShipOne. The reason private entrepreneurs would never have financed the moon program in the 1960s is that the financial returns from such a project wouldn’t come close to covering the expenses." Whenever the government creates some public work. or whether an alternative plan could have provided the subjects with a better outcome. everyone can see a beautiful new sports stadium financed (in part) by tax dollars. Volume 26. and That Which Is Not Seen. and listened as Neil Armstrong apparently flubbed his memorized line. but they can’t evade economic ones: If they send a man to the moon (or build a new stadium). how can we possibly compare the benefits of the Apollo program with. Yes. The above analysis might puzzle the reader. Murphy. Politicians may break moral laws. Number 1. everyone can appreciate the fact that we put a US flag on the moon. If the consumers do not then voluntarily spend enough money on the final product or service to recoup these expenditures. the planners would be at a loss to deploy the scarce resources in an efficient way. President Kennedy et al. the standard justification for government involvement in space was that such undertakings were "too expensive" for the private sector. research on cancer. automobiles. unskilled workers.

achieved some major milestones. "I believe this trend will continue through 2011 and beyond.com." Christensen said that entrepreneurs are testing new launch and on-orbit capabilities in the real world. "New markets are emerging and established ones are changing.com since 1999.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC Solvency – Now Key Private sector space firms are key to any form of space development David 10’ By Leonard David. [ Gallery: First Solo Flight of SpaceShipTwo ] Multiple private-sector space firms are moving into full power." Christensen predicted." Commercial landscape "The space industry has never seen such a rich and varied commercial landscape." "The key will be to systematically move forward. trying to move beyond development and demonstration and into sustainable. founder and host of the radio/Internet talk show "The Space Show. Commercial space is finally coming into its own. said David Livingston. profitable operation. But this once-pejorative term has taken on new meaning this year." Livingston said. "The successes and setbacks of 2011 are going to make it the most interesting year in the history of commercial space. which launched atop a Falcon 9 to Earth orbit and then was recovered from the Pacific Ocean." In terms of trends for the space industry.msn." said Carissa Bryce Christensen. is likely to feature battles between "same old space" and the ascension of "new space. and later the first liftoff of the firm's Dragon spacecraft. managing partner of consulting firm The Tauri Group in Alexandria. This year saw the very first launch of commercial space company SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster. Large firms are changing their game plans in response. http://www. Virgin Galactic.msnbc. business fundamentals. Another company. He is past editorin-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for Space. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 37 . SpaceShipTwo. Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. reasonable business risks and a safety mindset. and 2011 represents a year of enormous potential for this developing industry. according to experts and analysts contacted by Space. building success upon success. as a roster of successes and fast-paced growth throughout 2010 suggests private spaceflight is ready to take off in 2011. achievable goals. Va. the coming year. Livingston foresees a move away from big government programs in favor of economically managed and leaner commercial space ventures and projects. including the first glide test of its suborbital spaceliner. "I believe the coming year will reward patience. Still. updated 12/29/2010 11:02:21 AM ET. going well beyond PowerPoints and hand-waving.com/id/40840100/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/private-spaceflight-readytake/# “Private spaceflight ready to take off in 2011” The private space industry has long been viewed as fledgling.

a lunar rover sponsored by Radio Shack.2-billion. while carrying high risks. in 1982 Space Sciences Inc. (The GAO included the sunk costs of the various discarded designs. the economic factor that is inherently decisive in every commercialization process bears a special relevance to space activities. As station costs soared. Private space: High costs have forced NASA to cut projects and delayed the development of space. But until the Challenger disaster. It is time to unleash the dynamics of free markets in the space sector. For example. Profit incentives are key to development. Most would take a trip into orbit if they could. That leaves very little time for science and research. were required to send their payloads into orbit on government rockets. and “big science” projects Edward Hudgins. Robert Goddard. (now named the International Space Station (ISS). van Traa-Engelman15 stresses that “since space operations need heavy investment. The communications and information revolution has transformed the economy and society. In the first decades of the space age. The way to open up the frontier is to involve the private sector. is an expert on the regulation of space and transportation. state security and military reasons have defined the content and the direction of national space programs. 6-9 November 2006. But critics maintain that. National Post. in the 1970s. The CATO Institute] Americans are fascinated by outer space. March 15th. or to cover developments in existing fields. Ukraine. with high costs keeping space inaccessible to most entrepreneurs as well as to the general public. the station went from a projected capacity for 12 full-time occupants down to three. 01 – [Walker. building and launching the station would be US$48.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT – Privatization Solves The private sector is best – space is becoming more about profit and less about policy. if the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. trucking. named the Conestoga. and modules for broadcast and Internet services.” Commercial considerations became fundamental in the process preceding the appropriation of funds required to create new solutions and technologies. But such profitable plans require radical reforms of America's space policy and the role of NASA. 2002.9-billion. Poole and Tumlinson.) The cost of operating the station after its assembly through 2012 will add another US$45. formerly director of regulatory studies for the Cato Institute and editor of Regulation magazine. in the three decades since men last walked on the Moon. an orbiting space station seemed to serve that purpose. pharmaceuticals. and even space adventure travel for private citizens. to initiate new fields of space applications. NASA ignored the private sector. Now the development of space activities depends on quite large scale upon the possibility of recovering investments and making attractive profit. has not lived up to NASA's projections. For example.7-billion to the price tag. private companies asked NASA and other government agencies to purchase services from them. for a total bill of US$93. Worse. telecommunications technology. satellites. they had to go to NASA rather than to a private launch provider. Filho. Poole and Tumlinson. Private companies ensure better access to scientific discovery. the Environmental Protection Agency or the Interior Department wanted to put up weather or remote-sensing satellites. Factiva Further. Thus. Entrepreneurs already are providing private launch services. and telecommunications have reduced costs and created new economic opportunities. NASA needed a mission to justify its continued existence. Legal Issues of Commercial Space Activities] Why commercial activities are necessary to the use of outer space? H. 2001. the actual cost of designing. United Nations/Ukraine Workshop on Space Law. As it became apparent in the early 1980s that the shuttle would cost far more than anticipated. NASA has gone from science and exploration to bureaucracy and politics. But it takes the time of twoand-a-half astronauts to maintain the station. not just NASA. Other planned innovations include collecting and beaming energy to Earth from orbit. Congress has capped the station's budget at about US$25-billion. Regardless of any commercial or scientific benefits. since the pioneering days of Dr. which was supposed to be up and running in the early 1990s. for example. an original justification for the station. 2-4-2003. One General Accounting Office report found that. Like the shuttle. In the past ''big science'' projects were handled by the private sector. Kyiv. Walker. the Carnegie Institution spent (in 1996 Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 38 . and labor. Even so NASA has found that it will cost about US$30-billion to complete the station in its current design. launched the first privately funded American rocket. NASA might have contracted with that company for services. all government agencies.L. But the estimated cost of the station. ’06 – [José Monserrat Filho. the station. Other domestic issues prove the private sector is more cost effective. through June. Privatization and deregulation of industries such as airlines. went from a promised US$8-billion in 1984 to nearly US$40-billion before a 1993 stripped-down US$30-billion redesign. excluding many costs.

brings down costs. puts the number of employees in space-related industries at 497. Currently NASA fights with policymakers to maintain its budgets and is always under pressure to cut projects and missions. Lower costs for access to space. The communications and information revolution produced a high demand for satellites. giving a boost to the private space sector. would benefit those wanting to use space for scientific investigations. The Satellite Industry Association estimated that worldwide satellite industry revenues would be US$92-billion in 2001.4-million between 1920 and 1929 on the Mt. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 39 . A market-based growth strategy would benefit any party that could benefit from low-cost access to space. and US$18-million between 1940 and 1949. After all. The Rockefeller Foundation. Tidal McCoy. starting in 1929. Wilson Observatory. up from US$83-billion in 2000 and US$69-billion in 1999. US$26. and makes them available to all consumers.000.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 XT – Privatization Solves dollars) US$20. Wouldn't it be great if a privatized Kennedy Space Center were as busy with launches as nearby Orlando International Airport is with take-offs and landings? It will certainly be a while before we see that level of private space operations.37-million from 1930 to 1939. The obvious way to bring down the high costs of space activities is to involve the private sector. The Space Transportation Association chairman.5billion. and more space infrastructure and services. which saw first light in 1948. it is the private sector that generates and commercializes new goods and services from cars to computers. paid out US$60-million to build the Mount Palomar Observatory. with the American portion currently valued at US$37.

“Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision”. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power. It is a step in the private direction. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project. at 10 times its original budget. There is a model here that the Department of Defense has used with great success. As the staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration's National Space Council. http://www.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Better than NASA Private sector solves better than government – avoids politicization Garmong 2004. there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space station. gd. traveling to another world. will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the moon. Hudgins. discipline. 1/28/04. is the editor of the Cato Institute book. (Robert Garmong Ph. There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. was a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004." Unfortunately. but were built by the private sector to provide the services the Government contracted for. If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with nonFreon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets. The Navy has something called the UFO. in philosophy. President Bush echoed such sentiments. the government does have UFOs!) The Navy bought these communications capabilities as services rather than systems. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements.org/pdf/materials/230. although there have been a few examples such as the Lunar Prospector that were done on this sort of model. Ultra-High Frequency FollowOn communications satellites. NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use.php?pub_id=2514) The reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent moon base and a trip to Mars is. (Pete Worden was Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week.cato. decades behind schedule.capitalismmagazine. It is a first way to involve the private sector in a different manner than traditional contracting. the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago. "Great! It's about time NASA stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration. http://www." and "the spirit of discovery. instead. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial. unpredictable. The systems themselves weren’t developed by a government program office. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.pdf) hss The first “different” private sector aspect is that NASA and other government agencies can contract for services rather than systems. with homedistrict congressmen to lobby on their behalf. despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 40 . NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. (So the X-files TV show really is right. NASA has failed the US—ISS. http://www. he is stymied. but only a small one. a few hundred miles up in orbit. he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs. “Privatize Space Exploration: The Free-Market Solution For America's Space Program”. Private sector approaches to solving are superior to NASA Worden 2004. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions. NASA has not used it much.html) hss Indeed. largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. The George Marshall institute. and as a former Air Force officer I must reluctantly commend the Navy. Los Angeles Air Force Base.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-sspace-program. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions. the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. In announcing NASA's new mission. Space: The FreeMarket Frontier. This is an example of more private sector involvement in the sense that government money is spent in a different manner." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best. speaking of the American values of "daring. which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion. but the search for its replacement has been halted. Freon-based foam. ingenuity. Edward L. director of The Objectivist Center." But after the triumphs of Apollo. not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary.marshall.org/pub_display. and often impossible demands of a politicized system.D. budget overruns (Hudgins 04.

neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. computers. NASA can be a rentpaying station tenant. the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights. they could be turned over to other agencies. If the government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and resources or other such functions. NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch services with private companies. and perhaps conducting some basic research. its price tag will be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three. Thus. NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets. Contracting with private pilots with private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 1930s. If need be. which also might serve a defense function. such as EPA and Interior Department.and the Western investors who were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir space station before the Russian government brought it down for political reasons. to the mostly private Russian rocket company. Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services. NASA also should give up the money-draining space station. NASA centers that drive up its overall budget but do not directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. which would handle transportation to and from low Earth orbit. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion. Let a private owner fly it for paying customers-including NASA. which helped the emerging civil aviation sector Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 41 . Only private entrepreneurs can improve quality. The station might be turned over to international partners or. you name it. the shuttle should be given away to private owners. Instead. if necessary -. house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. and make accessible to all individuals cars. The United Space Alliance. This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector. the Internet. to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station. airline trips. would be an obvious candidate. Energia -.if it is still worth flying. bring down the prices. Worse. better still. and sooner rather than later. Thus.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Better than NASA there have been about four per year.

not the least of which is the monetary value. Mars and asteroid missions would be much more difficult. The huge time commitment involved makes it tough for most university researchers and scientists. because they usually can’t afford the time or money to hunt meteorites full time. They're not making us a space-faring civilization. To what end?" According to November 2007 NASA estimate. “Saving the World One Meteorite at a Time” http://www. In a word it’s profitable to hunt meteorites IF you know what you’re doing. Hudgins said missions to asteroids and Mars would be much cheaper once the private sector built up a strong technological infrastructure for space exploration.” Lexis) Those goals contrast with President John F. money. But more important is that the nature of space exploration has changed greatly since 1961. and a massive amount of effort to be successful.com/meteorite-articles/savingthe-world-one-meteorite-at-a-time/) Steve Arnold of the Science Channel’s Meteorite Men recently did an interview for Yahoo News where he stated that scientists can’t typically afford to hunt meteorites as often or spend as much time in the field. Mr." That call was fulfilled on time. Privatization solves asteroids—it’s profitable Meteorite USA. 10 (12/29. and that’s where private sector meteorite hunters come into play. eight years later . Meteorite hunting takes time.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***Specific Missions*** CP Solves—Asteroids Private enterprise is more efficient for asteroid missions Orange County Register. The private sector meteorite hunter has the opportunity and motivation to hunt meteorites for a number of reasons. All this does is keep NASA employees at work. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 42 . Granted. Hudgins said. Kennedy's famous proclamation before Congress on May 25. with private enterprises shooting faster toward the stars. that America would land a man "by the end of this decade. 10 (4/27.with much of the engineering and construction done in Orange County. the Mars mission alone could cost as much as $450 billion.meteoritesusa. Even with the cancellation of NASA funding for the Constellation project. NASA's space proposals "shape up to be more NASA boondoggles. “Space: Free-Market Frontier. 1961.

we may one day look back and wonder why it didn't happen sooner. it may just be possible for NASA to revitalize America's manned space program. Right now there are more questions than answers. freelance journalist. http://www. and the help of America's private sector. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 43 . just not at the amount that Constellation required. If it truly results in proper use of the ISS. and new technologies for manned exploration of deep space. but perhaps the 2011 budget and its new direction for NASA will not be the serious blow to America's manned space program that some fear. N.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Constellation Constellation fails – privatization makes it effective David ’10. DKreus NASA's budget is not being cut under the 2011 proposal. 2-6-2010.helium.com/items/1734055-nasa-2011-budget. It is being increased. successful commercialization of low Earth orbit. David. With ambitious but achievable goals that spark the imagination of the American public. “The NASA 2011 budget and the future of America’s Manned Space Program”.

A space industry capable of contributing to economic growth. Such an industry will rely upon proven players with aerospace capabilities. an increase in both the number and variety of such businesses would vastly increase the processes and materials available for space exploration. 06/4/04. The private sector will continue to push the envelope to succeed competitively in the space field. The Commission heard testimony on both positive incentives and potential bottlenecks encountered by the private sector as they attempt to exploit these commercial opportunities. but increasingly should encourage entrepreneurial activity.unt. http://govinfo. will be a national treasure.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal. gd. producing new products through the creation of new knowledge and leading the world in invention and innovation. viewable in Appendix D of the liked document.pdf) Although many companies exist and more are emerging in the field of space. 04 (The Commission is made up of a number of industry and government members. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 44 . It is the stated policy of the act creating and enabling NASA that it encourage and nurture private sector space.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Exploration The private sector is key to exploration President’s Commission on Implementation of US Space Exploration Policy.library.

build and operate a Space Solar Power System (SSPS).Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—SPS SPS should be privatized – solves faster. With sunlight generating 1MW per square metre. compared to around 15 per cent for conventional crystalline solar panels.pdf. which uses lenses to focus sunlight onto solar material. http://www. "We have a nanomount on the back of the chip that has a tremendous ability to move thousands of thermal watts of energy away from the chip. Most importantly the development is ten times more easily sustained by reason of the lower cost. commercial (public/private) enterprises could do it for one tenth of that cost. said Sidlo. incidentally for NSS. If and when SSP is built. The lenses used by the company will focus the power of 2. that means it can harvest 375 watts. the company is considering harvesting the waste heat and converting it back into power. National Space Society.edu/sunsatcorpfaq. (Some things.000 suns onto the solar material. He added that the technology rests on two key pieces of intellectual propery. The National Space Society recommends the enactment of legislation by the Congress to charter a Space Solar Power Corporation. Therefore we present and commend the following motion to the Board of Directors: Motion to recommend the chartering by Congress of a Space Solar Power Corporation. greatly reduced launch costs will provide unprecedented access to space and space operations . said Sunrgi CEO Paul Sidlo.gatech. including asteroid protection. delay space settlement in general. as Comsat was. creating temperatures of 3. or Mars development cannot be done commercially. The company is using solar chips from Boeing Spectrolabs as the basis for the solar concentrator system. which it claims will produce energy costing five cents per kilowatt hour when amortised over 20 years.sspi. and as a direct result of a massively expanded market. Private sector has sufficient technology – could be completed within a year Business Green 08 (publication for firms wishing to improve environmental sensitivity.400 degrees. The other proprietary technology is a tracking system that will minutely adjust the array's position to track the sun. and. using the same solar technology designed for satellites. such as NASA and DOE are vying to assume control of the space solar power / wireless power transfer research venue to enlarge their empires." Once removed from the chip by the nanotechnology. 12-6-2006.) So Space solar power and many other goals await organizations chartered and committed to doing those things. the heat eventually reaches an aluminium heat sink that can help to move it out of the solar array. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 45 ." explained Sidlo. like the Apollo program. DKreus Space Solar Power must be a commercial or public/private company. This corporation would be directed to research. costs less. organization researching and analyzing various methods to explore and develop space. Several organizations.businessgreen.beginning with SSP – promising to provide reliable power delivery and global energy security with improved international prosperity at greatly reduced environmental impact. Neither organization would move space solar power an inch closer to commercial reality because neither organization would "win" by doing that. In future versions. since NASA has no significant history of income-generating activity. Sunrgi uses a proprietary cooling technology to stop the intense heat from the lenses vapourising the solar material. The 10 to 1 ratio applies across the board. NASA doing anything in space costs ten times as much compared to commercial enterprise doing it. finally. For example. com/businessgreen/news/2215513/satellite-solar-panels-promise) Solar Concentrator Company Sunrgi is planning to undercut conventional grid electricity prices within twelve months. IF commercial enterprise can do it. placing space solar power / wireless power transfer “research and development” under their control will delay the formation of a power satellite industry.5 per cent. The technology. the company said. "It uses nanotechnology that we developed. increasing the energy that a unit will be able to harvest from the sun on a daily basis. then commercial development is the way to go. The company said it hopes to begin commercial production in within 12 to 15 months. The company would not reveal the initial investment required in the equipment. if NASA could support 6 settlers on the moon for 2 billion dollars per year. delay the lowering in cost of orbital space transportation. “Satellite solar panels promise grid parity power by next year” http://www.from in-situ resource utilization and improved observation and communications to space settlement. and revitalizes the aerospace sector more effectively NSS ’06. design. Spectrolabs has previously been credited with developing high-efficiency multi-junction solar material. and many products we can only dream of today . develop. And actually probably a hundred times more likely to be sustained. Sunrgi is planning a technology combining solar concentrators with space-class solar technology based on germanium. telescopes on the moon. The corporation would receive special financial incentives designed to coordinate a lowering in commercial launch to orbit costs commensurate with. delay the formation of innumerable other cis-lunar industries. A renaissance in commercial cis-lunar space markets beckons. Rather. which will be initially sold to utilities and large-scale industrial organisations. “Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors”. Firstly. 4/30. has an efficiency of 37.

The technology may exist. this has already been worked out as well. “Space solar will simply be one energy option. hopes to reduce its costs at the launch pad. but the cost of getting it all up into space and working is simply staggering. Is Space-Based Solar Power Viable? http://www. but is on par with costs of terrestrial solar power and wind energy.miller-mccune. To generate a massive amount of solar energy. 9. making the whole system significantly lighter. Those costs will be huge. Space Energy’s chief strategy officer.. Space Energy already has some $10 million in seed capital. These would then be focused on highly efficient solar panels.” said Solaren’s CEO Gary Spirnak. The condensed sunlight could produce enough energy to power 1. Pacific Gas and Electric signed the world’s first space solar power purchase agreement.9 cents per kilowatt. why haven't we done this yet? How come we aren't meeting oddly attractive aliens yet? The answer is the same as it always is. Bruce Dorminy. said plans call for a $180 to $280 million demonstrator satellite to be launched into low Earth orbit within two years of the venture being funded. There is no current solution.solarcompanies. but space is infinite and the sun is "on" every second. A possible competitor. Space Energy’s current plan is to use such a platform to beam one gigawatt of microwave energy to the ground.com/science-environment/snagging-free-range-solar-power-in-space-is-an-option-3382/ This past April. In fact. but nothing we can't handle. Calif. There. we've already done so repeatedly.”Kollipara estimates the startup’s end-to-end cost per kilowatt-hour will be some 15 to 25 cents. The answer is microwaves.000 homes. Snagging Free-Range Solar Power in Space Is an Option http://www. the waves would be converted into useable energy. portions of western Europe and niche regions of the U. an international space solar startup with offices in Switzerland and Canada.S. a former spacecraft project manager with the U. we would merely need to expand the system and make a small change. Calif. national directory for solar services. Most satellites run on it. That may sound like a big system. Air Force who later worked for both Hughes and Boeing.5 kilometers by 5 kilometers. That’s more expensive than power generated from hydroelectric and coal-burning plants. we're generating power. he said. With a solar photovoltaic collecting array of an estimated kilometer in size. This will require some three to four launches from Cape Canaveral. but the effort of companies to privatize the space exploration process is raising hopes that it will become viable at some point in the not to distant future. and so wiring would make up a third of their system’s weight. former Hong Kong bureau chief for Aviation Week and Space Technology and former technology correspondent for Financial Times. Solar Companies. Kollipara and colleagues would like to see their first phase of operation fully implemented — that is. it then forms a beam that can be transmitted to the ground. notes that Solaren will launch its estimated 100. the PG&E/Solaren rectenna will be hooked into an onsite substation that will gather up the solar electricity and adjust voltages at a so-called “delivery point. Okay. 11. From there. We've become fairly good at space walks and such. so we had to convince PG&E that we knew what we were doing. Located in a rural part of Fresno County. But Space Energy’s potential target markets would be China. Spirnak. The space station certainly uses panels to keep the lights on. it would be converted to microwaves. Space Energy.. or some 1. A beam of microwaves would then be shot down to a receiving plant roughly a square mile in size. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 46 .700 gigawatt/hours (GWh) per year. Only privatization solves the cost barrier to SPS. Solaren Corporation. a space solar power startup based in Manhattan Beach. Amaresh Kollipara. Spirnak said many previous space solar designs planned on moving gigawatts of electricity over many kilometers in space. except that it will be in the billions of dollars. perhaps with the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket (a new reusable commercial launcher).Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—SPS Market exists now to create cheap SPS—recent deal with PG&E and commercial competition prove. the financial burden of launching such hefty payloads into geostationary Earth orbit would easily range into the hundreds of millionsof dollars. Setting up a small shuttle to move out and about on the system to replace broken parts would represent some minor technical advances. This might be achieved by using more economical ways of accessing space. so a home is established.S. The idea would be to build mirror fields of 2.com/solar-articles/is-space-based-solar-power-viable Space is vast. the California utility projects that this new space electricity’s 2016 wholesale price will be some 12. award-winning science journalist. his own team patented a design that alleviates such heavy on-orbit wiring. How do we get it back to Earth to use? Well. That’s significant. It would likely be divided into separate nodes that would either be linked physically or via laser transmissions. Instead of converting the energy to alternate current electricity. since one GWh roughly equals a sixth of Los Angeles’ peak electric demand. This means we have a lot of room to put up solar energy systems. the on-orbit robotic construction of a space solar satellite stretching over several square kilometers. In contrast. And PG&E has only contracted to pay for energy it actually receives and none of the startup costs. Energy from the photovoltaic array will then be converted into a radio frequency signal using solid-state power amplifiers. based on current launch cost estimates.” However.” Kollipara said. We already have the space station in orbit. October 25. So.000-kilogram geosynchronous space solar satellite in sections. How about maintenance? Any system is going to need some maintenance. will provide PG&E with 200 megawatts of space solar power per hour. from the time the space solar power enters the PG&E system. but is at least a couple of years away from building hardware for its projects. the satellite will use solar concentrators to focus sunlight onto a photovoltaic array. “Utilities are notoriously conservative. “There’s no way we are going to displace other forms of electricity. India. Before 2025. He refuses to give an exact cost for the project. Beginning in 2016.

Telesurgery is commonplace.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—SPS—AT: Private Industry Lacks Tech Private companies have the tech – they are ready to build NSS ’06. “Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors”.gatech. (We had almost zero knowledge of that interaction then. Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) technology is once again unfunded in the US. http://www. WPT was demonstrated in 1975 by Bill Brown at JPL/Goldstone. organization researching and analyzing various methods to explore and develop space. We are not at a final version because of international disagreements on publishing this work area. just as a satellite communications laboratory was/is a core component of Comsat Corp.pdf. For a readable paper on WPT see the URSI White Paper on Solar Power Satellites which is a bit later than the one on the SSPW website. Especially Compared To The Comsat Analogy? I.edu/sunsatcorpfaq. Neither version on the web contains much important work done in recent decades.sspi.E.. such as Draper et al’s work on earth’s magnetosphere.. Creating a real WPT laboratory and industry would be a core component of SunSat Corp. National Space Society. etc. Our space transportation understanding is 40+ years more advanced. solar flares and an SSP’s intense electromagnetic field is almost perfect. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 47 . Our telerobotics understanding is 40+ years more advanced. DKreus Question 4: What Is The State Of The Technology. 12-6-2006. solar flares. Our understanding of the electromagnetic interaction between the earth’s magnetosphere. How Much Of The Necessary Technology Is Known. And How Much Needs To Be Created? Answer 4: We are far better prepared to build Sunsats today than we were in 1962 to build Comsats.) Our space photovoltaics technology is ten times more efficient and a hundred times lighter in weight.

we can definitely expect terrorists or other states to do so and for space to be stunted by lack of defensive protection. but there are also no citizens. 2004. Antarctica may be free of the intellectual pollution brought by property rights. With no privatization and no military protection. but that would require much lower transport prices and higher spectrum prices than we’ve seen since the 3G crash. Space entertainment might pay its own way. July 26. Suborbital point-to-point service from New York to Tokyo with a flight time less than the Concorde’s New York-toLondon time may emerge some time. If no weaponization occurs by the US. hands out checks to its citizens rather than charging them taxes. in contrast. Antarctica is also more inaccessible.com/article/193/1) hss Some things may be worth that transportation cost. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 48 . Further weaponization of space will probably be required to defend the US in the most economical manner and to defend the new civilian space assets.thespacereview. so there may be another explanation for the disparity. Maybe astronomical observing frequencies could be sold off on Earth to pay for a site on the far side of the Moon.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Colonization Privatization key to colonization Dinkin 2004. as might suborbital tourism. Space science might be able to tag along. Colonization in order to assure that our species outlasts the dinosaurs is priceless. Alaska. but science would have to be heavily subsidized. Orbital hotels may be viable. Sam Dinkin is a writer for The Space Review. “Space privatization: road to freedom”. no development and very little in the way of commercial exports. There are some valuable military uses to space being explored by the Pentagon with its FALCON and RASCAL programs in addition to earth observing satellites. Opening Mars to colonization will also create new opportunities for religious freedom and personal freedoms as the Pilgrims found when they immigrated to the New World. http://www. there will not be much colonization.

if it is still worth flying. 1/28/04. would be an obvious candidate. better still. airline trips. NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. the Internet. Space: The FreeMarket Frontier. Thus. director of The Objectivist Center.cato. they could be turned over to other agencies.and the Western investors who were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir space station before the Russian government brought it down for political reasons. ingenuity. the shuttle should be given away to private owners." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best. will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the moon. If Americans are again to walk on the moon and make their way to Mars. is the editor of the Cato Institute book. Hudgins. there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a downsized version of its originally planned space station. which would handle transportation to and from low Earth orbit. Edward L. President Bush echoed such sentiments." and "the spirit of discovery. neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. discipline. NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch services with private companies. If the government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and resources or other such functions. to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station. NASA also should give up the money-draining space station. NASA centers that drive up its overall budget but do not directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. which helped the emerging civil aviation sector Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 49 . instead. speaking of the American values of "daring. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power. Let a private owner fly it for paying customers-including NASA. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion. Worse. http://www. The United Space Alliance. such as EPA and Interior Department. NASA can be a rentpaying station tenant. There were supposed to be shuttle flights every week. In announcing NASA's new mission. Only private entrepreneurs can improve quality. Thus. gd. The station might be turned over to international partners or. Private companies quickest. NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the moon and planets. This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector.php?pub_id=2514 The reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent moon base and a trip to Mars is. house a crew of 12 and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. Contracting with private pilots with private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 1930s. traveling to another world. its price tag will be $100 billion and it will have only a crew of three. "Great! It's about time NASA stopped going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration. and sooner rather than later. decades behind schedule. and perhaps conducting some basic research. Governments simply cannot provide commercial goods and services." Unfortunately. Energia -. a few hundred miles up in orbit. to the mostly private Russian rocket company. cheapest way to moon—ISS. and make accessible to all individuals cars." But after the triumphs of Apollo. Instead. budget overruns Hudgins 04. you name it. If need be.org/pub_display. bring down the prices. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Moon Colonization/Mining NASA has failed the US. NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. which also might serve a defense function. at 10 times its original budget. there have been about four per year. if necessary -. the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights. computers.

and financial management structures. (The Space Settlement Institute is a non-profit association of professionals founded to help promote the human colonization and settlement of outer space. Hawaii. Schmitt is the chairman of the Interlune-Intermars Initiative. The possibility of acquiring a vast tract of undeveloped Lunar real estate would create a major incentive for the private sector to invest billions to independently finance and develop a regular space transportation system and permanent base on the Moon. Freeing the development of a Lunar transport system and base from dependence on government funding would not only provide significant taxpayer relief but would also help make the President's Moon-to-Mars proposal more sustainable. (Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than four decades. Schmitt 3. and the streamlining of management responsibility. Inc. Harrison H. The study was funded by LEC.org/strategy.com/1793-private-sector-cost-lunar-plan-unveiled.html) hss A newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon. He is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 50 .spacesettlement-institute. Such total restructuring would be necessary to re-create the competence and discipline necessary to operate successfully in the much higher risk and more complex deep space environment relative to that in near-earth orbit.html) hss International law bans governments from owning land on the Moon.far less than a NASA price tag. Of particular importance would be for most of the agency to be made up of engineers and technicians in their 20s and managers in their 30s. lower cost missions can be completed by the private sector using existing technology or innovative new technology expected to be available in time to support human exploration of the Moon in the near-future. If Government were to lead a return to deep space. SpaceDev of Poway. Private sector best way to solve moon colonization – too many problems with NASA. Harrison H. Schmitt: Senate Hearing on "Lunar Exploration"” http://www.. NASA today lacks the critical mass of youthful energy and imagination required for work in deep space. particularly the Moon and then to Mars.space. a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Age Publishing Company of Hawaii's Island. Private companies can colonize the moon – studies prove David 2005. Kennedy. and concluded that safe. The Space Settlement Institute 2011. reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion . SpaceDev announced the results of its International Lunar Observatories Human Servicing Mission study last week at a meeting conducted by Lunar Enterprise Corporation (LEC).spaceref. and Palo Alto. LowCost Lunar Plan Unveiled”. “Testimony of Hon. Even if tax-based funding commitments could be guaranteed. and Johnson in the late 1950s and throughout 1960s. “Lunar Land Claims Recognition – Strategy”. “Private Sector. it is not a foregone conclusion that the competent and disciplined management system necessary to work in deep space would be created and sustained. The existing NASA also would need to undergo a major restructuring and streamlining of its program management. the re-institution of design engineering activities in parallel with those of contractors.com since 1999. California. Huge unfunded "entitlement" liabilities and a lack of sustained media and therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of resources and attention that such an effort requires. but private entities could legally own such land.html?pid=10924) hss It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or sustain a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of circumstances as those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower. http://www. the NASA of today is probably not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return humans to deep space. Either a new agency would needed to implement such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured using the lessons of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45 years ago. risk management.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Moon Colonization Private sector can get around international laws – can colonize the moon.com/news/viewsr. http://www. California. It also has become too bureaucratic and too risk-adverse. The multi-phased three-year study was done by a private space firm.

former US senator. was a key to the success of Apollo. is capable of the sustained commitment of resources such an effort requires. http://www. it is not clear that government. lunar-based employees must realize that all medical and recreational requirements will be served on the Moon. Fulbright Fellow. Schmitt. as did the Apollo Program until after the Apollo 1 fire in 1966. “Private Enterprise Approach to Lunar Base Activation”. The workforce is in place for private development – action is key Schmitt ’03. National Space Society of Professorial Engineers. DKreus Along with a highly motivated and capable young work force.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Moon Exploration Privatization is key to lunar exploration – workforce flexibility and innovation Schmitt ’03. manufacturing. if carried out in conjunction with the support of Helium-3 production. and risk management plans. offers the greatest likelihood of sustained commitment. Caltech grad and Fairchild Fellow. One selection criterion that will be considered because of cost considerations will be employee interest in permanent settlement on the Moon. namely the mature Apollo Program. NASA distinguished service medal. It does not appear that an existing government agency could create a management and personnel environment necessary to successfully undertake a return to the Moon. CONCLUSION A business/investor-founded approach to the establishment of a permanent lunar base represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U. the preparation of program. however.sciencedirect. National Science Postdoctoral Fellowship. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 51 . 2000). A new agency with the same flexibility that the early NASA had might do this. http://www. ANCILLARY ACTIVITIES The development and amortization of the capability to go to the Moon and return routinely using private capital resources will create several potential profit centers in support of ancillary activities. The former Soviet Union tried and failed. Harrison H. engineering design. 6-30-03. a largely private initiative would be desirable (Schmitt. Criteria for selection. Scientific research on or from the Moon and tourism. Engineer of the Year Award. Only one of three attempts to forge the competent and disciplined management system necessary to function safely and successfully in lunar space has been successful. Although not yet certain of success. but could piggy-back on resource related activities. and training of employees will be developed in concert with the development of engineering designs and operational plans. Also.pdf. NASA distinguished service medal. Engineer of the Year Award. with returns to Earth severely limited by costs. national or international. would be at the margin. Fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power.S. Deep space is not yet as forgiving an environment for human activities as near-Earth space has become (and even there risk there is still very high). 6-30-03. and their systematic configuration control.sciencedirect. Harrison H. as examples. Thus. former Astronaut. Fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. A return to the Moon will require a sustained commitment for 10 to 15 years or until the base can be self-supportive indefinitely. There may be no other practical means for affordable scientific research on the Moon or for creating an economically viable opportunity for tourists. former US senator. DKreus Experience with young engineers. project. Schmitt. The cost of such activities. would not have to bear the capital cost of launch and space vehicle development or of the creation and management of a lunar support base. of the various possible approaches to managing a return to the Moon.pdf. compensation.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-4B82PJY-S1&_cdi=5738&_user=4257664&_pii=S0273117703005374&_origin=&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_sk=999689988&view=c& wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkWW&md5=9e41c9111a8bb0381cac273fe28e2ddd&ie=/sdarticle. National Space Society of Professorial Engineers. scientists and skilled workers strongly suggests that a large reservoir of potential employees exists for private sector hires to work on the Moon and in related activities on Earth.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-4B82PJY-S1&_cdi=5738&_user=4257664&_pii=S0273117703005374&_origin=&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_sk=999689988&view=c& wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkWW&md5=9e41c9111a8bb0381cac273fe28e2ddd&ie=/sdarticle. Government or by a coalition of countries. a business/investor approach. former Astronaut. National Science Postdoctoral Fellowship. Caltech grad and Fairchild Fellow. financial. Fulbright Fellow. “Private Enterprise Approach to Lunar Base Activation”.

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—Mars
Privatization is superior – solves Mars exploration faster and more efficiently David ’10, N. David, freelance journalist, 2-6-2010, “The NASA 2011 budget and the future of America’s Manned Space
Program”, http://www.helium.com/items/1734055-nasa-2011-budget, DKreus "Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously," Charlie Bolden, the current NASA Administrator, said at a February 1, 2010 press conference. He says this will be the outcome of the direction outlined in the 2011 proposal. It certainly sounds impressive, but can any of it really happen? The Commercialization of Space One encouraging sign is that the commercialization of low Earth orbit is part of the plan. The Space Shuttle fleet will be retired at the end of 2010. Rather than use NASA resources to develop a replacement for the Shuttle, the goal is to have the commercial sector develop the means to reach low Earth orbit. The commercialization of space is long overdue. Private enterprise will do it more efficiently and cost-effectively, and leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector frees up NASA resources to explore deep space. Billions of dollars are allocated to NASA in the 2011 budget and beyond for research and development of new technologies and approaches to space flight. Hopefully, breakthrough technologies will make space flight easier, faster, and more affordable.

Private companies can do mission to mars for much cheaper than the government. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies – CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Sensing that a less costly mission was possible, then– Martin Marietta engineer Robert Zubrin and other scientists devised what they called a Mars Direct approach that would use existing technology and dispense with the space stations, Moon bases, and NASA’s other expensive infrastructure. Zubrin saw that, instead of carrying return fuel to Mars, an unmanned ship could land first with a simple chemical laboratory to manufacture methane and oxygen (i.e., rocket fuel) from Mars’s carbon dioxide atmosphere. NASA put the cost of Zubrin’s approach at between $20 billion and $30 billion, some 95 percent less than the government approach. Yet NASA continues to squander its $13.5 billion annual budget on a space shuttle and a station that contribute little new, useful knowledge. That agency could mount two or three manned Mars missions for the cost of the space station.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

52

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—Mars—AT: No Interest in Mission
Companies are interested in Mars exploration – SpaceX proves Discover News ’11, Discovery News, news organization aimed at space exploration, 4-23-11, “SpaceX Aims to Put Man on Mars
in 10-20 Years”, http://news.discovery.com/space/spacex-elon-musk-mars-astronauts-20-years-110423.html, DKreus Private US company SpaceX hopes to put an astronaut on Mars within 10 to 20 years, the head of the firm said. "We'll probably put a first man in space in about three years," Elon Musk told the Wall Street Journal Saturday. "We're going all the way to Mars, I think... best case 10 years, worst case 15 to 20 years." SpaceX is one of the two leading private space companies in the United States and has won $75 million from the US space agency NASA to help its pursuit of developing a spacecraft to replace the space shuttle. The California-based company last year completed its first successful test of an unmanned space capsule into orbit and back. "Our goal is to facilitate the transfer of people and cargo to other planets, and then it will be up to people if they want to go," said Musk, who also runs the Tesla company which develops electric cars. The US space shuttle program is winding down later this year with final flights of Endeavour set for next week and Atlantis in June, ending an era of American spaceflight that began with the first space shuttle mission in 1981. When the shuttle program ends, the United States hopes private industry will be able to fill the gap by creating the next generation of spacecraft to transport astronauts into space. "A future where humanity is out there exploring stars is an incredibly exciting future, and inspiring, and that's what we're trying to help make happen," Musk added in the interview. Earlier this month SpaceX unveiled what Musk has called the world's most powerful rocket, the Falcon Heavy, which will have its first demonstration flight at the end of 2012. The launcher is designed to lift into orbit satellites or spacecraft weighing more than 53 metric tons, or 117,000 pounds -more than twice the capacity of the Space Shuttle or Delta IV Heavy launcher. SpaceX, short for Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, is one of two private companies that NASA has contracted to transport cargo to the International Space Station.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

53

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—ISS
Privatizing the ISS would generate many more benefits. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L., director of regulatory studies – CATO, Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy
Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Construction costs for the ISS are pegged at some $50 billion, with the station costing taxpayers at least another $2 billion to operate annually. In addition to these high costs, there are two other major problems with the station. First, there is no prospect of any profitable commercial venture coming from NASA’s operation of the station, since no customers could pay the actual costs of renting space on the station. NASA will have to give away space at a loss. This is not to say that commercial use cannot be made of the station. For example, the American company Spacehab and Russia’s Energia plan to build a commercial module to be attached to the Russian part of the station to provide TV and Internet broadcasting. And Boeing and Russia’s Khrunichev State Research Production and Space Center also want to build a module to provide commercial and station services. The problem is that NASA has no incentive to operate or experience in operating an economically viable enterprise and likely will mismanage it to the detriment of commercial ventures.

CP solves the ISS better—NASA needs to get out of the way Boaz 08 (David Boaz is the executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato
Institute.” Space Privatization–from Cato to the BBC” http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/space-privatization-from-cato-to-the-bbc/) In the premier issue of BBC Knowledge, the Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees makes several provocative arguments about manned space flight. They are: The completion of the International Space Station (ISS) comes with a price tag of $50 billion, with the only profit being the cooperation with foreign partners. There is no scientific, commercial, or military value in sending people to space. Future expeditions to the Moon and beyond will only be politically and financially feasible if they are cut-price ventures. He concludes that fostering good relations with other countries is insufficient justification for the expenditures, and that NASA should move aside and allow the private sector to play a role in manned space flight. The cost of these activities must lessen if they are to continue, and that will only happen with a decrease or removal of government involvement. Rees observes that only NASA deals with science, planetary exploration, and astronauts, while the private sector is allowed to exploit space commercially for things such as telecommunications. However, there is no shortage of interest in space entrepreneurship: wealthy people with a track record of commercial achievement are yearning to get involved. Rees sees space probes plastered with commercial logos in the future, just as Formula One racers are now. Those ideas may sound radical, but not if you’ve been following the work of the Cato Institute. As long ago as 1986, Alan Pell Crawford wrote hopefully that “space commercialization … is a reality,” and looked forward to the country making progress toward a free market in space. The elimination of NASA was a recommendation in the Cato Handbook for Congress in 1999. Edward L. Hudgins, former editor of Regulation magazine, wrote a great deal about private options in space. In 1995, he testified before the House Committee on Appropriations that the government should move out of non-defense related space activities, noting the high costs and wastefulness incurred by NASA. In 2001, Hudgins wrote “A Plea for Private Cosmonauts,” in which he urged the United States to follow the Russians in rediscovering the benefits of free markets after NASA refused to honor Dennis Tito’s request for a trip to the ISS. Hudgins testified again before the House in 2001, this time before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. He noted that since the beginning of the Space Age, NASA has actively discouraged and barred many private space endeavors. This effectively works against the advancement and expansion of technology, while pushing out talent to foreign countries who court American scientists and researches to launch from their less-regulated facilities. In “Move Aside NASA,” Hudgins reported that neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. This makes the price tag of $100 billion for the ISS, far above its original projected cost, unjustifiable. Michael Gough in 1997 argued that the space “shuttle is a bust scientifically and commercially” and that both successful and unsuccessful NASA programs have crowded out private explorers, eliminating the possibility of lessening those problems. Molly K. Macauley of Resources for the Future argued in the Summer 2003 issue of Regulation that legislators and regulators had failed to take into account “the ills of price regulation, government competition, or command-and-control management” in making laws for space exploration.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

54

whether warming or cooling.. This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11 in 1969. Harrison H. Lunar helium-3.html?pid=10924) hss On the question of international law relative to outer space. Under the 1967 Treaty. specifically the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. however. and little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such a commitment.. familiar to all who have received helium-filled baloons. Also. Schmitt: Senate Hearing on "Lunar Exploration"” http://www. Progress there includes the production of over a milliwatt of steady-state power from the fusion of helium-3 and deuterium. over the last decade. Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong base for initiating this enterprise. Inc. The uncertainty that this Agreement would create in terms of international management regimes would make it impossible to raise private capital for a return to the Moon for helium-3 and would seriously hamper if not prevent a successful initiative by the United States Government. These numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for helium-3 fusion power to compete for the creation of new electrical capacity and the replacement of old plant during the 21st Century. helium 4. however. The Office of Science and Technology Policy under several Administrations also has ignored this approach.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Helium-3 Mining Private sector can solve He3 mining Schmitt 3. Schmitt is the chairman of the Interlune-Intermars Initiative. “Testimony of Hon. supplies about half of the approximately $40 billion domestic electrical power market. Steady progress in IEC research as well as basic physics argues strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly more commercial viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion community. This factor represents the total of a factor of two to stay even with population growth and a factor of four or more to meet the aspirations of people who wish to significantly improve their standards of living. There is a resource base of helium-3 of about 10.000 metric tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. At least it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk to invested capital. is ever submitted to the Senate for ratification. of course. Private sector solves He3 mining best – avoids international laws Schmitt 3. and the even lighter helium 3. Helium has two stable isotopes. arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind. Such activities include access to and operations in deep space as well as the terrestrial mining and surface materials processing industries. that IEC research has received no significant support as an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the Department of Energy in spite of that Department's large fusion technology budgets. If the Moon Agreement of 1979. Schmitt is the chairman of the Interlune-Intermars Initiative. believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth. non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. It should be noted.html?pid=10924) hss I must admit to being skeptical that the U. It will have inherently lower capital costs. and the demands of new. There is another unknown factor that will be necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today's coal.spaceref. lunar resources can be extracted and owned. there has been historic progress in the development of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. that law is permissive relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Harrison H. Harrison H. Coal. is imbedded as a trace. but national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining area. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 55 . “Testimony of Hon. Government can be counted on to make such a "sustained commitment" absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore.spaceref. Schmitt: Senate Hearing on "Lunar Exploration"” http://www.S. higher energy conversion efficiency.com/news/viewsr. Inc. Inc. it should be deep sixed. It represents one potential energy source to meet this century's rapidly escalating demand. energy intensive technologies. Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a factor of eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. Harrison H.com/news/viewsr. a range of power from a few hundred megawatts upward. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative.

They would be both lighter and less expensive than traditional spacecraft. I and a group of like-minded businessmen.ieee. DKreus Lunar prospecting will cost a lot of money—perhaps $20 billion over a decade. to conduct lunar prospecting. At the moment. and you could also deploy cleanup vehicles to remove obsolete materials from orbit. Should they fail. these celestial stations would be able to refuel space vehicles of all kinds and would be positioned at key transportation nodes. we plan to rely on inflatable structures. ones that operate only at and beyond low Earth orbit. and then move on to other spots to form an overall map. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 56 . pressure. aerospace engineer. June 2009. until it ultimately ends up in the orbit of the fueling station. DKreus Three elements are essential for the commercial success of our operation. no country seems eager to foot the bill. Decelerating with rocket propellant alone would be prohibitively expensive—we’d be ”eating the seed corn. No longer would you have to carry your fuel and water into orbit with you. Third. We intend to take the concept to an industrial scale. A number of companies have done extensive R&D on such inflatable space structures. Constructed of multilayer fabrics shielded with Kevlar or other strong materials and banded by steel exoskeletons. Such stations would radically change the way nearly every space system is designed. we would soon see the dawn of a new age of space exploration. The water-laden spacecraft will repeatedly dip into and skip out of the upper atmosphere. and transportation requirements. http://spectrum.ieee. June 2009. losing some velocity with each dip. and space-systems managers and engineers formed the Shackleton Energy Co. We estimate that establishing a lunar mining outpost and low-Earth-orbit fueling network will cost about $20 billion and take about a decade to put in place. For government-sponsored space agencies. expeditionary explorers. We would also be able to clear up the ever-growing space debris problem. theirs will be a one-way trip. and space business ventures. This may sound radical. such as vehicles for orbital transfer and satellite repair. we need a relatively inexpensive means of returning to low Earth orbit. Today launch systems must be designed to withstand the punishing effects of high-speed atmospheric drag. But a vehicle that is designed from the start to operate only in space—say. Reliance on such technologies will decrease the cost of our operation. the risk is theirs to take. but the physics and engineering are well understood. they cannot tolerate the political risk of failure. Yet it is the only viable business choice. “Mining the Moon”. Entirely new classes of space vehicles would become possible. space tourism. First. an obvious spot would be near the International Space Station. such a concept is unthinkable. to save about $1 billion during the initial staging of the lunar mining base. we would then establish a network of refueling service stations in low Earth orbit and on the moon to process and provide fuel and consumables. which has even lofted two test modules to low Earth orbit. This same maneuver was previously used only for much smaller planetary robotic missions. “Mining the Moon”.org/aerospace/spaceflight/mining-the-moon. such as Magellan and the Mars Global Surveyor. William Stone. between low Earth orbit and the moon—is not bound by the same design rules. but it still will not be cheap. William Stone. Centuries of explorers made the same hard choice in pushing the limits on land. but in terms of complexity it’s comparable to a North Sea oil production complex. the private sector can and should step in. Should we find significant reserves of ice. It’s time to carry it forward into space. Within a decade or two. these structures could provide most of our habitation. and heating that occur on the way to space. Like modern highway service stations. the first human team will take only enough fuel to land and establish the base—not enough for a return trip to Earth. vibration. Second. But where governments fail to act on a vitally important opportunity. Privatization is more efficient – makes moon mining more cost efficient Stone ’09. including Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace. To do that involves the dissipation of nearly 3 kilometers per second of excess velocity. aerospace engineer. That may sound like a lot. There’d be plenty of fuel for maneuvering satellites and other spacecraft to avoid debris. much as wildcatters do every day in oil fields. This is not reckless bravado but calculated risk management to satisfy mission needs and affordability. which would have obvious applications for other space missions. Two years ago.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Lunar Mining Privatization solves lunar mining – it’s preferable to the aff Stone ’09. and air.org/aerospace/spaceflight/mining-the-moon. Texas.” So we plan to do it with actively controlled aerobraking. in Del Valle. And it’s just a third of what the state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco said it will spend on oil and gas projects over the next five years. Rovers would have to descend into the polar craters to sample the deposits and test for ice. storage. http://spectrum. sea. Protecting the rocket and its payload adds enormously to launch costs. but the human crew who will undertake this mission will do so knowing that their success and survival depend on in situ fuel generation for the return.

Only privatization can catalyze the launch market – its comparatively more effective NSS ’06.gatech.gatech.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown. could enable the Air Force to procure affordable capabilities to routinely operate 60 to 90 miles above Earth. Worden 2004. tourism and so forth. to maximize its resources.sspi. Overlap Or Conflict With NASA Launchers? Answer 7: NASA launchers will never be cost competitive.af. But it is imminently doable.maxwell. We need thousands to really lower costs. Only commercially developed and operated reusable space vehicles will be in the cost class necessary. There is no overlap. Masters in Asian Studies. but problems have caused a suspension of activities.edu/ CP solves best—makes space flight financially viable Trevor Brown. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. the lunar module pilot on the first Moon landing. National Space Society. Kistler Aerospace Corp. Air and Space Power Journal. another emerging industry. Los Angeles Air Force Base. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L.pdf) hss Other groups are looking at substantial orbital complexes. which builds and launches the Delta rocket. specializes in political. S. It used to sell nearly all of its services to the government. and military strategy for the medium of space.html The Air Force could also use space transportation. 12-6-2006. using refurbished Russian rocket engines. (Pete Worden was Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center. Boeing. cost-effective options for delivering the Air Force’s less-sensitive payloads to Earth orbit. has developed what he hopes will be a totally reusable craft. a growing industry. organization researching and analyzing various methods to explore and develop space. http://www. MSc. is also competing for cargo and providing private-sector services. It is possible that one enterprise could become an alternative to Russian Soyuz spacecraft for NASA’s missions to the International Space Station.marshall. Further. The private sector can build rockets and promote space tourism. plans to soon launch what it hopes will be a cost-effective cargo rocket. These are the kinds of ideas that are really moving along.pdf. Space tourism. Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss Lockheed-Martin in the past decade has successfully commercialized its Atlas rocket launch services. “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision”. politically as well as financially. http://www. “Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors”. http://www.. A number of smaller companies also are trying to enter the launch market. economic. Aldrin also is a major advocate of space tourism and commercialization. now as many as two-thirds of its customers are private parties.sspi. Private ventures now under way are reducing the costs of space access considerably. as the space transportation community is well aware.edu/sunsatcorpfaq.) There are none in the market today and it will probably take around 3-4 years to get where we need to be to fly those thousands of flights per year. The George Marshall institute.org/pdf/materials/230. but a handful of launches is not the answer. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Space Tourism The private sector can solve for space tourism. As the staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration's National Space Council. There are at least a dozen groups that have pretty substantial financing and support and pretty good technical credibility behind them that are looking at privately developed stations in Earth orbit that could support manufacturing. The Space Island Group is talking about using shuttle main tanks left in orbit as construction building blocks for an orbital complex. It has held costs down and has had a yearlong backlog of orders for launches.39 Such enterprises could prove attractive. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions. Read the Space Transportation chapter at http://www. he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs.airpower. to acquire platforms capable of delivering munitions from Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 57 . DKreus Question 7: To What Extent Would This Duplicate. 3-1-2009..40 Advances that entrepreneurs are making in suborbital space flight could eventually evolve to a point where the Air Force would find it far easier. Rotary Rocket rolled out a prototype of a planned fully reusable rocket in 1999. (This is the purpose of NASA’s COTS awards. director of regulatory studies – CATO.

000." says Mike Gold.edu/newsclips/archive20092010/26258. which aims to build a commercial space station. 'new business features journalist of the year' by the Periodicals Publishing Association in 2005. commercial carriers might give scientists and their projects cheaper and more reliable access to orbit than the ageing space shuttle can offer." he says. http://oea. "Tourists will typically fly once or twice — they're going to buy tickets in small numbers. "The prices are now down in the range of single-investigator grants. Stern argues that science will turn out to be a bigger customer for commercial spaceflight than tourism. Nature News. Nevada. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 58 . But when governments or industry buy tickets they will buy them by the dozens or hundreds. They could also provide a better platform for experiments than the International Space Station (ISS). director of operations at the Washington DC office of Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas. DDI 2011 CP Solves—Space Research Commercial spaceflights provide a better mechanism for researching in space Katharine Sanderson. where astronauts had little time to attend to experiments after crew numbers temporarily fell from six to three for several years after the Columbia space-shuttle disaster in 2003. and journalist for Nature News." Seats aboard SpaceShipTwo go for $200. PhD in organometallic chemistry from Cambridge University.Privatization Generic space.citadel. Science lines up for a seat to space. February 2010. "You can't do good science when you're focusing on keeping the ISS from falling out of the sky.pdf In time.

Pino said government-owned satellites should focus on nuclear-hardened communications. February 17.S. Commercial satellites can provide the bulk of everyday communications for the military. "I'm unlearning what I used to think I knew. 2011. and gave a presentation to a board made of NASA professionals. Military satellite communications." Pino said at a commercial space conference in Washington last week. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 59 . contested environments and anti-jamming capabilities.com/news/n1102/17milsatcom/) hss "The commercial marketplace for procuring commercial satellite technologies is maturing very rapidly. "I used to always think the role of commercial was to augment MILSATCOM. Stephen Clark is Reliability Engineer at Serco North America. he Researched and designed a model for a new supersonic missile. or MILSATCOM. and developed a report with theoretical data to support the design and he designed and created a theoretical test model of a space craft for a hypothetical mission. but Pino said he believes industry can provide better benign communications than the government can today. http://spaceflightnow. Commercial is here to stay.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Military Satellites Private companies can make military communication satellites Clark 2011. military turns to private sector for SATCOM capacity”. and in some cases may be eclipsing what the military can do. was ahead of commercial technology 15 years ago." Pino said. “U.

lack of latency.nswp. Bogdan stated that in the current era of constrained budgets. director of SWPC. and commercial aviation—is opening up to new customers who are reliant on space weather information. as well as ground-based data. discussed the importance of growing the commercial sector for space weather into a thriving industry. Space Weather Journal. Further. SWPC requires key partnerships to function effectively so as to coordinate and leverage SWPC capabilities. they will wake up with a surprise in 2012 at solar maximum when a solar flare shorts out their gadgets. just as the space weather enterprise—including space tourism.pdf) commissioned by the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorology. Space Plasma Laboratory at Carmel Research Center. the reliability. such as from magnetometer networks and the Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS). Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 60 . so that steps can be taken to ensure continuity of data given to the commercial space weather providers should the SWPC choose to cut programs. of Metatech Corporation and chair of CSWIG. because they are running a business. Devrie Intriligator is the Director. and validation of spacecraft data. such as those from the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES) series and the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE). Kappenman emphasized that commercial providers must know what SWPC considers its "core" versus "noncore" capabilities. focus on their investments and whether infrastructure exists to support these investments. He stressed that commercial providers. Bogdan emphasized that SWPC personnel present at the meeting were seeking to understand what products and services the commercial providers wanted and the financial and operational impacts on the SWPC if certain products were emphasized or discontinued. Inc. “Collaboration Between Government and Commercial Space Weather Information Providers”.org/journals/sw/swa/news/article/?id=2007SW000348) hss Thomas Bogdan.gov/nswp_acreport0706. opened the meeting stating that the commercial providers and SWPC were convening at a historic moment. http://www. Intriligator 2007. rather.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Weather Satellites Private companies can gather accurate weather information. Thus. are "musts" for commercial providers in order that they can expand their own capabilities. He mentioned that many people do not know that they are or will be in need of space weather information. John Kappenman. 12 October 2007. citing the National Space Weather Program assessment report (http://www. promptness. SWPC may need to move away from certain activities in order to address the growing needs of new customers. He acknowledged that commercial providers stand ready to fill any gaps and ensure continuity of products and services. requiring them or the companies that service them to seek help from new products and warnings.agu. commercial satellites. high cadence. Thus.

needed for assured space access and national freedom of space operations. Competitive contracting and redundant infrastructure capabilities. d. b.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interimassessment-release-01. c. DKreus Private industry participation: a. e. construct.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***Advantage Areas*** CP Solves—Aerospace Industry Private sector development solves – maximizes aerospace growth NSSO ’07. will be used to maximize private industry participation by small. through competitive contracting. Private industry will be encouraged to commercially exploit the newly acquired technical expertise and industrial capabilities to bring new space products and services to the marketplace to replace and extend the initial spacefaring logistics infrastructure capabilities. should circumstances warrant. private industry will be used to develop. With the exception of specific safety and legal functions. SLIC. and operate the infrastructure.pdf. As part of operational support contracts for government owned facilities and systems. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 61 . medium. “Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”. field. private industry will be required to participate in programs that encourage and foster the development of the future American aerospace workforce. October 10. operation of the infrastructure under direct military control. pg d8. f. private industry will be required to ensure that a specified percentage of the operational personnel are military reserve personnel to enable. http://www. will aim to maximize the growth of American space operational mastery within American private industry so as to establish the foundation of technical expertise and industrial capability needed to fully exploit the new spacefaring logistics infrastructure and promote future space enterprises. produce.2007.nss. National Security Space Office. As part of participation in the development and production of the spacefaring logistics infrastructure systems. and large companies.

We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www. seats and upgraded life support. http://www. as is the case with every other technology. Included in this $800 million are the costs of building launch sites at Vandenberg.spacex. a properly incentivized contractor — even an all-American one — can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis. there will always be skeptics. As noted last month by a Chinese government official.spacex. SpaceX intends to make far more dramatic reductions in price in the long term when full launch vehicle reusability is achieved. more than double the capacity of the Russian Soyuz. despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. is what will ensure that the United States remains the world’s greatest superpower of innovation. But now that we’ve successfully proven Falcon 1. Here are the facts: The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. The Falcon 9 is an EELV class vehicle that generates roughly one million pounds of thrust (four times the maximum thrust of a Boeing 747) and carries more payload to orbit than a Delta IV Medium. SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they don’t believe they can beat them. 5/4/11. These are the objective facts. to successfully orbit and recover a spacecraft. We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. Moreover. or “teaser” rates meant to lure in an eager market only to be increased later. We will not be satisfied with our progress until we have achieved this long sought goal of the space industry. there’s been a steady stream of misinformation and doubt expressed about SpaceX’s actual launch costs and prices. and one up and back flight of Dragon. These prices are based on known costs and a demonstrated track record. The Dragon spacecraft was developed from a blank sheet to the first demonstration flight in just over four years for about $300 million. SpaceX became the first private company. This total also includes the cost of five flights of Falcon 1. So when I started SpaceX. manufactured and launched by American workers for an American company. The Falcon 9/Dragon system. For the first time in more than three decades. Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated. gd. and CEO of SpaceX. If there are cost overruns. Cape Canaveral and Kwajalein. with the addition of a launch escape system.) The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million. as well as the corporate manufacturing facility that can support up to 12 Falcon 9 and Dragon missions per year. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million. which includes all the development costs for the Falcon 1. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch. Elon Musk is an industrial Entrepreneur.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Beating China The private sector best ensures American space dominance Musk. China has the fastest growing economy in the world. premised on capturing a dominant share of the market. But the American free enterprise system. but these prices are not arbitrary. two flights of Falcon 9. it was not surprising when people said we wouldn’t succeed. The spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket that carried it were designed. fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions.com). or roughly $115m in today’s dollars. all operations. maintenance and overhead. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 62 . We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. America last year began taking back international market-share in commercial satellite launch.com/updates. Falcon 9 and Dragon. The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation. in partnership with NASA. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer. can carry seven astronauts to orbit. and they exemplify the potential of America's commercial space industry. but at less than a third of the price per seat. SpaceX will cover the difference. also known for PayPal. the Dragon spacecraft. confirmed by external auditors. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates. significantly beating historical industry-standard costs. I recognize that our prices shatter the historical cost models of government-led developments. A unique public-private partnership. This remarkable turn-around was sparked by a small investment NASA made in SpaceX in 2006 as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. Falcon 9 and Dragon. and we have a firm. we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time. Last year. SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007. 11. COTS has proven that under the right conditions.php Whenever someone proposes to do something that has never been done before. which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete.

maintenance and overhead. despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments.) [. we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. all operations.html) Colony Worlds seeks to highlight the innovation in technology. “SpaceX to Skeptics: We Can Beat China. or roughly $115m in today’s dollars.] China has the fastest growing economy in the world.] SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007. the Dragon spacecraft. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Beating China Only privatization solves China rise—American free enterprise ensures we stay ahead of the curve Colony Worlds. The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. but also help our species settle Mars without breaking the bank. as is the case with every other technology. The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time. is what will ensure that the United States remains the world’s greatest superpower of innovation. fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. If there are cost overruns. SpaceX has sent out a press release aimed at silencing the chatter that the young rocket company prices are “too good to be true” (since not even China can match SpaceX’s prices).spacex.com/2011/05/spacex-to-skeptics-we-can-beat-china. 11 (5/4.. We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www. SpaceX will cover the difference. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 63 . CEO Elon Musk does reveal a few interesting tidbits about SpaceX that may have rivals rethink their current practices within the industry. But the American free enterprise system. While SpaceX’s press release will not satisfy skeptics (something their first successful rocket launch was supposed to do).. which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete.With the space race heating up between the US and China (note: Russia is apparently having a few difficulties). medicine and science that will help our species discover new homes upon new worlds. However in the process of defending the reputation of his rocket company. and we have a firm. and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station..colonyworlds.” http://www.. [. it may help encourage the rocket industry to become much more transparent with their prices (as forcing tax payers to fork out extra cash is a great to kill off public trust for private space companies). This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch.com). America will need companies like SpaceX to help us not only get back to the Moon. (SpaceX) Truthfully SpaceX probably would not post prices online if they were not confident that they could service their clients at those rates (as changing prices “midway” can open ones self to a plethora of lawsuits).

This is why I am so confident that our performance will increase and our prices will decline over time. If there are cost overruns. America will need companies like SpaceX to help us not only get back to the Moon. medicine and science that will help our species discover new homes upon new worlds. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. [. SpaceX will cover the difference. (SpaceX) Truthfully SpaceX probably would not post prices online if they were not confident that they could service their clients at those rates (as changing prices “midway” can open ones self to a plethora of lawsuits). is what will ensure that the United States remains the world’s greatest superpower of innovation.] China has the fastest growing economy in the world..html) Colony Worlds seeks to highlight the innovation in technology... and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. as is the case with every other technology. which allows anyone with a better mouse-trap to compete.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Competitiveness Privatization solves competitiveness – only free enterprise guarantees continued innovation Colony Worlds. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 64 .com/2011/05/spacex-to-skeptics-we-can-beat-china. it may help encourage the rocket industry to become much more transparent with their prices (as forcing tax payers to fork out extra cash is a great to kill off public trust for private space companies). However in the process of defending the reputation of his rocket company. the Dragon spacecraft. all operations. “SpaceX to Skeptics: We Can Beat China. SpaceX has sent out a press release aimed at silencing the chatter that the young rocket company prices are “too good to be true” (since not even China can match SpaceX’s prices).spacex. or roughly $115m in today’s dollars.. and we have a firm. maintenance and overhead. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.] SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007.colonyworlds. We are the only launch company that publicly posts this information on our website (www.com). CEO Elon Musk does reveal a few interesting tidbits about SpaceX that may have rivals rethink their current practices within the industry.With the space race heating up between the US and China (note: Russia is apparently having a few difficulties). The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation. But the American free enterprise system. we know and can control the overwhelming majority of our costs. Because SpaceX is so vertically integrated. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch.) [. 11 (5/4. The price of a standard flight on a Falcon 9 rocket is $54 million. We have signed many legally binding contracts with both government and commercial customers for this price (or less). but also help our species settle Mars without breaking the bank.” http://www. fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. While SpaceX’s press release will not satisfy skeptics (something their first successful rocket launch was supposed to do).

new plan for NASA. would greatly aid the growth of many commercial space activities. including my home state of New Mexico. and several support organisations have been established. makes an equally wise decision by promoting the growth of commercial spaceflight. Reducing the cost of space travel to 1% of existing launch vehicles' costs. commercial passenger aviation does exist and it exists because the U. http://www. commercial space companies are one of the few industries that have continued to hire people during the recession.and imagine the millions of jobs that would vanish. SpaceX.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Economy Promoting more private space industry increases jobs and the economy. as they roll out innovative space vehicles. Bigelow Aerospace is developing the first space hotel. President Obama's decision to invest in this growing industry comes at a perfect time. so a much wider range of different space travel-related businesses are sure to grow in future. Education. XCOR Aerospace. accelerating the growth of the entire passenger airline industry. Scaled Composites. government in the 1920s wisely decided to begin flying "air mail" on commercial airplanes. Commercial spaceflight represents the type of dynamic innovation that we need to create 21st century jobs. Fortunately. thereby creating numerous new business opportunities both on Earth and in space. Allowing for privatization of space industry allows fan explosion of new business opportunities—solves the economy P Collins & A Autino. The Huffington Post 2010. Spaceport Associates advises on spaceport design. 25 May 2008. and Blue Origin are investing their own money. announced earlier this month. Sierra Nevada Space Systems. Originally presented at Plenary Session of the International Academy of Astronautics 1st Symposium on Private Human Access to Space. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 65 . to create new jobs across the nation. All of this activity is occurring some years before the first high-priced services even start. Even the larger. Economic Growth. Masten Space Systems. President Obama's bold. “Commercial Spaceflight: Creating 21st Century Jobs” Written by guest staff writer Governor Bill Richardson. This is a win-win decision. Indeed. This process is already at work on a small scale in relation to sub-orbital flight services: in addition to a large number of travel companies acting as agents for sub-orbital flights (including JTB. 25-28 May 2008.com/gov-bill-richardson/commercial-spaceflight-cr_b_473509. Armadillo Aerospace. Environmental Protection. Entrepreneurial companies like Virgin Galactic. spaceports are being developed in several places. in combination with the growth of a new consumer service market in space. supplies customised flight suits. held at Arcachon in France. more traditional firms that build launch vehicles for government satellite missions are throwing their hat into the ring to launch new commercial space activities. right now. Zero-G Corporation supplies parabolic flight services.S.html) hss Picture how different your life would be if commercial air travel didn't exist -. creating thousands of new high-tech jobs and helping America retain its leadership role in science and technology. Culture and World Peace". "What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment.huffingtonpost. Orbital Outfitters Inc. the largest travel company in Japan).

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—Innovation
Private sector development solves innovation News Journal Online, 11 (6/6. “NASA needs clear plan for the future.” http://www.newsjournalonline.com/opinion/editorials/n-j-editorials/2011/06/06/nasa-needs-clear-plan-for-the-future.html)
For now, the general game plan is to use the private sector's considerable space program to get astronauts to the International Space Station, or to get cargo into space. That's a good idea -- one that encourages private-sector innovation regarding our very important maintenance of satellites and scientific research in space. But even the private sector isn't planning on the kind of missions that the space shuttles were doing. And there certainly is no private plan for exploration on the moon, Mars or the asteroids of this solar system.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

66

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—International Cooperation
The private sector can boost international coop—commercial transcontinental alliances
Peeters, International Space University professor, July/August 2001. To the Stars, http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume13/v13n4/contents/v13n4f1.pdf The next steps in the direction of international coopera- tion are transcontinental alliances. SeaLaunch is undoubted- ly one of the most striking examples, because in this specific case cooperation has led to an innovative concept. It is evident that composing a consortium of this type would not have been possible without a geopolitical envi- ronment conducive to it. Indeed, restrictions on strategically sensitive technologies in the past would never have allowed the companies in question to undertake such cooperation. Other examples of transcontinental alliances are strategic alliances such as: • Alcatel (F), Loral (U.S.) and NPO-PM (Russia) • Starsem: Aerospatiale and Arianespace (F) with RAKA and Progress (Russia) • OHB (D) with Fiat-Avio (I) and Yuzhnoe (Ukraine). Technological alliances such as: • Joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Khrunichev for the construction of launch boosters • A United Technologies (UTC) and Energomash joint venture for the production of a new booster rocket engine, the RD-180. Geographical alliances, e.g.: • ASTRA - AsiaSat merger in 1998 • EurasSpace Joint Venture between Astrium and the China Aerospace Corporation. • EuropStar Joint Venture between Alcatel (F) and Loral (UK) There is no reason to doubt that this trend will continue during the next decade. Enterprises with “end-to-end” capacity, such as those resulting from the mergers described above, will penetrate the different markets even further, where at present such capacity is not readily available. In order to increase their chances of success, they will most probably enter into partnerships with local companies. Such combinations will satisfy both parties: the prime company will be able to deliver its main product and the local partner deals with local interfacing, while benefiting from the technology transfer.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

67

Privatization Generic

DDI 2011

CP Solves—Public Support
By driving costs down, private companies can revitalize the waning interest in space New Scientist, staff writers, New Scientist vol 205 pg 5, 2-13-2010, A turning point for space exploration., Ebsco
If private companies succeed in developing reliable vehicles for routine tasks, more adventurous space exploration will be the long-term winner. Private-sector companies already reckon that they will be able to launch astronauts for a fraction of the cost of a space shuttle flight - and they could even undercut Russia's Soyuz craft. Competition between them could drive down prices even further. As time goes on, there will be new commercial opportunities for space tourism, contract research, even private exploration beyond low-Earth orbit for manufacturing, minerals and more. A few decades from now, human space flight could be supported more by commercial activities than government funding - and we'll look back in amazement to the days when cumbersome national agencies were allowed to monopolise our exploration of the final frontier.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

68

Cooperation works if it is accompanied by some dose of devolution of power to a central ‘a-national’ authority and is geared towards ‘real’ needs [47].) hss We have tried to underline the close connection that exists between privatization and militarization. in total contradiction of the words and spirit of the Outer Space treaties. but cooperation as the result of forced political or industrial partnership is not an objective. Pages 19-26. we did not touch on cooperation programs in order to underline the very real risks that naked competition can entail. Intentionally.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Readiness The private sector helps improve the military forces. Space Policy 2001 (“Privatization and militarization in the space business environment” Space policy Journal. Is cooperation the answer? Certainly. while ongoing and urgent development issues still plague three-quarters of humanity on Earth. We believe that many commercial space developments could be a lead to further military deployment by the nation fostering such commercial development. one should really question the ‘need’ to rush into deep space projects. in the wake of Unispace III. How can the proposition that one nation can have a greater interest in outer space than any other nation be sustained? It is still possible to slow down — or redirect — the irrepressible rush towards a substantial militarization and weaponization of outer space. proposals to consider Earth observation as a public good vs. its complex patent dispositions and its features as an industrial partnership [44. Earth observation as a commercial venture should be explored further and given much more attention than they are now [48]. which is completed by a connection between militarization and exacerbated commercial competition. For example. with its spots of national sovereignty within the station itself. Volume 17. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 69 . Beyond the whole ISS venture. Science Direct. Issue 1. 45 and 46]. February 2001. especially in low-Earth orbits. The illustration provided by the ISS venture remains incomplete.

President Obama took a risk when he chose to fight the vested interests for this private-sector solution. CP solves space leadership – NASA should get back to its roots Gingrich and Walker ’10 – senior fellow at AEI.” http://www. “Obama’s Brave Reboot for NASA. chairman of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (Newt and Robert S.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Space Leadership Privatization is vital to space leadership – a market-based solution is best Messier. “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision. That’s pretty obvious. For example. “Witt: Privatization “Absolutely Required” to Progress in Space. but privatization is absolutely required.S. This is for those who wonder why we are pursing this Moon-Mars program when we have other pressing problems. and view the White House vision for the space program as an excellent opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. 4/7. This is one frontier I think we can’t afford to cede to other. and it would be mad to imagine a Republican-led House opposing it. may end up being done by the true private sector. much as we did in decades past. Walker applaud the Obama Administration's 2011 spending plan for NASA. 11 – founder of Earth and Space Foundation. and we’ve already seen a lot of evidence of this. The government’s role will be to develop the supporting technology and infrastructure. Commercial space reliance solves space leadership Worden. I want to leave you with a final thought on a rationale for our renewed space exploration endeavor. Having future generations of Americans ask “Why are other countries’ people walking on the moon. are going to the moon. some GOP members are resuscitating socialized space as a high-tech pork delivery vehicle for loyal Southern states. headed by former Secretary of the Air Force Edward C. Some. maybe even most of the heavy lifting. experimentation and exploration. far less safely.pdf) I’ll leave you with some final thoughts on space exploration. The new focus really is a recognition that the rest of the world is going into space. in terms of funds.” AEI Online. We understand that putting all our eggs into a newly woven basket of private space firms is taking a risk.com/2010/11/29/witt-privatization-absolutely-required-progress-space/) The Obama administration. Admittedly. This time it’s really different. most ironically.org/pdf/materials/230. not to where it’s been. Congress. The Aldridge Commission of 2004. As we think about the private sector. International Space University graduate. getting the agency out of the low-earth-orbit launch business--where the technology is developed but operational costs are still high--frees up the NASA budget so that the program can go back to its roots in advanced technology development. masters in public policy and science and technology from George Washington University (Douglas. in a “through the looking glass” moment. space leadership. Yet. Countries that we didn’t traditionally think of as space-faring. at far greater expense and. The Obama plan echoes the opinion of many experts that greater commercial activity in space is the proper way forward for the United States to remain the dominant force in space exploration.marshall. risk-taking has defined America’s space accomplishments.” It dismantles a cost-plus quagmire that has left Americans traveling in space far less often. 2004 – former Brigadier General in the USAF. the new policy’s vision is not bold enough nor its exploration schedule aggressive enough. Much must be done to maintain U.” http://www. NASA as a sleepy jobs program for aging engineers is unsustainable. such as India and China. http://www. made clear that the only way NASA could achieve success with President Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 70 .parabolicarc. 2/12. NASA and the private sector are finally voyaging toward a market-based space industry. 11/29. The 2011 spending plan for the space agency does what is obvious to anyone who cares about man's future in space and what presidential commissions have been recommending for nearly a decade. "Pete" Aldridge. I think that the motivation is with us all to ensure we continue to lead in space exploration. not so very far at all. I want to point out. I’ve been involved in past attempts to revitalize space exploration. America’s destiny has always been to lead in the frontier. going to Mars and we are not?” would have devastating consequences for our national psyche.aei. Research Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona (Simon. but it does – as the Great One advised – “skate to where the puck is going. In a world of declining revenues and budget-crushing entitlements. that the President’s vision is not just about a government program. the Obama administration's budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans. The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry in 2002 suggested that greater commercial activity in space was the proper way forward.org/article/101651) Newt Gingrich and Robert S. However. Despite the shrieks you might have heard from a few special interests.

Most recently. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration was to expand the space enterprise with greater use of commercial assets. We have long had a cooperative arrangement with the Russians for space transportation but always have possessed our own capability. The internal culture within the agency was actively hostile to commercial enterprise. will improve the economic competitiveness of our country. To his credit. The International Space Station will have its life extended to at least 2020. All of this new activity will expand the space enterprise. the leadership of the agency is attempting to refocus the manned space program along the lines that successive panels of experts have recommended. The budget also sets forth an aggressive program for having cargo and astronaut crews delivered to the space station by commercial providers. will be terminated as scheduled. The Constellation program also will be terminated. mostly because its ongoing costs cannot by absorbed within projected NASA budget limits. largely for safety reasons. With the new NASA budget. but it should not be. called Constellation. It will open the doors to more people having the opportunity to go to space. largely the kind of high-tech work to which our nation should aspire. In the same way the railroads opened the American West. former chief executive of Lockheed Martin. The use of commercial launch companies to carry cargo and crews into low earth orbit will be controversial. Reliance on commercial launch services will provide many other benefits. The launch-vehicle portion of the Constellation program was so far behind schedule that the United States was not going to have independent access for humans into space for at least five years after the shutdown of the shuttle. the Augustine Commission. former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin adopted a program to begin to access commercial companies for hauling cargo to the International Space Station. It has the potential of creating thousands of new jobs. and in doing so. thereby preserving a $100 billion laboratory asset that otherwise was due to be dumped in the Pacific Ocean by middecade. which was scheduled to end. It has been under constant financial pressure because of the cost overruns in the moon mission. NASA consistently ignored or rejected the advice provided to it by outside experts. A belief had grown from the days when the Apollo program landed humans on the moon that only NASA could do space well and therefore only NASA projects and programs were worthy. The use of commercial carriers in the years ahead will preserve that kind of independent American access. Augustine.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Space Leadership George W. That program existed alongside the much larger effort to build a new generation of space vehicles designed to take us back to the moon. made clear that commercial providers of space-launch services were a necessary part of maintaining space leadership for the United States. We were going to rely upon the Russians to deliver our astronaut personnel to orbit. headed by Norman R. The space shuttle program. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 71 . commercial access can open vast new opportunities in space.

science. She is a member of the International Institute of Space Law and researches international outer space policy and development. and many more subject areas. law. something our nation desperately needs to remain competitive with emerging powers like China. http://www. astronomy. http://www. environmentally friendly spacecraft. engineering.e-ir. Preparing them now to lead in newly emerging industries at a time when outer space settlements are being constructed can serve as a powerful motivating force to enable them to want to excel in school. our support for commercial spaceflight is already reaping benefits. The Huffington Post 2010 (“Commercial Spaceflight: Creating 21st Century Jobs” Written by guest staff writer Governor Bill Richardson.info/?p=6286) The first step toward accomplishing this goal is to expose students. teachers.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—STEM Private business in space allows the government goals to be met and also promotes education in math and science. chemistry. The demand is there. politics. and New Mexico will get its return on investment. nourished and developed. sociology. Usually space studies require that students be fluent in several disciplines and this is good practice for interdisciplinary studies. Outer space development studies involves many disciplines including technology. It is time to take students to a new level – actual meaningful participation in outer space development resulting in tangible careers opportunities. physiology. and has over forty two million dollars deposited in reservations. and it is time to take these possibilities to a place beyond mere fascination and engagement.it is woven into our social fabric. Budding abilities. gifts and talents can be are recruited. physics. Americans will get their return on investment. too. chemistry. The spaceport is fulfilling its promise of inspiring young people to study math and science and developing our statewide economy. intergovernmental organizations. space stations.huffingtonpost. business. hotel and restaurant management. international law.html) hss Our modern economy depends on space -. Space has been known to engage and interest students. architecture and other subjects can take on new meanings for students as they are taught to help solve problems related to outer space development. administrators. and trusts the commercial sector to launch critical military satellites on rockets designed and built commercially. psychology. Our anchor tenant. Now NASA is poised to follow in the same direction by placing an emphasis on commercial space. Exposing students to this type of knowledge while it is being created. recently unveiled its completed. institutions and industries. Our nation's military already benefits from the use of commercial communications and remote sensing satellites. In New Mexico. from bank transactions and weather forecasts that depend on satellite signals. Applying problem solving techniques usually involves several fields being integrated. geology. space hotels. to GPS and the latest overhead images by commercial spacecraft that will help us rebuild Haiti. The excitement of commercial spaceflight is already inspiring kids to pursue careers in science and technology. Virgin Galactic. Another 300 new jobs are expected this year. life support systems.com/gov-bill-richardson/commercial-spaceflight-cr_b_473509. Math. Louis and coordinator of Webster's online international relations program. is cutting-edge and likely to have a seriously positive impact of their future careers. medicine. computer science. creating the first commercial spaceport in the world. Privatization solves STEM education Weeks 10(Edythe Weeks is an adjunct professor of international space law at Webster University in St. About 500 New Mexicans are now on the job. America's commercial space industry can bring private investment to the table and enable government dollars to go much further in meeting our goals. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 72 . science. civic leaders and public officials to cutting-edge research which highlights emerging industries in the field of outer space development.

It seems to be aimed at selectively acquiring data to push politically correct agendas. the agency got the politically correct headlines as well as funding.. And if the government needs data. in February 1992 NASA made screaming headlines with its announcement that a huge ozone hole could be in the process of opening over the Northern Hemisphere. The mission itself is of questionable value. It has fought with other agencies— through its Mission to Planet Earth. Typical of its tactics. Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 107th Congress (2001) hss NASA in recent years has seen environmental projects as potential cash cows. There were few headlines months later when no ozone hole developed.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Earth Sciences Private companies should take on Earth sciences. Some other department should direct the project. it should take bids from the private sector to provide those data. a project to study Earth’s ecology— for jurisdiction over satellites to monitor the environment. Even if the mission is not shut down. director of regulatory studies – CATO. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 73 . Still. it does not belong in NASA’s portfolio. In fine print. the data were skimpy at best. Hudgins 2001 (Edward L.

providing the U. and eventually below $5 million." said the former astronaut." The Dragon capsule carried no crew. “US must be 'unafraid' of private spaceflight: NASA” NASA chief Charles Bolden. pictured here on January 2011. Industry leaders have promised it would take "three years to the day after they sign a contract" to get a spacecraft up and running for crew transport. a nonprofit that conducts incentivized competitions. Commercial space companies are the only way to replace the space shuttle program Sheridan 11’ by Kerry Sheridan. but SpaceX is working on a cargo launch to the orbiting international space lab for later this year. "I am certain that commercial entities can deliver. Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?. Wall Street Journal. Fuel is less than 2%. told lawmakers Wednesday he is confident that commercial industry will be able to make a new spacecraft for taking humans into orbit after the US shuttle program ends." In December 2010. whatever the number of launches. he said." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 74 . chief executive of the X Prize Foundation.html. safety and how long it will take to forge a new mode of access to the International Space Station after the US shuttle program retires later this year.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536. redundancy as well as a competitive market that will drive down the cost of getting you and me to orbit. NASA's chief said Wednesday that America must be "unafraid" of a new future in spaceflight and vowed full confidence that private business can come up with a solution to replace the space shuttle. SpaceX became the first private company to successfully launch its own space capsule into orbit and back. When the U. but added that is "dependent" on private industry. Charles Bolden faced some skepticism as he testified before the House Committee on Science.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 CP Solves—Space Shuttle Private companies will create a cheaper shuttle flight than NASA Peter Diamandis. DC. while the standing army of people and infrastructure is well over 80%. Bolden said NASA was sticking to its planned 2015-2016 timeframe for developing a new mode of travel for taking crew into orbit. Bolden answered: "You should tell them the future of human spaceflight is bright and robust and we need their help in rapidly developing new systems so we can go and explore. on the other hand. http://online.com/news/2011-03-unafraid-commercial-spaceflight-nasa. No one has yet signed such a contract. "We have got to develop commercial capability to get into low Earth orbit. http://www. a feat Bolden described as "awesome. has already brokered the flight of eight private citizens to orbit. 2011.wsj. Washington. Asked by one Florida lawmaker what he should tell the thousands of his constituents who will lose their jobs at Kennedy Space Center once the shuttle program ends. "The nation needs to become unafraid of exploration. One of the companies I co-founded." said Bolden. a $350 million increase over 2010 levels. Space and Technology to discuss President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request of $18. The annual expense NASA bears for the shuttle is roughly $4 billion. 2-13-2010. space shuttle stands down later this year. NASA will need to send American astronauts to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of more than $50 million per person. March 2. Kerry Sheridan is a health and science reporter for Agence France-Presse.html The challenge faced by all space-related ventures is the high cost of launching into orbit. Space Adventures. Most people don't realize that the major cost of a launch is labor. In the next five years we hope to drive the price below $20 million.7 billion for NASA. who fielded questions about cost. We need to become unafraid of risks.S.physorg. costs between $750 million to $2 billion per flight (for up to seven astronauts) depending on the number of launches each year. The space shuttle. The government's new vision will mean the development of multiple operators. at a cost of roughly $50 million per person.S. Obama's draft budget proposes $850 million in 2012 as seed money to help companies devise a new crew capsule for orbital travel.

Alan Stern. These new companies are projected to create thousands of new high-tech jobs nationwide. NASA is also now welcoming these efforts. space exploration: Entrepreneurs such as Richard Branson. and even kids will travel to space by the thousands and experience the wonder of weightlessness and seeing the Earth from above. the industry association of leading businesses and organizations which are working to make commercial human spaceflight a reality. and commercial satellite companies. A recent market survey showed that that these commercial applications are likely to outstrip NASA’s crew transport demands. http://scienceblogs.com/usasciencefestival/2011/06/yesterdays_technologies_are_no. and several companies are working on orbital space missions as well. This narrow business model calls to mind the adage “if you only own one stock. SpaceX. researchers. and as a result the Space Coast is now losing 9.com/article/1871/1 “Commercial space. teachers. Suborbital Spaceflight: This new sector has over $1 billion in private investment behind it among five separate suborbital space lines (XCOR Aerospace.000 Space Shuttle jobs. This has the opportunity to create a Florida space economy that will be far more robust than any in the past 50 years. “'Yesterday's Technologies Are Not Enough': How Private Companies Are Boosting NASA's Future in Spaceflight”. Alan Stern is a planetary scientist and aerospace consultant." says John. are working to open up human spaceflight. Orbital Launch: Here. and United Launch Alliance hopes to launch commercial and government astronauts aboard Atlas V vehicles from the Cape by 2015. Consider how these examples of American commercial space development could help reinvigorate the Space Coast’s economy: This has the opportunity to create a Florida space economy that will be far more robust than any in the past 50 years. Elon Musk. and 2012” For too long the economy of Florida’s Space Coast has been too heavily dependent on a very small number of huge government projects.S.thespacereview. to the private sector and the public. Armadillo Aerospace. DOD. you probably deserve what you get when it goes down. Soon. Scientists. and Blue Origin) are vying to become one of NASA’s astronaut transportation service providers to the International Space Station. Science and Engineering Journalist. each of which plan to begin flying frequent tourist and research missions as soon as 2012 or 2013. "NASA and private industry can work together to find innovative technological solutions to today's spaceflight challenges" NASA now plans pay these companies to transport NASA astronauts into space." Entrepreneurs are investing over 1. Satellite and payload integrators such as Astrotech and Astrogenetix will also benefit from this effort. what’s good for Florida. June 27. http://www. several have shown interest in flying from the Cape. Crew Transport: Four companies (Sierra Nevada. resulting in even greater benefits for the country. the state and the nation failed to learn this very lesson when the end of Apollo program devastated Central Florida’s economy in the 1970s. which will relieve us from paying the Russians hundreds of millions to get our astronauts to space. executive director of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF). the dawning era of commercial American space efforts is giving flower to a far wider variety of new space systems and projects with refreshingly diverse markets and backers. and he serves as the chair of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s Suborbital Applications Researchers Group. Fortunately though. Blue Origin.php A new age is dawning in U. and which are under contract by NASA.” Tragically. Monday. New commercial launchers that could base in Florida are also under consideration by Virgin Galactic and XCOR." Commercial Space is creating a robust space economy in Florida and saving the US millions of dollars Stern 11’ By S. 2011. June 13. Virgin Galactic. Private Space Stations: At least two companies (Bigelow Aerospace and Excalibur Almaz) are planning to field space stations.5 billion dollars of private investment in their new endeavors. Both will earn their Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 75 . once the domain only of governments. These firms hope to also exploit purely commercial markets to transport tourists. Gedmark added "America is unique in the world in having private companies develop this capability. Boeing. anyone will be able to go to space just by purchasing a ticket on a suborbital space flight. "These companies are bringing the silicon valley spirit to the space industry" says John Gedmark. and Jeff Bezos. and are already inspiring more young people to pursue science and engineering. which are already flying. artists.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***AT: Aff Arguments*** AT: No Private Capacity Private industry already exists Kandy Collins. a company called SpaceX is taking the lead by pouring hundreds of millions of private dollars into its line of Falcon launchers. and commercial research equipment to low Earth orbit. and Masten Space Systems). "Technological innovation is what got America to the moon in the 1960s. which will free up NASA to do other things such as explore the solar system and one day send astronauts to Mars. "Yesterday's technologies are not sufficient to keep America in first place in the global race for economic competitiveness. He is NASA’s former Associate Administrator in charge of Science. and we need a renewed focus on technology to drive spaceflight forward in the 21st century. 2011.

Commercial space is finally coming into its own.dailyfinance. trying to move beyond development and demonstration and into sustainable. 29 December 2010 Time: 07:51 AM ET.space. although much improved from the religious war in 2010. "I believe this trend will continue through 2011 and beyond. as a roster of successes and fast-paced growth throughout 2010 suggests private spaceflight is ready to take off in 2011. Space Insider Columnist.com. http://www. going well beyond powerpoints and hand-waving. Large firms are changing their game plans in response. achieved some major milestones. "New markets are emerging and established ones are changing. Morningstar analyst Anil Daka said you can count on the "big boys" to fill the gap and keep landing the lucrative NASA contracts. and possibly even new entertainment-themed attractions. effectively create public/private partnerships to guide us into space and our future. more than ever. "NASA has turned into another bureaucracy. and extending the life of the international space station. including the first glide test of its suborbital spaceliner. SpaceShipTwo. government or private. but you can bet that Lockheed and Boeing will figure out ways to make it work to their advantage. Private-sector companies have had a difficult time creating a profitable "space taxi" program since NASA. Alexander said he thinks commercial space will be "squarely in the spotlight" with an expected ramp-up of both suborbital flight testing and multiple orbital launches and re-entries under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) partnership agreements Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 76 ." Christensen said that entrepreneurs are testing new launch and on-orbit capabilities in the real world." Daka said. NASA budget is $100 billion over the next five years. http://www.com/2010/04/15/free-market-to-take-over-space-travel-in-obamas-nasa-overhaul/] Say goodbye to taxpayer-funded space shuttle." In terms of trends for the space industry. launch. profitable operation. the coming year. suppliers and service providers. These will significantly blunt the blow of the shuttle’s demise." Christensen predicted. "I think the environment for 2011. These commercial space activities have the potential to create numerous manufacturing." Commercial landscape "The space industry has never seen such a rich and varied commercial landscape. Va. reasonable business risks and a safety mindset. Free Market to Take Over Space Travel in Obama's NASA Overhaul. Rudaksky. I do not think our space program should be one or the other. president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. He is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE. which held the monopoly. 10 – [Gil Rudawsky.com/10548-private-spaceflight-ready-2011. and its primary focus will be robotic exploration. cost effective and reliable Davis 10’ By Leonard Davis. and also create engineering services. and this will bring a little creative disruption from the private sector. Another company. AT: No Private Capacity and Bigelow has already put two test stations in orbit. Still." "The key will be to systematically move forward. and operations jobs in Florida." Squarely in the spotlight The scheduled retirement of NASA's threeorbiter space shuttle fleet next year will also likely affect the landscape. according to experts and analysts contacted by SPACE." Spaceport's Ketcham said. and 2011 represents a year of enormous potential for this developing industry. "There are a lot of moving parts. "The successes and setbacks of 2011 are going to make it the most interesting year in the history of commercial space. "I wouldn't want to say the plan is perfect. But this once-pejorative term has taken on new meaning this year." said Carissa Bryce Christensen. spaceports. 7:45PM 04/15/10. said David Livingston."I believe we can now. The private sector is ready to fill-in for NASA. increased earth-based observations. and later the first liftoff of the firm's Dragon spacecraft. building success upon success. “Private Spaceflight Ready to Take Off In 2011” The private space industry has long been viewed as fledgling." Livingston said. hotel. scouting missions." Livingston said. founder and host of the radio/Internet talk show "The Space Show. That said. He has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. This year saw the very first launch of commercial space company SpaceX's Falcon 9 booster. an increase of $6 billion. "I believe the coming year will reward patience. achievable goals. operators.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 revenues from private sector and from the approximately 180 nations that are not a part of the International Space Station. which launched atop a Falcon 9 to Earth orbit and then was recovered from the Pacific Ocean. [Gallery: First Solo Flight of SpaceShipTwo] Multiple private-sector space firms are moving into full power.html. had an endless supply of taxpayer funding." said Brett Alexander. but the timing is right to make a change and shake up the agency. managing partner of consulting firm The Tauri Group in Alexandria. Livingston foresees a move away from big government programs in favor of economically managed and leaner commercial space ventures and projects. an industry group that includes commercial spaceflight developers." The Private space industry is more innovative. will still see continued debate about the future direction of NASA with shuttle retirement. Virgin Galactic. business fundamentals. is likely to feature battles between "same old space" and the ascension of "new space.com since 1999. and restaurant jobs.

while overall budget pressure on NASA will slow down Florida Senator Bill Nelson's grand compromise (which. The fight over human-rating of commercial crew will get heated. The effort to build a commercial crew spacecraft will move forward. which nobody can accuse of having an ideological bias in favor of commercial business and privatization." observed Jim Muncy. the 'traditional' way. Battleground "2010 was the year that war broke out between commercial and cost-plus space. industry. gave money to commercial companies and NASA to develop and build new rockets). it should help to solidify NASA's new direction to develop commercial capabilities." Muncy said. Va. Muncy forecasts: At least two companies that operate suborbital reusable launch vehicles will fly science payloads for NASA. the private sector needed to play a greater role in both.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 with U. an independent space policy consultancy based in Alexandria." Muncy said. For 2011. let alone everything. among other things. "A rational White House. is that "Republicans will remember they like the private sector and stop mindlessly bashing commercial. president and founder of PoliSpace. with steady progress on the technical front." Muncy said that as nasty and counterintuitive as the long debate of 2010 was. NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is investing financial and technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate safe." Alexander said. "So. "To actually use the International Space Station and explore space. as will a scrap for control over this rating between NASA's Johnson Space Center and the agency's Kennedy Space Center. which has vowed to cut government spending — will see "the rubber hit the road" in several fronts of this war. decided that the nation couldn't do much. reliable and cost-effective space transportation AT: No Private Capacity capabilities.S. next year — especially in the context of the new Congress. and piloted vehicles will have their first flight tests. The Commercial Space Launch Amendment Act's "informed consent" regime for Federal Aviation Administration regulation of commercial human spaceflight will clash with some politicians' desire to kill commercial crew efforts. "Not a prediction but a hope." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 77 . A SpaceX Dragon will carry a mammal to low Earth orbit and possibly to the International Space Station.

the creation of this Article has to be considered as one of the strongest incentives of an overall recognition of commercial utilization within the general framework of the Treaty. No one State refuses the idea that world commerce is an essential tool for its development in all fields.”23 The Article VII and its spin-off.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AT: It’s Illegal There’s a strong legal basis for privatization Filho. when Article I of Outer Space Treaty mentions “exploration and use of outer space”. To exert such activities it is plenty enough to use outer space. The difficulties here usually do not involve the merit of the commercial activities themselves. without exception. 6-9 November 2006. in principle.” Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 78 . If it is not always true. It recognizes the private space activities as national activities and establishes the international responsibility for them by the appropriate state. in great measure. and international cooperation among countries in all levels of development. Kyiv. commercial and non-commercial. United Nations/Ukraine Workshop on Space Law. but the manner how they are conducted – under which practice. a guarantee for commercial activities. the other side is the principle of non-appropriation of outer space and celestial bodies. commercial space activities are absolutely legal as well as legitimate. “Because space activities by private sector automatically introduce the commercial aspect. not to appropriate it or even a part of it. since they can attend fundamental needs and interests of all countries. meet the interests of all countries. any State can decide to exclude commercial activities in relation to space object under its national jurisdiction and control. But it is absolutely not realistic to admit such a possibility in the contemporary world. which is not the case with governmental activities. may also appear in relation to commercial space activities. in principle. due to the highest relevance of commerce – private or public – for all countries. but also by a general recognition as fair and crucial activities. it is universally accepted that the word “use” covers the commercial use. Legal Issues of Commercial Space Activities] Is there a legal basis for commercial space activities? Does the Outer Space Treaty permit this kind of activities? Yes. regional or bilateral. the Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of all States. global. This principle can be. considers commercial activities as one of the effective and appropriate modes to conduct international cooperation. Today there is not any doubt that. If taking the principle of free use of outer space as one side of the coin. ’06 – [José Monserrat Filho. governmental and nongovernmental. as victim-oriented. The later strengthens the former and definitely does not intend to prevent commercial space activities. by all means. Ukraine. it is widely admitted that commercial space activities. Commercial space activities are supported not only by a legal basis – including a solid custom –. adopted by General Assembly of 8United Nations in 1996. Its § 4 reads: “International cooperation should be conducted in the modes that are considered most effective and appropriate by the countries concerned. as well as under which rules and their interpretation and applications. on a basis of equality and in accordance to international law”. Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries. as is required by the same Article I. fixed by Article II. No matter that they are not mentioned in the existing international space law. including. A step ahead in this regard will be the creation of an international legal instance for resolving space disputes. In fact. the 1972 Liability Convention24. According to Article VIII. Nevertheless. it is evident that none of them could be used as an argument to deny the commercial space activities. Reflecting certainly this reality. which establishes that “outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind. bring more clarity to the question about who pays and more certainty (or probability) that the damage caused will be paid. Commercial space activities are also compatible to the Article I (2). of course. These questions. no matter if the entity which suffers damage is a governmental or a commercial one. Examining accurately all provisions compiled in the Outer Space Treaty. particularly nowadays in that time of absolute interdependence among nations. inter alia. At the same time. the major international instruments governing outer space activities22 were elaborated and adopted before the development of commercial uses of outer space and don’t make reference to them. multilateral. “irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development”. The Article VI is the most convincing to give legal support to commercial space activities. which was created during the Cold War by quite different motivations – international peace and security. since of course they are carried out in accordance with the letter and the spirit of this relevant provision. there is at least a general and growing conviction (and a hope) that it must work in this 7sense.

"This creates new opportunities for companies to compete for this work. Mark Hamel. Boeing (BA) and Northrop Grumman (NOC). and each company's capsules can be converted to transport astronauts. executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation. Scolese said that $80 million of the stimulus money will be awarded to the company that demonstrates the best "crewed launch demo" — a prototype. Last week." says William Watson. are seen as the leading contenders. Watson said that allowing private companies to handle routine orbital duties could free up NASA to focus on returning to the moon and going to Mars. Even more important. one that will be led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine. Dinerman. Both firms were tight-lipped about their suddenly increased opportunities. 09 (Taylor Dinerman. But the next tier.2933. The two leading contractors are building their launch vehicles from scratch. On Thursday. Their designs emphasize very efficient business models and low manufacturing costs. The Virginia-based company is developing the Taurus II rocket and a cargo capsule. engines and avionics. acting NASA Administrator Chris Scolese told a congressional subcommittee that the agency plans to give $150 million in stimulus-package money to private companies that design. companies in what will decidedly be a lucrative new market. Internet tycoon Elon Musk. it will work.foxnews.Two well-positioned spaceflight companies.dailyfinance. He wrote a syndicated weekly column for the Space Review.com/story/0. The administration's new free-market approach of designing and operating spacecraft could mean big business for a handful of U. "For the first time since Apollo. one that could reduce America's dependency on Russia for the next half-decade after the space shuttle program ends.com/2010/04/15/free-market-to-take-over-space-travel-in-obamas-nasa-overhaul/] President Obama presented an overhauled aerospace plan Thursday that will officially mothball NASA's space shuttle program."But NASA's savings in cost and time could be significant." Who's who of aerospace firms champing to fill gap. based on existing cargo-capsule designs. and not enough cash. long considered a friend of private space ventures. after nearly a half century of building its own rockets and orbiters. such as a Lockheed Martin (LMT). NASA is currently giving private companies more influence and posture on space objectives. 10 – [Gil Rudawsky. "Our government space program has become over-burdened with too many objectives. creating a more privatized space now. our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. as part of his tour at Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It's a dramatic change. SpaceX said only that it was "encouraged by NASA's commercial crewed services initiative. Both developments show that the once-reluctant space agency and the Obama administration are ready to support commercial human spaceflight. Rudaksky. The company's founder. So why should space transportation be any different? NASA's beginning to agree.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AT: DA’s to Privatization Privatization of space inevitable. they don't specify the aircraft types. also stand to cash in. Free Market to Take Over Space Travel in Obama's NASA Overhaul. And they operate with at most a few dozen employees at their launch sites.00.519609. They just buy plane tickets. http://www. 5/11. as opposed to the space shuttle program's standing army of almost 15. is a huge proponent of having NASA go the private-sector route. The usual suspects head up the A-list of beneficiaries. Even the military finds it cheaper to use civilian aircraft for certain missions.S. healthy market for the private sector will emerge from the space plan." Musk said in a statement. He was an author of the textbook Space Science for Students and has been a part time consultant for the US Defense Department” NASA Approves Partial Privatization of the Space Program” http://www." said Dale Ketcham. and this change unleashes the private sector. Each already has a full line of rockets and cargo capsules ready to go. said this week at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs that a new. 7:45PM 04/15/10. modified for humans.000 workers. and put the future of human space travel squarely in the hands of private sector companies. We can tap into our entrepreneurial innovation to fill this gap. a senior vice president at Orbital Sciences. "NASA is getting out of the space shuttle business. Musk. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. the White House ordered a top-to-bottom review of the entire manned space program. Raytheon (RTN). Obama. The agency was careful to note that the competition will be an open one. the 38-year-old founder of PayPal. director of the private think tank Spaceport Research and Technology Institute.html#ixzz1Se9cuDRI) When the Justice Department or the Centers for Disease Control want to send employees somewhere. Plan not without detractors. and one that could kick-start a space program that some see as having stalled for 40 years. visited privately held SpaceX's commercial launch facility. a Houston-based group promoting commercial space activities. For the first time. which includes Orbital Sciences (ORB) and Space Exploration Technologies. it has approved the outsourcing of some of the equipment that enables its manned space missions to private contractors. was seen speaking with Obama prior to the president's speech. build and service their own rockets and crew capsules — spacecraft that could put astronauts in orbit while NASA finishes building the space shuttle's replacements. Orbital Sciences didn't respond to queries. let alone design the airframes. NASA's hostility toward other American space ventures goes Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 79 .

founded by PayPal entrepreneur Elon Musk. -. President George W. Rocketplane Kistler's NASA contact was terminated due to its failure to meet the agreed-upon financial milestones. the second man to walk on the moon." he said. There was a catch to the Bush plan: As part of the ambitious new program. "There is a [NASA] design called the HL-20 that could be launched on an existing reliable rocket and could be ready for a demonstration flight in 2013. "In order to preserve U. which was supposed to get $207 million. Orbital. one of the few entrepreneurial space firms that have successfully gone from start-up to billion-dollar status. The rocket was the first privately built flying machine ever to reach space. in which seven astronauts died. these services will be provided in a more cost-effective fashion than when the government has to do it. Rocketplane Kistler." But to the Space Frontier Foundation's Watson.S. Most importantly. "With private funds matching government investment. Va." American billionaire Dennis Tito. leadership in space. But that has created a gap in America's ability to launch astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). a spaceplane that would land on a runway like the Shuttle does now. or SpaceX for short. forced NASA to rethink its way of doing business. The remaining $170 million from the Rocketplane Kistler disbursement was awarded to Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles. not only builds the Pegasus and Taurus launchers. but also had a small number of contracts to launch satellites for the Defense Department and from overseas. NASA was hardly enthusiastic about this approach. but also has established a decent reputation building small-to-medium-sized commercial and scientific satellites and space probes. In late 2005. and some inside the agency saw it as a threat to its monopoly on human space flight. and by Rocketplane Kistler of Oklahoma City. But not everyone in NASA's old guard is pleased with this approach. for its Taurus 2 launcher and Cygnus capsule combination. Calif. which doesn't sit well with many space experts and politicians. But three things happened." Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin. As a result. the report said. NASA will depend primarily on Russia to get Americans into space.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AT: DA’S To Privatization back at least to the early 1990s.. was already hard at work on its Falcon series of rockets. It also had done preliminary design work on a multipurpose capsule called the Dragon. It believed that it would be many years before such Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) would be ready to fly. "Let's have an American competition in space — to create good jobs. NASA even objected to the cash-strapped Russian space agency's $20 million deal to send up the first "space tourist.And in October 2004.. engineer Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne won the $10 million Ansari X Prize. -." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 80 . In 2006. -. when Lockheed Martin developed the DC-X suborbital experimental rocket. NASA quickly became much friendlier to commercial ventures. announcing his "Vision for Space Exploration" to go back to the moon and to eventually send humans to Mars. was an innovative but underfunded enterprise. which received a contract worth $278 million. The goal was to get payloads into orbit with a reusable craft that was not the space shuttle." NASA's tight relationship with a small number of major contractors and its persistent problems integrating political and legal demands with the need to maintain engineering excellence had stressed the agency to the breaking point. fuel innovation and close the [spaceflight] gap more quickly." he said. financed by the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). we can dramatically leverage taxpayer dollars to produce breakthroughs in a new American industry — commercial orbital human spaceflight.The February 2003 Columbia space-shuttle disaster.com. In 2000. told FoxNews. that's a lot better than people who want to "help spend NASA's money. Bush decided to "reboot" the space program. SpaceX was funded mostly by Musk's personal fortune." Griffin said. a crucial factor to NASA. the first of which is scheduled to fly in late 2015. the sky's the limit. In October 2007.In January 2004. saving NASA $3 billion a year to spend on new spacecraft. "that when we engage the engine of competition. which the Defense Department saw as unreliable and costly. the 30-year-old space-shuttle program will end next year. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. For at least five years. If a private company shows it's ready to invest its own funds. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's final report "found a NASA blinded by a 'Can Do' attitude. which could be adapted to carry either crew or cargo to the ISS on a Falcon 9. the first round of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contracts was won by SpaceX corporation of Hawthorne. a cultural artifact of the Apollo era that was inappropriate in a Space Shuttle program so strapped by schedule pressures and shortages that space parts had to be cannibalized from one vehicle to launch another. on the other hand. it would be better to invest in a lifting body lander. then-agency Administrator Michael Griffin announced that NASA was considering buying crew and cargo transportation services to the ISS from private industry. It promised to build on an earlier RLV program that had failed to get off the ground after a promising start in the late 1990s. "We believe." as Griffin once put it in a different context. both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are well-funded and commercially viable.

Senior Staff writer for The Daily Caller who writes frequently on politics. cell phones. we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. http://www. Bill Gates and others became very wealthy as the result of the first phase of outer space development. Keith Cowing of NASA Watch wrote that he pressed Simberg about his feelings on the Obama administration’s priorities. In addition the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 made funding available to carry out the New Vision U. yet NASA’s budget would also be increased by $6.000 Ansari X Prize and many other cash prizes are being offered to spur space entrepreneurship/space privatization. school systems are failing.” Cowling also wrote that he “asked [Citizens Against Government Waste] how they can reconcile statements in support of commercial transport to the [International Space Station] when they have derided the [International Space Station] as a boondoggle for more than a decade.000. For example the $10. as they did during the satellite telecommunications revolution during the 1980s and 1990s. the Heinlein Prize for Practical Accomplishments in Commercial Space Activities ($500. and innovation renaissance.e-ir. legal.000.S.000). The fastest path to space is not through Moscow. Members of the task force issued several recommendations to Congress. In 2004 a new policy was instituted in accordance with the President’s Commission Report which lays the foundation of U. Tuesday morning the Competitive Space Task Force. asteroids. Near Earth Orbit.” Privatization inevitable.S. This is only the beginning of a new trend towards further space commercialization and privatization. Robert S. inspiration is low.[i] Recently. So. They said that they saw no contradiction.000) and the NASA Ralph Steckler/Space Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 81 . Outer space is in the process of being developed.” Also speaking at the press conference was Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste. Also in 2004 a new U. said.com/2011/02/08/fiscal-conservatives-call-for-increased-privatization-ofspace) Space spending has long been the multibillion-dollar government project that is rarely discussed and even more infrequently brought up as a primary focus by fiscal conservatives. unemployment is high.[iv] This policy. economic. Mars and elsewhere.000 million). Space Exploration Policy.000. the NASA Centennial Challenges Prizes ($100.info/?p=6286) Recently we have seen news images of billionaires taking $20. Louis and coordinator of Webster's online international relations program.000 trips to outer space. a new trend is being set by U. “did not think that the President cared either way about space commercialization. Earth’s Moon. helium 3 and many others have been found in abundant quantities in outer space. the Internet and a multitude of goods and services linked to these space technologies. Various entrepreneurs are developing fleets of private spaceships. economies are crashing (even the United States’). political. not for them. The first phase of outer space development has already taken place.S. “By opening space up to the American people and their enterprises. psychological and structural all operating together in the post Cold War era so that space commercialization and privatization are widespread accepted norms.” Task Force chairman Rand Simberg. Meanwhile. of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The vast majority of people around the world are still thinking of outer space as an elite field for government astronauts and scientists. why not expose more people to outer space development? The term used herein. the America’s Space Prize ($50. “If we really want to ‘win the future’. The Geostationary orbit has been colonized and developed. Space laws and policies have existed for decades and are ever growing. a self-described group of fiscal conservatives and free-market leaders.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AT: DA’s to Privatization Privatization of the space industry is coming now—broad support Nelson 2/08/11 (David Nelson. Only a handful of experts and students are aware of the outer space development phenomenon. Walker of Pennsylvania said. President Barack Obama announced that NASA’s Constellation Program would be cancelled. to a large extent calls for more participation from the private-sector in space exploration and other programs.natural development will prove Weeks 10(Edythe Weeks is an adjunct professor of international space law at Webster University in St. The International Space Station has been in Low Earth Orbit since 1998 and humankind has come to understand what it needs to know regarding human space habitats and living in outer space. Vast quantities of natural resources such as gold.S. but through the American entrepreneur. development of the outer space territory[ii]. including finding an American replacement to the Space Shuttle (so to minimize the costly expenditures on use of Russian spacecraft) and encouraging more private investment in the development of manned spacecraft. job loss is increasingly common. institutional. The result so far has been millions of dollars are being offered through various prizes to spur increased privatization of space.000. Already a critical number of space entrepreneurs have paved the way towards new space industries. Former Republican Rep. technological. Low Earth Orbit. In 2010. platinum. She is a member of the International Institute of Space Law and researches international outer space policy and development. NASA can ignite an economic.” Fiscal conservatives call for increased privatization of space” http://dailycaller. This phase involved satellite telecommunications industries and the global widespread acceptance of cable television. law[iii] was passed facilitating the legality of private space travel as a new industry being called “space tourism”. and the United States will regain its rightful place as the world leader in space. outdated school curriculum programs are unable to motivate students to lead. policy. and people are searching for ways to create prosperous futures for themselves and their families. ideological. hosted a press conference to encourage increased privatization of the space industry.000.000. Key thinkers are looking towards the development of other regions of outer space including. osmium. iridium. Examples include. “outer space development” involves a culmination of forces – historical.000. He wrote that Simberg.

Privatization Generic Grant Space Colonization Research and Technology Opportunity involved awards totalling $1.000. DDI 2011 Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 82 .000.

studied at the Space Policy Institute. science and technology. but this is an important achievement and I congratulate SpaceX on a successful mission.” The Dragon spacecraft is the first vehicle to return from space under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration. U.A. R-CA Today. in Journalism from Rider University. SpaceX is among a number of companies vying to prove they can carry out spaceflight missions once only performed by governments. re-entry and recovery of SpaceX Dragon capsule and called it an important milestone in the development of cargo services. after a privately owned rocket carrying a capsule powered off a launch pad at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and into outer space before returning safely to Earth. masters degree in Science. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Bill Nelson. He is a graduate of the International Space University and holds a B. Sen. Much work remains. R-TX Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). and Transportation Committee. Science. and now heads a Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA. at 12:23 pm. December 10.S. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 83 . Based on the budget blueprint.” Rep. As SpaceX and the entire commercial space industry continue to make spectacular new achievements. Technology and Public Policy from The George Washington University. The new law preserves and advances the activities of commercial space companies working to develop reliable cargo and crew services to the International Space Station. In September.S. “SpaceX has taken one more step into changing the paradigm of space flight. “This launch represents an important milestone that reflects the wisdom of the balanced approach outlined in the recently enacted NASA authorization law.” said Senator Hutchison. D-FL The leading congressional authority on the U.com/2010/12/10/congressional-praise-spacexs-successfuldragon-flight/ “Congressional Praise for SpaceX’s Successful Dragon Flight” Sen. “American commercial space companies continue to meet new goals while ensuring the highest level of safety in protecting the public. Congress is now putting the final touches on a detailed 2011 spending plan for NASA. http://www. who was a crew member aboard a 1986 space shuttle mission. Sen. Today’s launch was the first NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Demonstration Flight. “I congratulate SpaceX on its successful launch of the Falcon 9 Rocket and Dragon capsule. Space X became the first private company to successfully recover a spacecraft sent into outer space. Meantime. Rohrabacher served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics when the FAA was granted said authority. Supporting the development of these commercial activities will allow NASA to focus its efforts on the development of a new launch system and crew exploration vehicle to move beyond lowEarth orbit. With the splash down of its capsule in the Pacific.  In the wake of the winding down of NASA’s space-shuttle program.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***Net Benefits*** 1NC – Politics Net Benefit Incentives for private companies are popular in Congress – Space X proves Messier 10 By Doug Messier. Dana Rohrbacher. the continued success of SpaceX will enable NASA to focus their efforts into the far frontiers of space.” said Rohrabacher. Lawmakers hope to pass it by year’s end. Bill Nelson made his comments today following the successful launch into low-earth orbit and return to Earth of the 157-foot tall Falcon 9 rocket and the Apollo-like unmanned Dragon capsule built by Space X. space exploration that should ensure America remains a leader in space exploration. “We’ve arrived at the dawn of new era of U. 2010. Sen. Rep. Ranking Member on the Senate Commerce. the agency is counting on private companies to be able to deliver crew and cargo to service the International Space Station. Bill Nelson. we salute their efforts and look forward to the days when we can permanently expand humanity beyond the Earth. today praised the successful launch. which the new law established as one of NASA’s highest priorities. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher issued the following congratulatory statement on the successful launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 vehicle and reentry of the Dragon capsule. In 2004. and eventually crew transportation services.S. needed to support and sustain the International Space Station.parabolicarc.” said U.S. “By demonstrating that we can use commercial companies to meet national goals. space program said Wednesday that America is on track to remain a global leader in space. Congress approved a Nelson-engineered NASA budget blueprint that would help boost the commercial rocket industry – such as the development of the Falcon 9 – and have NASA become the chief player for building a new deep-space rocket and carry out missions to Mars.

sound like a yoga instructor gone lightheaded during a juice fast.com/txpotomac/2011/06/republican-presidential-candidates-agree-no-more-federal-money-for-human-space-flight/ Republican presidential candidates agree: No more federal money for human space flight The Republican presidential field sent a clear message to NASA workers in Texas and Florida: They don’t see a federal role in funding human space flight. Ron Paul — whether they would continue federal funding for human space flight. “NASA is standing in the way of it. we go "not for practicality. Sorry. Mitt Romney. In the future. former Minnesota Gov.org/pub_display." (AP photo) “NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy cannot innovate. as Post columnist Charles Krauthammer puts it. a George Mason University economist and research associate at Oxford's Future of Humanity Institute: The benefits are "mostly like the pyramids — national prestige and being part of history.cato. space is the ultimate "bridge to nowhere. The threat of force lies behind every tax dollar the government collects." the quasi-religious notion that. who has supported retaining NASA jobs in Texas. “It’s about getting to a real space program that works." but "for the wonder and the glory of it. Rick Perry. “Space Program Was Our Biggest Bridge to Nowhere” https://store. as Hanson points out. Texas Gov. what does the ordinary taxpayer get from the space program? Not much. a longtime supporter of space research. since federally funded spaceflight is the quintessential neoconservative project: a giant. The issue is not about eliminating a space program in America. GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich says NASA has presided over "failure after failure.Republicans prefer privatization Dunham 11’ By Richard Dunham." The argument for federally funded spaceflight ultimately boils down to "spacecraft as soulcraft. A 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that more Americans think private enterprise should pay for space exploration than think government should fund it. NASA's $18 billion isn't what stands between us and our fiscal day of reckoning." deaf to "the music of the spheres. Tim Pawlenty. The unanimous verdict came during a New Hampshire presidential debate tonight and following a scathing assessment of NASA management by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.chron. He calls space skeptics "Earth Firsters. former Pennsylvania Sen. Moreover.php?pubid=13342) More by Gene Healy Outside of avoiding the hypothetical horror of Martian gulags." It's true that." Space must be an alluring muse indeed. He created Texas on the Potomac in 2007. it’s inefficient.S. Rick Santorum and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain — raised their hand. Pawlenty interjected that NASA “can be refocused and reprioritized” and said “I don’t think we should eliminate the space program. Krauthammer's obsession makes sense. will contract with the Russian Federation to send American astronauts to the International Space Station.” Gingrich. he said.5 trillion deficit. Posted on June 13. You might demand that your neighbor help defend us against a foreign invader — but would you really hold a gun to his head to help him appreciate "the music of the spheres"? Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 84 . But. Minnesota Rep. “Unfortunately. R-Ga.” he said. the U. in a way. “What we have is bureaucracy after bureaucracy.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC – CP Avoids Politics NASA is unpopular. given that it makes Krauthammer.” he said. we could surely "find other projects with larger direct payoffs. But every little bit counts." Apparently there's nothing more "isolationist" than wanting to stay on your own planet. former Massachusetts Gov. The CP is massively popular with the public – they hate NASA wasting money and prefer free enterprise Healy 7/12/11(Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power.” Debate moderator John King of CNN asked the other six candidates in attendance — including Texas Rep. says Robin Hanson. normally a hardheaded neoconservative.” But Gingrich pushed back. wasteful crusade designed to fill Americans' supposedly empty lives with meaning." Space partisans often point to the alleged technological breakthroughs that come from solving hard problems like keeping humans alive in an environment never meant to sustain them. Michele Bachmann. there's a matter of principle at stake here. did not participate in the debate. with a $1. you could get similar technological boons from any ambitious project you convince the feds to spray money at — whether it's robot butlers or floating cities. 2011 at 8:21 pm http://blog. they also oppose sending federally funded astronauts to the moon or Mars. By nearly 2-to-1 margins. Not a single candidate — Paul. Charlie: The public's not buying it. If we wanted to.” NASA is preparing for the final space shuttle mission. and this is the rare cut that won't make the public squeal. As far as Americans are concerned. said the private sector and not government should lead the nation into the future of space innovation. Rick Dunham is the Washington bureau chief of the Houston Chronicle and Hearst Newspapers. failure after failure.

“If we really want to ‘win the future’. a private ship that took off from Florida orbited the Earth in just a few hours.." said Uresti. said. The new proposal . this morning announced a plan aimed at boosting the commercial rocket industry and attracting thousands of jobs to Florida’s Space Coast.to qualify for major tax breaks and other incentives. Uresti says if he would have waited to file the bill until the next legislative session in two years. “What we’re doing now is everything we can to ensure KSC’s continued importance to our nation’s space exploration effort. "If you go on a space flight. "The Commercial Space Jobs and Investment Act symbolizes a significant step forward in ensuring the right incentives are in place to attract industry to Florida.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC – CP Avoids Politics Fiscal Conservatives demand privatization of space Nelson 11’ By Steven Nelson. and the U.S.senate. Gov 10’ August 17.A. in Communication with a certificate in Conflict Management. Bill Nelson. also known as the "Space Flight Liability" bill. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow. NASA can ignite an economic. “By opening space up to the American people and their enterprises. and the United States will regain its rightful place as the world leader in space. “Senator files bill in advance of commercial space travel” SAN ANTONIO -.com/news/local/story/Senator-files-bill-in-advance-of-commercialspace/suXn8JU1_EyuDVQDy8gV3g. The start of commercial space flight has been taking off around the country. Sen. while also broadening the economic opportunities along our Space Coast. Last week. Uresti says the thrust behind Senate Bill 115 and the legal backing it would provide Blue Origin. Steven Nelson writes for The Daily Caller." said Frank DiBello." commented space travel enthusiast Raz Hernandez. In meetings with representatives from NASA and various commercial aerospace ventures at Cape Canaveral on Tuesday. sooner than you think. a self-described group of fiscal conservatives and free-market leaders.” Task Force chairman Rand Simberg. Walker of Pennsylvania said.” Senators want private space flight to increase jobs and economic growth Garcia 10 By Melissa Garcia.” Nelson said this new measure ( below ) is the next critical step to spurring space-industry job growth in the region. Members of the task force issued several recommendations to Congress. Robert S.woai. Tuesday morning the Competitive Space Task Force.cspx. it's here.” Nelson said. including finding an American replacement to the Space Shuttle (so to minimize the costly expenditures on use of Russian spacecraft) and encouraging more private investment in the development of manned spacecraft. his office said.S. "And how qualified are they?" On the edge of Uresti's district. of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And maybe. House of Representatives is considering a comparable measure.cfm?id=327226&. Nelson touted a new measure that would create up to five regional business enterprise zones around the country as magnets for commercial space ventures – which in turn would attract jobs to areas where there are lots of scientists and engineers. it helps the community." commented Senator Uresti. Melissa earned her B. and for developing the commercial rocket industry – all of which will save jobs of thousands of displaced shuttle workers. the space flight company "Blue Origin" has been launching test flights from their West Texas Launch site. Senator Carlos Uresti has filed Senate Bill 115." But along with the excitement come risks. the state-backed organization charged with promoting the development of commercial rocketry and related undertakings. Former Republican Rep.S. http://billnelson. but through the American entrepreneur. that could be too late. technological.gov/news/details. "We've talked about rocket ships and space since we were children.is drawing the support of aerospace industry leaders including those from Space Florida. in a move to further lessen the impact from the wind-down of the space shuttle. “President Kennedy was right when he predicted that space exploration would create a great number of new companies and strengthen our economy. And some of his constituents question the flights' safety. 2010. Earlier this month. and innovation renaissance. Published: 4:14 PM 02/08/2011 http://dailycaller. the Commercial Space Jobs and Investment Act would allow space-related businesses . hosted a press conference to encourage increased privatization of the space industry. and the broader domestic marketplace.com/2011/02/08/fiscal-conservatives-call-for-increased-privatization-of-space/#ixzz1SkIdFI1s “Fiscal conservatives call for increased privatization of space” Space spending has long been the multibillion-dollar government project that is rarely discussed and even more infrequently brought up as a primary focus by fiscal conservatives. for jump-starting NASA’s new heavy-lift rocket. could help stimulate the economy. at a time when we need it Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 85 .to give tax breaks to commercial space entrepreneurs . It would protect private space flight companies from being sued if passengers on board are injured or killed. Senate quickly and unanimously passed a different Nelson-engineered plan. and hopefully it will bring more jobs. Space Florida president. we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. Engineers expect to send up the first human being in 2012.situated around places like the Kennedy Space Center ( KSC ) . "This bill will stimulate the commercial space industry to create jobs in our state. "It helps the county. http://www. "And now. the U. "Who are the people that are going to be flying these commercial space ships?" commented Kristina Quijano. Average Joe's will someday go into outer space on commercial spaceships. The Senate-approved plan provides enough money for another space shuttle flight next year. there's a chance you may not come back. “Senator unveils new plan for boosting commercial space ventures” U. One Texas senator is already preparing for it.Blasting off in a rocket ship won't just be for NASA astronauts. Published: 12/15/2010 5:54 pm. More specifically. A graduate of the University of Colorado Denver. Senators support the commercial space industry because it attracts thousands of jobs in innovative fields Senate.

Gingrich has come out in Publicly aussi Favor of President Obama's plan to foster commercial space-through Government subsidies. The Cato Institute reports.html#ixzz1SYynU9gY. As for commercial flights to and from the International Space Station.typepad. and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of firsts. 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. Eventually. Bill Harwood has been covering the U. 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.cnet.html Newt Gingrich Prefers Space Prizes Over NASA Exploration Projects to Continue One Of The Things That Makes the presidential CANDIDACY form of House Speaker Newt Gingrich notable Is That He Is One Of The Few American Politicians Who Has Given a great deal of Thought to space issues.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239." No timetables were established for human flights beyond low-Earth orbit. could be available by around 2016 if not earlier. Prizes and Tax Incentives Would drive space and exploration. orbital fuel transfer systems. According to a 2006 interview in Space Review. The Settlement of Humans from Earth on Other Worlds. 2010 3:31 PM PST." Congress supports private space firms – NASA is too inefficient Whittington 11’ By Mark R." NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters. and I'm sure they'll want to beat that. stands at the Kennedy Space Center with the program's target--the moon--visible in the remote distance. unimaginable. "We will try to accelerate and use the great minds of industry to get a competition going. goal has Some Interesting Ideas How To Do Those Things Outside the NASA infrastructure. and closed-loop life support systems. Another $3. He has Written on space subjects for a Variety of periodicals. I am goal for doing Virtually all of it Outside of NASA-through prizes and tax incentives. possibly including modified versions of technology developed for the canceled moon program. NASA has run a series Itself of prizes from under the Centennial Challenge Program. bureaucracy Committed to over-engineering and riskavoidance Which Is Actually diverting resources from The Achievement and stifling We Need The Entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit Necessary to lead in space exploration. Later. That is what the president's plan for NASA will enable. people fanning out across the inner solar system. Google is running a Lunar X Prize That Would Pay Cash To The first private group to land a robot probe On the surface of the Moon. " Prizes Have Been Used to advance space technology Already in the 21st Century. 05/13/2011. the LA Times. 10’ by William Harwood. Gingrich not only disdain now the Apollo model of NASA Sending astronauts back to the Golden Moon to Mars. part of NASA's now-canceled Constellation program. (Credit: CBS News) Over that same five years. with deputies saying the focus instead will be on enabling technology development and innovation. once we develop the new capabilities to make it a reality.“Obama ends moon program. The Washington Post. President Obama unveiled a sweeping change of course for the nation's space program Monday. space program full-time since 1984. Including The Houston Chronicle. February 1. "Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year. A launch tower being built for the Ares I rocket. 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. http://nursingclasses.The Privately Funded Ansari X Prize led to The First Privately Funded Space Flight in 2004." DDI 2011 2NC – More Popular than NASA Washington prefers the competitive private industry to NASA Harwood. Under the Gingrich vision for space.8 billion will be earmarked for new technology development. http://news.S. "I am for a Dramatic Increase In Our efforts to reach out Into space. Gingrich has taken The Idea of Space prizes To The ultimate conclusion by Proposing a $ 20 trillion prize For the first group to land a person on Mars and return to Earth Safely HIM. asteroids. "And imagine all of this being done collaboratively with nations around the world. he Added The Idea of a lunar base prize for $ 5 trillion. exploring the moon.Privatization Generic most. Whittington who Is The author of Children of Apollo Moonwalker and The Last. including autonomous rendezvous. NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said she hoped a new privatesector launch system. and The Weekly Standard. USA Today. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 86 . Requesting some $19 billion for NASA in fiscal 2011. first as Cape Canaveral bureau chief for United Press International and now as a consultant for CBS News.com/myblog/2011/05/newt-gingrich-prefersspace-prizes-over-nasa-exploration-projects-to-continue. NASA Is an aging. including some $500 million in 2011. endorses private spaceflight” On the seventh anniversary of the Columbia disaster. NASA Would Be relegated to technology development and little else. some $7.1 billion will support development of new propulsion technologies needed by future heavy-lift rockets.

space. Cheaper Options for New NASA Rocket.S. a former CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. 2010. http://www.both for supplies and people -. The executives made their comments about alternatives to NASA's plan for sending astronauts to the moon and on to Mars during the first meeting of the Review of U. filling the gap between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the start of Constellation. But Pulliam also noted that NASA has said canceling the Ares I project would add $14.would free up NASA to spend its funds on more ambitious space exploration. said a modified Delta IV Heavy rocket could save between $3 billion and $6 billion compared with the Ares I. we will be stuck in LEO for a very long time. The private sector is on the cusp of providing human access to LEO. if not sooner.. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk also said that using private firms to service the space station -. told the committee that the company could use an existing Delta rocket to launch the Constellation project's Orion capsule into space sooner and at a lower cost than NASA's planned Ares I rocket.D. Current federal spending levels are not sustainable.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC – Spending Net Benefit Private enterprises saves money for both NASA and tax payers. Steve Metschan. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 87 . “Critical partnerships for the future of human space exploration”. FLORIDA TODAY.html WASHINGTON -. Private Companies Claim Better. Shifting more of the cost to the private sector and international partners will help alleviate the burden on the US taxpayer. Human Space Flight Plans Committee created by President Barack Obama. the CEO of United Launch Alliance.Executives from several private space companies said Wednesday that they could provide cheaper. missions have yielded their maximum scientific returns. which proposed using existing shuttle components to create a new launch system that would be cheaper and already tested. NASA has contracted with both firms for a total of 20 missions to service the station. which NASA hopes to use to take the Orion capsule farther into space. After the daylong meeting. http://www. July 19. freeing NASA to devote its resources to developing the systems that will take us beyond it." Michael Gass. And Gary Pulliam at Aerospace Corp. 19 June 2009 Time: 12:55 PM ET. more reliable launch systems than those of NASA's Constellation program.. including to Mars. NASA will be forced to tighten its already constrictive belt. Bormanis 2010 (Andre Bormanis is a staff writer for the The Space Review. part of a group called Direct.6 billion to the cost of developing the larger Ares V rocket.com/6868-private-companies-claim-cheaper-options-nasa-rocket.1 billion to $16. Executives with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences told committee members that they could help NASA ferry astronauts to the International Space Station. Enhancing the role of robotics will lower the cost of human missions beyond LEO even more by deferring the expense of human Mars landing and return vehicles until after Ph. which was hired to look at other ways to launch Orion. If NASA is still building Ares 1 and Orion when the federal government begins to make the draconian cuts necessary to move toward a balanced budget. offered the most provocative presentation. if for no other reason than it will use our limited financial resources more efficiently. said some commercial launch efforts appear "further along than I thought. Private space companies provide much cheaper and reliable systems Theobald 09’ by Bill Theobald.thespacereview.com/article/1667/1) hss A program that recognizes and embraces these three partnerships has a far greater likelihood of success than the US trying to repeat the Apollo experience. committee Chairman Norm Augustine. and in a few years.

The old Soviet Union had a giant moon rocket bigger than the Falcon Heavy. such as nearby asteroids. had one successful flight more than 20 years ago. Over its 40 year design history. More opportunities we have yet to even comprehend will come out of the frontier. But. He joked: "We believe in everyday low prices. Musk has some credibility because of his successful Falcon 9. privately financed research outposts will be a common sight in the night sky. according to a study by the University of Colorado and an Associated Press analysis of NASA budgets. Musk. valuing asteroids at $20 trillion each. an interactive entertainment company. has already brokered the flight of eight private citizens to orbit. he would be able to fly astronauts to the space station in his smaller Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule within three years. Musk said Falcon Heavy will be far cheaper than government or private rockets. When the U.html Space: The Final Frontier of Profit? A debate on the pros and cons of commercializing the cosmos. The space shuttle. In the next five years we hope to drive the price below $20 million. Fuel is less than 2%." To get costs that low. NASA will need to send American astronauts to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of more than $50 million per person. other governments and satellite makers. a space policy expert at American University. he said. Space Exploration Technology already has sent the first private rocket and capsule into Earth's orbit as a commercial venture. The space shuttle hauls about 54." Lambright said companies have often made big claims about private space without doing much. Within the next several decades.000 pounds (181. who also founded PayPal and manufactures electric sports cars. a nonprofit that conducts incentivized competitions. Lambright said. The annual expense NASA bears for the shuttle is roughly $4 billion. but I am. the space shuttle program has cost about $1. The Associated Press Apr 05. While the new Space X rocket is designed initially for cargo.wsj. Space X's new rocket.000 pounds (24. like Space X. The challenge faced by all space-related ventures is the high cost of launching into orbit. while the standing army of people and infrastructure is well over 80%. said his pricing is more fixed than traditional aerospace firms.500 kilograms) into orbit." McCurdy said NASA's space shuttle was a technological marvel. FEBRUARY 13. Howard McCurdy. The first one-way missions to Mars will be launched. "I don't want to come across as skeptical.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC – CP Avoids Spending Private space firms are inherently more financially savvy Borenstein 11’ By Seth Borenstein.070 kilograms) into the same orbit as the International Space Station. Several companies are vying to launch private rockets that could replace the shuttle. 2010 Peter Diamandis is chief executive of the X Prize Foundation. but had a bad business model and was not cost effective.A high-tech entrepreneur revealed plans Tuesday to launch the world's most powerful rocket since man went to the moon. Launches are about $100 million each. One thing is certain: The next 50 years will be the period when we establish ourselves as a space-faring civilization. it satisfies NASA's current safety requirements for carrying humans. which offers weightless flights. He does not have a paying customer for his first launch." said Space X president Elon Musk. Potential customers for the new larger rocket are NASA. Mining operations will spring up on the moon. at a cost of roughly $50 million per person. costs between $750 million to $2 billion per flight (for up to seven astronauts) depending on the number of launches each year. for getting people to orbit with NASA concentrating on missions to send astronauts to new places. a professor of public policy and space scholar at Syracuse University. As the generation that has never known a world without "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" matures. claims it's also cheaper WASHINGTON . "It would be great if it works.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536. said of Musk: "If he's not in the lead.news1130. The old Saturn V could carry more than 400. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 88 .5 billion per launch. and after several launches it could carry people. He said Musk.S." said Henry Lambright. Private firm to build rocket that carries more than space shuttle.S. whatever the number of launches. it will give President Barack Obama's space policy a needed boost. He said the Air Force pays two older more established aerospace firms about $435 million for each of its launches. The first launch is slotted for 2013 from California with follow-up launches from Cape Canaveral in Florida. One of the companies I co-founded. and eventually below $5 million. If Musk's plans work. A "let's just go do it" mentality is emerging. on the other hand.440 kilograms) of cargo. 2011 19:01:57 PM http://www. Peter Diamandis makes a case for private space. who has a contract to supply the space station with cargo using the smaller Falcon 9. The Falcon Heavy could put 117. Musk said he needs to launch about four Falcon Heavy rockets a year but plans on launching about 10. "This is a rocket of truly huge scale. has incentive to be more financially savvy. The government's new vision will mean the development of multiple operators. http://online. providing the U. an asteroid or Mars. Only the long retired Saturn V rocket that sent men to the moon was bigger. if it's safe. and chairman of the Rocket Racing League. Another Soviet rocket. Space Adventures. He is also CEO of Zero Gravity.com/news/world/article/207999--private-firm-to-build-rocket-that-carries-more-than-space-shuttle-claims-it-salso-cheaper. the military. It is now planning a rocket that could lift twice as much cargo into orbit as the soon-to-be-retired space shuttle. space shuttle stands down later this year. but is in negotiations with NASA and other customers for flights after his company proves the new rocket flies. Musk said. who is using his own money in his privately held firm. competitive markets are more cost effective Diamonds 10’ By Peter Diamonds. is big enough to send cargo or even people out of Earth's orbit to the moon. He has said that if NASA does buy rides on commercial rockets. and it is that attitude that will bring the human race off this planet and open the final frontier. called Falcon Heavy.000 pounds (53. it will not be content to watch only government astronauts walk and work on the moon. NASA’s launching costs too much. he's well positioned for the finish. NASA is now paying Russia to send astronauts to and from the space station on Soyuz spacecraft. also bigger than Falcon Heavy and designed to launch its version of the space shuttle. redundancy as well as a competitive market that will drive down the cost of getting you and me to orbit. but it failed in all four launch attempts. Obama has been battling some in Congress over his plans to use more private space companies. Most people don't realize that the major cost of a launch is labor.

transportation costs would be astronomical and would make the process quite unprofitable. will actually land on an asteroid. as envisioned by SpaceDev. is entirely new. Furthermore. What will be done with the data. a neutron spectrometer will search for traces of water vapor. NEAP was brought into existence for a very unique task: to explore and exploit both the enormous reservoir of scientific wealth and valuable elements found in near-earth asteroids. Benson also noted: "We are not surprised by the significant cost savings that our study concludes can be achieved without sacrificing safety and mission support. its extraction becomes extremely valuable when used to produce rocket fuel. a cheap commodity on Earth. He is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE. the private group has found that a more comprehensive series of missions could be completed in a fraction of the time and for one-tenth of the cost of the NASA estimate. putting NEAP in space will require some creative business decisions. (Private space: a free-market approach to space exploration. Benson is insuring equipment and investments on board NEAP to assuage fears of mission failure and the loss of scientific equipment. New Mexico State University. The habitat modules would remain in place after each mission and could be re-provisioned and re-used. however. Unlike NEAR. (Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than four decades. The academic teams are making every effort to ensure success in a mission in which countless mishaps can occur. the information retrieved will be remarkably similar. according to a press statement on the study findings. and deployable probes with on-board spectrometers will measure the asteroid's composition. When functional. however. given the difficult logistics and high risks involved." NEAP proves that private development is cheaper Zinsmeister. via a private placement of stock in an existing trading company. with projected expenditures pegged at around US$40 million.space. profit and investor security is the overriding concern. Water is the most valuable resource to be found in the short-term. Producing fuel in space from space-based water deposits promises to be substantially cheaper. projecting a figure of $104 billion over 13 years. and it is true that there is little reason to think that ferrying materials to Earth will be possible or cost-effective even in the fairly distant future. Innovative programs to ensure NEAP's success and control costs have been implemented to attract investors. more has been raised through the sale of equity in the company. The idea of resource extraction from other worlds has long remained the domain of science fiction.html) hss NASA has tallied its future lunar mission costs. Although one asteroid may be worth anywhere from US$1 to US$4 trillion in gold. Harvard International Review. http://www. Jim Benson. such as SpaceDev's cooperation with the academic world. thus building a complex of habitats at one or more lunar locations over time. Global Notebook Editor. However. and other metal ores. “Private Sector. According to SpaceDev's chief. Returns on investments are critical. platinum. would position a habitat module in lunar orbit or on the moon's surface. Although NEAP. Water is the major component in rocket propellant. Although Benson has invested a significant amount of his own money in the expedition. Benson is hoping that SpaceDev will help satisfy this demand. Spring 1998. the proposed Space Station Alpha could be the first step in establishing demand for fuel in orbit and consequently a demand for space-based water deposits. cobalt. The data collected will be sold on the market not only to the scientific community at considerably reduced prices. but also to mining and space flight industries interested in commercial exploitation of the asteroid. Costs have been kept to a minimum. http://findarticles. Since the project is funded entirely with private money. A camera will measure the size of the asteroid. Each mission. No longer will scientists suffer the uncompensated loss of equipment like that following the failure of the Mars Observer.com/1793-private-sector-cost-lunar-plan-unveiled. unlike NEAR. LowCost Lunar Plan Unveiled”. what costs cents to produce and use on this planet.com since 1999.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC – CP Avoids Spending Private companies solves for a fraction of the cost of NASA David 2005.000 a pint in space due to the immense costs of transportation. which has been a difficult task given the high costs and risks normally involved in space exploration. and the University of Texas at Austin have been working with SpaceDev on all aspects of spacecraft design and flight logistics. Students and professors at the University of California at San Diego. costs US$6. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 89 .com/p/articles/mi_hb137/is_2_20/ai_n28713165/) The anatomy of the NEAP project itself is a novel concept. 98 – (Jeff Zinsmeister.

coupled with the fact that NASA and the rest of the Federal Government are currently being funded by a continuing resolution (CR) that carries over these restrictions and prohibits initiation of new projects. NASA is continuing to spend approximately $200 million each month on the Constellation Program. aspects of which both NASA and Congress have agreed not to build.” Even so. Unfortunately. The private sector can spend money more effectively than government bureaucrats. Despite having spent more than $10 billion on the program to date. 2011.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC – CP Avoids Spending The private sector spends money more efficiently – avoids the spending DA Scatz. now referred to as the Space Launch System and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle. 2011 concluding that it simply can’t build a rocket that “fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act.Va. NASA is no closer to sending an astronaut to space than it was when the program began.” Furthermore. NASA delivered a report to Congress on January 12.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) on January 13.cagw. some members of Congress are insisting that NASA move forward with the program.html) NASA’s Constellation Program has come under frequent criticism. “Testimony Before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. for good reason.org/ccagw/government-affairs/testimony/house-committee-oversight. 11 . John Rockefeller (D-W. the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 requires NASA to spend more than $10 billion in the next three years to continue Constellation. 2/17. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 90 .” http://www. According to a letter from NASA Inspector General Paul K. As a result. the government’s role in space exploration should be minimized.former legislative director and president of Citizens Against Government Waste (Thomas. “due to restrictive language in NASA’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 appropriation. Martin to Sens.

31 Although the US public may be indifferent to space commerce or scientific activities. Private ventures now under way are reducing the costs of space access considerably. The planet-wide eagerness to join the space-faring club is palpable.airpower. another emerging industry. Unless the United States has a strong presence on the moon at the time of China’s manned lunar landing. much of the world will have the impression that China has approached the United States in terms of technological sophistication and comprehensive national power. Even though the government must maintain sophisticated imaging capabilities for special situations.39 Such enterprises could prove attractive. “Technonationalism” remains the impetus for many nations’ space programs. In 1969 the world was captivated by man’s first walk on the moon. Masters in Asian Studies. They maintain that the United States is giving up its civilian space leadership— an action that will have huge strategic implications. newly earned wealth. particularly in Asia: “In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union.30 Analysts believe that the United States’ determination to maintain dominance in military space has caused it to lose ground in commercial space and space exploration. As Alfred Thayer Mahan pointed out.html The United States would do well to keep a low profile for its military space program and burnish its technological image by showcasing its commercial and scientific space programs. “Building up a great merchant shipping lays the broad base for the military shipping. and military strategy for the medium of space. technological feats in space remain something of a marvel to the broader world. a growing industry.af. to maximize its resources. http://www.37 Another example involves space imagery. 3-1-2009. the Chinese have a carefully thought-out human-spaceflight program that will take them up to parity with the United States and Russia.”36 The US military can maximize its resources. who certainly have had their successes in recent years in building soft power and using it to extend their influence around the globe. politically as well as financially. the global competition today is being driven by national pride. this is likely to come at a time when the new and emerging ideological confrontation between Beijing and Washington will have intensified considerably. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 91 . Air and Space Power Journal. MSc.32 If recent trends hold. by packaging as much military space activity as possible into commercial space activity. to acquire platforms capable of delivering munitions from space.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC Soft Power Net Benefit China will subsume the US politically and technologically unless the US downplays its governmental space program and opens the door to cheaper and more efficient private companies Trevor Brown. S. specializes in political. The arrangement the Pentagon has with Iridium Satellite LLC gives the military unlimited access to its network and allows users to place both secure and nonsecure calls or send and receive text messages almost anywhere in the world. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. cost-effective options for delivering the Air Force’s less-sensitive payloads to Earth orbit. a growing cadre of highly educated men and women. scheduled for 2017. it could easily meet the vast majority of its routine requirements at lower cost by obtaining commercially available imagery.35 But the United States does not necessarily have to choose between civilian and military space programs since much of the technology developed for space is dual use. They’re investing to make China a strategic world power second to none in order to reap the deals and advantages that flow to world leaders. economic. One example involves satellite communications.”34 India and Japan are also aggressively developing their own space programs. Space tourism. and the confidence that achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits. could enable the Air Force to procure affordable capabilities to routinely operate 60 to 90 miles above Earth. The Apollo program paid huge dividends in soft power at a time when the United States found itself dueling with the Soviets to attract other nations into its ideological camp.maxwell.38 The Air Force could also use space transportation. It is possible that one enterprise could become an alternative to Russian Soyuz spacecraft for NASA’s missions to the International Space Station.40 Advances that entrepreneurs are making in suborbital space flight could eventually evolve to a point where the Air Force would find it far easier. The space industry provides a tremendous opportunity for militaries that desire more affordable access and space assets that can significantly augment terrestrial forces. Doing so would enable it to accumulate rather than hemorrhage soft power. Such a rationale is not lost on the Chinese. not only financially but also politically. According to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) administrator Michael Griffin.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.33 The most recent space race reflects the changing dynamics of global power.

Sabathier has more than 20 years of experience in aerospace. around the globe and throughout space. Space is now understood as a fully dual-use domain.because it helps unify the country during periods of great stress and transformation.with the possible exceptions of India and Russia -.S. landed on the moon more than 40 years ago and remains far ahead in all fields. will outperform Ariane 5 and its foreseen successors. Russia. underlying significance of this moment and that the event will attract attention in neither Europe nor the U. as is more often the case. especially in the specific orbits used for particular kinds of activities.S. Over time.S. proceeding slowly and steadily in a “long march” fashion. However. A Chinese moon landing ought not to represent an existential threat to U. Prior to that.a subtle soft-power means of highlighting China’s growing influence. it is increasingly willing to go it alone. at roughly the same time that China’s GDP is projected to exceed that of the U. but ultimately its aim is to become a global competitor in space. In the management of orbits and space access. with the exception of the U. little has been made of the fact that once the Space Shuttle is retired this year. nations have needed to cooperate to some degree or another in order to develop significant capabilities. will be operational before its European counterpart. has at some point been subject to significant resource limitations. (“The Global Impact of the Chinese Space Program.S. will certainly lose its soft-power edge in space for the first time in nearly half a century. increased national pride. old space will have to be managed and new space will have to be found. Beidou.S. he provides strategic insights to both the private sector and governments in the fields of aerospace and telecommunications. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 92 .S. As space systems become more complex and costly.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC Soft Power Net Benefit US space weakness is key to Chinese influence and soft power Sabathier and Faith 5-17. It is possible that policymakers in the West will not understand the deeper. more and more congested. NASA will be forced to pay Russia to fly U. Space Power: A Crowded Field. effective for applying both soft and hard power or. absent significant space capabilities. But since every post-Cold War national space program. he was a program manager for space initiatives at CSIS. One such benefit.S. thus far. astronauts to the ISS at a cost of $75 million for each round-trip ticket. thereby diminishing the strategic and asymmetric advantage the U. currently derives from its dominance in space. the U. but extended to both the vertical and digital dimensions. remains stuck on the International Space Station (ISS) along with Europe. where he wrote extensively about space policy. In addition to showing considerable signs of determination and an enormous ambition. 2011) Space activity has increased tremendously over the past decade thanks to both the growth of space applications and the entry of many new national and regional players. given that the U. this trend is going to increase and will likely even affect the U. After all. China has the resources needed to comprehensively develop its space assets in all areas. Vincent G.S. but also at the core of all global defense policies and operations.S. China might cooperate on space activities to accelerate a particular program or to gain prestige and recognition along the way. He is also a senior associate with the technology and public policy program at the CSIS. a little bit of both.-Soviet space race as well as the benefits China can derive from space. analyzed and understood both the successes and failures of the U. slated for use starting in 2014. increased global activity in space is making space. Although China has relied on cooperation in the past to develop its space capabilities. Space power is the modern-day equivalent of the 18thcentury sea-power domain so eloquently described by Alfred Thayer Mahan.S. freedom of action. space is the smart-power tool par excellence. China will subsequently land a “ taikonaut” on the moon in the middle of the next decade. This will eventually allow China to compete across the board. G. if the U. Chinese policymakers have studied.” in. is more important in China than in any other current major spacefaring power -. -. Indeed. as in business when a resource becomes a commodity. they will neither attain nor retain global pre-eminence. Countries with global ambitions understand that. In any case. space leadership. Galileo. Ryan Faith is a research analyst at the space foundation. Japan and other station partners while China invites astronauts from around the world to visit the moon on board Chinese landers. China will probably catch up with European commercial space assets and policies before 2020.S. from rocket and satellite design to space policy. This situation impairs U.S. As president of Sabathier Consulting. with space systems not only part of the digital and cyberspace domains and as such powerful socio-economic enablers. and the Long March 5 family of launch vehicles. World Politics Review. competitive and contested. Its navigation system.

There is however one discrepancy which inevitably drives a stake into the spoke of this analysis.71) Joseph Nye’s term ‘soft power’ was explored. The Chinese on the other hand have noticed this. capabilities and how this will be influential in their future possible ascension to hegemony. It was found that although the US ha massive ‘soft power’ capabilities (coupled with massive hard power abilities) they are in fact experiencing some real decline with regards to their attractiveness in the international realm.the study has not accounted for the fact that the US is still arguably hegemonic and in control of the system through the control and maintenance of the Neoliberal ideology and agenda within the global structure.especially material or ‘hard power’ hegemony. Thus the ‘soft power’ of attraction creates uniform behavior far better than force in ‘hard power’ terms.then they can become hegemonic. whilst the US are increasingly being perceived as malevolent. On the other hand it was found that Chinese are engaging their international counterparts more effectively with regards to cultural exchange awareness. 70. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 93 .that focuses excessively on hard power capabilities. arguably helped the US cheat decline since the 1970s.material power. thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (International Studies) at the Stellenbosch University supervisor Dr. This is a mere forecast and not a prediction.sun. but if the Chinese ideology could become the dominant one.sum strategy of the realist.without any legal base or sufficient allies. Regimes and international organizations all have entrenched Neoliberal values which propagate freedom. In conclusion this study has tried to show that hegemony. The growing attractiveness of china. as it is the chief aspect which is almost synonymous with nn.ac.material influence.especially with regards tro the growing Chinese dragon.which is not conducive to hegemony or dominance in the international system.1/2391/Meyer.as (of if) the US continues to lose control of their ‘soft power’ capabilities. K. http://scholar. in addition to their unprecedented economic growth has lead to an ascendance or growth tendency with regards to Chinese ‘soft power’ and attractiveness to the international community. Thus China is growing and nurturing its ‘soft power’ capabilities in order to create an image of benevolent super power.can only occur in cases where it is built on a sturdy non material and ‘soft power’ foundation. Both in the cases on the US and China it was indicated what their respective ‘soft power. The next chapter served as a practical application of the theory of soft power and hegemony.. The growing anti. Thus it could well be argued that the US is in relative decline. It is argued that this is the core of the US’ hegemonic capabilities (as they are the authors of these values) and hence enables the US to perform hard power activities such as the war in Iraq. democracy and liberalization of markets.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC Soft Power Net Benefit Chinese soft power will lead to the decline of US hegemony unless we increase soft power – ideology of liberalization is key Meyer 07’ By Marius Meyer. The United States of America is a prime example of how ‘soft power can help a states to prevent decline through consensus and alliance formation.US sentiment – in response to their unilateral and ‘hard power approach to international relations has tarnished the ability of its non. In illustrating US ‘soft power’ decline and Chinese growth. It was found that ‘soft power’ is a more peaceful alternative to the zero. March 2007. It was found that ‘soft power’ attracts and legitmises actions whilst building alliances and consensus.za/bitstream/handle/10019.pdf?sequence=1 “An exploration of the Role of soft power in hegemony: the USA and China” (pg. they will probably be overshadowed by the Chinese dragon in (or more probably after ) the next 20-30 years. Smith. It would then not be inconceivable that.whilst the US possibly forgot the value of ‘soft power’ as a sustaining capability for hegemony.

a common language. But there will be intense security competition—both China and the United States will watch each other closely.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 1NC Soft Power Net Benefit Hegemony is key to global stability – U. know that it is unlikely that they could challenge the dominant state and win. Where Rome conquered. Rome’s power was so overwhelming that no one could challenge it successfully for hundreds of years. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 94 . but certainly is missed when absent. order. in fact. education. Throughout history. Thayer. Americans may not pay much attention to it until a crisis occurs. The result was stability within the Roman Empire. law. is its “normal” condition. In fact. is not often noticed. peace. They may resort to other mechanisms or tactics to challenge the dominant country. Bradley A. That was true of the British Empire (pax Britannica) too. with their intelligence communities increasingly focused on each other. 42] Peace. 2007 ["The Case For The American Empire. This is because international politics does not sleep. like good health. But right now states are competing with one another.S. pax Romana in Latin means the Roman peace. p. The fact that America is so powerful actually reduces the likelihood of major war. it never takes a rest. This is not unusual in international politics but. ISBN 0415952034. At least. including even great powers. but are unlikely to do so directly. So it is with the United States today. and much else followed. not until a challenger (certainly China) thinks it can overthrow the dominant state (the United States)." American Empire: A Debate. and their militaries seeing the other as their principal threat. This means that there will be no wars between great powers. Peace and stability are major benefits of the American Empire. or the stability brought about by the Roman Empire. Scholars of international politics have found that the presence of a dominant state in international politics actually reduces the likelihood of war because weaker states. presence prevents conflicts. Published by Routledge. Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University. peace and stability have been a major benefit of empires. their diplomats striving to ensure that countries around the world do not align with the other.

Calif.com/conrad-c-lautenbacher-phd/naturaldisasters-and-sol_b_440128. http://www.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC DSCOVR Net Benefit NASA spends 70% of budget. without an ACE replacement.currently rely on data from a single spacecraft. Administrator of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA).m. DSCOVR satellite can replace ACE. We simply cannot afford to let DSCOVR's launch funding be eliminated. knocks out electrical grid for years. where he is chief of the Space Weather Laboratory. The sun has been quiet for years. ACE. replacement spacecraft for ACE. This is a serious life-threatening matter that demands our attention. the solar scientist received an alert on his smartphone. It's Hesse's job to watch these eruptions. on Space Exploration. 2011 “Sunburst could be a big blow” The Washinton Post. just when you need it the most. 4/06/11.huffingtonpost. Hesse said later. kills thousandsand the timeframe is soon. due to budgetary concerns.. Lautenbacher. and budgetary agencies attempt to pare down federal expenditures.and a "notably large one" at that. they can pay the Air Force to launch DSCOVR by 2012 Bill Donahue. http://www. If NASA cuts space exploration budget and adds it to Earth science and monitoring.solar and space weather.and help predict -. was built to monitor Earth weather and global warming. DSCOVR was evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences and their report called this mission "strong and scientifically vital. there will be no warning in time to prevent potentially catastrophic damage.solar and space weather." Solar Flares will be disastrous. our star has been spitting out flares and plasma like an angry dragon. which is wearing out.com/technology/article/2011-03/lost-satellite The Air Force. or $12 billion.destroys economy.While a video of the Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 95 . efforts to fund space weather in the "Critical Electric Infrastructure Protection Act.. The Air Force planned to allow new entrants such as Hawthorne.flares will peak in 2013 Vastag. The DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory). languishes in committee. But only the tail of the plume would lick Earth. 1/28/10. Jr.and help predict -. and also features equipment that can measure -. Jr.. 1/28/10. and fast.hurtling through the inner solar system. 6/21/11 (Brian Vastag.html The DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory). NASA’s current solar storm detector. But since February. Natural Disasters and Solar Storms: Why Space Weather Matters. Administrator of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA). NASA spacecraft had seen a burst of X-rays spinning out from a sunspot. and can measure solar/space weather Conrad C. While NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) has fuel through 2024. Natural Disasters and Solar Storms: Why Space Weather Matters. lexis) The sun is waking up. . which is keenly interested in the space weather data DSCOVR would provide. top scientists and military strategists have found that during space storms several key instruments have failed to report data in real time This is like having a fire department that breaks down just when there is a fire. Hesse needed to know. And on June 7. Reporter for PopSci. An animated chart traced the predicted path of a huge arc of plasma . government and industry sources said.If a big one were headed our way. http://www. to compete for the launch. Lautenbacher. replacement spacecraft for ACE. does not solve Conrad C. and also features equipment that can measure -.At 7:49 Hesse got his answer." However. The burst was a solar flare . it woke up Michael Hesse. but a defense spending bill passed July 8 by the House Appropriations Committee did not include this funding. At 5:49 a. defense." which also addresses cyber security. In Congress. The service requested $135 million for this purpose in 2012. and fed the latest data from four sun-staring satellites into powerful computers. so he could alert the electric power industry to brace for a geomagnetic storm that could knock some of the North American power grid offline. reporter for the Washington Post June 21. but. Space weather remains an under-appreciated challenge. this $100+ million DSCOVR program is at risk as a potpourri of federal environmental. space. was built to monitor Earth weather and global warming. arriving June 9 and driving a dazzling display of the northern lights from Alaska through Maine. agreed to pay for the satellite’s launch vehicle.huffingtonpost.and prevent such catastrophes -. Hesse gathered his team at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt.-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Spacecraft along with other space and ground assets can detect the arrival of these storms.hot gas . at the nadir of its activity cycle.. DSCOVR was evaluated by the National Academy of Sciences and their report called this mission "strong and scientifically vital.popsci.html Efforts to predict this space weather -.com/conrad-c-lautenbacher-phd/naturaldisasters-and-sol_b_440128.

Communications satellites will be knocked offline. a solar scientist at Goddard. The financial cost: Up to $2 trillion.Galileo famously drew them. While tracing features of the sun's surface. Financial transactions. timed and transmitted via those satellite. the National Academy of Sciences stated that an 1859-level storm could knock out power in parts of the northeastern and northwestern United States for months.Carrington had no idea what the flash could mean. After a quiet season. too. in the early 1600s . Their long strands of wire acted as antennas for this huge wave of solar energy. Food would spoil. gross domestic product. in part. Observers in Miami and Havana gaped skyward at eerie green and yellow displays.Their efforts are motivated.Utilities say they're studying the issue. causing millions or billions in losses. In 2008. Report co-author John Kappenmann estimated that about 135 million Americans would be forced to revert to a pre-electric lifestyle or relocate. Huessy wants Congress to enact rules that would force power companies to better protect the power grid. will fail. by the sun's increasingly frequent outbursts.S. solar activity ramps up." said Peter Huessy. And oil pipelines." the scientific term for all of the sun's freaky activity. telegraph operators found out. As this tsunami sped by. as they have done three times in the past decade due to "space weather. one-seventh the annual U. he saw a sudden flash emerge from a dark spot. which Carrington had projected via telescope onto paper. particularly in Alaska and Canada. the sun is now spitting out flares again. like power lines."The sun is not partisan. even years. And experts warn that the grid is not ready. And we don't know what that clock is. will have to be rerouted. transmitters heated up. it has a coronary. witnessed by British astronomer Richard Carrington. Every 11 to 12 years. and several burst into flames. except for once every hundred years or so.000 a flight.Within hours. conduct electricity from the solar storm. will suffer corrosion as they. Astronauts on the space station will huddle in a shielded module. Flights between North America and Asia.But the biggest impact will be on the modern marvel known as the power grid.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 2NC DSCOVR Net Benefit eruption captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory showed an enormous plume spraying from the sun.it would not be the 1859 event all over again. 1 of that year saw the largest solar flare on record. The GPS system will go wonky. Although such sunspots had sparked curiosity for centuries . this solar tantrum would not be the big one . and sanctions don't work. over the North Pole. Thousands could die." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 96 . Water systems would fail.Sept. Such a "Carrington event" will happen again someday. as they were in April during a weak solar storm at a cost to the airlines of $100. but our wired civilization will suffer losses far greater than a few telegraph shacks. the northern lights pushed far south. with an eye toward understanding how to protect the grid by powering down sections of it during an hours-long solar storm. president of GeoStrategic Analysis. it doesn't listen to diplomacy. "The sun has its own clock. said Dean Pesnell. with activity expected to peak in 2013 and 2014.

and ensure that there would be more players in the nascent private launch industry. Whittington is a writer and is the author of The Last Moonwalker.e. it would appear that the Obama commercial space initiative should be considered commercial in name only. under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems program was to do this in two stages. decrease the cost per launch. The Bush approach. spending six billion dollars to develop a commercial space industry in the next five years capable of transporting cargo and people to and from ISS. which Bolden does not recall making.html?cat=58) One of the more interesting features of the Obama space policy is the plan to commercialize space travel between the Earth's surface and low Earth orbit. sometimes called "Zero Gravity.com/article/5425146/three_problems_with_the_obama_commercial_pg3. the government is going to have to help to create it. as mentioned above. Indeed. Children of Apollo and Nocturne. It appears that in a conference call with Cernan and Neil Armstrong. commercial space craft to send astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station. especially as the Obama administration proposes to cancel the public option of the Ares 1/Orion. First. one would wonder what incentive a SpaceX or an Orbital would have to actually deliver what was promised. One of the ways that a true commercial enterprise works is that the knowledge of the cost of failure. because there is no actual commercial space industry that provides launch services for cargo and astronauts to low Earth orbit. The Obama approach is to essentially go all in for commercial. should they fall short. in house solution to Earth to LEO transportation. Some potential markets exist. some for the Washington Post. The only other option will be to buy rides on the Russian Soyuz. But the idea that commercial space will get a bailout if it doesn't perform effectively removes a major incentive to perform. There are inherent risks involved in this approach. mainly by providing money to help develop launch systems and space craft that can be operated on a commercial basis. the Obama administration is doing nothing to encourage private markets for commercial space. Inexplicably. first cargo then passengers.associatedcontent. including space tourism and servicing private space stations such as the one Bigelow Aerospace is working on. Zero Taxes" would make space an enterprise zone. The Obama commercial space plan was a revision of an earlier Bush era plan. The same system would be part of the Constellation return to the Moon space exploration program. providing tax and regulatory relief for products and services created in space. With no "public option" in the form of the Orion/Ares 1 and with the prospect that failure would only mean that a commercial firm would just get more money from the government. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden admitted that the Obama administration would provide a bailout for commercial space companies should it appear that they would miss the deadline of 2015 to provide space transportation services to and from the International Space Station. to deliver a promised product or service in the time and for the cost promises. The Bush commercial space plan would lease private space craft to carry cargo alone to and from the ISS. and the Houston Chronicle. The idea was that commercial space companies would be given time to develop actual operational experience before becoming true space transportation lines. the Bush plan would retain a "public option" of a NASA designed and operated space craft known as the Orion to be launched on a rocket called the Ares 1. i. but Cernan made contemporaneous notes of. USA Today. then transportation of astronauts to and from ISS would be contracted out. in the form of the Ares 1 launched Orion. the LA Times. He has written numerous articles. The second problem with the Obama approach to commercial space is a lack of attention to encouraging private markets for space launch companies. The implications of this statement. The Obama commercial space plan has three problems. Heavy government financing and involvement. coupled with a lack of firm private markets for commercial launch enterprises.” Three Problems with the Obama Commercial Space Initiative” http://www. commercial space under the Bush administration worked that way. The proposal.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 ***AFF*** AFF – No Private Industry Exists Private space industry initiatives fail Whittington 2010(Mark R. the International Space Stations. In the meantime. Participants in the COTS program knew that NASA had its own. the existence of private markets in addition to the International Space Station would increase the launch rate for private space craft. Indeed. Once commercial space companies proved their ability to conduct routine space operations.e. whose existence is dependent not only on that sole market but on government subsidies. In conclusion. with Rocket Plane/Kistler losing its COTS contract when it failed to deliver. The idea was that NASA would lease seats and cargo space on private. One idea it could pursue is one once put forward by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. will result in the lost of the contract. is little understood by the mainstream media. i. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 97 . The third problem with the approach the Obama administration is taking to commercial space was revealed in recent Senate testimony by Apollo moonwalker Eugene Cernan. combine to create the prospect of an industry whose sole function is to service government space launch needs.

The main idea: to spend $6 billion over the next five years to help develop new commercial spacecraft capable of carrying humans. how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles? The private sector fails at space development – empirically proven Butler. Dinerman points out that private efforts into space have failed again and again. one or more angel investors. 3/8.S. Building vehicles capable of going into orbit is not for the fainthearted or the undercapitalized. But they cannot do it. Of course. we shall have nothing. entrepreneurial firms as well as traditional aerospace companies—can safely carry the burden of flying U.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration. Dinerman claims. Va. http://www. Of the smaller failures. Before it was canceled in 2001 this program cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high. columnist for The Space Review and member of the board of advisers of Space Energy. Instead. The only one to make the transition into a respectably sized space company is Orbital Sciences of Dulles. For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962. February 13th. Sure. As for Mars.mnn.wsj. which was supposed to replace the space shuttle in 1996. Big aerospace firms tempted to join NASA's new projects will remember the public-private partnership fiasco when Lockheed Martin's X-33 design was chosen to replace the space shuttle in 1996. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But that is a long time.” http://culberson. 10 – Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist. astronauts into space at a fraction of the former price. The companies that have survived have done so mostly by relying on U. Mars is just too far away.com Chief Executive Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin set up the DC-X program in the early 1990s.house.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059263418508030. http://online. let alone into space. the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector. there was Rotary Rocket in Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 98 . over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the launch business. “The Pros and Cons of Commercializing Space Travel”. Over the past 30 years. that will take years. NASA will have to establish a system to certify commercial orbital vehicles as safe for human transport. The private sector simply is not up for the job.” The private sector fails – empirics Taylor Dinerman. and with government bureaucracy. The design never succeeded and ultimately cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. government Small Business Innovation Research contracts. “The Clinton administration saw the DC-X as a Reagan/Bush legacy program. This is nonsense. 10 – lead writer at greenopia. and was happy to cancel it after the accident. while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars. political commentator. It’s too expensive. 2010. Dinerman points to Lockheed Martin's X-33 design. He refers to dozens of private startups that never got off the ground. and physician (Charles. “Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?”. “Closing the new frontier.S. space will be owned by Russia and then China. Its suborbital test vehicle was initially successful but was destroyed in a landing accident. For one. decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy. Never mind the challenges of obtaining insurance. Entrepreneurial companies have consistently overpromised and underdelivered. or both. 2/12. In the interim.gov/closing-the-new-frontier-charleskrauthammer/) But the Obama 2011 budget kills Constellation. more nonsense.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/the-pros-andcons-of-commercializing-space-travel) Further.com and at MNN (Katherine. Amazon.html | AK President Barack Obama's proposed plan for NASA bets that the private sector—small. the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space — and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – Privatization Fails Private companies can’t solve—they don’t have the resources or expertise—the industry will take decades to develop Krauthammer. It’s too experimental.

30 October 2010. http://www. "Let the government lead the way. some panelists said. He shut it down in 2000. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations." Spudis said. government should demonstrate the necessary technologies and know-how. To get them onboard.com Senior Writer. and let the private sector follow. which promised to revolutionize space travel with a combination helicopter and rocket and closed down in 2001. Spudis said. Texas banker Andrew Beal announced that his firm.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – Privatization Fails California. government leadership and investment will likely be needed to get these businesses off the ground. Mike Wall." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction. SPACE.space.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon. “Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon”. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the supply. In 1997. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it. The government must come in first before private companies.html However. spurring demand for rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 99 ." Greason said. several panelists said. was going to build a new large rocket. Beal Aerospace. Government could also prime the pump for private industry.

Obama's New Mission for NASA Sets Off Intense Criticism http://www. especially in Florida where some 20.000 jobs alone would be lost if the space shuttle program shuts down at the end of this year. March 9.foxnews. Shame on us if we do that.000 jobs in Florida alone and hands space leadership to China and Russia. George Lemieux. Fox News. R-Fla. Obama plans to visit Florida on April 15 to talk up his space vision." said Sen. "If we don't have goals." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 100 .com/politics/2010/03/09/obamas-new-mission-nasa-sets-intense-criticism/ But Obama's plan also is drawing fierce criticism. Taxpayers have already spent $9 billion over five years developing the program. Heg Counterplan fails—loses talent and 20. Critics of the presidents' plan claim he has no vision for space travel. no firm goals. 10. we're just going to be adrift.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – Privatization Kills Jobs. "And what I'm afraid of is we're going to lose all of these great scientists that work in Florida and other states around the country and we're going to give up our preeminence in space to the Chinese and the Russians.

S. p. has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free". " Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because space junk was coming dangerously close . h. In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment. Space as an environment. Several space shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked windshields. and thus more debris. space law. Privatization really means that profits will be privatized . " Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone " where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The taxpayers.space4peace.htm) Three major issues come immediately to mind concerning space privatization . Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more . “Space Privatization: Road to Conflict?” http://www. We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100 . Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier. an ally of the aerospace industry. especially in the U. One Republican Congressman from Southern California. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 101 .org/articles/road_to_conflict. Some space writers have predicted that the ISS will one day be destroyed by debris. where space pollution will be so great that an orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space.000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18. 03 – Senior Fellow at the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space (Bruce. As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space . and profit in space. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception. Very soon we will reach the point of no return. Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit . And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth. 6/21. private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits. As we see a flurry of launches by private space corporations the chances of accidents. The time as certainly come for a global discussion about how we treat the sensitive environment called space before it is too late.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – Privatization Bad Privatization increases the risk of catastrophic space junk and destroys existing legal frameworks in space – and isn’t more efficient for the taxpayer Gagnon. Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created .000 m. becomes a serious reality to consider.

To date. if it is to "fly" and to succeed. faster" programs." Greason said. 97 – [R E Burnett. Despite the past history of our politicians using well-known historical accomplishments as moving metaphors. 183-190. Can democracies fly in space? Kay's conclusion zeroes in on the thematic question by painting a picture that we remember all too well: Students of American political history can point to any number of public programs and policy initiatives that are for one reason or another considered to be failures: . private space activity does not address the primary problem of interarena complexity in the relationships between space "players. American space policy after the cold war: Has private sector space finally arrived? Policy Studies Journal. Mike Wall. “Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon”. Today. expensive projects? This would seem to lessen the fact of complexity by using fewer technologies in a project and in a less complex arrangement.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon. technology. as the author states. if it is to meet our dreams of grandeur. Kay points out that a viable private sector in space industry is not the answer to a renewed vigor in American space activity. in which NASA is pursuing and promoting a new and different program philosophy that seeks to get away from big. 25(1). (Document ID: 13263221).html However." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the supply. However. to think of any other economic program or social policy that has failed (or even can fail) as completely or as spectacularly as Challenger (p. 2011." Spudis said. 30 October 2010. To get them onboard. It is fundamentally a process involving a level of complexity that has no peer. from ABI/INFORM Global. Can we create a space policy and industry capable of providing such an environment? In Kay's own words (p. Therefore we cannot determine if they indeed will lessen complexity and economic costs.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – NASA Key NASA solves better—privatization is not the answer Burnett. http://www. Spudis said. economies of scale.com Senior Writer. space travel has its own reality. Space flight is like no other endeavor that America nor any other group of people ever have attempted to do in this planet's history. (1997).. though promising. government should demonstrate the necessary technologies and know-how. however. spurring demand for rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it.It is difficult.. government leadership and investment will likely be needed to get these businesses off the ground. 183). SPACE. cheaper. some panelists said. "Let the government lead the way.] Privatization is an argument that can be made easily given the difficulty in the 1980s for a private firm such as Space Services Incorporated to be able even to launch an experimental vehicle (6 months of filing papers and a quarter of a million dollars expended in legal fees!). several panelists said. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations. then it must be born and nursed from an equally nontraditional form of governing. As such. Government could also prime the pump for private industry. Legislation now is in place to prevent much of this. spacecraft and instrument designs.space. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 102 . 193): Q: Can democracies fly in space? A: How badly do they want to? The government must come in first before private companies. Retrieved July 21. and let the private sector follow." What about the so-called "smaller. are not advanced enough for it to be possible to tell whether they are feasible to build and reliable. and markets still will not support private industry. More importantly.

“White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work. said that farming out large portions of the manned space program to private firms would be a "really radical" and an "extremely high risk" path. The White House's NASA budget also envisions stepped-up support for climate-monitoring and environmental projects. but declined to be identified. 1/24. whatever new direction NASA pursues "isn't going to be viable. according to these people.html) The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space. according to people familiar with the matter. Charles Precourt. argued that allowing companies to build and launch their own rockets and spacecraft to carry American astronauts into orbit would save money and also free up NASA to focus on more ambitious. because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear. would open a new chapter in the U. The controversial proposal. The panel. However. longer-term goals. The goal is to set up a multiyear.” http://online.S..S. a former chief of NASA's astronaut corps who is now a senior executive at aerospace and defense firm Alliant Techsystems Inc. including some start-ups. especially among NASA’s old guard WSJ. Press officials for NASA and the White House have declined to comment. many in NASA's old guard oppose the plan. he said. along with enhanced international cooperation across both manned and unmanned programs. expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget. chaired by former Lockheed Martin Corp. multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms.wsj. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488. Chairman Norman Augustine.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – CP Links to Politics The CP links to politics—there’s major political opposition to it. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Industry and government officials have talked about the direction of the next NASA budget. 10 – The Wall Street Journal (Andy Pasztor." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 103 . Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U. Unless the overall budget goes up. long-term funding plan. but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles. space program. The idea of outsourcing a portion of NASA's manned space program to the private sector gained momentum after recommendations from a presidential panel appointed last year.

Press officials for NASA and the White House have declined to comment. According to some of these analyses. Gabrielle Giffords.” http://online. Moreover.5 billion —and potentially much more—over the next five years. Some Ares I contract work could be shifted toward providing the basic elements of a future larger. a former chief of NASA's astronaut corps who is now a senior executive at aerospace and defense firm Alliant Techsystems Inc. including some start-ups. Giffords said during a hearing last month." Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 104 . 10 – The Wall Street Journal (Andy Pasztor. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Alliant and other Ares proponents have argued the program is several years behind schedule primarily because Congress and previous administrations failed to provide promised funding. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. Ares critics.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – CP Links to Spending CP links to spending – there’s no way for the mission to be viable without a massive federal expenditure WSJ. Under the White House proposal. an Arizona Democrat who heads a key subcommittee. The panel.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488. The White House's budget is bound to spark a battle with Congress because NASA would have to kill off big chunks of its existing manned exploration program in order to finance some of these new initiatives in the coming years. 1/24. Charles Precourt.wsj. The White House's NASA budget also envisions stepped-up support for climate-monitoring and environmental projects. NASA's last budget projected spending another $9. However. he said. but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles. along with enhanced international cooperation across both manned and unmanned programs.3 billion as originally planned. The budget package.. would open a new chapter in the U. on the other hand. long-term funding plan. whatever new direction NASA pursues "isn't going to be viable. more-powerful NASA family of rockets.7 billion in the current fiscal year. But it also isn't likely to specify how all the different programs can be adequately funded in the future. argued that allowing companies to build and launch their own rockets and spacecraft to carry American astronauts into orbit would save money and also free up NASA to focus on more ambitious. Unless Congress makes the NASA budget a higher priority. there won't be enough money for robust manned exploration efforts of any kind and U. space program. according to people familiar with the matter. Only a small portion—roughly $200 million—is likely to be slated for the initial phase of opening up NASA's manned space exploration program to private firms. The design of the Ares I also changed and became more complex since its inception.html) The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space. many in NASA's old guard oppose the plan. But other large incumbent NASA contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co. The goal is to set up a multiyear. to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky. Unless the overall budget goes up. longer-term goals.S.S." Such arguments already are raging around NASA's Ares I rocket. also are likely to compete for some of the anticipated government seed money earmarked for new commercial ventures. said that farming out large portions of the manned space program to private firms would be a "really radical" and an "extremely high risk" path. The controversial proposal. is one of the start-up commercial ventures likely to gain from the proposed policy shift. according to these people. slated to be released in early February. is expected to stop short of proposing major cancellations. multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms. they say that year-by-year expenditures actually exceeded the original timetable. Industry and government officials have talked about the direction of the next NASA budget. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. but declined to be identified. Chairman Norman Augustine. the Ares booster is likely to cost more than three times that much. However. expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget. founded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk. chaired by former Lockheed Martin Corp. counter that instead of costing about $4. and these critics say that exceeds original funding profiles for the Ares I by hundreds of millions of dollars. because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear. the agency's top-line budget is expected to stay close to the $18.S. has blasted the notion of shifting money to outsource transporting astronauts to the international space station. Rep. Rep. which could be replaced or scaled back if the commercial option gains traction. “White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work. The program already has spent roughly $4 billion.5 billion through 2015. that initiative is expected to cost a least $3.. The idea of outsourcing a portion of NASA's manned space program to the private sector gained momentum after recommendations from a presidential panel appointed last year. Congress in the past five years earmarked a total of about $4 billion less than initially projected for NASA's manned exploration programs. human space flight could be "on hold for the foreseeable future.

Moreover. even more sophisticated alternative of the further future. Of course. and physician (Charles. But that is a long time. decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. Kennedy pledged to go to the moon. political commentator. Instead. Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year — 1/300th of last year’s stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness. As for Mars. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon. he meant it. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy. At the peak of the Apollo program. the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space — and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future. This is nonsense. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high. “Closing the new frontier. For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962. while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars. Kennedy’s was an expansive. It’s like the classic bait-and-switch for high-tech military spending: Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated alternative. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. the whole Mars project as substitute for the moon is simply a ruse. Sure. which either never gets developed or is simply killed later in the name of yet another.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration. inward-looking call to retreat. He dedicated astronomical sums to make it happen. the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector. three days for a moon trip. which was canceled in the 1970s in favor of the over-the-horizon B-2 stealth bomber. which was then killed in the 1990s after a production run of only 21 (instead of 132) in the name of post-Cold War obsolescence. we shall have nothing. 2/12.house. and of the intolerable risk to astronaut safety involved in any Mars trip — six months of contingencies vs. more nonsense. how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles? To say nothing of the effects of long-term weightlessness. NASA was consuming almost 4 percent of the federal budget. In the interim. bold. As for President Obama’s commitment to beyond-lunar space: Has he given a single speech. A classic example is the B-1 bomber. It’s too expensive. Obama’s is a constricted.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – CP Doesn’t Solve Leadership CP doesn’t solve space leadership—in the time it takes for private companies to develop the tech. 10 – Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist.gov/closing-the-new-frontier-charleskrauthammer/) But the Obama 2011 budget kills Constellation. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 105 . Russia and China will surpass us Krauthammer. outward-looking summons. which in terms of the 2011 budget is about $150 billion. When John F. But they cannot do it. It’s too experimental. He had an intense personal commitment to the enterprise. there is the question of seriousness.” http://culberson. He delivered speeches remembered to this day. of long-term cosmic ray exposure. Mars is just too far away. devoted an iota of political capital to it? Obama’s NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy’s liberalism and Obama’s. Of course. space will be owned by Russia and then China.

pdf.pdf for a fuller and more interesting answer with references.gatech.gatech. Several good historical examples are the transcontinental railroad act in 1862 and Comsat in 1962. “Introduction to the motion to the National Space Society Board of Directors”.edu/sunsathow. DKreus Question 2 . an example please. 12-6-2006. http://www.sspi.Is it a normal way of doing business for Congress to create a corporation? Isn't that private enterprise area? Has this been done before? If so. organization researching and analyzing various methods to explore and develop space. National Space Society. Please read the chapter at http://www.sspi. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 106 .edu/sunsatcorpfaq. Answer 2: Congress has created a wide variety of such public/private corporations.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – SPS – Privatization=Normal Means Perm: do the CP – contracting and privatization are normal means for SPS NSS ’06.

Both long. “Private Enterprise Approach to Lunar Base Activation”." No investment in the counterplan – investors won’t jump on Schmitt ’03. For. "If we can get there. generally will be those who invest in entrepreneurial initiatives rather than those who are part of or investors in established enterprises in related fields.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon. space. Fulbright Fellow. example. and let the private sector follow. will be doing most of the heavy lifting. NASA distinguished service medal. at least until that technology appears as a threat in the market place. October 30. Once business gets a foothold in space. National Science Postdoctoral Fellowship. the stars are ours. The sky is no longer the limit. Caltech grad and Fairchild Fellow. government should demonstrate the necessary technologies and know-how.Privatization Generic DDI 2011 AFF – Lunar Mining – Fed Key Federal investment is key to catalyze lunar mining – private sector alone fails Wall ’10. http://www. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations. established businesses and potential competitors in the business bridges will not invest in a future competing technology." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction. space will open up to humanity. To get them onboard. Engineer of the Year Award. Mike Wall.html. "Let the government lead the way. However. recent experience by the author has shown that existing energy companies are unwilling to consider investing in a competing long-term lunar energy initiative with delayed returns on investment and based on unproved technology." Greason said. some panelists said." Greason said. 2010.com senior writer and analyst. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-4B82PJY-S1&_cdi=5738&_user=4257664&_pii=S0273117703005374&_origin=&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2003&_sk=999689988&view=c& wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkWW&md5=9e41c9111a8bb0381cac273fe28e2ddd&ie=/sdarticle. former US senator.sciencedirect. Harrison H. http://www. former Astronaut. “Want to mine the solar system? Start with the moon”. and it becomes obvious how much money there is to be made. National Space Society of Professorial Engineers. government leadership and investment will likely be needed to get these businesses off the ground. In addition. Spudis said. 6-30-03.space. you have economic escape velocity. Private industry. spurring demand for rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. as well as the nearer term business bridges is essential to the development of the requisite business plans." Spudis said. however. Schmitt. Government could also prime the pump for private industry. DKreus Most panelists agreed that economics will ultimately drive such extractive enterprises. Fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.pdf. Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 107 . DKreus INVESTOR BASE Identification of the required investor base for the long-term lunar energy enterprise. "Once you do that. rather than government.and short-term investors. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the supply. several panelists said.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful