endi2011.wikispaces.comendi2011.wikispaces.com/.../Tradeoff+DA+-+ENDI+2011.docx · Web viewTradeoff DA - ENDI 2011 NASA Tradeoff DA1. 1NC1. Br – Webb Fighting Now4. Br –

ENDI 20111/99 Daniel/Jason/Kevin/Marc/MiHe/Parth/Simrun

TRADEOFF DA - ENDI 2011 ***NASA Tradeoff DA*** ................................................................................................... 1 1NC................................................................................................................................................ 1Br – Webb Fighting Now................................................................................................................4Br – NASA Budget Fighting Now...................................................................................................5U – A2: Constellation Already Re-Allocated...................................................................................6U – US-Canadian Relations High Now...........................................................................................9IL – Tradeoff................................................................................................................................. 10IL – Colonization........................................................................................................................... 11IL – US Space Leadership............................................................................................................13IL – Jobs/Research........................................................................................................................ 14Sub IL - Jobs Key to Economy.......................................................................................................15IL – US-Canadian Relations..........................................................................................................16Sub IL – US-Canadian Relations key to US-Chinese Relations....................................................17Impacts – Domestic Violence Module...........................................................................................18Turns Case – Space Exploration...................................................................................................19Turns Case – Kills NASA...............................................................................................................21Turns Case – Chilling Effect on Scientists....................................................................................22A2: Webb not Feasible.................................................................................................................. 23

***NOAA TRADEOFF DA*** ............................................................................................. 23 1NC Shell..................................................................................................................................... 24B – Satellites on Brink..................................................................................................................26U - Funding Now for Satellites.....................................................................................................28U – NOAA Budget Now Set..........................................................................................................29U – A2: NOAA Budget Cuts Now..................................................................................................30U – Unpredictable Weather Coming.............................................................................................31IL – Economy................................................................................................................................ 32IL – Military Readiness................................................................................................................. 34IL – Tradeoff................................................................................................................................. 35Impacts – Warming....................................................................................................................... 36A2: JPS Not Feasible.................................................................................................................... 37A2: JPS is DoD Funding................................................................................................................38

***DOD TRADEOFF DA*** ............................................................................................... 38 1NC Shell..................................................................................................................................... 39U – F-35........................................................................................................................................ 42Link Magnifier.............................................................................................................................. 44IL – Cuts Destroy F-35 Program...................................................................................................45Impact Brink – Russia/China Modernizing Now...........................................................................46Impacts – Nuclear War.................................................................................................................47Impacts - Warming....................................................................................................................... 48Impacts – Laundry List.................................................................................................................49

***GENERAL*** ............................................................................................................... 49 Links - Generic Space...................................................................................................................50Links – Space Command/Force....................................................................................................52Links – BMD/NMD........................................................................................................................ 53Links – Space Colonization...........................................................................................................54Links – Weather/Climate Satellites..............................................................................................56Links – Space Shuttle................................................................................................................... 58Links - Asteroid Mining................................................................................................................ 59


Links – SPS................................................................................................................................... 61Links – Constellation....................................................................................................................64Links – Webb................................................................................................................................ 65IL – Tradeoff................................................................................................................................. 66IL - Congress................................................................................................................................ 68A2: Plan goes in 2011 Budget......................................................................................................69

***AFF*** ........................................................................................................................ 69

***General Aff............................................................................................................................... 71No Tradeoff................................................................................................................................... 72No Tradeoff (Constellation)..........................................................................................................73

***NASA Tradeoff Aff....................................................................................................................75U Overwhelms L........................................................................................................................... 76No Tradeoff - Webb...................................................................................................................... 77No Leadership IL.......................................................................................................................... 78Spending Turn.............................................................................................................................. 79Spending Turn Ext.- Overruns Inevit...........................................................................................80Spending Turn Ext. – A2: Deliver On Time and In Budget...........................................................81

***NOAA Tradeoff Aff...................................................................................................................83Long Timeframe........................................................................................................................... 84Commercial Sector Solves............................................................................................................85Weather Balloons Solve................................................................................................................86

***DoD Tradeoff Aff......................................................................................................................88N/U – Cuts Inevitable...................................................................................................................89No IL – F-35 Won’T Be Cut...........................................................................................................90

***NASA TRADEOFF DA***


1NC Webb telescope on the chopping blockPCMag.com 7/14 – (Peter Pachal, Congress Comes Closer to Killing NASA's James Webb Telescope, July 14, 2011, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp, K.C)

CORRECTION: This story originally misidentified the House committee responsible for defunding the James Webb telescope as the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. In fact, it was the House Committee on Appropriations that approved the bill. The James Webb space telescope , the successor to Hubble, just came one step closer to being thrown in the trash bin over budget cuts. Yesterday the House Committee on Appropriations approved a plan to slash NASA's budget for next year and explicitly kill the project. The House and Senate still need to vote on the measure before it becomes law, but it's not looking good for expensive Webb. The cost of developing the telescope has ballooned over the years as NASA has had to invent whole new technologies in order to make it work properly. Unlike the Hubble, the Webb will be much further from Earth in order to shield itself from infrared radiation, and its systems will need to function at extremely cold temperatures. Adapting to those conditions has proved pricey for NASA. It's already spent $3 billion on the Webb, and the total cost is projected to be about $6.8 billion (it was initially budgeted at $1.6 billion total). However, once launched and put into place, the Webb will be so far from Earth that it will be impossible to service, so subsequent costs would involve only operating the telescope and analyzing its data (estimated at $1 billion over 10 years). On Tuesday, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made an appeal to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee to save the Webb. "I have tried to explain what I think is the importance of James Webb, in terms of opening new horizons far greater than we got from Hubble," Discovery News reported Bolden as saying. "I would only say that for about the same cost as Hubble in real-year dollars, we'll bring James Webb into operation." His words apparently had little effect. Neither did an attempt to restore partial funding of the Webb with a eleventh-hour amendment from Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California. The Republican-dominated committee shot down the measure with a voice vote, Nature reported. As the Webb edges closer to oblivion, scientists have voiced concern over the termination of the project, saying that the discoveries it could reveal will be well worth the cost. "The proposal... to terminate the James Webb Space Telescope would waste more taxpayer dollars than it saves," said the American Astronomical Society in a statement. "Such a proposal threatens American leadership in the fields of astrophysics and advanced space technology while likely eliminating hundreds, if not thousands, of high-tech jobs." One of the engineers who worked on components for the Webb, Sarah Kendrew, wrote in a blog post for the Guardian, "For scientists, its loss will slow progress in understanding the physics that governs the universe at a time when huge advances are within our reach. Engineers, who have successfully completed many aspects of the observatory, will see more than a decade of work go to waste. The public will lose the opportunity to marvel once again at the amazing place that is our universe: the thousands of planets that populate our own galaxy, the places where new suns are born, the first galaxies at the dawn of time."

NASA’s budget prioritizes project funding – new spending causes tradeoffs with low priority projects CNET 2/14 – (William Harwood – Network Author, “NASA 2012 budget reflects ‘tough choices,’ uncertain outlook,” February 14, 2011, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20031912-239.html) mihe

Faced with reduced funding and an uncertain outlook, NASA's $18.7 billion fiscal 2012 budget prioritizes the Obama administration's major goals and objectives, focusing on maintaining the International Space Station, retiring the shuttle and ramping up efforts to spur development of commercial manned spacecraft. The budget also reflects the administration's commitment to building a new heavy-lift rocket and a crew capsule that could be used for deep-space exploration. In the meantime, with the shuttle's retirement looming after a final three missions, NASA will continue to rely on Russia to provide transportation to and from the space station aboard Soyuz spacecraft at about $55 million a seat. "This budget requires us to live within our means so we can invest in our future," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden told reporters. "It maintains our strong commitment to human spaceflight and new technologies. It establishes critical priorities and invests in excellent science, aeronautics research and education programs that will help us win the future." Because "these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made," he said. "Our No. 1 priority is safely flying out the shuttle and maintaining the safety and well being of the American astronauts currently living and working in space." Any budget takes place in a context," said Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's chief financial officer. "Perhaps the context this year is a little more complicated than others but as always, it's a combination of internal and external factors. Both an internal and external factor is we still don't know what's happening to our funding levels in 2011. The agency is proceeding in all of its programs, but commitments to life cycle costs and launch dates are likely to be impacted by whatever we get in 2011."

Webb Telescope key to space leadership – experts proveNY Times 7/6 – (Dennis Overbye – deputy science editor at the New York Times and physics degree from M.I.T., “House Panel Proposes Killing Webb Telescope,” July 6, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html) mihe

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/science/07webb.html

http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20031912-239.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388502,00.asp


The announcement of the telescope’s potential demise came as part of a draft budget for NASA and other agencies, including the Commerce and Justice Departments. In all, the committee proposed lopping $1.6 billion off NASA’s current budget, which is $18.4 billion for 2011. The Obama administration had originally requested $18.7 billion for NASA. Astronomers reacted with immediate dismay, fearing that the death of the Webb telescope could have the same dire impact on American astronomy that killing the Superconducting Supercollider, a giant particle accelerator in Texas, did in 1993 for American physics, sending leadership abroad. Canceling the Webb telescope would “have a profound impact on astrophysics far into the future, threatening U.S. leadership in space science,” said Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, which would run the new telescope. “This is particularly disappointing at a time when the nation is struggling to inspire students to take up science and engineering,” he added. Tod R. Lauer, an astronomer at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, echoed his view. “This would be an unmitigated disaster for cosmology,” he said. “After two decades of pushing the Hubble to its limits, which has revolutionized astronomy, the next step would be to pack up and give up. The Hubble is just good enough to see what we’re missing at the start of time.” The Webb telescope, he said, “would bring it home in full living color.” The Appropriation Committee’s proposal was the opening act in what is likely to be a long political drama, in which the Senate will eventually have a say. The measure is expected to be approved Thursday by the subcommittee in charge of NASA and the other agencies, according to Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for the committee.

Space leadership key to hegemonyDowd 09 – senior fellow with the Fraser Institute, Policy Review for Stanford University (Hoover Institution – Stanford University, Surrendering Outer Space, August 3, 2009, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5421) mihe

Surrendering the ability to carry astronauts into space promises to be a blow to America’s international stature. And in this age of global connectivity and global competition, what may seem like a marginal matter could become a serious problem. We already live at a time America is perceived as a nation in decline. Pierre Hassner of the Paris-based National Foundation for Political Science recently concluded, “It will not be the New American Century.” A 2005 piece in the Guardian dismissed America as “the hollow superpower.” It’s no wonder that Obama addressed the “nagging fear” of America’s decline in his inauguration speech, and Bush dismissed “the belief that America is in decline” in his 2006 State of the Union address. What’s relevant here is how America’s self-imposed absence from space could fuel the declinist fire, weaken America’s standing, and enhance the position of America’s enemies. Again, history is instructive: When Sputnik rocketed into orbit and Moscow triumphed, Senator Henry Jackson called it “a national week of shame and danger.” America’s attempt to match Moscow only highlighted the gap between the two superpowers when, weeks after Sputnik, America’s answer, Vanguard, exploded on takeoff. Leebaert writes that Moscow’s initial space superiority was “alarming because it was far more visible than anything else in science and technology.” Combined with America’s futility, the situation negatively impacted the country’s prestige and security, “the two in those days being habitually linked.

Lack of leadership leads to nuclear exchanges.Khalilzad ‘95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995)

On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5421

http://www.noao.edu/

http://www.stsci.edu/portal/


BR – WEBB FIGHTING NOW

Webb funding on chopping blockredOrbit 7/11 – (redOrbit, “James Webb Telescope Funding in Danger,” July 11, 2011, http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/2076552/james_webb_telescope_funding_in_danger/, K.C.)

The US House of Representatives is moving forward with a proposal that would eliminate funding for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)--said to be one of the most complex projects of its kind ever conceived--according to various media reports. According to a July 8 article by Matt Peckham of Time's Techland, the move to strike NASA's Hubble Telescope successor is "an attempt to further tighten the national belt." However, it threatens the billion dollar device currently planned to replace NASA's existing space telescope once its mission ends sometime in the year 2014. The JWST was originally scheduled to launch around that same time, but it has since been delayed until 2016, claims Guardian Science Editor Robin McKie. Peckham, on the other hand, claims that delay is actually longer and will last until 2018. Furthermore, the estimated cost of the next-gen space telescope "soared from an initial estimate of $1.6B to more than $6.5B," McKie said, noting that the journal nature dubbed the observatory "the telescope that ate astronomy" because of the constant delays and budget increases. As a result of those delays and estimated price hikes, McKie reports that the House appropriations committee on commerce, justice, and science moved to effectively cancel the project by cutting nearly $2 billion from the US aeronautics administration's 2012 budget The budget cut must be approved by the full committee, as well as both the House and the Senate, before going into effect. However, "analysts say the telescope now faces a struggle to survive," the Guardian reports. "What's the big deal about yanking a space telescope?" Peckham asks. "For starters, the Webb Telescope's actually more than your average collection of curved mirrors and lenses. In fact it's a full-blown infrared space observatory. Its mission: to scan for light from the very first stars, understand galaxy formation and evolution and study the origins of life in terms of planetary systems." "Not surprisingly, the move to scrap the telescope, which has been under construction since 2004 and is named after a former NASA administrator, has horrified astronomers," said McKie. "The James Webb was intended to be the centerpiece of astronomical research for the next two decades. Its segmented mirror would be almost three times the diameter of the Hubble telescope's, and because it would orbit outside Earth's atmosphere it would be able to make observations of unprecedented accuracy. This would allow it to capture images from a time when the first stars and galaxies lit up the universe." However, Hank Campbell of Science 2.0 argues that Congress might be making the right move in terminating the project, asserting that the telescope's "benefit and time to completion were overestimated and its funding requirement underestimated." Campbell says that the idea behind the James Webb telescope is "a great one," but that the device itself has become "a black hole for funding… It may be that canceling the JWST will be the wake-up call NASA has needed for a long time."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/2076552/james_webb_telescope_funding_in_danger/


BR – NASA BUDGET FIGHTING NOW

Congress cuts NASA funding despite President Obama’s position against NASA budget cuts. Space.com 7/10 – (Tariq Malik – managing editor for space.com, “Obama says last Space Shuttle Launch Ends One Era, but opens another,” July 10, 2011, http://www.space.com/12229-obama-nasa-final-space-shuttle-launch.html)

President Barack Obama lauded NASA's final space shuttle launch Friday (July 8), saying that the blastoff marks the end of one chapter of human spaceflight, but also the start of a new one. " NASA is retiring its space shuttle fleet to make way for a new exploration program aimed at deep space missions. Thousands of NASA and shuttle contractor workers are expected to lose their jobs once the program is no more. Previously, the agency planned to replace the shuttle program with a new one aimed at returning astronauts to the moon. But Obama canceled that plan and gave NASA a new directive for deep space exploration, including a crewed asteroid mission by 2025. "And I have tasked the men and women of NASA with an ambitious new mission: to break new boundaries in space exploration, ultimately sending Americans to Mars. I know they are up to the challenge – and I plan to be around to see it," Obama said. Obama's comments came just days after he said NASA needs to develop new technologies in order allow faster and longer spaceflights. "Frankly I have been pushing NASA to revamp its vision," Obama said on July 6 in answer to question from a Twitter user during a Town Hall event. "The shuttle did some extraordinary work in low orbit: experiments, the International Space Station, moving cargo. It was an extraordinary accomplishment and we're very proud of the work that it did. But now what we need is that next technological breakthrough." NASA currently plans to use a new space capsule, called the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, for future deep space missions. The vehicle is based on work for the agency's Orion spacecraft developed for the previous moon plan. The heavy-lift rocket for the new program is called the Space Launch System, but the details of the booster are not yet final. This week, NASA officials said they plan to settle on a design for the new rocket by the end of summer. NASA's space exploration plan will lead to new advances in science and technology, as well spur education, innovation and economic growth, the president said. A major hurdle to Obama's deep space exploration vision is NASA's budget, which is mired in a maze of congressional battles over cutbacks. On Thursday, the House Appropriations commerce, justice and science committee, which oversees NASA funding, released a $16.8 billion 2012 budget proposal for the agency that is nearly $2 billion less than what Obama proposed in his 2012 budget request. The House proposal includes $1.95 billion for the Space Launch System, which is $150 million more than the heavy-lift rocket received for 2011 but nearly $700 million less the amount recommended in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which Obama signed into law in October.

NASA and NOAA on the chopping block; new spending would tradeoffPR Newswire 7/12 – (PR Newswire, “AIA Concerned by NASA, NOAA Cuts,” July 12, 2011 http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aia-concerned-by-nasa-noaa-cuts-125446723.html) mihe

The Aerospace Industries Association is concerned about the substantial cuts being made to the budgets of NASA and NOAA in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science markup of the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill. "We recognize that tough economic times call for tough choices," said AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey. "However, cutting NASA and NOAA this deeply threatens American leadership in space and impairs our ability to make life-saving weather predictions." The subcommittee's markup cuts NASA's space programs by 10 percent from the President's request and nearly 13 percent from the NASA authorization passed last October. AIA acknowledges that many NASA mission areas were adequately supported—but some suffered draconian cuts. Given the current fiscal environment, AIA believes the $18.7 billion in funding proposed by the President provides the minimum required for these important programs. AIA supports appropriations reflecting the policy priorities of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 as closely as possible and opposes the termination of programs contrary to the priorities of the Authorization Act. With the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA must be adequately funded to continue our visible national commitment to space exploration, science, aeronautics and technology leadership—something that 58 percent of Americans recently polled by the Pew Research Center supported. "Each ride to the space station that NASA buys from Russia is the annual equivalent of 1000 American aerospace jobs," Blakey said. "We should be paying Americans instead of Russians." In addition, NOAA would get $1 billion less than the President's request—an 18 percent cut in a year when storms have already taken hundreds of lives and shown the need for accurate forecasts. Our public safety, national security and economic recovery argues for fully funding NOAA to get observing programs back on track and mitigate any loss in

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aia-concerned-by-nasa-noaa-cuts-125446723.html)%20mihe

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aia-concerned-by-nasa-noaa-cuts-125446723.html)%20mihe

http://www.space.com/12130-nasa-heavy-lift-rocket-documents-senate.html

http://www.space.com/12229-obama-nasa-final-space-shuttle-launch.html#%23

http://www.space.com/12229-obama-nasa-final-space-shuttle-launch.html#%23

http://www.space.com/12192-obama-nasa-technological-breakthrough-twitter-town-hall.html

http://www.space.com/12215-nasa-bolden-human-spaceflight-future.html

http://www.space.com/12215-nasa-bolden-human-spaceflight-future.html


coverage due to aging systems. "The health of our space programs has major implications for the innovation economy, the national maintenance of critical skill sets and fostering math and science education," Blakey said. "Supporting NASA and NOAA at stable and predictable funding levels is crucial for mission success, impacting lives, the economy and our nation's security."


U – A2: CONSTELLATION ALREADY RE-ALLOCATED

Constellation funds will be reallocated to international collaboration and tech developments

Corley, 10- Writer for technologyreview.com and http://spectrum.ieee.org (2/03/10, Anne-Marie, “Obama's Vision (and Budget) for NASA,” http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/constellation-cancelled-and-new-spaceshot-programs-funded-in-nasa-budget)

President Obama’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA calls for the end of the beleaguered Constellation program, which was designed to return humans to the moon . Engineers have been developing Constellation for the past five years, but last summer’s review of human spaceflight plans called the program “unsustainable.” The new budget , announced by NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Monday, would increase the space agency’s funding by US $6 billion over the next 5 years, with most of that allocated to accelerating the development of commercial space vehicles. The new plan designates Mars as the ultimate destination for human space explorers, with the moon and near-Earth asteroids as stepping-stones to get there. Bolden acknowledged that the proposed budget is based on the Augustine committee’s report last summer, which proposed a “flexible path” of sending robots and humans to multiple destinations—the moon, near-Earth asteroids, moons of Mars, and eventually the red planet itself. The chairman of the review committee, former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, indicated that he was pleased that the budget addresses his committee’s concerns. “The President’s proposed program seems to match means to ends, and should therefore be executable,” he wrote in an online statement. Under the Constellation program, “the means [did] not match the ends,” he toldIEEE Spectrum last month. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space and one of the ten members of the Augustine committee, also spoke briefly in support of the new plan, calling it “a significant vote of confidence in NASA and an exciting strategic shift that puts NASA on a sustainable path toward the future,” specifically by reallocating Constellation funds to develop new technologies for on-orbit refueling, automated rendezvous and docking, heavy-lift rockets, and robotic precursor missions, among other high-tech developments . This shift, Ride said, “brings NASA back to its roots as an engine of innovation” while ensuring that as we explore the solar system, “we’ll be doing it with new technology, and arm in arm with our commercial and international partners.” The new funding in the budget is intended for commercial programs chosen on a competitive basis, rather than internal NASA programs. That money will “drive the beginning of a commercial crew industry,” Bolden said, and leave NASA able to do it’s old job of innovating ways to send humans “farther, faster, and more affordably” into space; specifically, beyond low Earth orbit. To jump-start the fledgling commercial industry, NASA will award US $50 million from economic stimulus funds to commercial space pioneers—Blue Origin of Kent, WA, The Boeing Company of Houston, TX, Paragon Space Development Corporation of Tucson, AZ, Sierra Nevada Corporation of Louisville, CO, and United Launch Alliance of Centennial, CO—to develop initial concepts and technology demonstrations that will take human crews safely into orbit. The budget further commits to extending the life of the International Space Station (ISS) until 2020 or beyond, past the 2015 de-orbit date that would have put an early end to a space lab that has been under construction for over a decade. And it grants the space shuttle program enough funding—$600 million in FY 2011—to ensure that the last five scheduled missions will fly, completing the construction of the ISS by the end of 2010. While the Augustine report found that a human return to the moon would not be feasible before 2028 or 2030 based on Constellation’s progress and meager funding, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver predicts that humans will be rocketing to space on commercial launchers by as early as 2016, based on timelines from commercial bids. Of course, not everyone will be thrilled with the president's plan. Congress will want to hang on to jobs in NASA centers across the country. Seven thousand jobs are already on the chopping block with the imminent end of the space shuttle program, according to Garver, and with


Constellation’s demise, more will follow. But Bolden stressed that the money invested in new science and technology programs, especially in the commercial sector, will open up jobs—as many as 5,000 nationwide, he said. Office of Technology Policy (OSTP) chief of staff Jim Kohlenberger added that money budgeted to invest in upgrading NASA centers like the launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, will also create more jobs. When asked how the government would respond to taxpayers wondering why they spent 9 billion dollars on the cancelled program, OSTP's Kohlenberger said that “having put $9 billion into an unexecutable program isn’t an excuse to spend another $50 billion and still not have an executable program.” NASA spokespeople remain confident that Constellation’s end won’t mean the end of spaceflight, human or otherwise. As NASA’s Garver stressed during the press conference, “We’re not cancelling our ambitions to explore space, we’re cancelling Constellation.”

Constellation funds will be reallocated to ISS and Private space trips Chang, 10 - science reporter for The New York Times, covering chemistry, geology, solid state physics, nanotechnology, Pluto, plague and other scientific miscellany( 2/1/10, Kenneth, “Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/science/02nasa.html)President Obama is calling on NASA to cancel the program that was to return humans to the Moon by 2020, and focus instead on radically new space technologies. Mr. Obama’s 2010 budget proposal for NASA asks for $18 billion over five years for fueling spacecraft in orbit, new types of engines to accelerate spacecraft through space and robotic factories that could churn soil on the Moon — and eventually Mars — into rocket fuel. Plans for a new mission to leave Earth’s

orbit will probably not be spelled out for a few years, and the budget proposal makes it clear that any future exploration program will be an international collaboration, not an American one, more like the International Space Station than Apollo. “I think this is a dramatic shift in the way

we’ve gone about particularly human spaceflight over the past almost 50 years,” said John M. Logsdon, former director of the Space

Policy Institute at George Washington University who was one of about a dozen people who were briefed about the NASA proposal

Sunday evening. “It is a somewhat risky proposition,” Dr. Logsdon said, “but we’ve been kind of stuck using the technologies we’ve

developed in the ’50s and ’60s.” To pay for the new technology development, the budget calls for a complete stop in NASA’s Constellation program, the rockets and spacecraft that NASA has been working on for the past four years to replace the space shuttles. “We are proposing canceling the program, not delaying it,” Peter Orszag, director of theOffice of Management and

Budget, said Sunday. The proposal would officially end aspirations to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020 — President George W.

Bush’s “vision for space exploration” developed in the aftermath of the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003. In place of the

Moon mission, Mr. Obama’s vision offers, at least initially, nothing in terms of human exploration of the solar system. What the

administration calls a “bold new initiative” does not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there. In the meantime, instead of using the Constellation’s Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, $6 billion would instead go to financing space taxi services from commercial companies. Under the proposal, NASA’s budget would rise to $19

billion in the 2011 fiscal year from $18.7 billion. It would also get additional increases in subsequent years, reaching $21 billion in

2015. In total, NASA would receive $100 billion over the next five years. Whether Congress agrees to the restructuring of NASA

remains to be seen. As reports of the impending cancellation of Constellation leaked out last week, members of Congress,

particularly in Alabama, Florida and Texas, the homes of the NASA centers most involved with Constellation, expressed concern. “If

early reports for what the White House wants to do with NASA are correct, then the president’s green-eyeshade-wearing advisers


are dead wrong,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said in a statement last week. Congress may also balk at the price tag. After

spending $9 billion over the past four years on Constellation, canceling the contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Alliant

Techsystems and other companies will cost an additional $2.5 billion, Dr. Logsdon said NASA officials had told him. If implemented, the NASA a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today. The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but essentially buy tickets for its astronauts. Dr. Logsdon said the officials said NASA would evolve into a role

more akin to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which preceded NASA. The committee did not manufacturer

aircraft, but performed aeronautical research that was adopted by aircraft manufacturers. “The assumption is that there are

technological breakthroughs out there ready to be discovered and exploited,” Dr. Logsdon said. “I’m impressed and a little

surprised how large the investment in new technology is planned to be. It does represent a shift away from developing systems to

developing technologies before developing systems.” If the approach succeeds, it could jumpstart a vibrant space industry, but it is

also risky. By canceling Ares I, NASA would have no backup if the commercial companies were not able to deliver. One likely

competitor for the commercial crew contract is Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX for short. But its Falcon 9

rocket, the one that would be used to carry astronauts to the space station, has yet to have its first launching. When SpaceX, a

startup led by Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, won in 2006 a contract to carry cargo to the space station, the company said it

would have six flights of the Falcon 9 by the end of 2009. Conversely, another likely competitor, United Launch Alliance, which is a

joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has decades of experience building space hardware for NASA, and its rockets,

the Delta IV and the Atlas V, have successfully carried military and commercial satellites to space. But modifications needed for carrying astronauts could be costly and the launch alliance has also experienced delays and cost overruns. NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts . A worry is also that the decades of expertise and experience within NASA in operating spacecraft will be lost, and that the commercial companies might stumble as they learn. A move to an international collaboration would also make future exploration programs susceptible to buffeting from diplomatic winds on Earth. For example, after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008,

lawmakers questioned whether the United States should continue flying astronauts on the Russian Soyuz rockets. While more countries would share the cost, an international collaboration would probably be more expensive and cumbersome to manage, and could be slowed down by delays of any of the partners. “I’m optimistic this provides a path to a long term and sustainable and high quality program,” Dr. Logsdon said. “But I

think there will be a lot of debate over the details over the next few months.


U – US-CANADIAN RELATIONS HIGH NOW US-Canada Relations are high/good now. Ek & Fergusson 2010 – (Carl Ek - Specialist in International Relations, Ian F. Fergusson - Specialist in International Trade and Finance, “Canada-U.S. Relations,” September 3, 2010, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf, pg.2 & pg.7, K.C.)

Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone changes in tenor over the past three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries generally enjoyed very good relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada’s Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary, relations continued to be cordial. In early 2006, a minority Conservative government assumed power in Ottawa. It was regarded as being more philosophically in tune with the George W. Bush Administration than the Liberals were; some observers believe that this compatibility helped facilitate bilateral cooperation. The election of President Obama November 2008 signaled a new chapter in U.S.-Canada relations; unlike President Bush, Obama is quite popular in Canada. The two North American countries continue to cooperate widely in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through numerous international organizations. Canada’s foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony with those of the United States. Areas of contention have been relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated extensively on efforts to strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. The United States and Canada maintain the world’s largest bilateral trading relationship, one that has been strengthened over the past two decades by the approval of two bilateral free trade agreements. Although commercial disputes may not be quite as prominent now as they have been in the past, the two countries in recent years have engaged in difficult negotiations over items in several trade sectors, including natural resources, agricultural commodities, and the cultural/entertainment industry. The most recent dispute has centered around the Buy America provision of the 2009 economic stimulus law. However, these disputes affect but a small percentage of the total goods and services exchanged. In recent years, energy has increasingly emerged as a key component of the trade relationship. In addition, the United States and Canada work together closely on environmental matters, including monitoring air quality and solid waste transfers, and protecting and maintaining the quality of border waterways. Many Members of Congress follow U.S.-Canada environmental, trade, and transborder issues that affect their states and districts. In addition, because the countries are similar in many ways, lawmakers in both countries study solutions proposed across the border to such issues as federal fiscal policy and federal-provincial power sharing. The election of Barack Obama in November 2008 signaled a new chapter in U.S.-Canada relations. Unlike President Bush, Obama has been quite popular in Canada—a January 2009 public opinion poll put the new American president’s approval rating in Canada at 86%. Some believe that this favorable view may be facilitating the Harper government’s cooperative efforts with the United States. In addition, although Harper has a somewhat more conservative orientation than Obama, both leaders are pragmatic in their approach to solving public policy problems, and observers believe the bilateral relationship will continue to be collaborative and productive. On February 19, 2009, renewing a tradition broken in 2001 by President Bush, Obama made Canada his first official foreign visit. He and Harper focused on trade, climate change, and Afghanistan, among other issues; in September 2009, Harper met with Obama at the White House. Polls conducted in September 2009 and January 2010 showed that Obama enjoyed continued popularity among Canadians.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf


IL – TRADEOFF Webb Telescope under pressure – new spending trades offSpace Ref 7/12 – (Space Ref, “Statement by The Planetary Society before the committee of science, space, and technology hearing: A Review of the NASA’s Space Launch System, July 12, 2011, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37689) mihe

The Planetary Society, founded in 1980 by Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis Friedman, inspires and involves the world's public in space exploration through advocacy, projects, and education. Today, the Planetary Society is headed by science educator Bill Nye and is the largest and most influential public space organization on Earth with 40,000 current members and a worldwide community of over 100,000. Dedicated to exploring the Solar System, understanding other worlds, and seeking life beyond Earth, the Planetary Society is non-governmental and nonprofit and is funded by the support of its members. We are pleased to submit this statement for consideration by your committee. The Planetary Society believes that a strong and vibrant space exploration program is critically important to the nation, and to all humankind. Space exploration makes fundamental contributions to science, to our understanding of the cosmos, and helps answer deep questions about how our world came to be, whether life exists elsewhere, and what our destiny may be. Space exploration is also a potent symbol of optimism, achievement, and inspiration that lifts the human spirit and challenges us all to do better. The Planetary Society, however, is deeply troubled with the direction the agency is headed in and the wrong-headed decisions that are driving the human spaceflight program into the ground. The Planetary Society members are irate at the current state of the space program and believe a course correction is needed now. Several thousand Planetary Society members--and more to come--are taking a stand and objecting to the current direction by sending petitions to Washington to call on Congress to restore the future of the space program and to put it on a sustainable track to advance science, technology, and space exploration. We are particularly upset with the recent cuts to NASA funding proposed by the House Appropriations Committee. While we all recognize the fiscal and economic challenges the nation faces, we believe the proposed cuts reflect perverse priorities and too far reaching, in particular the proposed termination of the James Webb Space Telescope and cuts to EarthScience. Most disturbing is that cuts to world-class science are being used to pay for increases to develop a new rocket--the Space Launch System (SLS)-- that has no mission goals, that NASA cannot afford to build, cannot sustain, and will not advance exploration. With the intense fiscal pressure facing all agencies, NASA should focus on making the most efficient use of the money allocated to it. This means setting priorities and making decisions based on merit and readiness. It will be painful, but it is necessary. Most importantly, it is time to put wasteful programs aside, such as the SLS. We can no longer afford it, and it's an abuse of the agency's mission. The Space Launch System will fail without clear mission goals - wasting Billions

The Appropriations Committee approves the fiscal year 2012 commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill and NASA budget is cut.Space-travel.com 7/15 – (Staff writers, “Appropriations Committee Approves the Fiscal Year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill,” July 15, 2011, http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Appropriations_Committee_Approves_the_Fiscal_Year_2012_Commerce_Justice_Science_Appropriations_Bill_999.html, K.C)The House Appropriations Committee today approved the fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, which provides annual funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other related agencies. In total, the legislation contains $50.2 billion in funding. This is a reduction of $3.1 billion or 6% below last year's level, and $7.4 billion or 13% below the President's request for these programs. This amount is also 3% below the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout level of 2008. "This important bill funds a wide range of programs that deal with everything from trade to law enforcement to scientific research. But faced with record-high deficits, we have to rein in spending and prioritize what is most important - what would have the greatest benefits for American taxpayers and businesses to promote economic growth and job creation. Most of these cuts were not easy - but they were certainly not made carelessly," House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said. "This bill represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources. It achieves our spending reduction goals while at the same time investing in core priorities like national security and American competitiveness, and contains critical investments in export promotion, manufacturing and a number of new job creation initiatives," CJS Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf said.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Appropriations_Committee_Approves_the_Fiscal_Year_2012_Commerce_Justice_Science_Appropriations_Bill_999.html

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Appropriations_Committee_Approves_the_Fiscal_Year_2012_Commerce_Justice_Science_Appropriations_Bill_999.html


IL – COLONIZATION

Webb key to finding life in spaceSpace Telescope Science Institution - (STSI, “James Webb Space Telescope Planetary System and the Origin of Life,” http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/, K.C.)Understanding the origin of the Earth and its ability to support life is a key objective for all of astronomy and is central to the JWST science program. Key parts of the story include understanding the formation of small objects and how they combine to form large ones, learning how they reach their present orbits, learning how the large planets affect the others in systems like ours, and learning about the chemical and physical history of the small and large objects that formed the Earth and delivered the necessary chemical precursors for life. The cool objects and dust in the outer Solar System are evidence of conditions in the early Solar System, and are directly comparable to cool objects and dust observed around other stars. The JWST Planetary Systems and Origins of Life theme goal is to determine the physical and chemical properties of planetary systems including our own, and investigate the potential for the origins of life in those systems. JWST must provide near and mid IR imaging and spectroscopy to observe these objects. JWST will also be able to observe moving solar system targets in order to study the outer planets, comets, and Kuiper Belt objects.

Webb key to finding sustainable environments in the universeSpace.com 7/12 – (Denise Chow, “Scientists Condemn Plans to Scrap Hubble Space Telescope Successor,” July 12, 2011, http://www.space.com/12245-james-webb-telescope-cancellation-scientist-reactions.html, K.C.)Astronomers are up in arms over proposed congressional budget cuts that would cancel an ambitious but over-budget space observatory that has been pegged as the successor to NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA proposed a 2012 spending bill last week that would terminate the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) as part of wider-reaching cutbacks that would reset the agency's budget at pre-2008 levels."JWST will lay the foundation on which a better understanding of the early universe will be built," Debra Elmegreen, president of the American Astronomical Society, said in a statement. "It has the potential to transform astronomy even more than the Hubble Space Telescope did, and it will serve thousands of astronomers in the decades ahead. We cannot abandon it now." The $6.5 billion James Webb Space Telescope, named after a former administrator of NASA, is an infrared observatory designed to peer farther back into the universe's history than ever before. The next-generation telescope is a follow-up to the 20-year-old Hubble Space Telescope, with JWST exploring deep-space phenomena from distant galaxies to nearby planets and stars. Under the proposal announced on July 6, NASA would receive $16.8 billion in funding, which is $1.6 billion less than last year and $1.9 billion below President Obama's 2012 request for the agency. The draft legislation pulls the plug on funding for the JWST, a project the subcommittee described as being plagued by cost overruns and poor management. Construction of the telescope has faced hurdles, including budgetary woes and delays to its targeted launch date. A panel investigation in November 2010 found that the project had overrun its cost by $1.5 billion, and blamed the troubles largely on mismanagement. Most recently, a revamped budget and technology plan estimated that JWST could launch by 2018. "We still have a long way to go with budget deliberations for Fiscal Year 2012," NASA spokesman Dwayne Brown said in a statement from the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. "NASA's budget submission already reflects tough decisions required in these difficult fiscal times and it still supports every element of the president's vision and the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010. We look forward to working with both houses of Congress to ensure we have a robust space exploration program and narrow America’s human space flight gap." In the wake of the proposed cancellation, NASA's deputy administrator spoke about the value that the Webb telescope would have to NASA and the scientific community, and the agency's commitment to see the project launched within this decade. "This is a perfect example of NASA revealing the unknown and reaching for new heights," Lori Garver told reporters at a July 7 news briefing from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. "It was a scratch program; we developed technologies. We will be prepared to lay out a budget that will allow us to launch the Webb telescope yet in this decade, within the next budget cycle.” The idea of canceling the JWST project has been met with strong criticism from lawmakers and scientists, who consider the decision shortsighted. "The Webb telescope will lead to the kind of innovation and discovery that have made America great," Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said in a statement. "It will inspire America's next generation of scientists and innovators that will have the new ideas that lead to the new jobs in our new economy. The administration must step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope." In the statement released

http://www.space.com/12245-james-webb-telescope-cancellation-scientist-reactions.html#%23



http://www.space.com/9510-nasa-webb-space-telescope-mired-budget-woes-start.html


http://www.space.com/8326-nasa-ambitious-space-telescope-passes-critical-test.html

http://www.space.com/12187-nasa-budget-bill-cancels-space-telescope-house.html


http://www.space.com/12245-james-webb-telescope-cancellation-scientist-reactions.html

http://www.stsci.edu/jwst/


by the American Astronomical Society (AAS), members of the organization said that the JWST is critical to helping astronomers better understand the earliest formation of stars and planets, and the telescope's operation will shed light on complex mysteries of the universe. "As was true with the Hubble Space Telescope, recognized as a tremendous success by the public, scientists and policymakers, building the most advanced telescopes comes with the risk of unexpected costs and delays," AAS committee members said in a statement. Canceling the JWST would not only affect program members at various NASA centers, it would likely also deal a blow to Northrop Grumman, the company contracted by NASA to build the telescope. Yet even with the future of the observatory hanging by a thread, the company said the outcome remains to be seen. "The budget process in Congress is a complex and dynamic one," said Northrop Grumman spokesman Lon Rains. "We do not speculate on or try to predict the outcome of the process or what impact it may have on Northrop Grumman; however, we continue to closely monitor the budget process as it progresses. More than 75 percent of the hardware for the James Webb Telescope is built, undergoing testing or completed. We are working closely with NASA to deliver the Webb telescope as the agency directs."

http://www.space.com/10689-hubble-space-telescope-photos.html


IL – US SPACE LEADERSHIP Cutting Webb destroys US space dominanceJulianne, 11 [Julianne, “James Webb Space Telescope”, July 2011, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/07/07/why-we-need-the-james-webb-space-telescope/]The demise of JWST would be a huge blow to american space-based astronomy as well. On the ground, the US has ceded much of its

historical primacy to the Europeans. If JWST were cancelled, it would be a heavy blow to the US dominance in running true space-based observatories. NASA will continue to run “experiments” in space — i.e., targeted smaller missions focused on limited scientific goals, but they will be giving up their unique place in creating flagship facilities that literally anyone can potentially use. The impact of Hubble came in large part because it wasn’t a specific experiment for one particular problem. It has broad capabilities, that were kept up to date with servicing missions, but using those capabilities was then essentially “crowd-sourced” to the entire world. Through on-going rigorous, and frankly brutal, evaluations of scientific proposals, the community identifies the single

most important scientific questions to be addressed by Hubble. This process is carried out every single year, making sure that Hubble gets the most bang for the buck. The same process also applied to NASA’s other “flagship” missions (e.g., Chandra, Spitzer), focused on other wavelengths, but these facilities too are rapidly running out of time.

Cancelling the JWST deals a massive blow towards US leadership. Frumforum.com 7/17 – (Kenneth Silber – senior editor for Research, “Don’t Surrender Our Telescope Advantage,” July 7, 2011, http://www.frumforum.com/dont-surrender-our-telescope-advantageCongressional Republicans are moving to terminate a federal project that has been plagued by cost overruns and delays. Good news? No. The project is the James Webb Space Telescope, and scrapping it would be an egregiously shortsighted and wasteful decision. The James Webb Space Telescope, or JWST, is the planned successor to the Hubble Space Telescope as NASA’s flagship space-based observatory. Hubble has provided a remarkable wealth of images and data — such as the deepest-ever look into the universe — but its technology is obsolescent and expected to cease functioning in several years (and with space shuttles no longer flying, Hubble will not get any further servicing calls). JWST would operate about a million miles from Earth (Hubble is just a few hundred miles up) using advanced instruments to detect light from distant and faint objects; the far-off locale would provide excellent conditions for avoiding unwanted light and heat. The telescope would be optimized for infrared observations, enabling it to peer through dust clouds into the birthplaces of stars and the origins and early development of galaxies. No less exciting, JWST would be aimed at taking images of planets beyond our solar system and seeking signs of water and other factors relevant to possible life. On July 13, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee approved a bill that would scrap JWST. A subcommittee earlier in the month recommended the move as part of a plan to cut NASA’s overall budget, stating that JWST “is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management.” The bill would fund NASA at $16.8 billion for 2012, which is $1.6 billion less than the 2011 level and $1.9 billion below what the White House requested. The telescope’s fate awaits full votes by the House and Senate. JWST has indeed had problems. The telescope’s total cost is projected at between $6.2 billion and $6.8 billion, up from an earlier estimate of $5.1 billion. Its launch date, once slated for 2013, was pushed back first to 2015 and then, as budget worries mounted, to 2018. It is fair to say NASA has not lived up to the high administrative standard set by the project’s namesake, Apollo-era agency chief James Webb. Still, scrapping the telescope is folly. For one thing, much of the money – about $3 billion — has already been spent; much of the hardware already exists and unlike an unused Saturn V rocket would not even have the merit of serving as an interesting tourist attraction. Furthermore, NASA already has reorganized the project’s management following a report last year by an independent task force. Above all, the cancellation would be a massive blow, substantive as well as symbolic, to U.S. leadership and competence in science and technology. The damage would be felt far beyond the astronomical community and the scientific and technological workforce involved with the project. It would mean tossing away a powerful educational tool for cultivating scientific interest and literacy in the first place. It would suggest that being on the cutting edge of research is increasingly not an option in America.



IL – JOBS/RESEARCH Cutting Webb undermines space research and increase unemploymentSpace Politics 7/9 – (Space Politics, “More Concerns about the House NASA Budget,” July 7, 2011, http ://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/09/more-concerns-about-the-house-nasa-budget/, K.C.)

Telescope (JWST), effectively ending the program. The American Astronomical Society (AAS) released a statement Thursday calling on Congress to “support JWST to its completion” but also “provide strong oversight” for a project that has suffered major cost overruns and schedule delays. “It is time to complete construction and look ahead to JWST’s launch and science operations,” the AAS statement notes. The proposed termination of JWST has attracted the attention of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the corresponding appropriations subcommittee in the Senate. “It was a shortsighted and misguided move,” she said in a statement about the House appropriators’ decision to kill the project, noting that ending JWST would “kill 2,000 jobs nationwide and stall scientific progress and discovery.” She also called on the White House to “step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope.” Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) also made similar comments about the attempt to kill JWST. “I worry about the message we send to our students to reach for the stars and pursue careers in the sciences while simultaneously eliminating projects that further research and technology and keep us on the cutting edge of competitiveness,” she said.

Webb Telescope key to new jobs in our new economy and space mysteriesMSNBC 7/12 – (Denise Chow – New York Daily News, degree in journalism from New York University and a bachelor's degree from the University of Toronto, Space.com, “Plan to scrap new telescope riles up scientists,” July 12, 2011, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43727897/ns/technology_and_science-space/) mihe

The idea of canceling the JWST project has been met with strong criticism from lawmakers and scientists, who consider the decision shortsighted. "The Webb telescope will lead to the kind of innovation and discovery that have made America great," Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said in a statement. "It will inspire America's next generation of scientists and innovators that will have the new ideas that lead to the new jobs in our new economy. The administration must step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope." In the statement released by the American Astronomical Society (AAS), members of the organization said that the JWST is critical to helping astronomers better understand the earliest formation of stars and planets, and the telescope's operation will shed light on complex mysteries of the universe. "As was true with the Hubble Space Telescope, recognized as a tremendous success by the public, scientists and policymakers, building the most advanced telescopes comes with the risk of unexpected costs and delays," AAS committee members said in a statement. Canceling the JWST would not only affect program members at various NASA centers, it would likely also deal a blow to Northrop Grumman, the company contracted by NASA to build the telescope. Yet even with the future of the observatory hanging by a thread, the company said the outcome remains to be seen. "The budget process in Congress is a complex and dynamic one," said Northrop Grumman spokesman Lon Rains. "We do not speculate on or try to predict the outcome of the process or what impact it may have on Northrop Grumman; however, we continue to closely monitor the budget process as it progresses. More than 75 percent of the hardware for the James Webb Telescope is built, undergoing testing or completed. We are working closely with NASA to deliver the Webb telescope as the agency directs."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43727897/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://donnaedwards.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&parentid=23&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=447

http://mikulski.senate.gov/media/pressrelease/7-7-2011-1.cfm

http://aas.org/node/4483

http://aas.org/node/4483

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/07/09/more-concerns-about-the-house-nasa-budget/


SUB IL - JOBS KEY TO ECONOMY New Tech jobs key to economic recoveryGoodlatte 6/17 – congressmen of 6th district of Virginia (Bob Goodlatte, “The Technology Sector Is Vital to Our Economic Recovery,” June 17, 2011, http://goodlatte.house.gov/2011/06/the-technology-sector-is-vital-to-our-economic-recovery.shtml)

The technology industry in America is a major driving force and job-creating engine of our economy. The most recent data indicates that Virginia is one of the leading states in terms of the number of technology jobs. In order to grow our economy in Virginia and nationally we must ensure this vital sector is protected and able to flourish. Recently I was joined by House Speaker Boehner in announcing the House Republican Technology Working Group�s agenda for this Congress. As Chairman of the Working Group we will focus on the issues that will help America maintain and expand its competitive edge in the technology sector while creating jobs to fuel economic growth. Specifically, we will promote policies to protect American intellectual property. America is the most innovative nation on earth, due in part to the strong intellectual property protections our Founder's included in the Constitution and Congress' commitment to keep those protections strong and current. In order to grow our national economy we must ensure this vital sector is protected and able to thrive. The Working Group also intends to support efforts to protect the U.S. from cyber attacks. Protecting cyberspace is vital to securing critical assets like telecommunications, energy, water, health care, transportation, emergency and financial services. Another key component of the Technology Working Group’s agenda is promoting free and fair trade. In order to increase the competitiveness of American companies, Congress must pass pending free trade agreements to expand market access for domestic products. The Technology Working Group believes access and retention of the world’s best and brightest workers is key to our economic recovery. Congress must examine current education programs to make sure they are operating effectively and that we eliminate duplicate, unneeded and unsuccessful programs. We will also examine current visa and immigration laws to make sure we attract and retain the best and brightest minds. Additionally, we intend to focus on policies that update the tax code to ensure job growth. We will promote tax reforms that put Americans back to work and encourage companies to invest domestically. Business owners across the country want to invest in their firms and hire new workers. Congress must ensure that our overly complicated tax code doesn’t stand in their way. The Technology Working Group will also promote policies that reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation. Regulatory and tax burdens often times tie the hands of business. Congress must focus on policies that allow businesses to use their resources to innovate, not force businesses to use them to comply with government red tape. I am working hard to advance a pro-growth jobs agenda where the technology sector can flourish here in the 6th District of Virginia and across the country. In working to advance these and other technology policies, we will ensure that the U.S. continues to lead the world in innovation and that the technology sector in America remains a driving force and job-creating engine of our economy.


IL – US-CANADIAN RELATIONS Ending the Webb Telescope will hurt US-Canadian Relations – Canada deeply tiedThe Montreal Gazette 7/7 (Max Harrold – reporter at the Montreal Gazette, “Bad news for Canada: U.S. could scrap new space telescope,” July 7, 2011, http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/space-shuttle/news+Canada+could+scrap+space+telescope/5067942/story.html) mihe

One day before Atlantis was set to launch — marking the end of the storied space shuttle program — the Canadian government seemed caught off guard by a proposal in the U.S. Congress to kill a major new space telescope in which Canada is heavily invested. But a senior official here on Thursday underscored how important the James Webb Space Telescope is to Canadian ambitions in space. Canada is also spending $150 million in it. On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives' Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science approved a yearly budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that does not include funding for the telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, which has yielded a heap of amazing images and data. Federal Industry Minister Christian Paradis, in Florida with his 10-year-old son to watch the shuttle's historic launch, seemed to have had no warning of the decision. It comes at a time when U.S. politicians are debating deep government budget cuts in a range of areas. "I was just told about this," Paradis told reporters near the launch pad. "I will take the time to fully analyze what it is going on and check with the (Canadian Space Agency). Standing nearby, Steve MacLean, president of the CSA and an astronaut who went on two space shuttle missions, said the Webb telescope is absolutely worth trying to save. "I think the one thing that people in North America will remember from the astronomy program in a hundred years is what the Hubble Telescope has done so far and what the James Webb Telescope could do." Hopefully, the cash-strapped U.S. government will figure out a way to fly the Webb, he added. "It's that telescope and a few other things that we're doing on the ground that will teach us much about our future. Canada has a major role in this telescope. We have a technology that is at the heart of the telescope that's involved in precisely pointing it." The telescope is slated to launch in 2014 and use infrared technology to detect the first stars, quasars and supernovae of the early universe with unprecedented sensitivity. It is to be positioned 1.5 million kilometres from Earth. The Webb telescope project has been criticized for being poorly managed and for a budget that reportedly ballooned to $6.5 billion U.S. from $1.6 billion U.S.. Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear, who is also in Florida, downplayed the vote in Congress, calling it merely "a recommendation."

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/space-shuttle/news+Canada+could+scrap+space+telescope/5067942/story.html


SUB IL – US-CANADIAN RELATIONS KEY TO US-CHINESE RELATIONS

US-Canadian Space Relations key to Chinese relationsSpace Ref 4/4 – (Marc Boucher, “Canada as a Facilitator for US-China Space Relations,” April 4, 2011, http://spaceref.ca/space-policy/canada-as-a-facilitator-for-us-china-relations.html)

Canadian Space Agency (CSA) President Steve MacLean is in China to for exploratory meetings on future possible cooperation between the countries. Last week he visited the China National Space Administration (CNSA) where he met with CNSA Administrator Chen Qiufa. He also met Zheng Guoguang, Administrator of the China Meteorological Administration. After his visit to China MacLean will visit Russia to participate in the commemorative ceremony scheduled for April 12th on the 50th anniversary of humanities first flight into space by Russia's Yuri Gagarin. The visit to China comes at a time when US-China space relations are in flux as some members of congress, mostly republicans, oppose cooperation with China. According to Wade Huntley, a Senior Lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School there is an opportunity for Canada to be a facilitator between US-China space relations. Huntley is the author of a recently released paper titled Canada-China Space Engagement: Opportunities and Prospects from the Canadian International Council, a non-partisan research council established to strengthen Canada's foreign policy. Huntley describes Canada as a "moderate power", that being a country that has a "highly developed industrial/information economy and standards of living, but its relatively small population limits the absolute global impact of its qualitatively high capabilities." Relative to other moderate powers Huntley says Canada's space accomplishments stand out but that they are dependant upon continuing opportunities for cooperation with other countries. Huntley describes Canada as building effective space partnerships as the cornerstone of Canada's space activities of which the most important partnership is that with the US. And because of Canada's record of cooperation with other countries other than the US and including China, this may provide a foundation as a facilitator. Huntley see two categories for future Canadian initiatives with respect to US-China space relations. The bilateral Canada-China relationship on space, and how development of that relationship would bear on US-China engagement indirectly and secondly how Canada could help facilitate the US-China relationship directly . There are obstacles, notably the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which restricts transfers of technologies and information. These export controls have a serious impact on Canadian business according to Michael Minero who wrote in the journal Space Policy "US export controls place restrictions on Canada's freedom and independence to collaborate internationally if US-origin parts are involved." Huntley then goes on to describe how Canada could act as a facilitator and says that a window of opportunity is now opening and that Canada could act on it. "Canada could productively operate in two facilitative modes: as a convening force and as an innovation source. To operate as a convening force means to provide the venue and forum within which the principal agents may better advance their engagement. It does not mean to be a "mediator," which would be a direct rather than facilitative role. It may mean providing a nurturing environment for low-key meetings or other expert exchanges at either official or Track Two diplomatic levels. But operating as a convening force can be less direct as well. For example, in pursuing project cooperation with China, Canada might prioritize initiatives that would also enable a US role (perhaps more remotely, perhaps not immediately) or at least have Canada-US counterpart initiatives. Such a focus would be especially useful in areas in which direct US-China engagement is most problematic, such as in inter-military contacts or analysis of longer-term prospects for military uses of space." Huntley concludes that future space activities between the US and China revolve around two basic elements. The first is that the US and China face a security dilemma with respect to encounters on the military use of space and secondly that the US and China sometimes dangerously misunderstand each others intentions and fail to communicate effectively. Canada as a moderate power, with a long history of partnership building, is well positioned to act as a facilitator being that it is well acquainted with managing security dilemmas and overcoming communication obstacles. Considering that China is holding about $1.1 trillion of the US debt, which is about 10% of the total debt, it would seem in the best interest of both countries to work cooperatively in space. Perhaps MacLean's current visit to China is the beginning of greater cooperation between the two countries which can lead to Canada acting as a facilitator in US-China space relations while at the same time building on Canada's interests.


IMPACTS – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODULE Unemployment leads to domestic violenceCondon, 10- Write for CBS NEWS (2/23/10, Stephanie, “Reid: Unemployment Leads to Domestic Violence,” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6234592-503544.html)

The Senate's jobs bill, which passed a key procedural vote last night with the help of five Republicans, could do more than help people get back to work, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested Monday -- it could bring down the rate of domestic violence. "I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand," Reid said on the Senate floor, the Hill newspaper reports. "Why? Men don't have jobs." Even though women are losing jobs as well, "women aren't abusive, most of the time," Reid said. "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive." There is evidence to support Reid's claim. A 2004 report from the National Institute of Justice found that unemployment is one of the factors "significantly associated with increased risk of violence ." The Boston Globe reported in Dec. 2008 that "domestic violence programs report that victims experience an increase in abuse in part because out-of-work abusers have more opportunity to batter ." Meanwhile, unemployment continues to be a larger problem for men than it is for women. Last year, the recession was dubbed the "mancession" because men were likely to be employed in the industries taking the biggest hit in the recession, like manufacturing and construction. The latest statistics from the Department of Labor show that in January, while the rate of unemployment for adult men remained at 10 percent, the jobless rate for adult women fell to 7.9 percent. Conservative political commentators have had mixed reactions to Reid's remarks. "Allahpundit" at HotAir.com gave credence to the link between domestic violence and unemployment but said, "Here's the real question: If passing a jobs bill is needed to rescue women (and men) in distress, then why didn't this moron and his caucus get to work on it earlier instead of focusing on ObamaCare to the exclusion of all else?" In fact, some proponents of the Democrats' health care reform package did try and frame it as a matter of ending domestic violence, among other things. Eight states currently have no rules against allowing health insurance companies to deny coverage to women who have suffered from domestic violence, labeling it a "pre-existing condition," the Huffington Post first reported. The Democrats' bills would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to anyone because of pre-existing conditions. "Think of this," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "You've survived domestic violence, and now you are discriminated [against] in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition. Well, that will all be gone."

Long-Term Effects of Domestic Violencecite DM?The long term effects of domestic violence have not begun to be fully documented. Battered women suffer physical and mental problems as a result of domestic violence. Battering is the single major cause of injury to women, more significant that auto accidents, rapes, or muggings. In fact, the emotional and psychological abuse inflicted by batterers may be more costly to treat in the short-run than physical injury. Many of the physical injuries sustained by women seem to cause medical difficulties as women grow older. Arthritis, hypertension and heart disease have been identified by battered women as directly caused or aggravated by domestic violence suffered early in their adult lives. Battered women lose their jobs because of absenteeism due to illness as a result of the violence. Absences occasioned by court appearances also jeopardize women's livelihood. Battered women may have to move many times to avoid violence. Moving is costly and can interfere with continuity of employment. Battered women often lose family and friends as a result of the battering. First, the batterer isolates them from family and friends. Battered women then become embarrassed by the abuse inflicted upon them and withdraw from support persons to avoid embarrassment. Some battered women are abandoned by their church when separating from abusers, since some religious doctrines prohibit separation or divorce regardless of the severity of abuse. Many battered women have had to forgo financial security during divorce proceedings to avoid further abuse. As a result they are impoverished as they grow older. One-third of the children who witness the battering of their mothers demonstrate significant behavioral and/or emotional problems, including psychosomatic disorders, stuttering, anxiety and fears, sleep disruption, excessive crying and school problems. Those boys who witness their fathers' abuse of their mothers are more likely to inflict severe violence as adults. Data suggest that girls who witness maternal abuse may tolerate abuse as adults more than girls who do not. These negative effects maybe diminished if the child benefits from intervention by the law and domestic violence programs. Browne, Angela. When Battered Women Kill. (The Free Press 1987). Ewing, Charles Patrick. Battered Women Who Kill. (Lexington Books 1987).

Tallungan, Notre Dame 2010, 07/18/11,

Need Cite


TURNS CASE – SPACE EXPLORATION Webb key to deep space exploration space.com 7/7 – (Charles Q. Choi – space.com contributor, “Far-away Galaxies Reveal Secrets of Early Universe,” July 7, 2011, http://www.space.com/12206-galaxy-surveys-early-universe.html, K.C.)

A way to answer many of these mysteries would be to gaze at the first stars, galaxies and black holes. However, the key tool astronomers hope to use to peer into the early universe, the James Webb Space Telescope currently under development, is facing considerable trouble, with the proposed 2012 NASA budget bill aiming to cancel the project. "I think it would be a devastating loss to astronomy and the nation — the James Webb Space Telescope was specifically designed to explore this frontier and find these early ancestors, figure out how we got here," Heckman said. "If it truly got cancelled, there's no other facility on Earth that anyone is building or planning to build that can replace it. It's frustrating to think about, just as we're at this watershed moment where we can get real scientific answers to some of the biggest questions of all time." Although the James Webb Space Telescope is in peril, scientists could at least see early galaxies shrouded in dust beginning later this year with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, Dunlop said. "The James Webb Space Telescope can look at early stars and galaxies that are not hidden in dust, while ALMA can see ones enshrouded in dust," Dunlop explained. This is due to the different wavelengths they concentrate on — the James Webb Space Telescope can detect the blue or ultraviolet light from un-shrouded stars that have been distorted into infrared wavelengths as the universe has expanded, while ALMA focuses on infrared light from dusty stars that have been distorted into millimeter-wave light. "The James Webb Space Telescope and ALMA were really meant to complement each other to give a complete picture of what went on in the young universe," Dunlop said. "At least the politics regarding the James Webb Space Telescope have yet to resolve themselves."

Webb necessary for deep space exploration – cutting it undermines cooperation and astronomical researchThe Observer 7/9 – (Robin Mckie, “Nasa fights to save James Webb space telescope from the axe,” July 7, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/09/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope, K.C.)

Nasa is fighting to save its next-generation space observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope. Politicians want to end the project – one of the most complex ever conceived by space engineers – even though billions of dollars have already been spent on its construction. Scheduled for launch in 2016, the James Webb, intended to replace the ageing Hubble Space Telescope, would orbit in deep space, a million miles from Earth, and peer into the dawn of the universe. Its observations would answer major questions about the structure of the cosmos, say astronomers. The cost of the observatory has soared from an initial estimate of $1.6bn (£996m) to more than $6.5bn (£4bn). As a result, budgets for other astronomical research projects have been slashed, leading the journal Nature to describe the James Webb as "the telescope that ate astronomy". Last week the US House of Representatives' appropriations committee on commerce, justice, and science decided that it had had enough of these escalating costs and moved to cancel the project by stripping $1.9bn from Nasa's budget for next year. A terse statement, released by the Republican-dominated committee, said that the project "is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management". The decision still has to be approved by the full appropriations committee, the House and the Senate. Nevertheless, analysts say the telescope now faces a struggle to survive. Not surprisingly, the move to scrap the telescope, which has been under construction since 2004 and is named after a former Nasa administrator, has horrified astronomers. The James Webb was intended to be the centrepiece of astronomical research for the next two decades. Its segmented mirror would be almost three times the diameter of the Hubble telescope's, and because it would orbit outside Earth's atmosphere it would be able to make observations of unprecedented accuracy. This would allow it to capture images from a time when the first stars and galaxies lit up the universe. Tod Lauer, of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, said: "[Cancellation] would be an unmitigated disaster for cosmology. After two decades of pushing the Hubble to its limits, which has revolutionised astronomy, the next step would be to pack up and give up. The Hubble is just good enough to see what we're missing at the start of time." The James Webb would be able to fill in those gaps, he added. The problem for engineers working on the telescope has been the complexity of its design. It will primarily gather infra-red radiation because most objects that interest astronomers emit light at these wavelengths. But this is a tricky process. The telescope must be cooled so that its own heat does not interfere with incoming infrared light. Similarly, it must be shielded from radiation from the Earth and the Sun, and so placed in deep space far beyond the point where it can be reached by astronauts. Axing the project would have an impact

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/hubble-space-telescope

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/space

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/09/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope

http://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html


http://www.space.com/12206-galaxy-surveys-early-universe.html


beyond the US, however. Many other countries have committed large amounts of time and money to building components for the telescope. One example is the Mid-Infrared Instrument (Miri), which would analyse light gathered by planets forming from dust clouds around stars. This is a joint US-European project which has two project leaders, one British and one American. Sarah Kendrew, a member of the Miri team, said she had been working on the project for four years. "We should be ready to ship the instrument to Nasa by the end of the year," she said. "All we can do is finish the job, I suppose, and give as much support as we can to our colleagues over there."

Killing the James Webb Telescope will negatively affect future space exploration.PCMag 7/8 – (Peter Pachal – “What We Could Lose If the James Webb Telescope is Killed,” July 8, 2011, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388293,00.asp K.C.)

NASA's James Webb telescope, the successor to the Hubble, is on the chopping block. With the U.S. Congress arguing over fiscal matters, one of the things that may get cut is NASA's budget , with the expensive James Webb telescope potentially getting the ax. If that happens, a generation of scientific discoveries about the nature of the universe may need to be put on hold. Right now the future of the Webb telescope, scheduled to launch in 2018, is uncertain. Congress is looking to cut costs, and NASA's budget could be cut by as much as $1.6 billion (or about nine percent of its overall budget). Such a big cut would certainly be the death knell for the Webb telescope, which has so far cost $3 billion but whose final price is expected to hit the $6.8-billion mark. "The cost overruns are driven by a couple things," says Rick Howard, the program director of the James Webb Space Telescope at NASA. "We've had ten or so technologies that needed to work in order to have this kind of telescope—mirrors actuators, the sunshade. We've made great progress, but it's taken longer and it's been harder than we thought. We've had to invent new adhesives for carbon fiber because what we thought was the right chemical equation didn't work at all. Another source was inadequate early funding of reserves." With the Webb in jeopardy, its mission to find out more about the nature of the universe may be postponed. The telescope is fundamentally different from Hubble, scanning the infrared spectrum rather than visual light. Being able to see in infrared is the key to the Webb making new discoveries. For example, it will be able to penetrate dust clouds that are opaque to normal telescopes. But seeing in infrared is also one of the reasons the Webb is so expensive. Since all objects emit some infrared light, the telescope needs to be positioned much farther from the earth than normal satellites to shield it from potential interference. In fact, the Webb will ultimately be four times further from the earth than the moon. At such a long distance, servicing the telescope will be impossible, says NASA, so it cannot afford any screw-ups or design flaws. As such, testing the Webb's components is extremely detailed. "We are very concerned about that," says Howard. " There's a huge amount of testing that goes on. We've gone to great lengths to build both sub-scale and full-scale prototypes in order to be able to make sure we fully understand this design. In addition to that we have a lot of testing going on of the flight unit." Once it's in place, though, the Webb is quite literally expected to unlock a universe of discoveries. Positioned so far from the Earth and shielded from outside infrared interference, the telescope will be able to see things the Hubble never could. Chief among them: seeing back in time. Since light only travels so fast, the further you look out, the further you look back. The Webb is expected to be able to peer into some of the universe's earliest moments, before even stars existed. This could give insight into how the cosmos came into being. On top of that, the Webb is going to be looking at how the first galaxies were formed. From observations from Hubble and other telescopes, we know know most galaxies have huge black holes at their centers, but questions remain about how this symbiotic pairing of black holes and stars emerges. The answer likely has to do with "dark matter," the term for the missing matter in the universe that scientists can observe the gravitational effects of, but can't see directly. By looking into the formation of galaxies, the Webb may unlock the secrets of this mysterious substance. "We'll be looking at the very first stars and galaxies in the universe, which right now are very fuzzy little blobs on the deepest images with Hubble," says Howard. "Not just seeing them, but getting [good] resolution on them. Because it'll be able to look back at the earliest galaxies, it'll be able to see how dark matter has affected light as it travels to us." Finally, the Webb may help answer the question of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. The telescope will be able to see better than ever before planets in other star systems and more importantly—which ones have water. A planet with large amounts of water is a prime candidate for life, and the Webb could point us right to them. "[We'll] be able to look at those planets and look at the spectra, the composition of the atmosphere, the composition of water— it's something only the [James Webb telescope] will be able to do," Howard says. "It'll be able to tell water in the atmosphere, maybe even on the surface." All of its potential discoveries come at a

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388293,00.asp


price, however, and it may be one Congress isn't willing to pay. The risk factor is high, too, since the telescope must set itself up perfectly at a vast distance from the earth. If anything goes wrong, it's billions in wasted taxpayer dollars. In considering the fate of the Webb, it's informative to look back at Hubble, which led to almost two decades of cosmological discovery. Besides finding those galactic black-hole nuclei, Hubble's observations revealed the age of the universe, the repulsive force known as "dark energy," and that planets are common. "When we launched Hubble, no one thought that it would be able to make the observations and discoveries that it has," Howard says. "Hubble's the only telescope that has ever made an actual observation of a planet orbiting another star. Nobody else has done that. When we launched Hubble, no one had even thought dark energy existed. "The discovery space is huge for this observatory."


TURNS CASE – KILLS NASA Cutting Webb kills NASABehreandt 7/12 – Editor-in-Chief at American Daily Herald, St. Norbert College, Ripon College, Fox Valley Technical College (Dennis Behreandt, “Space Shuttle Era At End, NASA’s future in Doubt,” July 12, 2011 http://www.themoralliberal.com/blog/2011/07/12/space-shuttle-era-at-end-nasa%E2%80%99s-future-in-doubt/) mihe

But what next for NASA? One answer, and an important one, is the replacement of Hubble. In its early days, Hubble was beset by problems. Even after launched into orbit, the telescope had to be repaired in order for it to function correctly. That mission, incidentally, was only able to be undertaken because of the space shuttle. Since then Hubble has gone on to thrill the world with amazing pictures of the cosmos. More importantly, it has allowed astronomers to gain a much better understanding of the universe itself. Hubble’s lifespan, like that of the shuttle itself, is coming to a close. Unlike the shuttle, NASA is building a replacement. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will be an advancement as far beyond Hubble as the space shuttle is beyond the Mercury capsule. But Congress wants to kill it. Killing the JWST “would be an unmitigated disaster for cosmology,” Tod Lauer of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory told the Guardian newspaper. “After two decades of pushing the Hubble to its limits, which has revolutionised astronomy, the next step would be to pack up and give up. The Hubble is just good enough to see what we’re missing at the start of time.” Without the shuttle, without the JWST, without a plan to go back to the moon or take steps to Mars, and without even the ability to move people to and from the International Space Station, is there really even a reason to keep NASA around? Conservatives and Constitutionalists might argue, and not without merit, that American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for the federal government to play with expensive toys in space. Killing NASA’s top programs in order to trim its comparatively modest budget is little more than grandstanding. It will do nothing to either fix the nation’s economic problems, nor will it move the nation even one step back to a more constitutional republic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/09/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope

http://www.themoralliberal.com/blog/2011/07/12/space-shuttle-era-at-end-nasa%E2%80%99s-future-in-doubt/


TURNS CASE – CHILLING EFFECT ON SCIENTISTS Cutting Whole Areas of Research causes a chilling effect on future innovation and international competitivenessSpace Travel 7/12 – (Space Travel, “Scientists warn on budget cutting, July 14, 2011, http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Scientists_warn_on_budget_cutting_999.html) mihe

U.S. scientific societies and universities have sent a letter urging policymakers, in their need to cut spending, to avoid singling out specific programs. The letter to key lawmakers preparing to debate the Commerce, Justice andScience appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012 expresses the opposition of more than 140 groups to any attempts to eliminate or substantially reduce funding for particular research programs, a release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science said Tuesday. Canceling specific grants or funding for entire scientific disciplines "sets a dangerous precedent that, in the end, will inhibit scientific progress and our international competitiveness," the letter said. "Everyone understands that legislators face tremendous challenges related to the deficit and the national economy," said Joanne Carney, director of the Office of Government Relations at AAAS. "But recently, selected research areas have been unfairly trivialized based on misinformation intended to challenge the scientific review process." Interdisciplinary research that integrates physical and biological sciences with insights from social and behavioral fields has become increasingly essential to scientific progress and innovation, Carney said. Removal of support for key fields of research "could have a chilling effect on scientists and young people considering a future in science," the group said in its letter dated Monday


A2: WEBB NOT FEASIBLE Webb is 75% done – Northrop Grumman can deliver itSpace.com 7/12 – (Denise Chow – staff writer, “Scientists Condemn Plans to Scrap Hubble Telescope Successor,” July 12, 2011, http://www.space.com/12245-james-webb-telescope-cancellation-scientist-reactions.html, K.C.)Astronomers are up in arms over proposed congressional budget cuts that would cancel an ambitious but over-budget space observatory that has been pegged as the successor to NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA proposed a 2012 spending bill last week that would terminate the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) as part of wider-reaching cutbacks that would reset the agency's budget at pre-2008 levels. "JWST will lay the foundation on which a better understanding of the early universe will be built," Debra Elmegreen, president of the American Astronomical Society, said in a statement. "It has the potential to transform astronomy even more than the Hubble Space Telescope did, and it will serve thousands of astronomers in the decades ahead. We cannot abandon it now." The $6.5 billion James Webb Space Telescope, named after a former administrator of NASA, is an infrared observatory designed to peer farther back into the universe's history than ever before. The next-generation telescope is a follow-up to the 20-year-old Hubble Space Telescope, with JWST exploring deep-space phenomena from distant galaxies to nearby planets and stars. Under the proposal announced on July 6, NASA would receive $16.8 billion in funding, which is $1.6 billion less than last year and $1.9 billion below President Obama's 2012 request for the agency. The draft legislation pulls the plug on funding for the JWST, a project the subcommittee described as being plagued by cost overruns and poor management. Construction of the telescope has faced hurdles, including budgetary woes and delays to its targeted launch date. A panel investigation in November 2010 found that the project had overrun its cost by $1.5 billion, and blamed the troubles largely on mismanagement. Most recently, a revamped budget and technology plan estimated that JWST could launch by 2018. "We still have a long way to go with budget deliberations for Fiscal Year 2012," NASA spokesman Dwayne Brown said in a statement from the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. "NASA's budget submission already reflects tough decisions required in these difficult fiscal times and it still supports every element of the president's vision and the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010. We look forward to working with both houses of Congress to ensure we have a robust space exploration program and narrow America’s human space flight gap." In the wake of the proposed cancellation, NASA's deputy administrator spoke about the value that the Webb telescope would have to NASA and the scientific community, and the agency's commitment to see the project launched within this decade. "This is a perfect example of NASA revealing the unknown and reaching for new heights," Lori Garver told reporters at a July 7 news briefing from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. "It was a scratch program; we developed technologies. We will be prepared to lay out a budget that will allow us to launch the Webb telescope yet in this decade, within the next budget cycle." A full-scale, tennis court-sized model of the James Webb Space Telescope. The replica was on display in Battery Park in New York City as part of the 2010 World Science Festival. The idea of canceling the JWST project has been met with strong criticism from lawmakers and scientists, who consider the decision shortsighted. "The Webb telescope will lead to the kind of innovation and discovery that have made America great," Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said in a statement. "It will inspire America's next generation of scientists and innovators that will have the new ideas that lead to the new jobs in our new economy. The administration must step in and fight for the James Webb Telescope." In the statement released by the American Astronomical Society (AAS), members of the organization said that the JWST is critical to helping astronomers better understand the earliest formation of stars and planets, and the telescope's operation will shed light on complex mysteries of the universe. "As was true with the Hubble Space Telescope, recognized as a tremendous success by the public, scientists and policymakers, building the most advanced telescopes comes with the risk of unexpected costs and delays," AAS committee members said in a statement. Canceling the JWST would not only affect program members at various NASA centers, it would likely also deal a blow to Northrop Grumman, the company contracted by NASA to build the telescope. Yet even with the future of the observatory hanging by a thread, the company said the outcome remains to be seen. "The budget process in Congress is a complex and dynamic one," said Northrop Grumman spokesman Lon Rains. "We do not speculate on or try to predict the outcome of the process or what impact it may have on Northrop Grumman; however, we continue to closely monitor the budget process as it progresses. More than 75 percent of the hardware for the James Webb Telescope is built, undergoing testing or completed. We are working closely with NASA to deliver the Webb telescope as the agency directs."

***NOAA TRADEOFF DA***





http://www.space.com/10689-hubble-space-telescope-photos.html


http://www.space.com/8326-nasa-ambitious-space-telescope-passes-critical-test.html





1NC SHELL JPSS funding has been restored, but on the brinkOrndorff 7-13-11 (Mary staff writer aqt the Brimingham news http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2011/07/weather_satellite_funding_expe.html)

WASHINGTON -- Funding for weather satellites that gave Alabamians several days' notice of the April 27 tornadoes, now endangered by federal budget cuts, would be restored with extra money expected to pass a key congressional committee today. The move to restore funds, especially in the current climate of debt reduction, is a sign that storm-weary lawmakers from the South and Midwest were able to convince their colleagues that the loss of the low-orbit satellites was a threat to public safety that should be prevented. The House Appropriations Committee today is expected to add $429.5 million to the Joint Polar Satellite System for 2012. While it's not a full restoration of the cuts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sustained in 2011, it would speed the process of launching new replacement satellites and shorten the time the country will go without the important atmospheric information they collect. "In NOAA, this bill includes the necessary funding to better protect Americans from natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis," said U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. and chairman of the subcommittee that allocates spending for the U.S. Department of Commerce, which includes NOAA.

Congress prioritizing NOAA budget – new space programs would tradeoff directly with Earth Science satellitesLewis et al 6-10 ( James director of technology and public policy at CSIS “Earth Observation for Climate Change” http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf) jcIf we accept that climate change poses serious risks to regional stability, national security, and economic health, the United States needs to reconsider its funding priorities for civil space. Earth observation is crucial for national security and the economy; manned spaceflight programs provide prestige. The United States must make climate-monitoring satellites its priority for funding if it is serious about managing climate change . In practical terms, this means a reduction in the spending on human spaceflight in order to fund a sustained program of satellite-building to create a robust climate monitoring space system. This is, of course, not an all-or-nothing issue. The United States can fund a range of space programs, manned and unmanned, for exploration and for Earth sciences. It is a question of priorities. Our recommendation is that the funding given to Earth observation should increase, as it is more important now for the national interest to monitor and manage climate change, even if that means a slower pace for other programs, such as manned spaceflight, until a robust Earth observation system has been put in orbit.\

JPSS key to the continuation of our early warning and disaster response systemFreedman 4/1/2011-(Andrew staff writer at the Washington post “Senators call for supporting NOAA satellites” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/senators-call-for-supporting-noaa-satellites/2011/04/01/AFDCi5IC_blog.html)jcOn Thursday we reported on NOAA’s warning to congressional appropriators that budget cuts to a major satellite program, known as the Joint Polar Satellite System or JPSS, would severely erode the accuracy of weather forecasts. Today, six Democratic Senators took up NOAA’s cause, sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as well as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The senators are seeking full funding for JPSS during the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year. “The horrific damage from the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, coupled with less extensive but still serious impacts in California, Oregon, and Hawaii underlined the importance of early detection and warnings of natural disasters,” the senators


wrote. “ To ensure the continuity or our nation’s early warning and disaster response system, we need to fully fund NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) in 2011 .” According to the senators, it would cost $528 million to keep the program on track this year. The senators cited the satellite’s role in everything from aiding timely severe weather warnings to providing data for aviation weather forecasts and reliable forecasts for Alaska, which is not covered by other NOAA weather satellites. Alaska Senator Mark Begich is one of the signatories. “From the family making an annual trip from the village to Anchorage to a crab-fisherman trying to stay safe at sea, Alaska is dependent on the data these satellites provide. Our businesses and our communities need the most accurate predictions possible,” he stated in a press release.

Natural disasters are will kill thousands and injure billions – this is 100% probability in coming years absent an early warning systemHaen and Hermich 6-(Hartwig assistant director of agriculture organization of the U.N. Gunter food systems economist “ The economics of Natural disasters”) Particularly worrisome is the fact that during the last decades, natural disasters have become more frequent, more intense and more costly (Freeman et al., 2003a). In the past decade alone, 79,000 people died and 200 million people were directly affected by natural disasters on average per year. Damages are estimated at US $ 67 billion per annum. Both the number of natural hazard events and the number of affected people has been growing rapidly. The costs associated with natural disasters are difficult to estimate. However, there is sufficient evidence that they have increased several-fold since the 1950s and strong indications that this trend will continue. Scientific predictions point to a further increase in the frequency and intensity of hazards, with a five-fold global cost increase over the next fifty years, mainly due to climate change and to further concentration of the world’s population in vulnerable habitats

Natural Disasters lead to extinction – need to invest in prediction tools nowHanson 07 – associate professor of economics at George Mason University and a research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University (Robin D. Hanson, “Catastrophe, Social Collapse, and Human Extinction,” August 2007, http://hanson.gmu.edu/collapse.pdf) mihe

But for still other types of disasters, such as fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, wars, and plagues, most of the expected harm may be in the infrequent but largest events, which would hurt a large fraction of the world. So if we are willing to invest at all in preventing or preparing for these type of events, it seems we should invest the most in preventing and prepare for these largest events. (Of course this conclusion is muted if there are other benefits of preparing for smaller events, benefits which do not similarly apply to preparing for large events. If we value future generations of humanity, we may be willing to take extra e ff orts to prevent the extinction of humanity. For types of disasters where variations in individual ability to resist disruptions are minor, however, there is little point in explicitly preparing for human extinction possibilities. This is because there is almost no chance that an event of this type would put us very near an extinction borderline. The best we could do here would be to try to prevent all large disruptions. Of course there can be non extinction-related reasons to prepare for such disruptions.


B – SATELLITES ON BRINK Joint Polar Satellite System on the chopping block USA Today 6/17 – (Bart Jansen, “Looming gap in weather satellites threatens forecasting,” June 17, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-17-weather-satellite-budget-cuts_n.htm) mihe

Congressional budget cutting will delay the launch of a key weather satellite and hinder tracking of killer hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather, officials warn. With more budget cuts looming, further delays are possible — something President Barack Obama alluded to this week. In an interview with NBC's "Today" show Tuesday, the president acknowledged the need to reduce federal debt but said "really important" priorities include ensuring "government functions like food safety or weather satellites are still up there." The satellite at stake is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Joint Polar Satellite System. But reduced federal spending threatens all domestic programs. Congress cut spending $38.5 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. House Republicans propose to cut another $30 billion next year. Obama has proposed $5.5 billion for NOAA in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, including a $688 million boost for the polar satellite. But the agency received $4.6 billion this year — $947 million less than requested — and lawmakers warned that a hefty increase was unlikely. The House Appropriations subcommittee is to vote on its budget July 7. "The fiscal crisis facing the nation is real and will require a level of austerity that goes beyond the present budget," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who heads the panel. Another appropriator, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she would fight Republicans for a funding freeze — rather than cuts — to avoid harming programs such as weather satellites. "There are serious cuts being implemented now," Landrieu said. "This senator from Louisiana is willing to try to balance the budget, but I am not willing to do any more reductions without revenues being put on the table."

Changes to NOAA’s current budget would take spending from polar satellites – leads to Snowmageddon and economic problemsNPR 6/17 – (Jon Hamilton, “Blind Eye in the Sky: Weather Satellites Lose Funding,” June 17, 2011, http://www.npr.org/2011/06/17/137251742/blind-eye-in-the-sky-weather-satellites-lose-funding?ps=cprs) mihe

Government officials are forecasting a turbulent future for the nation's weather satellite program. Federal budget cuts are threatening to leave the U.S. without some critical satellites, the officials say, and that could mean less accurate warnings about events like tornadoes and blizzards. In particular, officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are concerned about satellites that orbit over the earth's poles rather than remaining over a fixed spot along the equator. These satellites are "the backbone" of any forecast beyond a couple of days, says Kathryn Sullivan, assistant secretary of commerce for environmental observation and prediction, and NOAA's deputy administrator. It was data from polar satellites that alerted forecasters to the risk of tornadoes in Alabama and Mississippi back in April, Sullivan says. "With the polar satellites currently in place we were able to give those communities five days' heads up," she says. But that level of precision could diminish in the next few years, Sullivan says. One important NOAA satellite in a polar orbit will reach the end of its expected life around 2016. And its replacement has been delayed by a continuing resolution passed by Congress that limits the agency's ability to pursue its new Joint Polar Satellite System. Sullivan says that means there could be more than a year when the nation is lacking a crucial eye in the sky. "If we go blind, if there actually is a gap between the last satellite and this, it certainly will erode the reliability and accuracy of our forecasts," she says. To find out how bad the problem might be, the National Weather Service re-examined one of its great forecasting successes: the 2010 blizzard known as "Snowmageddon." The agency wanted to know what would happen if a similar blizzard arrived several years from now, when several satellites are likely to be out of commission, says National Weather Service Director Jack Hayes. "We were quite surprised at the finding that we would underestimate the amount of snowfall the Eastern Seaboard had, specifically in the Washington, D.C., area, by a factor of 2," Hayes says. In other words, areas where forecasts called for 15 inches would actually get 30 inches. Budget problems aren't the only reason NOAA's next polar satellite is behind schedule. A previous version of the program was scrapped, and NOAA has had trouble getting some of the new satellite's cutting-edge technology finished on time. But Hayes says this sort of technology is precisely what's made forecasting more accurate with each new generation of satellites. NASA officials are also concerned about the next generation of weather satellites. The agency will play an important role in building them and also supplements data from NOAA weather satellites with data from its own research satellites. "It used to be that weather was just something that happened," says Michael Freilich, who directs the earth science division at NASA. Now, he says, people and businesses make specific plans based on what forecasters say. "When they say that it's going to be hot and sunny, companies make economic decisions," he says. For example, he says, utilities decide how much electricity they need to produce, airlines decide whether to cancel flights, schools decide whether to close, and insurance companies anticipate damage claims from things like hurricanes and hailstorms. Other nations also fly polar satellites, and that can help fill the gap when U.S. units fail, officials say. But it's not enough, they say. "The United States, by virtue of our size, the


mountains, the oceans on three sides, we have the widest array and greatest frequency of weather phenomena and severe weather phenomena of any country on the planet," Sullivan says. Some tweaks to NOAA's current budget could minimize delays to the polar satellite program, she says. Whether the agency is allowed to do that is up to Congress, which will also decide what happens to spending on polar satellites next year.

Critical monitoring satellites on the chopping block Gillis 4/14/11-(Justin Gillis staff writer at New York times “Weather satellites on the chopping Block”http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/weather-satellites-on-the-chopping-block/) JCAs my colleagues Eric Lichtblau, Ron Nixon and I report in summary form in Thursday morning’s paper, the budget deal moving through Capitol Hill slashes funds that the Obama administration requested for a satellite program considered vital for the nation’s weather forecasting. That raises the prospect of less accurate forecasts and other problems, some of them potentially life-threatening, starting in 2016. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warned at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that the cutbacks would probably lead to a serious gap in satellite data, undermining National Weather Service forecasts. Research by her agency suggests that without the type of capability that the proposed satellites were expected to provide, the weather service might fumble forecasts of future events similar to the huge snowstorms that hit Washington and New York the last two winters. “It’s a big risk,” said Daniel Sobien, head of the union that represents government weather forecasters. Forecasters would still have access to data from satellites not affected by the cutbacks, but those would offer less detailed coverage of the country, which is why the weather forecasts would become less accurate. The potential coverage gap would be limited to 18 months or so — but only if Congress agreed to restore as much as $1 billion in funds needed for the satellite program in the budget year that begins in October. Many people on Capitol Hill, including some Republicans, support doing that, but given the pressures on the budget and the political tensions over federal spending, that is by no means a certainty. So the situation raises the prospect of a deterioration in weather forecasts that might last for years. Dr. Lubchenco warned that even if Congress restarted the program, the government would probably wind up spending $3 or $4 for every dollar saved by halting it this year. “We have to cancel the contracts — we have to let people go,” she said. “These are very sophisticated, skilled workers. Then you need to bring the programs back up.” Satellites and other government-run instruments provide virtually all weather data used to make forecasts in the United States, including those on television, radio and in newspapers. Like all satellites, weather satellites wear out and have to be replaced regularly. Planning and building them takes years, and any hiccup in that program means the government can lose access to vital data a few years down the road. A coverage gap is not an absolute certainty; it will depend on how quickly the satellites that are already in the sky in 2016 wear out. But with the cutback, Dr. Lubchenco said, a gap will become pretty likely. The program that is being cut is an attempt by the Obama administration to clean up a decadelong mess in putting new weather satellites into orbit. A plan by the Clinton and Bush administrations to combine military and civilian weather satellites ended in failure after cost overruns and mismanagement, exasperating Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The Obama administration’s recovery efforts have won support in principle on both sides of the aisle, but winning money has been far harder in a year when few programs are being spared from cutbacks. It’s not just essential weather information that is at risk, Dr. Lubchenco said in testimony on Wednesday. The weather satellites pick up emergency beacons used by wilderness hikers, boaters and others who venture into remote areas: nearly 300 people were rescued this way in 2010 alone. A gap in satellite coverage could mean that it would take hours longer for rescuers to find people who get into trouble. In some cases, that time interval could be the difference between life and death. “That data gap will have very serious consequences to our ability to do severe-storm warnings, long-term forecasts and search and rescue,” Dr. Lubchenco said.


U - FUNDING NOW FOR SATELLITES Polar Satellites Funding for 2012 high – fiscal year bill provesSpace Ref 7/6 – (Space Ref, “Appropriations Committee Releases the Fiscal Year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations,” July 6, 2011, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=34044) mihe

The House Appropriations Committee today released the fiscal year 2012 Commerce , Justice, Science Appropriations bill, which will be considered in subcommittee tomorrow. The bill funds the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and other related agencies. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - The legislation contains $4.5 billion for NOAA, which is a cut of $103 million below last year's level and $1 billion below the President's request. Within this total, National Weather Service operations and systems are fully funded at the requested level, and an increase of $430 million is included for the Joint Polar Satellite System weather satellite program to ensure the continuation of important weather data collection.

Uniqueness - Monitoring satellites won’t get cut now, but they are on the cutting blockWhitehouse.gov 2/14/11-(website of the president “Department of commerce funding highlights http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/commerce.pdf) JCThe Department of Commerce has a broad mandate to promote economic growth and foster job creation for the American people. It has crosscutting responsibilities in the areas of trade, technology, entrepreneurship, economic development, environmental stewardship, and statistical research and analysis. To support this important work, the President’s Budget proposes $8.8 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Commerce, a decrease of $5.1 billion from the 2010 enacted level. In addition to planned reductions due to the completion of the 2010 Decennial Census, other key reductions include outdated or lower priority programs: the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program; Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms; certain statistical reports produced by the Census Bureau; the Public Telecommunications Facilities Grant program; and the Baldrige Performance Excellence program, as well as administrative savings. Yet, since innovation and exports are critical to long-term economic growth and competitiveness, there is more than a $100 million increase for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and strong funding for the promotion of U.S. exports. Substantial new mandatory funding is provided to support the President’s Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative, including development of a national public safety broadband network. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) critical weather satellites, which promote more accurate forecasts that serve families and businesses nationwide, are also sustained.


U – NOAA BUDGET NOW SET NOAA budget setNOAA, ‘11 –(NOAA.Gov, “NOAA Announces FY 2012 Budget” 2/14,http://www.noaa.gov/budget/jc)President Obama today issued the FY 2012 budget for NOAA, requesting $5.5 billion for the nation’s oceanic and atmospheric agency. The proposed budget includes key investments to strengthen NOAA’s most critical programs and initiatives while addressing the administration’s goals of ensuring long-term economic growth, promoting innovation and American competitiveness, and reducing government spending. The budget request represents a $56.8 million decrease compared to the 2011 budget. This budget focuses on program needs, identifies efficiencies, and ensures accountability across the agency. Core functions and services are sustained, increases are requested for only the most critical programs, projects, or activities necessary to meet the nation’s growing demand for NOAA’s services, and careful cuts are made throughout the budget. “Perhaps most significantly, this budget clearly recognizes the central role that science and technology play in stimulating the economy, creating new jobs and improving the health and security of Americans,” said Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Americans rely on NOAA science, services and stewardship to keep their families safe, their communities thriving, and their businesses strong. Our work is everyone’s business.” NOAA’s budget will focus on an ambitious array of strategic priorities, including: Improving prediction of high impact weather and water forecasts Supporting sustainable oceans, fisheries, and communities Providing critical investments in satellites and sensors to further NOAA’s observational mission This budget furthers NOAA’s commitment to strengthen science throughout the agency, providing support for the next generation of research and information to meet the growing demand for NOAA’s science and services and to drive economic recovery. The proposed request includes $737 million for research and development related to climate, weather and ecosystem science and for infrastructure to support NOAA’s R&D enterprise. NOAA will also build upon and enhance its existing climate services to meet the nation’s rapidly growing data and information demands. Included in the FY 2012 budget proposal are the details for a reorganization to establish a climate service within NOAA. The reorganization is “budget neutral”; it does not change staffing levels, create new facilities or physically relocate any programs or laboratories.


U – A2: NOAA BUDGET CUTS NOW Only small budget cut for NOAA coming, doesn’t trade off with any programs-Democrats on our side Baker 3-13-11 - (brent baker, “ABC Exploits Japanese Tragedy to Undermine Minor GOP-Proposed Domestic U.S. Budget Reduction” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/03/13/abc-exploits-japanese-tragedy-undermine-minor-gop-proposed-domestic-us-#ixzz1RomTdYHm Jc)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/03/13/abc-exploits-japanese-tragedy-undermine-minor-gop-proposed-domestic-us-Then on Saturday’s World News, reporter Clayton Sandell found it newsworthy to highlight how “Democrats accuse Republicans of being irresponsible for proposing budget cuts to NOAA, the federal agency that provides forecasts and early warnings of natural disasters.” Sandell cued up a California Democrat with a loaded question: “NOAA's budget gets cut, are people's lives more at risk?” The Congressman, who represents the state’s northern coast, naturally, agreed: “Absolutely.” In fact, the funding “slash ,” which is only proposed and is far from implementation since it hasn’t even passed in the House, is not for any specific program inside NOAA and is for a reduction of just 7 percent , which hardly means all of NOAA’s programs must be shut down since NOAA would still be able to spend 93 percent of what they spent in the previous fiscal year .

NOAA significantly increasing spending for satellites – 2011 BudgetLocke 10 – Secretary of Department of Commerce (Gary Locke, Department of Commerce, “COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATEDAGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011,” http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS126092) mihe

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, good afternoon. Welcome, Secretary Locke, to our hearing today. Today we will hear from Secretary Locke of the Department of Commerce. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $8.9 billion in discretionary funds for Commerce, a decrease of $5.1 billion, or 36 percent below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The significant decrease is attributable to the anticipated completion of the 2010 Decennial Census. But there are some significant increases in the proposed budget as well, including $809 million in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, for satellites, catch shares and conservation and climate change related programs, and $87 million in the International Trade Administration, or ITA, for the National Export Initiative. Last week this subcommittee heard testimony from the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, Dr. Pat Gallagher. Later this month, we will hold separate hearings on the Economic Development Administration (EDA), NOAA and the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), which will provide us with the opportunity to look more closely at programs within those agencies. Today’s hearing will allow us to touch on issues of Departmental oversight and overarching policy issues affecting these agencies, while also delving into issues and funding related to other Departmental agencies, including the Census Bureau, the International Trade Administration, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The 2010 Decennial Census has officially begun, with enumeration in remote Alaskan villages completed. We look forward to a status report and timeline for the rest of the country, as well as discussions on current concerns, including the effectiveness and cost of Decennial advertising. Apparently, Census has gotten one thing right, Mr. Secretary, because everyone appears to have seen the Super Bowl ad, whatever one might think of it. NTIA has significant American Recovery and Reinvestment Act responsibilities in overseeing $4.7 billion in broadband grant awards. While there are concerns about the delay in first-round awards, it is exciting to contemplate a future where high-speed Internet connections are as common as telephones. We also will discuss how ITA’s proposed National Export Initiative will help promote U.S. exports and protect U.S. jobs from unfair export subsidies. And finally, the Department has held a number of events and made quite a few announcements in fiscal year 2010. At times, the announcements are made well in advance of any actual implementation, and so details are scarce. The focus appears to be more on getting good press coverage for the Department’s efforts and less on the actual benefits to the public, so we intend to get to some of those details today. There is much to discuss, and Secretary Locke, thank you for coming. Following the opening statement of Ranking Member Wolf, we will ask you to provide a brief summary of your written testimony, and your written testimony will be made a part of the record. And now, I will call on Mr. Wolf. Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. I had some veterans in my office I just could not leave. With that, I will just submit the statement for the record.


U – UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER COMING Unpredictable weather now – monsoons, tornadoes, wildfiresPayson Roundup 6/21 – (Pete Aleshire, “Still-rising average temperatures fuel deadly, unpredictable weather,” June 21, 2011, http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2011/jun/21/still-rising-average-temperatures-fuel-deadly-unpr/) mihe

Arizona catches fire. The drought returns. The monsoons flicker. The streams dwindle. The spring goes bone dry. Tornadoes touch down on the Rim. A rush of new climate studies suggest that the steady rise of global temperatures has already ushered in dramatic and unpredictable weather patterns — inflicting a sputtering drought in the Southwest at the same time it floods the Mississippi and sends tornadoes rampaging across the Midwest. The early onset of the fire season this year underscores the point, with half the normal rainfall since January — despite some big winter storms that left a deeper-than-normal snowpack on the Rim. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that “Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems.” Most climate experts agree that average global temperatures have risen by 2 degrees in the past 50 years and rainfall has increased by 5 percent. The number and intensity of most major weather systems has risen with the increased energy pumped into the atmosphere by that rise in temperature. However, the attempt to link that broad average temperature rise with particular weather patterns and regional predictions has yielded mixed results — and revealed the complexity of the feedback systems that either muffle or magnify the effects of global warming. However, the evidence now suggests the Southwest will likely suffer a big rise in fires and tree-killing insect infestations in coming decades, according to a study published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Forests in the Southwest have proven especially vulnerable to climate shifts, because the trees are often living at the edge of their tolerance. The researchers analyzed the results of 1,000 different tree ring studies and concluded that 18 percent of the forests in the Southwest have suffered severe damage from fires or bark beetles in the past 20 years. Rising temperatures will likely intensify the effects of the well-known El Niño pattern in the Pacific, which triggers droughts and flooding world-wide as a result of the warming of surface temperatures, according to the study of tree ring growth patterns going back 1,100 years published in May in Nature Climate Change. The researchers found that the rainfall-related width of tree rings in the Southwest agreed perfectly with other records showing the waxing and waning of the El Niño ocean temperatures. Moreover, the temperature-related variations in certain isotopes in corals in the central Pacific also matched the tree ring testimony in the Southwest. The researchers concluded that ocean temperatures in the Pacific have long gone through warm and cool phases that can last 50 to 90 years and have a big impact on global weather patterns. Unfortunately, scientists haven’t yet come up with reliable and consistent climate models that would allow them to predict how a rise in average global temperatures will affect those cycles. A different set of studies have come to a similar conclusion about a less-well-known water temperature cycle in the Atlantic Ocean, which scientists call the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation. Another tree ring study linked the periodic rise in surface temperatures in the western Atlantic with a sharp increase in wildfire in the Southwest over a 500-year period. The researchers discovered that the western Atlantic shifts has warm and cool periods that last for 60 to 80 years at a time. The researchers analyzed nearly 34,000 fire scars dating back five centuries to reach that conclusion. Generally, as the western Atlantic warms, the number of extended droughts and massive wildfires increases throughout the Southwest. The researchers noted that the western Atlantic appears to have entered just such a warming period, which will likely be exacerbated as global temperatures rise. The researchers noted that such major climate shifts have a far larger impact on forest fires than shifts in forest management strategies.


IL – ECONOMY Polar Orbiting Satellites key to prepare for deadly weather Universe Today 6/15 – (Tammy Plotner, “Can We Put Weather on a Budget?” June 15, 2011, http://www.universetoday.com/86711/can-we-put-weather-on-a-budget/) mihe

When Vanguard 2 was launched on February 17, 1959 it became our first orbiting “eye” on Earth’s weather. Although the satellite was unsuccessful in the long run, it paved the way for TIROS-1 about a year later. This in turn opened the avenue for the Nimbus program – the forerunner for today’s NASA and NOAA’s space-based weather observatories. Although our current climate spectators have proven to be not only efficacious, but enduring, the recent economy may spell an end to future pursuits. With what appears to be crazy changes to our weather in recent times, they may not produce opportunities for climatologists to take advantage of data produced by satellite imaging. However, leaders in all fields of study are emphasizing the importance of continuing the weather satellite programs. “The stakes are high and the challenge is great,” said Earth Science Director Michael Freilich, at a briefing at the Forum on Earth Observation. The importance of weather prediction affects our world population in more ways than just grabbing an umbrella or getting out your winter coat. Radical ramifications can disrupt logistics and threaten lives. This realization has prompted support from everyone from US President Obama to National Weather Service director Jack Hayes As the director explained, the “what if” synopsis could be very ugly when it comes to above average snowfall, powerful hurricanes or deadly tornadoes. The geostationary satellites portray global weather from a high level standpoint – but the lower, polar orbiters collect far more detailed data in a three to five day window that’s needed to make forecasting by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration possible.

Polar Orbiting Satellites key to predict severe weather and help economyMarketWatch 7/7 – (MarketWatch, “NOAA Deputy Administrator Tells Local Leaders Satellite Programs Key to Saving Lives, Lessening Economic Impact of Severe Weather,” July 7, 2011, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/noaa-deputy-administrator-tells-local-leaders-satellite-programs-key-to-saving-lives-lessening-economic-impact-of-severe-weather-2011-07-07?reflink=MW_news_stmp) mihe

Dr. Kathryn Sullivan addressed Brevard County leaders and first responders during meeting at Harris Corporation Thursday Stressed need for continued funding of advanced weather forecasting technology Harris is prime contractor for faster, higher-resolution ground segment of next-generation NOAA weather system Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, assistant secretary of commerce for environmental observation and prediction, and deputy administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), today emphasized the vital role played by the agency's satellite programs in providing timely weather data that can save lives during severe weather. Sullivan addressed a luncheon gathering of area leaders and first responders co-sponsored by the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast (EDC) and Harris Corporation HRS +0.89% . The meeting was held at the Harris Customer Briefing Center in Melbourne. A recording of the webcast may be viewed at http://www.yottastream.com/harris/ . "Our polar and geostationary satellites are the backbone of the nation's weather enterprise," said Sullivan. "It is critical that we keep NOAA's weather programs funded, even in this tight fiscal environment." Among the programs she discussed is the next generation of NOAA's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES). Today's GOES satellites are a significant tool used by NOAA to detect and track hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and other severe weather in the continental U.S. and western hemisphere. The next generation of this program, the GOES Series-R (GOES-R), is expected to significantly speed severe weather prediction and warnings by processing and delivering 40 times more data than is possible today to NOAA's National Weather Service and more than 10,000 direct users. GOES-R also will vastly improve image resolution and increase the rate of imagery coverage of Earth's surfaces from every 30 minutes to every five minutes in normal conditions -- and every 30 seconds during severe weather events. In addition, the GOES-R system will provide a new capability for continuous monitoring of total lightning activity, which provides early indication of storm intensification and severe weather events, including improved tornado warning lead time. The first launch of a GOES-R series satellite is scheduled for 2015. Harris is the prime contractor for the ground segment of GOES-R, a 10-year contract with a potential value of $736 million. More than 380 people from Harris and its subcontractors work on the GOES-R program nationwide, with nearly 240 of those people directly employed by Harris and based in the Melbourne-area. The ground segment encompasses receiving and processing of satellite data, generating and distributing products from satellite data, and command and control of operational satellites. "GOES-R will give National Weather Service forecasters and government agencies an unprecedented edge when dealing with severe weather conditions," said Sheldon Fox, group president, Harris Government Communications Systems. "We have seen first-hand in recent years the devastating impact of severe weather in many parts of our nation, and here in Florida we are just one month into the Atlantic hurricane season. It is clear that the continued development of advanced forecasting technology is essential to saving lives and lessening the economic impact of destructive weather." Harris is a recognized leader in satellite ground data processing and mission command-and-control systems. The company's ground data processing systems consist of complex suites of hardware and software that receive sensor data from satellites, turning it into useable information. The company's command-and-control systems feature commercial-off-the-shelf design


and high levels of flexibility. Designed for government and commercial applications, they support single-satellite missions, as well as some of the largest and most complex satellite fleets deployed today.

Polar Orbiting Satellite Program key to Business competition and accurate weather forecasts Locke 10 – Secretary of Department of Commerce (Gary Locke, Department of Commerce, “Opening Statement by Secretary Locke,” http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS126092) mihe

Secretary LOCKE. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Congressman Wolf. I am pleased to join you to talk about the President’s budget for the Department of Commerce for fiscal year 2011. With the 2010 census field operations ending this year, the President’s $8.9 billion request decreases overall spending from fiscal year 2010, but funds targeted increases for vital economic activities. Because in these challenging times, the central mission of the Commerce Department is very clear and straightforward, helping American businesses become more competitive so they put more people back to work . I want to highlight four areas where the Commerce Department’s efforts described in the 2011 budget are integral to that goal of putting more people back to work. First, businesses use our unparalleled statistical and technical research to develop new products, identify new markets and make long-term investments. For instance, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, provides metrics that enable development of everything from a National Smart Grid, advance manufacturing processes, to airport screening devices and new cyber security measures. NIST also provides consulting services to American manufacturers to become more efficient and profitable so that they become more viable and competitive in a global economy. Increasingly, businesses are turning to NOAA for its unmatched weather and climate observations, and much of NOAA’s 2011 budget increase will finance its added responsibilities to implement the long called for restructuring of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, commonly known as NPOESS. This effort will help us better meet civil and military weather forecasts, storm tracking and climate monitoring requirements. And at a time when both businesses and the President have called for more accurate and readily available climate information, the fiscal year 2011 budget assigns additional responsibilities NOAA’s proposed new Climate Service Office which is the result of a proposed budget-neutral reorganization to bring together its observational and analytical resources, now scattered throughout NOAA, all under one roof. A second key function of the Commerce Department is overseeing the patent protection that has incentivized American inventors and entrepreneurs for over 200 years. When I came to the Department of Commerce, the Patent and Trademark Office had a backlog of almost 800,000 patent applications and a waiting period of over 3 years just to receive a yes or no on a proposed patent. We have already taken important steps to fix these problems, knowing that every patent application waiting in line could be a new product not going to market and a new job not being created.


IL – MILITARY READINESS Joint Polar Satellite System help military troops, water quality, and make natural disasters less severeMcEntee 7/3 – Executive director and chief executive of the American Geophysical Union. (The Washington Post, “The Importance of the Weather Satellite,” July 3, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-importance-of-the-weather-satellite/2011/06/30/AGDTPuwH_story.html) mihe

As Stephen Stromberg pointed out in his June 30 PostPartisan [“Don’t gut the Weather Service”], allowing funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) to fall victim to political debate will negatively affect weather forecasting abilities. What he did not mention were the far-reaching consequences of such a scenario. The satellite’s data will continue to help military planners deploy troops; emergency managers fight wildfires and respond to other disasters; and farmers to plan for optimum planting. He also did not mention that this penny-wise, pound-foolish budgeting approach doesn’t just stop with JPSS funding. Results from cuts to science funding could also limit our ability to assess water quality and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters. We need to reduce the national debt, but it would be a mistake to do that by sacrificing programs that protect public safety and national security and support global competitiveness.

Polar Satellite System key to military readiness, crops, public safety, hurricane and weather trackingUSA Today 6/17 — (Bart Jansen, “Looming gap in weather satellites threatens forecasting,” June 17, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-17-weather-satellite-budget-cuts_n.htm) mihe The program is crucial for weather forecasting because polar satellites circle Earth every 90 minutes, scanning the entire planet twice every day. By flying only 517 miles above the surface, polar satellites give a sharper view than stationary satellites that float 22,300 miles above a specific place. NOAA satellites share weather duties with the Defense Department and European satellites. But the one at stake in the current budget debate is responsible for the afternoon orbit, which is more important for weather, while Defense focuses on the morning orbit, which is more important for the military. "There will be a data gap. That data gap will have very serious consequences to our ability to do severe storm warnings, long-term weather forecasts, search and rescue and good weather forecasts," Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee April 13. A polar satellite detects when ingredients such as moisture and winds look ripe for storms. The weather service then posts "outlooks" warning five to eight days ahead of possible violent storms. On storm day, the service's Storm Prediction Center posts "watches" several hours ahead. "The satellites are an important part of that early warning process," said Christopher Vaccaro, a spokesman for the service. Without the replacement polar satellite, forecasters would have half the information to track the moisture and wind patterns that percolate into violent storms. Lubchenco said without information from the polar satellite, forecasts for a massive storm nicknamed "snowmageddon," which hit Washington in February 2010, would have had the location wrong by 200 to 300 miles and would have underestimated the snowfall by 10 inches. Hurricane tracking would also suffer, she said. "Our severe storm warnings will be seriously degraded," Lubchenco testified April 1 before the House Appropriations subcommittee governing the agency. Lawmakers and scientists lauded the value of the program, which provides forecasts for military troop deployments, ocean search-and-rescue missions and farmers tending crops. "It's important for public safety," said Christine McEntee, executive director of theAmerican Geophysical Union. Cutting the funding "would be penny-wise and pound-foolish." "That's saving lives, that's saving money," said Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House panel that oversees NOAA funding.


IL – TRADEOFF Current NOAA budget prioritized – plan results in tradeoffs NOAA.gov 3/14/11 –(NOAA. Gov, “FY 2012 Budget highlights”http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy12_bluebook/chapter1_2012_BudgetHighlights.pdf)Along with this reorganization, NOAA is proposing a variety of activities that support the Administration’s economic and environmental priorities, including winning the future through innovation, strengthening research and development, and the National Ocean Policy. This budget request is the result of a rigorous review and prioritization of the agency’s programs and activities. Low priority programs or activities have been curtailed or eliminated, core functions and services are sustained, and increases are requested for only the most critical programs, projects, or activities necessary to meet the growing demand for NOAA’s services. The additional resources requested in this budget will improve NOAA’s prediction of high impact weather and water events; manage ocean and coastal resources; deliver safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation; and maintain and expand the technical infrastructure that supports NOAA’s mission.

NOAA budget prioritizes, causing trade-offs Cereghino 8-(Paul estuary and Salmon Restoration Program at Pudget sound nearshore partnership which advises the NOAA budget http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/background_papers/sc_aug2008.pdf)jc Appendix B. NOAA Community-based Nearshore Restoration Fund Through interagency agreements, WDFW has developed relationships with other funders that allow for joint funding of projects of shared interest. The first of these interagency agreements has been developed with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s Restoration Center. Through the NOAA Nearshore Fund, Federal and State resources are combined to implement on-the-ground restoration activities that engage communities. Additional eligibility criteria and review processes are developed as part of this partnership to govern distribution of NOAA funds across the ESRP Annual Spending Plan. Appendix C. Project Scoping Guidelines Project scoping guidelines assist applicants in developing proposals that contain a single discrete restoration or protection ‘project’. Creating a standard for project definition improves our ability to ESRP Strategy and Guidance WORKING DRAFT Page 12 evaluate status, track progress, and compare costs and benefits among proposals. Project scoping guidelines are used to identify a final ‘whole project scope’ at the end of proposal negotiation to be included in an Annual Spending Plan. Appendix D. Project Status Categories A project is assigned to a status category based on work completed to date. A critical threshold is completion of feasibility and an associated conceptual design. Projects with feasibility complete can be further divided into projects that are in design, implementation, or evaluation phases. These categories define the deliverables that document project work. Proposal reviewers evaluate evidence to confirm proposed project status. The first task of a contract is to document completion of previous phases. Appendix E. New Project Ranking Criteria New projects are evaluated by a technical review team using criteria that compare potential benefits to likely costs. Benefit analysis considers likelihood of self-sustained outcomes in alignment with regional goals, as well as potential for learning and public outreach. Cost considers whole project cost including potential for leverage and risks of project failure. The project ranking is maintained throughout the portfolio development process. Project ranking criteria are a critical expression of program goals. Appendix F. Portfolio Ranking Criteria Once a project has completed feasibility and received phased funding for design, construction, or evaluation phases, it may be classified as a ‘portfolio project’ and receive special consideration for continued funding. Prioritization of funding portfolio projects is based on completion of planned work, readiness to proceed, financial leverage opportunities,


urgency of funding need, as well as the strategic rank which carries over from new project ranking . The allocation of available funds between new projects and portfolio projects is a critical policy decision by the Steering Committee that occurs during development of the Annual Spending Plan


IMPACTS – WARMING Warming causes extinctionNational Geographic 7-12-2004 (“ By 2050 Warming to Doom Million species, study says” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction_2.html) jc

By 2050, rising temperatures exacerbated by human-induced belches of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could send more than a million of Earth's land-dwelling plants and animals down the road to extinction, according to a recent study. "Climate change now represents at least as great a threat to the number of species surviving on Earth as habitat-destruction and modification," said Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. Thomas is the lead author of the study published earlier this year in the science journal Nature. His co-authors included 18 scientists from around the world, making this the largest collaboration of its type. Townsend Peterson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence and one of the study's co-authors, said the paper allows scientists for the first time to "get a grip" on the impact of climate change as far as natural systems are concerned. "A lot of us are in this to start to get a handle on what we are talking about," he said. "When we talk about the difference between half a percent and one percent of carbon dioxide emissions what does that mean?" The researchers worked independently in six biodiversity-rich regions around the world, from Australia to South Africa, plugging field data on species distribution and regional climate into computer models that simulated the ways species' ranges are expected to move in response to temperature and climate changes. "We later met and decided to pool results to produce a more globally relevant look at the issue," said Lee Hannah, a climate change biologist with Conservation International's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science in Washington, D.C. Study Results According to the researchers' collective results, the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species. "These are first-pass estimates, but they put the problem in the right ballpark … I expect more detailed studies to refine these numbers and to add data for additional regions, but not to change the general import of these findings," said Hannah. Writing in an accompanying commentary to the study in Nature, J. Alan Pounds of the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica, and Robert Puschendorf, a biologist at the University of Costa Rica, say these estimates "might be optimistic." As global warming interacts with other factors such as habitat-destruction, invasive species, and the build up of carbon dioxide in the landscape, the risk of extinction increases even further, they say. In agreement with the study authors, Pounds and Puschendorf say taking immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is imperative to constrain global warming to the minimum predicted levels and thus prevent many of the extinctions from occurring. "The threat to life on Earth is not just a problem for the future. It is part of the here and now," they write. Climate Scenarios The researchers based their study on minimum, mid-range, and maximum future climate scenarios based on information released by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. According to the IPCC, temperatures are expected to rise from somewhere between 1.5 and more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 and more than 2 degrees Celsius) by the year 2050. "Few climate scientists around the world think that 2050 temperatures will fall outside those bounds," said Thomas. "In some respects, we have been conservative because almost all future climate projections expect more warming and hence more extinction between 2050 and 2100." In addition, the researchers accounted for the ability of species to disperse or successfully move to a new area, thus preventing climate change-induced extinction. They used two alternatives: one where species couldn't move at all, the other assuming unlimited abilities for movement. "We are trying to bracket the truth," said Peterson. "If you bracket the truth and look at the two endpoints and they give the same general message, then you can start to believe it." Outside of the small

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction_2.html


group of researchers working directly on the impacts of climate change to species diversity, "the numbers will come as a huge shock," said Thomas.


A2: JPS NOT FEASIBLE JPSS is feasibleClark 6-28-10 (Stephen staff writer at spaceflightnow.comhttp://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1006/28jpss/)jcNASA plans to purchase a clone of a stopgap weather satellite to be the first member of a new civilian fleet of environmental platforms, but the future of U.S. climate-monitoring spacecraft hinges on congressional approval of a White House budget proposal to pay for the new program, a government official said Monday. The new satellite will help replace a troubled program suspended by the Obama administration in February after schedule and budget woes. Scheduled to launch in 2014, the new spacecraft will be identical to the NPOESS Preparatory Project platform under construction at Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp. "NASA will initiate the procurement and has indicated in a synopsis its intent to go with a sole source acquisition from Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp.," said Mary Kicza, assistant administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's satellite and information service. The craft will be the pioneer of the Joint Polar Satellite System, a fleet of weather satellites conceived in February to replace the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environment Satellite System, or NPOESS, which would have joined civil and military weather satellites into one program. NPOESS was canned by the White House after falling behind schedule and reaching a projected program life-cycle cost of more than $15 billion. The program's tri-agency partnership, consisting of NOAA, NASA and the U.S. Air Force, was criticized by independent review boards. NOAA officials are confident the JPSS program can get off the ground by the time the first NPOESS platform would have launched, and at a fraction of the cost.

Set Goals make the JPSS feasibleLeMieux - 2-24-10(“CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NASA FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET PROPOSAL” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg64486/html/CHRG-111shrg64486.htm)jcYou know, technology develops out of need. As all of you have said, we do have to know where we're going. We want to go to Mars. We can't get there right now, because we don't have the technology to do it. We're sort of in the same conundrum that I and my panel members were with Hubble. Senator LeMieux. Respectfully, when President Kennedy challenged us to go to the Moon, we didn't have the technology, in that year, to go to the Moon. When we decided that we needed to build an atomic bomb, we didn't have the technology when we made that decision, but we pushed forward because we had a goal. And if we don't have a goal to go there by a specific time, it seems to me that the drive, both funding and purposefully, will be lacking. So, I think that's the concern that the folks have here on this committee and others.


A2: JPS IS DOD FUNDING JPS is independent from DoD

Wolf 10 – Ranking Member of Committee on Appropriations (Frank R. Wolf, Department of Commerce, “Opening Statement – Ranking Member Wolf,” http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS126092) mihe

Welcome back to the Committee Mr. Secretary. Opening Statement — Ranking Member Wolf As you know, for many years I have

been raising concerns with our country's unsustainable deficit. On the surface your fiscal year 2011 budget request looks as if it makes good progress in reducing government spending by proposing a $5 billion reduction. However, the reduction is the result of $6 billion in non-recurring costs from fiscal year 2010 associated with the decennial census. Nearly every other Commerce account is requesting program increases, some very large There are especially large increases in NOAA, primarily for the costs of pursuing a new polar orbiting satellite program independent from the Department of Defense. I hope to work with the Chairman to prioritize the Department's needs within what should rightly be a very austere environment for new spending. I appreciate that the Administration is proposing a new initiative to double the amount of US exports, which is a laudable goal. However, when we look for new markets overseas we must also do a better job: • protecting American intellectual property, particularly for dual-use technologies, • protecting our government and industry information technology networks from cyber attacks initiated overseas; and • ensuring that our trading partners respect the basic rights of their workers. I look forward to discussing these and other issues with you today, and again, I am pleased to welcome you and I look forward to your testimony.

***DOD TRADEOFF DA***


1NC SHELL

Budget cuts coming – it is only a question of what programs will get cut. New spending would cause DoD to re-prioritize – cutting the F-35’sEwing 11 - (Philip Ewing-Author at Defense and Acquisition journal. “Panetta’s challenge: Not just cut, but cut quickly” http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/06/panettas-challenge-not-just-cut-but-cut-quickly/) MO

For what it’s worth, Kaplan sees the F-35 as a potential target, too — although as you’ll see, he got its name wrong: Cutting Air Force or Navy personnel would mean getting rid of airplanes or ships, a move that would sire a separate set of controversies. (Then again, it’s likely that Panetta will cancel or cut back some planes and ships, if just to spread the pain; the Air Force and Navy’s troubled Joint Strategic Fighter , aka the F- 35 stealth aircraft, is a likely candidate. But there will be limits here, as his predecessor, Robert Gates, already cut a few dozen systems, and further cuts would spark political fights, especially given the already-high unemployment rate.) By contrast, cutting Army and, to some extent, Marine personnel would mean erasing brigades or divisions from the roster and warehousing their weapons—which could then be transferred to other units as training or replacement gear, for more savings still. None of this is necessarily to say that the Army or Marines should be slashed—only that they almost certainly will be, given the traditional end-of-wars syndrome, the enormous pressures on the federal budget, and (a new factor) an emerging coalition of anti-war Democrats and anti-spending, isolationist Republicans.

Reducing F-35 funding would destroy the program

Reed 10 (John Reed- West point and army ranger graduate, platoon leader of the 82 airborne - Proposed F-35 Cuts Could Put Program at Risk. November 11th, 2010, http://defensetech.org/2010/11/11/proposed-f-35-cuts-could-put-program-at-risk/) MO

Late yesterday afternoon, news broke that a presidentially-mandated panel is recommending the military slash numerous big-ticket weapons programs, including the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, as part of an overall proposal aimed at dramatically reining-in government costs . The panel calls for the Air Force and Navy to half their planned F-35A and C-model buys through 2015 and for the Marines to completely lose their short takeoff and vertical landing F- 35B. The greatly reduced numbers of JSFs would be supplemented by purchase of “new” F-16s for the Air Force and F/A-18EF Super Hornet buys for the Navy. These recommendations fly in the face of all the planning done by the Air Force officials in recent years who have put all their eggs in the F-35 basket and refused to consider buying new versions of F-16s or F-15s. Navy officials seem to have hedged their bets a little by recently buying an mix of 124 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers to offset a looming fighter gap. Obviously, the Marines would be in the toughest spot if the recommendations become reality with their aging fleet of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers and EA-6B Prowlers that are all supposed to be replaced by the F-35B. All of this begs the question; if (and it’s a big, big if) these cuts are approved by decision-makers will they throw the F-35 into the death spiral that program-watchers have warned about for years? Reduced buys mean cost hikes which in-turn lead to more reduced buys from international partners, etc. Teal Group Aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia sees all of this as a “seriously worst-case scenario, but it’s a dire prospect.” If this nightmare scenario for the F-35 does come to fruition, the fate of the program could indeed hang on the international partners’ resolve to stick with it, according to the analyst. “If it went ahead (I doubt it, but you can’t write off the possibility) then much would come down to the international partners,” Aboulafia said. “If they kept the faith, the program could keep

http://defensetech.org/2010/11/11/proposed-f-35-cuts-could-put-program-at-risk/

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/06/panettas-challenge-not-just-cut-but-cut-quickly/



costs from skyrocketing, and avoid a death spiral. If they don’t, the program would definitely be at risk.

F-35’s key to US air powerClaffey, ‘10 (Jason, Fosters Daily Democrat. http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100529/GJNEWS_01/705299929/-1/fosnews1416) MO

"The F-35 is critical to our national security and defense," said Shea-Porter spokeswoman Jamie Radice. " We will rely on the F-35 for 90% of our tactical air forces , and having only one engine is an unacceptable risk to our nation and to our pilots." The more than $300 billion F-35 program is regarded as the largest weapons program in history. It will replace nearly every American fighter jet now in operation. The U.S. partnered with several countries to buy more than 3,000 F-35s combined.

Air dominance key to hegMelinger 03 (Phillip, US Air Force Col. Ph.D in military history, “The air and space nation is in peril,” http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html) MO

This is a good news, bad news story. The United States is the world’s first and only air and space nation. That fact is evidenced in our dominance of air and space technology and infrastructure, as well as in the future visions shared by our political, economic, military, and cultural leaders. This domination has important implications for our national security . Unfortunately, many Americans have come to view air and space dominance as their birthright. It is not, and troubles are brewing, so we must take steps now to ensure our dominance in the future. Americans have always looked to technology to ease their problems, so they took naturally and quickly to air and space power- the epitome of advanced technology. America was the birthplace of aviation, and it is now difficult to imagine life without our television satellites, cell phones, Internet, and air travel. Indeed, US airline-passenger traffic has tripled over the past 25 years (fig. 1). Speed is the engine of commerce and economic growth. Rapid means of transportation have been essential for nations seeking economic dominance. The rise of Britain in the eighteenth century was based on global trade carried by its large merchant fleet, which in turn was protected by the Royal Navy, the world’s largest and most powerful. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was also a maritime power, possessing a sizeable merchant fleet and navy. As the twentieth century progressed, however, speed became synonymous with aircraft, and expanding American aviation began to push out the ship. Over the past 40 years, the growth of the US airline industry has been dramatic, in contrast to the decline of our shipping industry. Since 1960 the number of airliners has quadrupled (and aircraft have more than doubled in size), while the size of the US merchant fleet has dropped 84 percent, a mere 2 percent of the world’s total (fig. 2). In addition, airport expansion is under way at many airports because airline-passenger travel is expected to double over the next decade. As for cargo, 95 percent of the world’s air-cargo capacity resides in Boeing airframes, and the value of goods shipped is telling. In 1997 the average pound of cargo traveling by boat was worth seven cents; by rail it was 10 cents, but by air it was $25.59. When Americans have something important and valuable to ship and it needs to get there quickly, they send it by air. Air and space trade has significantly increased over the past several decades. In 1999 America’s air and space industry contributed $259 billion to the nation’s economy . The black ink in the air and space balance of trade rose to over $32 billion in 2000, making it the largest net exporter in the US economy (fig. 3). At the same time, the overall US trade balance has been negative for 27 of the past 30 years, and the deficit now exceeds $250

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100529/GJNEWS_01/705299929/-1/fosnews1416

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100529/GJNEWS_01/705299929/-1/fosnews1416


billion annually. Given these statistics, it is apparent that the United States has now become an air and space nation- indeed, the air and space nation.

Lack of leadership leads to nuclear exchanges.Khalilzad ‘95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995)

On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.


U – F-35

F-35’s on the chopping block nowNewsweek,10 (11/13/10, http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/13/the-air-force-s-war-toy-wish.html) MO

As Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, Ga., plant prepares to begin building the 187th—and last—F-22 super-fighter, the military is already dreaming of its successor. In a query to the aerospace industry earlier this month, the Air Force laid out its wish list, and it wants everything: a plane that can win dogfights, demolish air-defense missile networks, support ground troops, and run surveillance missions; a partial prototype would be ready by 2020, with entry into service by 2030.This may be wishful thinking, given the saga of the current wondercraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. With a development and production price tag of more than $380 billion, the F-35 is the costliest acquisition program in Pentagon history. Different versions are being developed for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. But the plane is bedeviled by technical problems, ever-rising costs, and slipping schedules, with the Marines’ incarnation presenting the toughest challenges. Last week the co-chairmen of President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission proposed gutting the program. On Nov. 22, a Pentagon review board is scheduled to take a hard look at it.

F-35s threatened by spending cuts Goozner 2/10/11 (Merrill, independent author, former journalism prof @ NYU, http://gooznews.com/?p=2474) JDP

Critics ranging from the president’s bipartisan fiscal commission to former military officers to a coalition of liberal and conservative groups backing steep Defense Department cuts have put the F-35 at the top of their list of Pentagon programs that could be scaled back or eliminated without damaging national security. The Fiscal Commission, for instance, called for cutting the program in half. Their report suggested the fighter fleet could remain at its current size by extending production of modernized F-16, F-18 and A-10 jets, which would save $9.5 billion over the next five years. “The unit cost of F-35 aircraft is estimated at about $133 million compared to $40 million for an F-16 and $80 million for an F-18,” the fiscal commission report said. “The U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy, the military’s current fourth-generation fighters – the F-15, the F-16, and the F-18 – are superior to Chinese and Russian aircraft, and they are less expensive than the F-35,” noted Gordon Adams and Matthew Leatherman in an article in the latest Foreign Affairs.

F-35s threatened to be cut off- one version already discontinuedFenholz ‘11 (Tim Fenholz, National Journal staff writer, http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-gop-calls-for-cuts-in-security-spending-20110203?print=true, accessed 7-1-11,) MO House Republicans are proposing to slash $74 billion in discretionary spending this year, and have included a surprise cut of $16 billion for defense and other security programs. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is expected to file a budget resolution Tuesday using unilateral powers granted to him by new House rules. Under those rules, his overall budget numbers will amount to marching orders for the House Appropriations Committee, which will have to decide on the specific cuts. Because House appropriators have the authority to set specific limits for all categories of discretionary spending, they could choose to ignore Ryan's call to allocate some of the cuts to security programs. Alternatively, the security cuts could simply hit programs that Defense Secretary Roberts Gates has already targeted for cancellation, such as the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle produced by General Dynamics and the Army's surface-launched advanced medium-range air-to-air missile developed by Raytheon. Gates has also put the Marine Corps' troubled version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin program, on a two-year probation that free up cash this fiscal year.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-gop-calls-for-cuts-in-security-spending-20110203?print=true

http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-gop-calls-for-cuts-in-security-spending-20110203?print=true

http://gooznews.com/?p=2474


New spending trades off with key projects F35 Ewing 11 - (Philip Ewing-Author at Defense and Acquisition journal. “Panetta’s challenge: Not just cut, but cut quickly” http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/06/panettas-challenge-not-just-cut-but-cut-quickly/) MOFor what it’s worth, Kaplan sees the F-35 as a potential target, too — although as you’ll see, he got its name wrong: Cutting Air Force or Navy personnel would mean getting rid of airplanes or ships, a move that would sire a separate set of controversies. (Then again, it’s likely that Panetta will cancel or cut back some planes and ships, if just to spread the pain; the Air Force and Navy’s troubled Joint Strategic Fighter , aka the F- 35 stealth aircraft, is a likely candidate. But there will be limits here, as his predecessor, Robert Gates, already cut a few dozen systems, and further cuts would spark political fights, especially given the already-high unemployment rate.) By contrast, cutting Army and, to some extent, Marine personnel would mean erasing brigades or divisions from the roster and warehousing their weapons—which could then be transferred to other units as training or replacement gear, for more savings still. None of this is necessarily to say that the Army or Marines should be slashed—only that they almost certainly will be, given the traditional end-of-wars syndrome, the enormous pressures on the federal budget, and (a new factor) an emerging coalition of anti-war Democrats and anti-spending, isolationist Republicans.




LINK MAGNIFIER Rising costs of new DoD projects tradeoff with existing projects Francis 11 - Managing Director at US Government Accountability Office (Norman D. Dicks, “DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011”) MO

The collective performance of the programs in DOD's portfolio is a key indicator of how well the acquisition system generates the return on investment that it promises to the warfighter, Congress and tax payers. On the whole, cost growth continues to have an adverse effect on the quantities programs are able to deliver to the war potential. Cost increases have an impact on DOD's buying power for individual systems, as demonstrated by changes in program acquisition unit costa As program costs increase, DOD must request more funding to cover overruns, make tradeoffs with existing programs, delay the start of new programs, take funds from other accounts, or reduce procurement quantities fate deliveries delay providing critical capabilities to the warfighter and result in operating costly legacy systems longer than expected finding alternatives to fill capability gaps, or going completely without the capability. Utimately, continued cost growth reduces DOD's overall buying power and results in less funding being available for other DOD priorities and programs. The Navy's fiscal year 2010 long range ship construction plan of one such example: the plan provides for fewer ships at a higher unit cost both the near term and the long than the Navy outlined in its fiscal year 2010 plan because cost growth has mounted in current shipbuilding programs and the Navy has had to reallocate funds planned for future ships to pay for ones currently under construction.

http://www.linkedin.com/company/us-government?trk=ppro_cprof


IL – CUTS DESTROY F-35 PROGRAM Reducing F-35 would destroy the program

Reed 10 (John Reed- West point and army ranger graduate, platoon leader of the 82 airborne - Proposed F-35 Cuts Could Put Program at Risk. November 11th, 2010, http://defensetech.org/2010/11/11/proposed-f-35-cuts-could-put-program-at-risk/) MO

Late yesterday afternoon, news broke that a presidentially-mandated panel is recommending the military slash numerous big-ticket weapons programs, including the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, as part of an overall proposal aimed at dramatically reining-in government costs . The panel calls for the Air Force and Navy to half their planned F-35A and C-model buys through 2015 and for the Marines to completely lose their short takeoff and vertical landing F- 35B. The greatly reduced numbers of JSFs would be supplemented by purchase of “new” F-16s for the Air Force and F/A-18EF Super Hornet buys for the Navy. These recommendations fly in the face of all the planning done by the Air Force officials in recent years who have put all their eggs in the F-35 basket and refused to consider buying new versions of F-16s or F-15s. Navy officials seem to have hedged their bets a little by recently buying an mix of 124 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers to offset a looming fighter gap. Obviously, the Marines would be in the toughest spot if the recommendations become reality with their aging fleet of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers and EA-6B Prowlers that are all supposed to be replaced by the F-35B. All of this begs the question; if (and it’s a big, big if) these cuts are approved by decision-makers will they throw the F-35 into the death spiral that program-watchers have warned about for years? Reduced buys mean cost hikes which in-turn lead to more reduced buys from international partners, etc. Teal Group Aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia sees all of this as a “seriously worst-case scenario, but it’s a dire prospect.” If this nightmare scenario for the F-35 does come to fruition, the fate of the program could indeed hang on the international partners’ resolve to stick with it, according to the analyst. “If it went ahead (I doubt it, but you can’t write off the possibility) then much would come down to the international partners,” Aboulafia said. “If they kept the faith, the program could keep costs from skyrocketing, and avoid a death spiral. If they don’t, the program would definitely be at risk.

http://defensetech.org/2010/11/11/proposed-f-35-cuts-could-put-program-at-risk/


IMPACT BRINK – RUSSIA/CHINA MODERNIZING NOW Russia and China overtaking US nowGrant 2009 (Greg-writer at dod buzz “U.S. Air Dominance Eroding” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2355783/posts) MOSpeaking to the more traditional realm of air-to-air combat, so dear to his audience’s heart, Deptula contends that the U.S. technological edge there is eroding. While “fourth generation” fighters are no match for the most advanced U.S. fighters, Deptula reminded the audience of the Russian export success with the MIG-21, some 12,000 of which were built, and operated by over 50 countries. Russia and China are both developing “fifth generation” fighters that will be widely exported at prices that will undercut the F-35 price tag. Both nations will thus acquire “near F-22 performance… while attempting to proliferate the [aircraft] to perhaps near F-35 like quantities,” he said. “We may be facing a fighter threat capability in quantities we’ve never experienced before.” Its not just in the technology realm that America’s enemies are seeking advantage. Unable to counter the U.S. dominance in long-range strike, enemies in wars among the people use information operations to influence perceptions about civilian casualties and deny the U.S. ability to leverage its asymmetric advantages. Deptula said media savvy opponents who skillfully manipulate global public perception are an example of successful “Effects Based Operations,” a doctrinal term that has recently fallen into disfavor, except among air power advocates

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2355783/posts


IMPACTS – NUCLEAR WAR

Global nuclear warSteinback ‘2 - converge.org staff writer (John, Converge, “Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace”, 3/3/02, http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm)

Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war . In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm


IMPACTS - WARMING US military power and leadership is key to solve climate change.Maybee 8 (Sean C, US Navy commander, p. 98, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49.htm)

For the purpose of this essay, national security is defined as the need to maintain the safety, prosperity, and survival of the nation-state through the use of instruments of national power: diplomatic, military, economic, and informational power will be the drivers of GCC responses as they provide the needed resources ideas and technology. It will be through invoking military and diplomatic power that resources are used and new ideas are implemented to overcome any GCC challenges. In addition to fighting and winning the nation’s wars, the US military has a long history of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, but the potential impacts of GCC should lead national security policymakers to consider how environmental security will play a role in the future.

US leadership is key to solve warming.Maybee 8 (Sean C, US Navy commander, p. 98, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49.htm)

The national security implications of GCC pose unique challenges for the United States in part because it is best suited to lead counter-GCC efforts. The Nation has the economic and informational power to develop and resource effective methods and the international status to foster global cooperation and implementation. The U.S. military already has a robust capacity to respond and could continue to develop and use it to help other nations to build that capacity. In addition, by addressing environmental security, the United States may foster trust and cooperation while beginning to anticipate some GCC effects.


IMPACTS – LAUNDRY LIST

Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif, promote human rights, and promote democracy.Walt 2 (Stephen, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls." Naval War College Review, Vol. 55, Iss. 2. pg. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002.Proquest)

Thus, anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction, promote human rights, advance the cause of democracy, or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker, and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago, "Peace must be built upon power, as well as upon good will and good deeds."17 The bottom line is clear. Even in a world with nuclear weapons, extensive economic ties, rapid communications, an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations, and other such novel features, power still matters, and primacy is still preferable. People running for president do not declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. They understand, as do most Americans, that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep.

***GENERAL***


LINKS - GENERIC SPACE Any Space activities are extremely expensive Parkinson, 91 - British Aerospace (Space Systmes) (8/8/91, R C, “Why space is expensive—operational/economic aspects of space transport,” http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=q10870gu8888l1n1&size=largest)

Space activities are expensive. This has come to be accepted. The few commercial successes, like communications satellites, have succeeded despite the expense. Other things that could be done and it would be god to do cannot be afforded or, rather, can be afforded only when rich government are prepared to spend for national prestige, military security or other intangible motives. Consider two current examples. The United States plan to build a large, permanent space station-Freedom-in orbit about Earth by the mid 1990s. It will provide a base for launching more ambitious expeditions further out in space—returning to the Moon or going to Mars. It will also provide a permanent laboratory for microgravity manufacture of materials impossible to create here on Earth. However, the cost of bringing it into being is expected to run to $15 billion, and some $1.5 billion each year will be needed to keep it in operation. Justifying such expenditures in terms of benefits received is difficult. Europe’s ambitions are more modest. The principal European plan links a German proposal for a small orbiting laboratory (Columbus) with a French proposal for a recoverable spaceplane (Hermes). Nevertheless, the pricetag to build Columbus and Hermes together currently approaches $10 billion, and annual operations will probably approach $1 billion-a commitment comparable with US programmes. In the past it has been possible to convince governments to fund such project ‘for the glory’. With such arguments, costs have been secondary. What mattered was driving technology forward, and being first. The cost reflected the difficulty of the projects attempted and the capabilities of the nations funding them. However, as the easy objectives in space have been achieved and costs continue to grow, there is a growing danger that further activity will be halted unless attention is given to making space operations less expensive. At the same time, past investment has not worked towards developing a cheaper space infrastructure but in ‘one-off spectaculars’, which hardly helps reduce costs. Attempts to reduce costs are laudable, but it must first be understood why space is currently so expensive. Aerospace engineering is exciting and glamorous, but unless the costs are sorted out it will not be possible to pursue it.

Space exploration will cost NASA more than 15 billion dollars of its budgetTimisoara, 04- writer for the spacedaily.com -(1/19/04, Virgiliu Pop, “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost,” http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04b.html)The new space policy of the Bush administration, aimed at taking the humankind back to the Moon and on to Mars, came under fire before even being released. In their bid at the Democratic nomination for the White House, several politicians criticized George W. Bush's grand space plans, arguing that the money would find a better use here, on Earth. "I also want to explore planet Earth and planet D.C.," Dennis Kucinich said. Al Sharpton too suggested that Bush instead try to discover the lower-income parts of Washington. "I mean, it won't cost as much ... and it would be just as enlightening for him". Joseph Lieberman stated that the money would be needed "right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to ever! Ybody, to improve our education system, and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security". And Howard Dean agreed that "space exploration is terrific", but went on to ask – "Where is the tax increase to pay for it? It is not worth bankrupting the country." Since the beginning of the space era, it has been argued that the money spent on space exploration should rather be used on meeting the needs of the underprivileged. "If our nation can spend … twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth." – were stating respected figures like Martin Luther King Jr. People like him were not necessarily opposing space exploration; they were instead disputing the priorities – is space exploration worth pursuing when money is so badly needed elsewhere? Unfortunately, the benefits of the space exploration are not self-evident, no matter how real they are. And people are genuine in their worry that money is being wasted in space. Their concern with spending priorities needs to be addressed. The high profile of space exploration makes it appear more expensive than it actually is. The uninformed, yet caring citizen, is under the earnest impression that the money would make a genuine difference in the fight against poverty. The real dimensions of the social needs are, in reality, out of proportion with the money spent in space – be it in the past, now or in the immediate future. Otherwise, there won't be any social


needs left after the Congress stopped funding the Apollo missions to the Moon. In the same time, many of the critics of the space programme on social grounds are "limousine liberals". They point the finger at the US government for wasting their tax money in space instead of helping the poor, but they are not feeling guilty for their own consumerist life style and for their own scale of priorities. For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States are projected to be $31 billion – the double, almost to the cent, of the $15.47 billion NASA budget. An estimated $5 billion worth of holiday season gifts were offered – not to the poor – but to the roving family pets – six times more than NASA spent on its own roving Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American taxpayer $820 million both. Instead of providing a launch pad for the immorally expensive shuttles, Florida can do better and clothe the underprivileged - a genuine alligator pet collar cost only $400 a piece. Are space rockets expensive toys for the big boys? In any case, they cost less than the $20.3 billion a year spent in the US on the human popular toy industry. One doesn't need toys to play with when the most popular game is playing deaf and blind to the needs of the poor – provided one criticizes the waste in space. Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling. It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens. Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget space spin-offs – here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space exploration. In the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, a moving event occurred at NASA's moonport . Reverend Ralph Abernathy , president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and heir to Martin Luther King Jr., came to Cape Canaveral together with several hundred members of the Poor People's Campaign, to protest the money being spent on space exploration, while so many people remained poor . He was met by Thomas Paine, the administrator of NASA, who was informed that in the face of such suffering, space flight represented an inhuman priority and funds should be spent instead to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend the sick, and house the homeless. Paine enlightened the good reverend that the advances in space exploration were child's play compared to the tremendously difficult human problems of the society, and told him that "if we could solve the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button." Here are $976.3 billion dollars – almost a trillion - spent every year in the US on pets, toys, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. It is 63 times the amount spent on space exploration – with the difference that NASA has not destroyed lives as the alcohol, tobacco and gambling did. It is not the exploration spirit that Americans need to give up in order to alleviate poverty. It is the consumerist spirit. Instead of not pushing the button, why not kick the habit?


LINKS – SPACE COMMAND/FORCE Space Command $40 millionNational Defense Magazine, ‘00 [Harold Kennedy, Navy Agency Wants to Boost Awareness of Space Programs, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2000/June/Pages/Navy_Agency4352.aspx] DMThe Navy organization was founded in 1983, to provide the fleet and Marines with a broad spectrum of space-based services, including communications, surveillance, navigation and remote sensing. The Navy's ICBMs are managed by its submarine fleet. The space command's budget "has been pretty constant" in recent years at about $40 million, Zelibor said. "We're about 10 percent of the Navy's overall budget for space."Nevertheless, he said, the command has influenced the way that the Navy and Marines think about warfare. "Space is about power projection," Zelibor explained. "The Navy views space as a medium for the rapid-fire transmission of information between commands, ships at sea, aircraft and forward-deployed sailors and Marines." Once in space, the satellites are considered, in many respects, remote controlled spacecraft. As such, they are "flown," or controlled, by the command's Naval Satellite Operations Center (NAVSOC), in Point Mugu, Calif. At NAVSOC, technicians use a state-of-the-art mission-control system to maintain telemetry, tracking and control of satellites around the clock. The services provided by the satellites are coordinated and disseminated through the command's Naval Space Operations Center (NAVSPOC), located at Dahlgren. NAVSPOC is "a one-stop shop," which provides space-related operational intelligence to deployed Navy and Marine forces through tactical communications channels. At this center, operations teams, composed of officers, enlisted sailors and civilians, monitor the status of military and commercial satellite communications available to the two sea services. They stay in close touch with the battle groups and amphibious ready groups, which enable the Navy and Marines to strike hard and quickly almost anywhere on Earth. The command maintains a "space watch" around the clock to track satellites in orbit. A surveillance network of nine field stations, located across the southern United States, produce a "fence" of electromagnetic energy that can detect objects in orbit out to an effective range of 15,000 nautical miles.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2000/June/Pages/Navy_Agency4352.aspx


LINKS – BMD/NMD

BMD are going to cost more than $18 billion – will come from the DoDRupar, 06- UPI Correspondent (11/9/06, Aaron, “US Ballistic Missile Defense Spending May Double,” http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Spending_May_Double_999.html)

U.S. analysts have determined that annual Pentagon missile defense costs will nearly double by 2016. The analysts were from the Center for Defense Information, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank. Their conclusions were based on a study of a Congressional Budget Office report released last month. Currently , annual U.S. Department of of Defense missile defense expenditures are about $10 billion. CDI's analysis of the CBO report determined that annual costs are expected to rise to $18 billion by 2016 . Philip Coyle, a CDI senior adviser and director of operational test and evaluation for the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1994-2001, told United Press International that "costs for missile defense might even keep going up (beyond the CBO estimates)." While Coyle supports missile defense research, he has concerns about the effectiveness of some of the programs currently in development. "I do support defense research and research in missile defense, but the issue is that some of these systems have no demonstrated capability to defend the United States in normal conditions," he said. Until such capability is demonstrated, Coyle wonders if the $18 billion shouldn't be dedicated to more practical programs. "Missile defense is very expensive -- in fact, it is the single most expensive program in the Department of Defense. And we haven't seen anything yet, and yet the costs will continue to climb," he said. However, Baker Spring, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who specializes in national security policy, said it was a mistake to read too much into the CBO estimates. " Whether the $18 billion figure is accurate in the long-term is a bit speculative; some programs may fall out, some may be stretched, and some may be accelerated," he said. Spring faulted the Department of Defense for not making a stronger commitment to U.S. missile defense development over the past 25 years . "If we had pursued missile defense at the margins for all these years, we wouldn't need the spike that is referred to in the CBO report," he said. Spring said he believed that increased spending on missile defense development was a good thing for U.S. national security and foreign policy. He said he did not share Coyle's concerns about the potential of overspending on missile defense when many programs don't yet have a demonstrated capability. "If we took Dr. Coyle's approach, we would be accepting a 'mutually assured destruction' relationship with North Korea, Iran, China and even Russia, and why would we want that?" he asked. Spring said he believed that an effective missile defense program could prevent an arms race from occurring in East Asia in the wake of North Korea's nuclear test. Instead of developing nuclear weapons themselves, an effective missile defense program could persuade countries like South Korea and Japan to rely on the United States as their primary line of defense against North Korean aggression, he said. "I believe the Japanese believe that missile defense is an effective tool," he said. Coyle, however, cited other national security threats that even the most effective missile defense program will be unable to do anything about. " By 2016, we will be spending twice as much on missile defense as we do on the entire U.S. Coast Guard. And unfortunately, missile defense isn't effective against car bombs or IEDs or weapons of mass destruction smuggled in cargo," he said . The ambitious ballistic missile defense program energetically pushed by the Bush administration and by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives over the past six years is designed to develop a BMD capability to shoot down nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by so-called rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran. It may also be effective against missiles launched by China. However, it is not designed to defend the United States against missiles launched with multiple independently-targeted vehicle, or MIRV capabilities, like many of the thousands of missile's in the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces. So far, U.S. BMD interceptors have


not been successfully tested against target missiles employing decoy technologies now widely used on both Russian and Chinese ICBMs.


LINKS – SPACE COLONIZATION

Space colonization will cost more than $300 billion from NASAEasterbrook, 06- writer, lecturer, and a senior editor of The Slate (12/8/06, Gregg, “Moon Baseless,” http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/)

NASA said Monday it can build a moon base for about the $10 billion per year it now spends on the (soon-to-be-retired) space shuttle and the space station. (The agency also says that the international community will soon begin funding the space station, but no nation has agreed to this.) Considering that the space station and shuttle cost about $10 billion per year, a moon base might cost much more. The space station is 200 miles away and only goes up, never comes down. The equipment for a moon base would need to be accelerated to a significantly higher speed than was required for the space station, and that means a lot more fuel and a lot more expense. Moon-base ships will also need lots of fuel to descend to the lunar surface, and some will need still more fuel to blast off again. Remember, launching the fuel is a major expense. The Apollo program spent about $135 billion, in 2006 dollars, to place about 50 usable tons on the lunar surface . Even an austere moon base would need 300 or 400 tons of structure, equipment, fuel, vehicles, and life support—and probably more. Suppose today's technology allows for lunar-rated materiel to be built and placed on the moon at half the cost of the Apollo project. This quickly gets you to a program cost of at least $300 billion to build the moon base.

Space colonization will come from NASA budgetNewitz, 10- Writer and editor for the io9.com (2/1/2010, Annalee, “It’s Time To Get Serious About Colonizing space,” http://io9.com/5461719/its-time-to-get-serious-about-colonizing-space)

Today the Obama Administration unveiled its new budget for NASA, which included a shocker: Plans to return to the Moon have been scrapped. So why are we optimistic? Because Obama's budget rewards science, and lays groundwork for human space colonies . The big news from the budget, which has not yet been approved by Congress, is that it phases out the Constellation Program, which was the Bush Administration's project to send humans back to the Moon in a remake of the Apollo 11 mission. Looked at another way: The budget junks a backward-looking program and funds a brand-new one that will focus on developing new space technologies, exploring the solar system with robots, and pushing humans closer to living of off world. If you're excited about going to space, you shouldn't be disappointed about the Constellation Program. Many have mistaken today's budget news to mean that the US is retreating from space, or that we can no longer afford a space program. In fact, that is untrue. Obama has proposed a budget increase to NASA of $6 billion over five years. Under the new budget, we'd see a revamped NASA program focused on scientific innovation, rather than recreating old experiments . Specifically, as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said today: One program] funded at $7.8 billion over five years, will invent and demonstrate large-scale, new and novel approaches to spaceflight such as in-orbit fuel depots and rendezvous and docking technologies, and closed-loop life support systems so that our future robotic and human exploration missions are both highly capable and more affordable . . . [Another program] provides $3 billion over five years for robotic exploration precursor missions that will pave the way for later human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids . If this budget passes Congress, it would be a major step toward a common-sense approach to space colonization that involves robots and brand-new approaches to human spaceflight. The new budget also earmarks over $3 billion for what Bolden calls "new engines, propellants, materials and combustion processes, ultimately leading to innovative ways of accessing space to go beyond low Earth orbit." An additional $4.9 billion goes to


generalized space technology research, and $2 billion goes to satellites that will help observe climate change and other Earth processes. This is a boon to geoscience, and will give us more data than ever on how to predict what will happen as our climate transforms. Again, notice that a lot of this money is going into innovation and funding for the basic sciences that will spawn crazy new technologies for everything from space habitats to terraforming. The idea is to pump money into research so that the next time humans explore space we'll know a hell of a lot more about it and can establish viable communities in orbit, on the Moon, or on other planets.


LINKS – WEATHER/CLIMATE SATELLITES Weather satellites and climate satellites will cost billions of dollars – will come from the NOAA budgetJansen, 11- Gannett Washington Bureau (Bart, “Looming gap in weather satellites threatens forecasting,” 6/17, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-17-weather-satellite-budget-cuts_n.htm PPatel)

Congressional budget cutting will delay the launch of a key weather satellite and hinder tracking of killer hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather, officials warn. The satellite, which had been scheduled to launch in 2016, will be postponed 18 months because of spending cuts and delays. The threat during that gap is that National Weather Service forecasts will become fuzzier, with the paths of hurricanes and tornadoes even less predictable. With more budget cuts looming, further delays are possible — something President Barack Obama alluded to this week. In an interview with NBC's "Today" show Tuesday, the president acknowledged the need to reduce federal debt but said "really important" priorities include ensuring "government functions like food safety or weather satellites are still up there." The satellite at stake is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Joint Polar Satellite System. The program is crucial for weather forecasting because polar satellites circle Earth every 90 minutes, scanning the entire planet twice every day. By flying only 517 miles above the surface, polar satellites give a sharper view than stationary satellites that float 22,300 miles above a specific place. The problem is that expensive polar satellites are built to last five years, although they have fuel for seven . The looming gap would occur after a satellite scheduled for launch in September ends its useful life . NOAA satellites share weather duties with the Defense Department and European satellites. But the one at stake in the current budget debate is responsible for the afternoon orbit, which is more important for weather, while Defense focuses on the morning orbit, which is more important for the military. "There will be a data gap. That data gap will have very serious consequences to our ability to do severe storm warnings, long-term weather forecasts, search and rescue and good weather forecasts," J0ane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator, told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee April 13. A polar satellite detects when ingredients such as moisture and winds look ripe for storms. The weather service then posts "outlooks" warning five to eight days ahead of possible violent storms. On storm day, the service's Storm Prediction Center posts "watches" several hours ahead. Forecasters issued warnings five days ahead of tornadoes that struck Tuscaloosa, Ala., and five other states in April. A barrage of 312 tornadoes swept across the Southeast, killing 321 people. On storm day, forecasters gave warnings averaging 27 minutes before actual touchdowns. Likewise, when a tornado struck Joplin, Mo., killing 151 on May 22, forecasters gave warnings averaging 24 minutes before strikes. "The satellites are an important part of that early warning process," said Christopher Vaccaro, a spokesman for the service. Without the replacement polar satellite, forecasters would have half the information to track the moisture and wind patterns that percolate into violent storms. Lubchenco said without information from the polar satellite, forecasts for a massive storm nicknamed "snowmageddon," which hit Washington in February 2010, would have had the location wrong by 200 to 300 miles and would have underestimated the snowfall by 10 inches. Hurricane tracking

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-17-weather-satellite-budget-cuts_n.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-17-weather-satellite-budget-cuts_n.htm


would also suffer, she said. "Our severe storm warnings will be seriously degraded," Lubchenco testified April 1 before the House Appropriations subcommittee governing the agency. Lawmakers and scientists lauded the value of the program, which provides forecasts for military troop deployments, ocean search-and-rescue missions and farmers tending crops. "It's important for public safety," said Christine McEntee, executive director of theAmerican Geophysical Union. Cutting the funding "would be penny-wise and pound-foolish." Lubchenco credited the satellites with helping save 295 people in 2010 by helping track rescue beacons aboard ships. "That's saving lives, that's saving money," said Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House panel that oversees NOAA funding. But reduced federal spending threatens all domestic programs. Congress cut spending $38.5 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. House Republicans propose to cut another $30 billion next year. Obama has proposed $5.5 billion for NOAA in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, including a $688 million boost for the polar satellite. But the agency received $4.6 billion this year — $947 million less than requested — and lawmakers warned that a hefty increase was unlikely. The House Appropriations subcommittee is to vote on its budget July 7. "The fiscal crisis facing the nation is real and will require a level of austerity that goes beyond the present budget," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who heads the panel. Another appropriator, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she would fight Republicans for a funding freeze — rather than cuts — to avoid harming programs such as weather satellites. "There are serious cuts being implemented now," Landrieu said. "This senator from Louisiana is willing to try to balance the budget, but I am not willing to do any more reductions without revenues being put on the table."


LINKS – SPACE SHUTTLE

Space shuttle launch will cost more than $90 billion for NASABorenstein, 11 - AP Science Writer (7/5/11, Seth, “Space shuttle’s legacy: Soaring in orbit and costs,” http://articles.boston.com/2011-07 05/news/29739531_1_shuttle-program-deputy-nasa-administrator-hans-mark)

The space shuttle was sold to America as cheap, safe and reliable. It was none of those. It cost $196 billion over 40 years, ended the lives of 14 astronauts and managed to make less than half the flights promised. Yet despite all that, there were some big achievements that weren’t promised: major scientific advances, stunning photos of the cosmos, a high-flying vehicle of diplomacy that helped bring Cold War enemies closer, and something to brag about. Former President George H.W. Bush, who oversaw the early flights, said the shuttle program “authored a truly inspiring chapter in the history of human exploration.’’ NASA’s first space shuttle flight was in April 1981. The 135th and final launch is set for Friday, although storms could cause a delay. Once Atlantis lands at the end of a 12-day mission, it and the other two remaining shuttles are officially museum pieces — more expensive than any paintings . America has done far more for far less. The total price tag for the program was more than twice the $90 billion NASA originally calculated . The nation spent more on the space shuttle than the combined cost of soaring to the moon, creating the atom bomb, and digging the Panama Canal, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using figures from NASA and the Smithsonian Institution and adjusting for inflation. Even its most ardent supporters concede that the shuttle program never lived up to its initial promise. The selling point when it was conceived four decades ago was that with weekly launches, getting into space would be relatively inexpensive and safe. That wasn’t the case. “But there is no embarrassment in setting the bar impossibly high and then failing to clear it,’’ said former astronaut Duane Carey, who flew in 2002. “What matters is that we strived mightily to do so — and we did strive mightily. The main legacy left by the shuttle program is that of a magnificent failure.’’ Of the five shuttles built, two were lost in fiery tragedies. The most shuttle flights taken in one year was nine — far from the promised 50. The program also managed to make blasting into space seem everyday dull by going to the same place over and over again. Shuttles circled the planet 20,830 times, but went nowhere really new. The shuttle’s epitaph is “we tried,’’ said Hans Mark, a former deputy NASA administrator who oversaw most of the first dozen launches. Six years ago, then-NASA chief Michael Griffin even called the shuttle program a mistake. But as a mistake it is one that paid off in wildly unexpected ways that weren’t about money and reliability.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-07


LINKS - ASTEROID MINING Any mining will cost billions Chassell 08- Director and Treasurer of the Free Software Foundation, Inc. He is the author of Programming in Emacs Lisp: An Introduction, co-author of the Texinfo Manual, and an editor of more than a dozen other books. He graduated from Cambridge University, in England(April 2008, Robert J, “Mining in Space,” http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/space-mining.html)

It is expensive to carry steel or any other weighty substance up from the earth's surface into space. But going the other way is different. It is not so expensive to bring steel down. Presuming you have recovered it from an asteroid, and you have moderate manufacturing capabilities (something all the space mining endeavors presume), you can form some of your steel into large re-entry vehicles (500 or 1000 ft across, say), load the rest of the steel inside, and de-orbit the aerobodies over a stretch of ocean. Design the aerobodies so they splash down slowly enough - subsonic will do - and at a low enough angle, that the splashes don't sink nearby ships. Design the RVs to float. Send tug boats out to pull in your steel laden barges. Assuming you have got your space operation going (a big assumption, admittedly), the transport costs will not be too different from those currently incurred transporting steel across the Pacific. Last I looked (which was some time ago), the price of one of the steels was $0.225 per pound. Suppose I brought back a gigaton, over twenty years (no faster, so as not to lower the price too much by saturating the market); and other competitors did not cut the price either -- so I cleared $400 per ton on 50 megatons per year. (Total US steel production is in the 70 megaton per year range.) At a 10% rate of discount, the present value of that gigaton is $170 billion. At a 30% rate of discount, the present value of that gigaton is $66 billion. Either rate of discount, that is real money. Note, however, that no investor will put up a $100 billion to acquire that gigaton if his or her hoped-for rate of return is 30% ... and a desire for 30% is not outrageous for this kind of investment . I don't know the elasticity of demand for steel, but suppose I brought back 100 megatons per year over 10 years, and sold it at $300 per ton. At a 30% rate of discount the prevent value of that gigaton is $93 billion. Still not attractive to investors, but getting there . The financial issue is in balancing how much to sell --- the more you sell the lower your price --- against how slowly you get your money back. Of course, a real calculation not only takes into account the other materials you could bring back (a kiloton of gold, perhaps?), but also postulates a probability distribution for different prices (a 10% chance during year 8 a price is $500/ton; a 15% chance it is $225/ton). Also, you postulate the probabilities of finding differing amounts of the various materials, and the probabilities for the costs for recovering them (0.1% chance the re-entry vehicles cost a half what you expected; 80% chance they cost more; 10% chance one of them goes off course and squashes the Bank of America headquarters building). But illustrative as my numbers are, I think they are within the ball park. I guess that my real point is that to consider space industry nowadays, you have to think very big -- a gigaton of steel is no small amount, nor is $100 billion. The threshhold costs are very high. By contrast, the Spanish paid much less, proportionally to their resources, in funding Columbus' expedition across the Atlantic in 1492: it was the cost of losing three ships. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it was less costly than losing three contemporary American aircraft carriers would be for the US. Funding an asteroid mining operation is more like risking the loss of all the US carriers, or more. Someone asked if I took into account the cost of mining and refining. My response: First, in vacuum and free-fall, you can build very large, light-weight mirrors -- much larger than in any environment with weight and storms. Second, the presumption is that as part of your $100 billion investment, you build semi - automated (or, ideally, fully automated) machinery to build and operate your plant . Because of the vacuum and microgravity, refining and gross manufacturing may be much simpler than on earth. Now, I agree, you might not be able to buy this capability for $100 billion. This is one of the reasons private investors are leary of this sort of thing.


They fear the project will fail, like the French attempt to dig a Panama Canal in the 1890s. (Incidentally, in that set of projects, the experts you had to hire to make it possible were the research doctors and the railroad engineers. These were not the experts traditional canal builders thought were most important when planning. Doctors so your crew did not die; railroaders so you could move megatons of dirt.) As for the aerobodies, they would not be powered by other than gravity, and by a space tug that pushes them into an earth-intercept orbit, and by ocean tugs that later tow them to shore. A more difficult question concerns the effect air braking would have on the atmostphere. This may be a problem (I am assuming some ablation, which would put particles in the atmosphere; like the exhaust of jets, this might be dangerous. I doubt the heat output would be a problem, since a thunderstorm generates more heat). Another question is whether governments will "let anyone aim a giant steel bullet at their cities if they can help it." This depends on the military imbalance of power and on the judgements the potential victims make regarding the likelyhood that these potential weapons will be used against them. Suppose a US steel company undertook the project; many would figure that if the US wanted to destroy part of a city, it would bomb the city in the usual way. On the other hand, suppose the current Iraqi government understook this project. NASA will fund Asteroid mining Poeter, 11- writer and author of the PCMag.com (5/26/11, Damon, “NASA Preps Asteroid-Mining Spacecraft for 2014 Launch,” http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385949,00.asp)

NASA will bring a beloved arcade game to life in 2014 when it deploys an unmanned spacecraft capable of busting up asteroids. Actually, the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft won't exactly be capable of blowing up the small, rocky leftovers from the solar system's birth—let alone possess an energy shield or the ability to jump into hyperspace. But the vessel will be equipped with a robotic arm built to pluck samples from a near-Earth asteroid designated 1999 RQ36 when it reaches its destination in 2020. NASA announced its first-ever mission to retrieve asteroid samples and bring them back to Earth on Thursday. "This is a critical step in meeting the objectives outlined by President Obama to extend our reach beyond low-Earth orbit and explore into deep space," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in a statement. "It's robotic missions like these that will pave the way for future human space missions to an asteroid and other deep space destinations." Asteroids contain material left over from the cloud of gas and dust that cohered some 4.5 billion years ago to form the solar system we enjoy today—original material from the solar nebula that scientists believe contains important clues about the solar system's birth. NASA picked RQ36 for its relative closeness to Earth and primitive makeup. "This asteroid is a time capsule from the birth of our solar system and ushers in a new era of planetary exploration," said Jim Green, director of NASA's Planetary Science Division. "The knowledge from the mission also will help us to develop methods to better track the orbits of asteroids." The Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer mission, or OSIRIS-REx for short, involves a four-year trip to the designated asteroid. When the Lockheed Martin Space Systems-built spacecraft gets to within three miles of the asteroid, it will conduct comprehensive mapping of RQ36's surface, which is approximately 1,900 feet in diameter, for six months. Scientists will then move the spacecraft in closer to a selected site where the robotic arm will pluck about two ounces of material, turn around and head back to Earth. The mission, excluding the launch vehicle, will costabout $800 million—meaning an ounce of asteroid material is worth about 263,000 times the currentprice of gold. After collecting the sample, which NASA believes could contain organic molecules, the robot arm will place it in a capsule that will land at Utah's Test and Training Range in 2023 in much the same way that NASA collected and recovered particles from come Wild 2 in 2006 with its Stardust spacecraft. Once it's arrived, the sample will then go to a dedicated research facility where hopefully it will yield up its secrets. The OSIRIS-REx mission, the third in NASA's New Frontiers Program, will also measure the "Yarkovsky effect" for the first time, according to the space agency . The Yarkovsky effect is a "small push" to an asteroid's orbit that builds up over time as it absorbs sunlight and re-emits the energy as heat. It is important for


scientists to understand because even such small changes to the orbits of asteroids must be measurable to calculate whether one may someday strike the Earth


LINKS – SPS

SPS is expensiveHSU, 09 - special writer at space.com (02 December 2009, Jeremy, “Controversy flares over space-based solar power plans,” http://www.space.com/7617-controversy-flares-space-based-solar-power-plans.html)

The problem is that we're treating space solar power as something that has to compete with coal right now , " said Hoffert, who gave a recent talk on beamed power at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. "Nothing can compete with coal." Despite his enthusiasm, Hoffert remains skeptical of Solaren's plan. And he warns that failure to deliver could deal a life-threatening blow to the dream of space solar power. A decision by the California Power Utility Commission on Solaren?s plan for PG&E could come as early as Thursday, according to a Dow Jones wire report. Solar panels in space can receive seven times more solar energy per unit than ones on Earth and don't have to deal with weather or darkness. The challenge in harnessing that energy comes from the expensive costs of launching material into space, as well as figuring out how to beam energy back down to Earth . Microwave beaming has long been the favored delivery option for space solar power advocates. Space power stations using this method would convert the electricity generated by solar panels into radio frequency (RF) waves for beaming down to an Earth receiver several kilometers wide. A former NASA scientist demonstrated the RF concept last year by beaming 20 watts between two Hawaiian islands ? barely enough energy to power a dim light bulb. That experiment cost just $1 million. A full-scale space solar power setup would require much bigger and more costly receivers. Another more recent choice has arisen in the form of solid-state lasers. Such lasers now have enough power to deliver energy as a tightly focused optical beam that requires much less costly equipment in space and on the ground. But unlike RF, lasers can run into bigger problems with atmospheric interference and weather. "Microwaves can beam through clouds, which lasers can't," Hoffert explained. "With lasers you're going to have to have receivers in desert sites that are cloud free, and maybe backup receivers in several sites." Hoffert still favors lasers because of the lower costs required up front for a tech demonstration. By contrast, Solaren weighed its choices and decided to go with RF technology. "Basically we chose RF because it is more efficient and has all-weather capability for the reliable delivery of electricity to our customers," said Cal Boerman, Solaren's director of energy services. Hoffert is wary of Solaren's latest step forward and the company's promise of delivering 200 megawatts to PG&E utility customers in California by 2016. Hoffert estimates that Solaren could manage to get about 50 percent transmission efficiency in a best-case scenario, meaning that half of the energy collected by space solar panels would be lost in the transfer down to Earth. Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches , according to Hoffert. But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight. "Solaren?s patented SSP [space solar power] system dramatically reduces the SSP space segment mass compared to previous concepts," Boerman told SPACE.com. Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground. Hoffert remains unconvinced without knowing the details of Solaren's technology. He frets that "premature optimism" over unproven and perhaps scientifically implausible concepts could end up ruining the reputation of space solar power, even as advocates desperately want to see their vision come true. "Too many space power guys have been silent, perhaps to not give comfort to opponents," Hoffert noted in a recent e-mail to colleagues. "But scientists should not do this." Hoffert still believes strongly in the promise of space solar power, and has calculated that it can even prove as cost-effective as ground-based solar panels. That's because solar


farms on Earth must build expensive storage systems to hold energy reserves during cloudy days or nighttime ? although Hoffert still sees solar farms as an ideal complement to space solar power. Space solar power has to deal mainly with expensive launch costs of about $15,000 per kilogram, as well as the huge capital costs of building ground arrays if RF technology is involved. Hoffert has pushed for the laser beaming approach as newly effective cost-cutting measure, and even submitted a proposal with his son to ARPA-E, the U.S. Department of Energy's new agency. "The cost to first power doesn't have to be in the hundreds of billions," Hoffert said. His proposal includes laser transmission tests on the ground in an NYU lab, and then a space experiment launched to the International Space Station. Such beaming tests could even provide temporary power to isolated places on Earth along the space station's ground track, although a true solar space power station would sit in geostationary orbit. Hoffert approved of Japan's own space solar power effort, led by JAXA, which would test both RF technology and lasers as means of energy transmission. He envisions the possibility of space solar power becoming commercially viable within a decade ? but only if all the science bears out the technology behind private efforts. "Some of it is physics and engineering, and some of it is business and promotion," Hoffert said. "But in the long run, you can't fool Mother Nature

SPS will come out of the DOC and NOAA budgetShea, 10- writer of Online Journal of Space Communication (10/29/2010, Karen Cramer, “Why Has SPS R&D Received So Little Funding?” http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html)

Since neither the DOE nor NASA considers space solar power to be in its mandate and each refuses to fund its development, maybe it is time for Americans to consider whether there are other U.S. government agencies that might see these developments within their mandate. The Department of Commerce is an agency that deals with space and is concerned about the nation's energy future. The Commerce Department currently hosts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world's largest civilian space agencies. Commerce is concerned with all aspects of the U.S. economy and energy definitely affects the US economy. The Department of Commerce is the perfect agency to take the lead on space solar power. From its Web site, one can see that Commerce's mission includes "promoting the Nation's economic and technological advancement," "strengthening the international economic position of the United States," "improving comprehension and uses of the physical environment," and "ensuring effective use and growth of the Nation's scientific and technical resources." Space solar power development will be key to U.S. future economic and technological development. SPS is an excellent example of a way to help strengthen our international economic position, to improve use of our physical environment and effectively exploit our scientific and technical resources. Space solar power is clearly within the mandate of the Department of Commerce. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke is in a good position from which to champion space solar power development. He was the two-time governor of the State of Washington; thus is very aware of the importance of aerospace to the U.S. economy since Boeing is a pillar of the state's economy. He has strong leadership skills. The Commerce Department currently hosts the Office of Space Commercialization, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards & Technology, National Telecommunications & Information Administration, National Technical Information Service and Economic Development Administration. All of these can be expected to contribute to and benefit from the effort to develop a system of Solar Power Satellites. The Office of Space Commercialization is presently the only civilian government group interested in space solar power. The Department of Commerce has a history of cooperation with both DOE and NASA. Today, NOAA works closely with NASA on its weather satellite launches . Gary Locke and Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of the Department of Energy, work together well, making many joint appearances. If Commerce will fund SSP development, the issue of launch costs will still need to be addressed. Launching satellites


and related materials into space has remained extremely expensive for decades because the current market isn't big enough to justify the major investment required to develop new technology. Given the potential size of this new energy source, it would make sense for the US government to put money into R&D. It would also help if the government subsidized launch costs for the first four full scale solar power satellites in return for a percent of the power produced for the life of the satellite. This could help to get the energy market moving in the direction of space. It may also help to address some of the power needs of our Department of Defense. To meet the demands of launching the components of four solar power satellites into geosynchronous orbit, the launch industry would have to rapidly up-size. Putting the power of the government behind this effort would assure development of improved facilities and technologies. Four satellites would allow the SSP technology to go through several generations of improvement while the market was being established. Once their capabilities are proven, with four electricity generating satellites in orbit, the industry will have a track record on which to secure investment capital for additional launches. It is hoped that because of the investment and new technologies applied launch costs will have been lowered.

DOE would fund SPSBoswell, 04 - Author for the space review (August 30, 2004, David, “Whatever happened to solar power satellites,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1) Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been made? There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy? In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that makes the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the capital market.”


LINKS – CONSTELLATION

Constellation Program costs 196 billionPBS News 11 [Ray Suarez, As Shuttle Retires, What's NASA's New Mission?, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec11/space_07-11.html ]

As Shuttle Retires, What's NASA's New Mission? The space agency originally promised 50 flights a year, but never managed more than nine. The total bill was $196 billion, or roughly $1.5 billion a flight. One of the original goals was building a permanent base in space, the now-completed International Space Station. In 1990, the shuttle Discovery launched the Hubble space telescope. And in a famous repair mission, another crew serviced the Hubble in orbit to fix blurry images. There were two very public tragedies. The space agency originally promised 50 flights a year, but never managed more than nine. The total bill was $196 billion, or roughly $1.5 billion a flight. One of the original goals was building a permanent base in space, the now-completed International Space Station.

Constellation programs hundreds of billionsOrlando Sentinel 11 [Mike Lafferty, Sandy Adams' space problem, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-11/news/os-blog-sandy-adams-space-issue-071111_1_space-program-space-station-constellation-program]

While much of the nation was paying tribute to the space shuttle program’s accomplishments Friday, freshman Rep. Sandy Adams was using the launch of Atlantis as a springboard to go after the president. Adams’ office fired off this statement after the launch, starting with an obligatory “end of an era” observation before tearing into the president’s space policies. Her office then shipped out this interview with the local Fox affiliate with many of the same talking points. Asked what she would say to the workers losing their jobs, Adams stumbled through the (again) obligatory “thoughts and prayers” but couldn’t finish the sentence without returning to her talking points. One final email from her office directed readers to Adams’ blog published by The Hill, which you can read here, although it makes basically the same point: Barack Obama is to blame for a lack of direction in the U.S. space program. Adams’ position on the space program is something of a quandary for a freshman Republican who has aligned herself with the Tea Party. NASA has never been an efficient spender of the public’s money (the James Webb Telescope is $1.5 billion over budget and running years behind schedule). But it’s one of the few programs where Adams wants to keep dumping money, in part because she’s worried about the Chinese going to the moon to do what? She might be a fiscal conservative, but Adams was willing to spend untold amounts of money to keep the shuttle flying and government-supported workers on the payroll until a replacement launch vehicle was ready. It’s right here in her campaign web site. That would have meant continuing to fund the shuttle probably for another five or 10 years at a cost of $450 million per mission. The cost of the Constellation program, announced by President Bush in 2004, likely would have run into the hundreds of billions. And President Bush himself never envisioned extending the shuttle program through the successful launch of rockets built through the Constellation program. He had planned to stop launching the space shuttle in 2010. Criticizing Obamas space policy also puts Adams in the uncomfortable position of criticizing the shift from a top-down program that’s run by government to one that encourages private entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Richard Branson and Robert Bigelow, who are innovating and developing their own launchers and spacecraft. In fact, NASA just signed a deal with Sierra Nevada, a company that’s building its own shuttle-like orbiter that could take astronauts to the space station. In fact, space travel seems to be entering something of a golden age for the private sector, thanks in part to the administration’s policies. Seems like that’s the kind of shift a conservative like Adams might embrace a little more enthusiastically.


LINKS – WEBB Funding for webb exceeds $6.5 billionGuardian, ‘11 [Robin McKie, NASA fights to save the James Webb space telescope from the axe, Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/09/nasa-james-webb-space-telescope]DM

The cost of the observatory has soared from an initial estimate of $1.6bn (£996m) to more than $6.5bn (£4bn). As a result, budgets for other astronomical research projects have been slashed, leading the journalNature to describe the James Webb as "the telescope that ate astronomy". Last week the US House of Representatives' appropriations committee on commerce, justice, and science decided that it had had enough of these escalating costs and moved to cancel the project by stripping $1.9bn from Nasa's budget for next year.

Webb telescope in NASA’s budgetChristian Post 11 [Simon Saavedra, NASA After Atlantis: Mars, James Webb Space Telescope, http://www.christianpost.com/news/nasa-after-atlantis-mars-james-webb-space-telescope-52106/]DM

NASA's various projects and programs have recently suffered blows due to the U.S. government's fiscal woes and the nation's waning interest in space. Take for example the James Webb telescope, also known as the telescope built to replace the now old Hubble Space Telescope and allow unprecedented research to NASA for the next two decades. NASA is fighting politicians who want to end this project due to its burdening budget costs. Estimates for the cost of this project have almost quadrupled since its inception and now the U.S. House of Representatives wants to put an end to this colossal project even though billions of dollars have already been invested.


IL – TRADEOFF

Agencies need to prioritize funds, new programs mean tradeoffsPerdue 9-10-10 (Sonny, governor of Atlanta “Preperation Procedures for Prioritized Program Budget” http://opb.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/62/34/163067717afy%202011%20and%20fy%202012%20budget%20instructions.pdf)

The state strategic plan outlines the Governor’s priorities and the results citizens expect from their government. The state strategic plan is a guide and tool for crafting and evaluating budgets to ensure that the policy outcomes drive funding decisions. Programs are designed to deliver services according to a stated purpose in law and to deliver improved results to Georgians. In conjunction with developing the FY 2012 budget requests, agencies should prioritize programs/sub-programs and consider how they contribute to the goals and indicators in the state strategic plan. Similarly, use the agency strategic plan as a guide to prioritize initiatives within the agency.

Agency funding is lump-sumGAO 1/2008-(investigative arm of congress examining payments of the government “Congressional Directives” pg 7-8 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08209.pdf )jcAny definition of the term earmark requires a reference to two other terms in appropriations law—lump-sum appropriations and line-item appropriations. A lump-sum appropriation is one that is made to cover a number of programs , projects, or items. Our publication, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (also known as the Red Book), notes that GAO’s appropriations case law defines earmarks as “actions where Congress . . . designates part of a more general lump-sum appropriation for a particular object, as either a maximum, a minimum, or both.”8 Today, Congress gives federal agencies flexibility and discretion to spend among many different programs, projects, and activities financed by one lump-sum appropriation . For example, in fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated a lump-sum appropriation of $22,397,581,000 for all Army Operations and Maintenance expenses.9 Many smaller agencies receive only a single appropriation, usually termed Salaries and Expenses or Operating Expenses . All of the agency’s operations must be funded from this single appropriation .

Tight 2012 budget means trade off of fundsBerret 2-15-11-(Dan Barret is a staff writer at inside higher ed “Tough Love” Budget sciencehttp://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/02/15/obama_s_budget_spares_science_research_from_the_axe-)jcIn all, the president's budget includes $66.8 billion in non-defense research and development, which represents an increase of $4.1 billion, or 6.5 percent, over actual appropriations in 2010. The levels for the current year are still undetermined -- and, in fact, face an uncertain future following a House resolution introduced Friday that would cut $100 billion from Obama's 2011 budget. Obama's budget increases for 2011 and 2012 outstrip the 2.7 percent rate of inflation over the past two years. "All of these investments are being made in the context of a tough love budget," said John P. Holdren, assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, during a briefing at the American Association for the Advancement of Science here Monday afternoon. "These are the kinds of trade-offs we wish we didn't have to make, but which we do have to make." Those trade-offs made winners and losers out of agencies and programs. The biggest winners, as it relates to research, included the National Science Foundation ($7.8 billion in proposed appropriations, or a 13 percent increase over the 2010 enacted level in today's dollars); the Department of Energy's Office of Science ($5.4 billion, up 10.7 percent); and the


National Institute of Standards and Technology's intramural laboratories ($764 million, up 15.1 percent). Officials described research on clean energy, nanotechnology, climate change, wireless infrastructure and cybersecurity as being among the areas of greatest interest.

Low priority programs will trade off with new programsRaloff 3/12/11,(Janet, senior editor at science news “2012 budget offers pain and gain for R&D”http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/69896/title/2012_budget_offers_pain_and_gain_for_R%2BD) JCPresident Obama sent the research community a valentine of sorts in his proposed 2012 federal budget. Sent to Congress on February 14, the budget was a pledge to fight for increased investment in research and education even as the president committed to a belt-tightening for most segments of federal spending. The $3.7 trillion proposal allocates $147.9 billion to research and development in the coming fiscal year, which begins on October 1. That amounts to a small decrease from the 2011 fiscal year, after accounting for a projected 1.3 percent rate of inflation. Many R&D programs would see expanded or new funding to meet a number of administration goals, said presidential science adviser John Holdren, including: doubling the budgets for the National Science Foundation, the Energy Department’s Office of Science and the National Institute of Standards and Technology spurring development of clean energy technologies and providing national high-speed Internet access improving science, technology, engineering and math education and promoting private R&D investment by expanding the R&D tax credit and making it permanent. To pay for those priorities, Holdren says, agencies were asked to make the painful determination of which programs were underperforming or of lower priorit y to the president’s national objective “to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world.”

http://ad.doubleclick.net/click;h=v8/3b41/0/0/%2A/c;44306;0-0;0;41846451;32414-468/648;0/0/0;;~okv=;kw=science;kw=edit;kw=obamaadministration;kw=research;kw=sciencenews;rsi=;sz=468x648;tile=2;pos=xxlA;~aopt=2/0/67/0;~sscs=%253


IL - CONGRESS Congress determines budgets for all executive agenciesGAO 1/2008-(investigative arm of congress examining payments of the government “Congressional Directives” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08209.pdf )jc

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, to finance government operations through appropriations, and to prescribe the conditions governing the use of those appropriations. This power is referred to generally as the congressional “power of the purse” and derives from various provisions of the Constitution. Government agencies may not draw money out of the Treasury to fund operations unless Congress has appropriated the money. At its most basic level, this means that it is up to Congress to decide whether to provide funds for a particular program or activity and to fix the level of that funding. It is also well established that Congress can, within constitutional limits, determine the terms and conditions under which an appropriation may be used. In this manner, Congress may use its appropriation power to accomplish policy objectives and to establish priorities among federal programs.


A2: PLAN GOES IN 2011 BUDGET Budget done for the rest of fiscal 2011 – 2012 compromises underwayCharlotte Observer 4/15 (David Lightman, Margaret Talev and William Douglas, “2011 Budget Approved, Let the 2012 Battle Begin” April 15, 2011, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/15/2224193/2011-budget-approved-let-the-2012.html) mihe

Congress voted Thursday to keep the federal government running through the end of September. But approval came only after a struggle that saw dozens of conservatives and liberals oppose the pain stakingly crafted compromise spending plan, signaling a difficult path ahead as Congress and the White House begin writing budgets for next year and beyond. The House of Representatives is expected to vote today on a series of budget plans for fiscal 2012, which begins Oct. 1. On Thursday, the House voted 260-167 for a plan that funds the government for the rest of fiscal 2011. It includes $38.5 billion in spending cuts, the largest one-year nondefense cuts ever. The Senate later agreed, 81-19, to the plan worked out between President Barack Obama and congressional leaders a week ago, only hours before much of the government would have run out of money and shut down. The votes foreshadowed conflicts ahead, with 59 House Republicans and 108 Democrats opposing the short-term funding bill, and among them some of the two parties' leadership teams. Republicans have a 241-192 majority in the House. Among the biggest cuts are $5.5 billion from the labor, education and health and human services budgets; $3 billion from agriculture programs; $1.7 billion from energy and water programs; $784 million from homeland security and $2.62 billion from interior and environmental programs. Congress will take a 5 percent hit and will have to reduce office expenses. But the Pentagon will get $5 billion more than it did last year. The bill also bars Guantanamo prisoners from being transferred to the U.S. and prevents the construction or modification of detention facilities in the U.S. to house them. The bill also requires the defense secretary to certify to Congress that a transfer of a detainee to a foreign nation or entity "will not jeopardize the safety of the U.S. and its citizens." These measures are nearly identical to current law. The House today will take up a package authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that could cut $4.4 trillion from projected federal deficits over the next 10 years. Ryan would revamp the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and reduce the top corporate and individual tax rates, now 35 percent, to 25 percent. Obama on Wednesday offered his own broad outline for deficit reduction. He'd cut $4 trillion from deficits over the next 12 years, mixing $3 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. He'd end the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and make no major changes in Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Negotiators from both parties are expected to try to craft a compromise, starting next month.

2011 Budget official –2012 budget is nextCare2 4/15 (Robin M., “2011 Budget Passed, Title X Defunding Defeated,” April 14, 2011, http://www.care2.com/causes/2011-budget-passed-title-x-defunding-defeated.html) mihe

The 2011 budget is finally official, squeaking past the House before being overwhelmingly voted for in the Senate. The Speaker of the House lost 59 Republican votes and was forced to jockey for support from Democratic representatives in order to obtain enough votes to pass the budget bill, which in the end passed 260 to 167. Democrats provided 81 votes in support of the bid, but Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was not one of them. “I voted no on the CR today-we can do better by women, students, #DC and investing in our future,” Pelosi stated on twitter. Despite threats of a filibuster, in the end most Republicans fell into line on the Senate side, where the bill was passed 81 to 19. Also voted on was the controversial plan to end Title X funding for reproductive health care, money that Republicans complained goes predominately to Planned Parenthood. Although it passed the House it was defeated in the Senate 42 to 58, with six Republican senators voting against it. Also defeated was an amendment to defund health care reform, which was defeated 47 to 53. Neither amendment was expected to pass, but were offered stand alone votes as a condition of passing the continuing resolution that averted a government shut down last week. Next up, the 2012 budget and the vote to raise the debt ceiling, two more highly charged congressional debates.


***AFF***


***GENERAL AFF


NO TRADEOFF No trade-off—Obama will just increase overall spendingMarketWatch 8 ("Guns or butter ... why not both? Democrats ask", http://www.marketwatch.com/story/guns-or-butter-why-not-both-democrats-ask?pagenumber=1)jc

Democrats have an ambitious agenda in this year's election: To stimulate the economy, cut taxes for middle-class families and seniors, increase spending on vital domestic issues, and not blow up the federal deficit. But their plans to promote the general welfare could be hobbled by an equally urgent need: To protect America from its enemies, foreign and domestic. 'There are just so many things that need to be fixed. If we don't start funding the Veterans Administration, if we don't start taking care of the veterans, the cost to America will be so significantly great in the future. Shame on us.' It's an age-old dilemma: Should the government provide guns or butter? Ideally, of course, it could do both. And perhaps if Sen. Barack Obama does end the Iraq war, the nation could enjoy a small peace dividend that could pay for some of the things his party wants to do. The choice between guns or butter is a false one ; it's really a matter of priorities, said Larry Mishel, president of the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute. Perhaps this is especially so in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Mishel paraphrased Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., as saying: "On Sept. 10, there was no money for anything. On Sept. 12, there was money for everything."


NO TRADEOFF (CONSTELLATION) No new spending and key to global competitiveness Gibson 2-24-10, (“CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NASA FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET PROPOSAL” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg64486/html/CHRG-111shrg64486.htm) JCThis also ties into the question of the proposal to cancel the Constellation program and continuing the Ares I testing, and has a significant bearing on what we derive from the nearly $10 billion investment that went into Constellation. The need for the heavy lift vehicle has already been discussed, and the cancellation costs in these contracts would add significantly to the overall price of this program, with nothing to show for it. For no more cost, the completion of the Ares I testing would support the heavy lift launcher with the technology needed such as the 5 segment booster, and the J-2 engines. To launch and fly this spacecraft will not cost any more than actually canceling it. In addition, it would maintain the skilled team in place necessary for any future space endeavor. With the ending of the Space Shuttle program and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation program, and with no specific program to replace them, more than a third of NASA's workforce of experienced space professionals is at risk of being lost. This will result in a major disruption to our industrial base and loss of core expertise for exploration and Human Spaceflight within both industry and government. At least one of the commercial developers has stated that they can not succeed in Human Spaceflight without this core of expertise within NASA to rely on. Maintaining this knowledge base is critical to our future in Space as well as preserving our place in global competitiveness.



***NASA TRADEOFF AFF


U OVERWHELMS L Webb Telescope not on the chopping block – overwhelming supportDiMascio 7/15 – writer specializing in defense for Politico, Congress for Defense Daily and military policy for Inside the Army. publications. (Aviation Week, “Move Afoot To Keep Webb Telescope Alive,”July 15, 2011, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/07/14/01.xml&headline=Move%20Afoot%20To%20Keep%20Webb%20Telescope%20Alive)

A top lawmaker who sought to end the James Webb Space Telescope indicated July 13 that he may be willing to keep investing in the Hubble replacement. After recommending that funding be zeroed for the infrared telescope being developed by Northrop Grumman, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of NASA spending, said, “We’re going to try to take care of the James Webb.” Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, pulled an amendment he had planned to offer that would have restored funding for the telescope, saying he hoped they could work together to keep it going. President Obama had asked for $354.6 million for the telescope in fiscal 2012. The exchange came during debate by the House Appropriations Committee on a bill including $16.8 billion to fund NASA. The committee approved the bill, which will be forwarded to the full House for additional debate. If the provision to end the Webb telescope remains in the bill, it is bound to face opposition in the Senate, where Wolf’s counterpart on the Senate Appropriations Committee holds sway. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) represents the state that is home to the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, which is managing the project. She has already made it plain that she will defend the telescope. Still, Wolf continued to blast the telescope’s ongoing cost overruns, saying that NASA’s recent cost estimate of $6.5 billion is too low. According to Wolf, the Government Accountability Office now pegs the price at $7.8 billion. In addition to cutting the program that will promote ongoing scientific research of the universe, the bill also fended off an attempt to restore technology funding. According to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the bill cuts 60% from the president’s request for space technology research, including deep-space exploration. Schiff’s amendment would have increased the account to $500 million, calling that figure “the minimum amount” for real technological research. The amendment was defeated on a voice vote, after Wolf argued that raiding the account from which Schiff wanted to pull funding would have hampered important programs and led to the loss of 1,100 jobs around the country. “Let’s not pretend the 60% cut to technology ... isn’t even more harmful,” Schiff says, adding that even more jobs would be lost by a cut to technology accounts. “Let’s not pretend that this will be an innocuous cut.”


NO TRADEOFF - WEBB Cancelling Webb won’t tradeoff with any programKendrew, ’11 - an engineer at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, where she is a member of the Adaptive Optics Lab and the Planet and Star Formation Group (Sarah, “To Scrap the James Webb Telescope would be Short-sighted,” The Guardian UK, July,http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/jul/11/james-webb-space-telescope])

The crucial point to the proposed budget is that the m oney taken from the JWST mission is removed from the Nasa budget entirely. It will not go into other missions or research grants . Some $3billion has already been

spent in the US alone, simply to be written off.


NO LEADERSHIP IL Cutting Webb won’t hurt leadership – project can’t meet funding or time deadlinesCampbell, 11 [Hank, “Webb Space Telescope- Why Congress May Be Right To Kill It”, July 2011, Science 2.0, http://www.science20.com/science_20/webb_space_telescope_why_congress_may_be_right_kill_it-80701]The Webb telescope has likewise been a black hole for funding. In James Webb Space Telescope delivers more bad

news last year I noted that the budget was up to $6.5 billion and now an earliest completion date of 2015, though its original claim was it would be done by now. Budgets are finite. Everyone knows this except partisans in science. The $1.5 billion that JWST now claims it needs in order to not waste the billions already spent could fund 5,000 basic science research projects in space science (see While Webb Bleeds, Space Science Hemorrhages) and $1.5 billion is just the latest cost overrun, not the total budget that may come up as more engineering concerns arise - so rather than circle the wagons around this project because it is science and people want to

avoid a slippery slope, scientists can do a world of good holding each other accountable and making it less necessary for politicians to do so. The idea behind the Webb Telescope is a great one - continuing the work started by Hubble and Webb will be able to see light from about 250-400 million years after the Big Bang whereas the Hubble Space Telescope sees back to only 800

million years. It sounds esoteric to the public but there are fascinating things we can learn. However, science has to have a cost attached to a value, basic research or not. This is what killed the SSC.Those who compare the Webb Telescope to losing the SSC should take note - canceling the SSC made the much more reasonable, both in cost and engineering, Large Hadron Collider (LHC) a reality. Did it give Europe some ethereal, unquantifiable ‘leadership’ in physics? No, lots of projects are still done in the US and Japan but the task of

finding the Higgs boson, which may not even exist, and its press has fallen to Europe. America still contributes and its knowledge will benefit all scientists, just like the Tevatron in the US has helped all scientists worldwide.


SPENDING TURN Keeping Webb Telescope continues skyrocketing budgets for the project – destroys fiscal discipline Campbell, 10 [Hank, “James Webb Space Telescope delivers more bad news”, November 2010, Science 2.0, http://www.science20.com/cool-links/james_webb_space_telescope_delivers_more_bad_news]A few months ago when I wrote that article, it was 3 years behind and $1.5 billion over budget with no end in sight. The last projection of 2014 and $5 billion in cost was so maddening it launched an outside investigation. Now it turns out to be even worse : $6.5 billion and September 2015 completion. A report ordered by Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat (see Democratic War on Science) said the whole thing was flawed from the beginning, essentially implying the cost and technical issues were understated to get financing started.

[INSERT LOSING FISCAL DISCIPLINE CAUSES ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and ECONOMIC COLLAPSE CAUSES WAR]


SPENDING TURN EXT.- OVERRUNS INEVIT. Webb cost overruns inevitable if Congress doesn’t cut Vieru, 11 [Tudor, Article, “The James Webb Space Telescope May Be Canceled”, July 2011, http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-May-Be-Canceled-210146.shtml]The JWST would cost $1.5 billion over the initial budget projections, and would be completed in September 2015, rather than

September 2014. There are numerous reasons for the delay, an independent panel learned during an investigation conducted in November 2010. Cost overruns are inevitable when a space agency is building the largest, most complex telescope in the world, that dwarfs the

Hubble, and provides a way of peering back into a time when the entire Universe was only a fraction of its current age.


SPENDING TURN EXT. – A2: DELIVER ON TIME AND IN BUDGET

Webb costs rising, but NASA won’t announce exact overages until after budget is passed Billings, 10 [Lee, Article, October 2010, “Space Science: The Telescope that Ate Astronomy”, “NASA’s next-generation space observatory promises to open new window on the Universe- but its cost could close many more.”, Nature 467, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/full/4671028a.html]

Small wonder, then, that NASA ended up spending almost $2 billion just on the JWST’s initial technology development. Nonetheless, the agency did not substantially cut any of the telescope’s capabilities to bring the costs back under control. Instead, it looked for partnerships, securing major contributions from the European and Canadian

space agencies. NASA also maximized support for the project on Capitol Hill by awarding contracts for spacecraft components to a small army of companies and universities scattered through many congressional districts. Aerospace giant Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles, California, became the JWST’s prime contractor, under NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, which would manage the overall project.

By the time the JWST passed its preliminary design reviews in spring 2008 and NASA had officially committed to building it, the project had been transformed from its comparatively modest ‘faster, better, cheaper’ origins into an audacious multibillion-dollar, multi-instrument mission spanning institutions, countries and continents.Even so, ambivalence still surrounds the JWST. Failure is not an option, either for NASA or for the astronomers it supports. Yet, in the face of flat or declining budgets, a dwindling docket of near-term astrophysics missions and rising public outrage over perceptions of runaway government spending, tough

questions are inevitable. At a mid-September meeting of the agency’s astrophysics subcommittee, efforts to nail down just how many extra dollars lie between the JWST and its eventual arrival at L2 were met with silence. Until the announcement of a new budget and schedule, informed by recent panel reviews, that is the best answer anyone is likely to get.



***NOAA TRADEOFF AFF


LONG TIMEFRAME The timeframe isn’t until 2016 - our impacts happen nowDWSS solves the DA Brinton 9-5-11 –( Tim staff writer at spacenews.com “Northrop and U.S. Air force close to finalizing DWSS contract” http://www.spacenews.com/military/110509-northrop-af-close-dwss-contract.html) jcWASHINGTON — Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems expects to finalize its contract with the U.S. Air Force soon to develop a pair of polar-orbiting satellites that will provide weather information for military users, government and industry officials said. The omnibus 2011 spending bill signed into law in April provided $175 million for the service’s Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS), which will allow the program to complete a system requirements review for the scaled-back constellation by the end of the year, Linnie Haynesworth, Northrop’s DWSS vice president and program manager, said May 3. The DWSS program was created after the White House dismantled the joint military-civilian National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) in February 2010. The Air Force was directed to develop its own military weather satellites, while NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration pursue satellites for civil weather prediction and climate research observations. Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman was the NPOESS prime contractor, responsible for developing the satellite platforms, managing subcontractor development of instruments and the ground system, and integrating the entire system. Contracts for several of the instruments and the ground system were transferred to NASA to manage. Northrop Grumman remains under contract with the Air Force to build the satellite platforms and oversee the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite instruments being developed by Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems of El Segundo, Calif., for DWSS and its NASA-managed civilian counterpart, the Joint Polar Satellite System. Northrop Grumman and the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center are “days or weeks” from finalizing a contract action that will allow the company to work to meet DWSS requirements, which are somewhat different from NPOESS requirements, Haynesworth said in an interview. “The authorization that we would expect here soon would be one that would allow us to pursue DWSS-specific requirements, separate and apart from what is in the NPOESS program of record,” Haynesworth said.

Won’t be deployed until 2018House of representatives committee on science and technology 6-29-10 (House of representatives, enough said “Setting new courses for polar weather satellites and Earth observations” http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/hearings/oversight10/june29/charter.pdf) jcSome of the unknown items have been addressed by decisions made last week by DOD and NOAA. Mr. Klinger should testify about the Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) subsequently issued on June 22. In it, DOD indicates it expects the newly-christened Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS) to launch its first satellite in 2018. DOD intends to also use the VIIRS sensor as its imager, and the satellite will carry the Space Environment Monitor originally intended for NPOESS. However, more information was requested on the anticipated microwave sounding instrument and its selection was postponed until August 2010.


COMMERCIAL SECTOR SOLVES Commercial sector solves the DASmith 4-7-11-( Maricia, staff writer at spacepolicyonline.com “ Congress Not Convinced JPSS Need is urgent”)jc The possibility of commercial providers stepping into the weather satellite business was broached as an option. Some instruments could fly as hosted payloads on unrelated satellites, for example, or weather satellites could follow the lead of the commercial remote sensing industry with guaranteed government data buys as the cornerstone of their business.


WEATHER BALLOONS SOLVE Weather balloons solve climate monitoringReuters 1-25-9 ( “Antartic weather balloons give climate clues” http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/01/25/antarctic-weather-balloons-give-climate-clues/) jc Meteorologist Tamsin Gray releases a weather balloon at the British Rothera research station on the Antarctic Peninsula to help record temperature and other data from the freezing air. Apart from helping predict the weather, the balloons are also giving scientists clues to global warming . As you can see, it starts off about 2 metres across but how big it is when it reaches about 25 km above the ground? a) it shrinks to the size of a tennis ball b) it swells to the size of a double-decker bus c) it drifts off into space unchanged Gray, of the British Antarctic Survey, says that data from the atmosphere about 5 km above Antarctica are helping to confirm findings by the U.N. Climate Panel that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. She says that layer is warming three times faster than the global average during winter, or about 0.75 Celsius over 30 years, which is what computer models predict if man-made emissions are to blame for raising temperatures. “It’s confirming the theory that warming is caused by greenhouse gases,” she said. The balloons are let off around Antarctica and are giving clues both to weather and to the long-term climate. …and the answer to the question is “b” — after it swells to the size of a double decker bus because of a lack of pressure high up in the atmosphere it pops and falls to earth, along with the small measuring device that is then lost on the ice.



***DOD TRADEOFF AFF


N/U – CUTS INEVITABLE F-35 cuts inevitable

New York Times 10 ( 2/15, http://fightercountry.org/partnership/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-revitalized-by-robert-gates/71431)MO

A cost-effective F-35 is critical to the future combat needs of the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The project already is years behind schedule and nearly 50 percent above its originally estimated cost. That is clearly too much, especially with the Pentagon planning to buy almost 2,500 of the planes over the next 25 years. That comes to a total cost of $300 billion — provided nothing else goes wrong. Mr. Gates means to see that it does not. This month, he removed the Marine in charge of the program, Maj. Gen. David Heinz, and said his replacement would be a higher-ranking officer with more authority to keep a tighter rein on private contractors’ performance. Reinforcing that message, Mr. Gates also announced that he would withhold, at least for now, $614 million in progress payments from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. The money should not be released until Lockheed has significantly improved its performance. This insistence on accountability would be considered normal in most private businesses. But it is virtually unheard of in the cozy world of military procurement. Mr. Gates clearly wants to get the attention of other Pentagon managers and contractors. We hope he has. The F-35 program was supposed to be the prototype for more effective defense procurement. Like the far more expensive F-22, the plane incorporates stealth technology and can successfully engage enemy fighters in air-to-air combat. But it also is built to support ground combat units in today’s wars, like the Air Force F-16 and A-10 and the Navy F-18 it is intended to replace. Mr. Gates will have to keep monitoring the performance of Lockheed Martin and General Heinz’s successor and personally intervene again if needed. The F-35 program is too necessary and budget dollars too scarce to permit further waste or delay.

http://fightercountry.org/partnership/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-revitalized-by-robert-gates/71431)MO

http://fightercountry.org/partnership/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-program-revitalized-by-robert-gates/71431)MO


NO IL – F-35 WON’T BE CUT Several reasons: (1) Self-Funding solves the coming F-35 budget cuts – House and Senate proveThe Hill 6/22 – (John T. Bennett, “Top Defense chief fires back at ‘self-fund’ effort on alternative F-35 engine,” June 22, 2011, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/167999-top-defense-chief-fires-back-at-self-fund-effort-on-f-35-engine) mihe

The Pentagon earlier this year issued a stop-work order for the second F-35 engine after Congress rejected funding for it in a compromise 2011 defense appropriations bill. The military had been trying to end the program for years, saying it is not needed and is too pricey. The Pentagon’s purchasing boss also took umbrage with a separate portion of the House-approved bill that would allow alternate engine contractors Rolls-Royce and GE access to Pentagon-owned equipment so they could continue testing a second F-35 power plant. The provision states this would be done “at no cost” to the federal government while the companies self-fund the program. A spokesman for General Electric defended the self-funding plan. “Self-funding is aimed at protecting a $3 billion taxpayer investment in a JSF engine that is 80 percent complete. GE-Rolls seeks to run three engines next year at GE’s altitude test facility – the only privately owned facility of its kind,” GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said in an email. “The House voted 55-5 in committee to support the self-funding concept because they understand the value of this proposal to the country. Significant Senate leadership also backs the program. We look forward to a successful resolution of this item in the House/Senate conference later this year,” Kennedy said.

(2) F-35 not on the chopping block – Defense spending bill provesReuters 7/8 – (David Alexander, “U.S. House approves $649 bln for defense in 2012,” July 8, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/usa-budget-defense-idUSN1E7670UA20110708) mihe

A $649 billion defense spending bill for next year easily passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday after four days of debate in which war-weary lawmakers sought to curb President Barack Obama's combat operations in Afghanistan and Libya. The measure, approved 336-87 in the Republican-dominated House, would raise the Pentagon's base budget for the 2012 fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1 by about $17 billion over current levels, despite intense pressure to slash the $1.4 trillion U.S. deficit. The House cut about $8 billion from Obama's overall defense spending request, voting to provide about $530 billion for the Pentagon's primary budget and another $119 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama asked for about $690 billion for military spending for 2012. This House bill does not include funds for U.S. nuclear weapons programs or military construction, which come in other bills and add about $33 billion to defense spending. The House measure includes $5.9 billion to buy 32 Lockheed Martin's (LMT.N) radar-evading F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, $15.1 billion to build 10 Navy ships and $3.3 billion for 28 Boeing F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets (BA.N) and 12 EA-18 Growler electronic warfare aircraft.

(3) New spending does not = f-35 cutsEwing 11- (Philip Ewing-Author at Defense and Acquisition journal. “Panetta’s challenge: Not just cut, but cut quickly” http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/06/panettas-challenge-not-just-cut-but-cut-quickly/) MOAll this is why Kaplan believes the Army will be the biggest target in Austerity America, because cutting soldiers, and their payrolls and other benefits, frees up that money on the balance sheet much faster. And if you want to pick on the Army, you also could argue that one of its biggest and potentially most expensive priorities, the Ground Combat Vehicle, may not survive in its present form. Lawmakers have scratched their heads as to why the Army even needs a big new armored personnel carrier. Although the brass has a clear case — its current generation of vehicles is maxed out, in terms of size and power, and the Army needs something that can carry an entire squad — all the budget blades flying in Washington may find a quick and easy target in the GCV, given how early it is in development. It’s just like anything else: The more momentum the program gets, the harder it will be to stop. Everyone in the Building and on the Hill understands this, and they’ll no doubt push or pull accordingly.




Documents

endi2011.wikispaces.comendi2011.wikispaces.com/.../Tradeoff+DA+-+ENDI+2011.docx · Web viewTradeoff DA - ENDI 2011 ***NASA Tradeoff DA***1. 1NC1. Br – Webb Fighting Now4. Br –

endi2011.wikispaces.comendi2011.wikispaces.com/.../Tradeoff+DA+-+ENDI+2011.docx · Web viewTradeoff DA - ENDI 2011 NASA Tradeoff DA1. 1NC1. Br – Webb Fighting Now4. Br –