Speech 1AC

7/23/2019 Speech 1AC

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/speech-1ac 1/13

Advantage 1: We need a heroCuts to the NASA agenda has led to a brain drain, critical technology being cut, and results in extinction

Freeman, 11 (Marsha, April 23 http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Obama_ill_!pace.p"#, Marsha $reeman is an author an" is the author

o# hun"re"s o# articles on the %.!. space pro&ram an" has been publishe" in $usion Ma&a'ine, )ecuti*e +ntelli&ence e*iew, 21st -entury !cience echnolo&y,Acta Astronautica, !pace orl", ew $e"eralist newspaper, !cience oos $ilms, !pace 4o*ernance 5ournal, he orl" +, 6uest, he ncyclope"ia o# theMi"west, an" many other perio"icals, accesse" 5une 21st, 2011, 7Obama 8roposes o ill !cience, !pace )ploration, an" 9our $uture;

For more than a year, the Obama White House has aged ar!are against the nation"s leading science

and ex#loration ca#abilities in our s#ace #rogram$ Although that !ight has centered around the e!!ort to

end the nation"s human s#ace ex#loration #rogram, no every !ield o! NASA"s research is slated !or

destruction. +# the 8resi"ent is not remo*e" #rom o##ice, the nation<s scienti#ic capabilities, essential #or our #uture, will be lost. arth=obser*in& satellites, critical

to pro*i"in& the "ata #or un"erstan"in& an" e*entually #orecastin& shortterm threats, such as se*ere weather, *olcanic eruptions, an" earth>uaes, are bein& shut "own,

an" new pro?ects cancelle". Astronomical observatories to shed light on the e!!ect o! long%cycle galactic events that,

in the longer term, threaten our continued existence on our #lanet, are being scra##ed$ 8lanetary e)ploration probes,

which pro*i"e a win"ow into the early history o# the !olar !ystem, an" a comparison to the "e*elopment o# the arth, will be "elaye", or 7"escope" . &ost

critical, the talents o! the teams o! thousands o! s'illed technicians, engineers, and scientists who ha*e create" a

hal#=century o# new #rontiers #or humanity are bein& "isban"e". Once &one, these capabilities will tae years to rebuil". he hite @ouse plan #or A!A, release" ayear a&o, propose" to en" the Moon/Mars pro&ram, an" replace A!A<s space transportation pro&rams with amateur roceteers. +ncreases propose" in the a&ency<s

bu"&et were to &o #or these pri*ate e##orts, an" #or a missionless technolo&y "e*elopment pro&ram, tain& us on the roa" to nowhere. hat was ba" enou&h. ut the$912 bu"&et plan release" by the hite @ouse on $eb. 1 propose" a #lat bu"&et #or A!A, #or each o# the ne)t #i*e years, eliminatin& the promise" increases. hen,one month later, the 7compromise the hite @ouse ma"e on April 1, with the #action o# austerity "ri*en bu"&et=cuttin& #anatics electe" last o*ember to -on&ress,

propose to shut "own e*ery cuttin&=e"&e scienti#ic pro&ram o# the space a&ency. About B2C0 million #rom the $910 #un"in& le*el has been cut in the-on&ressional/hite @ouse bu"&et "eal, #or the remainin& months o# $911. $or ne)t year, the A"ministration<s #lat A!A bu"&et, at B1D.E billion, means more thanhal#=a=billion "ollars in cuts #rom what ha" been pro?ecte" #or $912, ?ust si) months a&o. +t is not the absolute amount o# money that is critical. he i"iotic ar&ument

has been ma"e that A!A 7&ot away lucy because other $e"eral a&encies< bu"&ets were cut e*en more. Fea*in& asi"e "iminishe" actual buyin& power, "ue to

hyperin#lation, i# the bu"&et o# the space pro&ram is not si&ni#icantly increasin&, un"er the Obama bu"&et, new pro&rams cannot be starte". Otherwise, NASA is

le!t ith (ust one insane )o#tion*+to shut don !ully !unctioning s#acecra!t, sto# collecting data and

ma'ing ne discoveries, to ma'e room !or ne #ro(ects. ithout a "ramatic an" imme"iate return to a space pro&ram which is limite",

not by resources, but only by the pace o# our scienti#ic breathrou&hs, there will be no #uture. ith 8resi"ent Obama remo*e" #rom the hite @ouse, an" a return to aneconomic policy base" on the 7common aims o# manin", which was the basis #or the creation o# A!A more than a hal# century a&o, we can start to tacle thechallen&es ahea". Fooin& at arth ith yes -lose" here will be 7*ery serious conse>uences to our ability to "o se*ere storm warnin&, lon&=term weather#orecastin&, search an" rescue, an" &oo" weather #orecasts #or the polar re&ions, i# 5oint 8olar !atellite !ystem (58!!; #un"in& is not put bac in the bu"&et, ationalOceanic an" Atmospheric A"ministration (OAA; A"ministrator Gr. 5ane Fubchenco tol" the -on&ress on April 13. 8olar "ata is also critical to un"erstan" that hi&hlyObama 8roposes o ill !cience, !pace )ploration, an" 9our $uture by Marsha $reeman H2 ational + April 2I, 2011 "ynamic polar re&ion, which helps "ri*eweather an" climate, "ue to its special relationship to the interaction between, at least, the arth an" the !un. Fubchenco tol" members o# the !enate -ommittee on-ommerce that the current bu"&et pro*i"es no a"ministration support #or the 58!!. Alrea"y, she state", e*en i# the nee"e" #un"s are inclu"e" in the $912 bu"&et, #or

A!A to start to buil" the satellite #or OAA, there will be a 1D=month &ap in "ata collection in polar re&ions. Fubchenco #urther state" that #or e*ery "ollar that wasnot spent this year, it will cost B3=C more 7"own the roa", to brin& the pro&ram bac up, than it woul" ha*e been to continue it, because contracts ha*e to be cancelle",an" 7*ery sille" people will be let &o. +t woul" cost BC2D million to eep the pro?ect on trac #or the remain"er o# this year. Fyn"on Faouche ma"e the point: 7$ace

itJ +t will ne*er be launche" as lon& as Obama is 8resi"entJ +n 2010, two hi&h=priority arth science missions un"er "e*elopment were slate" #or launch in 201E. +n the propose" $912 bu"&et, the hite @ouse O##ice o# Mana&ement an" u"&et tol" A!A to in"e#initely 7"e#er the missions. A!A<s arth !cience Gi*ison stan"s torecei*e B1.E billion less o*er the ne)t #i*e years, than the a&ency was e)pectin& si) months a&o. he -limate Absolute a"iance an" e#racti*ity Obser*atory(-FAO; is a #our=satellite constellation, "esi&ne" to collect e)tremely precise "ata on the critical interaction between solar ra"iation an" the arth. heGe#ormation, cosystem !tructure an" Gynamics o# +ce (G!Gyn+; mission is critical #or un"erstan"in& arth<s chan&in& &eolo&y an" climate. Go !pace !cience

Missions K-ost oo Much<L he e*il $911 budget )com#romise* #assed by Congress on April 1, an" si&ne" by the8resi"ent the #ollowin& "ay, virtually cancels the s#ace science missions deemed the highest #riority by the

scientists who, throu&h the ational esearch -ouncil o# the Aca"emy o# !cience, prepare "eca"al recommen"ations to the space a&ency. A!A<s Mars

Astrobiolo&y )plorer=-acher (MA=-; mission, planne" #or launch in 201D, is unliely to happen, consi"erin& the pro?ecte" "eclinin& bu"&ets #or planetary science, A!A reports. he plan was #or the uropean !pace A&ency to launch )oMars in 201D, to loo #or e*i"ence o# past li#e on Mars, an" #or A!A to launch MA=- tocollect samples o# Martian soil, to be brou&ht bac to arth later. ow, !A an" A!A are looin& towar" re"esi&nin& (7"escopin&; both pro&rams, to combine theminto one, rather than two spacecra#t, re"ucin& the mission &oals, an" the cost. he ational esearch -ouncil recommen"e" that A!A pursue MA=- i# it coul" bere"uce" #rom B3.C billion to B2.C billion. A!A pro?ects it coul" only spen" about B1.2 billion on the mission. A!A<s ne)t &reat space obser*atory, the ebb !paceelescope, which will peer at the uni*erse in the A!A/-rew o# )pe"ition 22 +# Obama is allowe" to ha*e his way, A!A<s space#arin& pro&ram will be eliminate",an" C0 years o# spectacular achie*ements will come to an en". !hown: he !pace !huttle n"ea*our, whose last #li&ht is sche"ule" #or April 2I, was photo&raphe" on

$eb. I, 2010: the troposphere (the oran&e layer;, where weather an" clou"s are &enerate", with the !tratosphere an" Mesosphere abo*e. April 2I, 2011 + ational H3in#rare", as a #ollow=on to the @ubble !pace elescope, which #unctione" in the optical ran&e, may be pushe" bac to a 201D launch. A!A ha" hope" to &et it intoorbit in 201C, but a re*iew o# the pro&ram last $all sai" it nee"e" an e)tra BC00 million to meet that timetable. hat increase is not in the 2011 bu"&et. A!A has pulle"out o# two astrophysics e)periments that were collaborati*e with the uropean !pace A&ency. he Faser +nter#erometer !pace Antenna (F+!A; was to be the #irst"e"icate" mission to search #or Albert instein<s &ra*itational wa*es. he +nternational =ray Obser*atory was "esi&ne" to be able to loo at the uni*erse throu&h "ustan" &as clou"s. F+!A woul" ha*e cost A!A B1.C billion o*er the li#e o# the pro?ect, an" the +O, about B3.1 billion, now "eeme" too e)pensi*e. he @uman -apital

he most devastating blo #rom Obama<s assault on the space pro&ram is the disbanding o! the teams o!

scientists, highly s'illed or'ers, and engineers, ho have created the last -. years o! science and

technology brea'throughs. hese ca"re ha*e the "e*elope" sills, an" the teamwor, which coul" ha*e been trans#erre" to any #ollowon manne" space

e)ploration pro&ram. ut there bein& none, their sills are in the process o# bein& lost. he lar&est sin&le e)o"us o# sille" manpower is the I,000 !pace !huttle contractworers who are in the process o# bein& lai" o## at the enne"y !pace -enter (!-;. !maller numbers o# contract worers at other A!A centers will also lose their

?obs. he hi&htechnolo&y aerospace companies, such as A in %tah, which built an" maintaine" the har"ware #or the !huttle pro&ram #or 30 years, ha*e alrea"ystarte" to consoli"ate an" shutter manu#acturin& #acilities. %nite" !pace Alliance (%!A;, whose worers train the astronauts, prepare !huttle payloa"s, an" launch an"re#urbish the orbiters, announce" April 1C the "etails o# the ne)t bi& roun" o# layo##s at !- in the !huttle pro&ram. A#ter the last mission, sche"ule" #or 5une, hal# o#the remainin& %!A wor#orce, aroun" 2,D00 worers, will be &one. +n 200I, %!A ha" 10,C00 people worin& in the !huttle pro&ram. hile the &ap between the en" o#



the !huttle pro&ram an" the a*ailability o# a replacement *ehicle was written into the -onstellation pro&ram in 200 un"er 8resi"ent ush, under Obama,

there is not to be any national human s#ace ex#loration #rogram. A""in& insult to in?ury, the hite @ouse announce" on April

20 that the $irst $amily will be atten"in& the sche"ule" April 2I li#t=o## o# !pace !huttle n"ea*our, at the start o# its #inal mission.

/$S$ s#ace leadershi# is on the brin', e"ll be #assed by 0ussia and China and loc'ed out !or decades

ith Constellation being cut

Wol! 1. N$ran ol#, ( =a.;, ranin& member o# the %.!. @ouse Appropriations commerce, ?ustice, science subcommittee . 5ohn -ulberson @ouse o# epresentati*es.8ublishe" online April 2D, 2010. 7!pace ews P $ran ol#: Gon<t #orsae %! Fea"ership in space. Gate accesse": H/2/11. http://culberson.house.&o*/space=news=

#ran=wol#="ont=#orsae=u=s=lea"ership=in=space/ Q

Space exploration has been the guiding star of American innovation. The

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and shuttle programs have rallied generations of Americans to devote their careers to science andengineering, and NASA’s achievements in exploration and manned spaceight have rallied our nation in a ay that no other federalprogram R asi"e #rom our arme" ser*ices R can. !et today our country stands at a crossroad in the future of ".S. leadership in space$ 8resi"ent

arac Obama’s 2011 budget proposal not only scraps the Constellation pro&ram #ut radically scales #ac$

".S. am#ition, access, control and exploration in space. %nce e forsa$e these opportunities, it ill #e very hard to in them #ac$ $ AsApollo astronauts eil Armstron&, 5im Fo*ell an" 4ene -ernan note" on the e*e o# the presi"ent<s recent speech at enne"y !pace -enter, $la.: 7$or he %nite"!tates, the lea"in& space #arin& nation #or nearly hal# a century, to be without carria&e to low arth orbit an" with no human e)ploration capability to &o beyon" arth

orbit #or an in"eterminate time into the #uture, "estines our nation to become one o# secon" or e*en thir" rate stature. In terms of national security an"

global leadership, the hite @ouse<s budget plan all but abdicates U.S. leadershipin exploration and manned spaceight at a time !hen other countries, such as China

and "ussia, are turning to space programs to drive innovation andpromote economic gro!th. Fast month, China Daily reporte" that China is accelerating its manne"

spaceight development !hile the U.S. cuts bac# . Accor"in& to ao eimin with the -hinese

Aca"emy o# !ciences, 7A moon lan"in& pro&ram is *ery necessary, because it coul" "ri*e the country<s scienti#ic an" technolo&ical "e*elopment. +n a recent special

a"*ertisin& section in The Washington Post , the "ussian &o*ernment boasted of its rene!ed commitment tohuman spaceight and exploration. otin& the hite @ouse<s recent bu"&et proposal, the piece sai", 7A!A has lon&

spent more money on more pro&rams than ussia<s space a&ency. ut 8resi"ent arac Obama has slashe" A!A<s "reams o# &oin& to the moon a&ain. S At the sametime, the ussian space in"ustry is #eelin& the warm &low o# state bacin& once a&ain. here has been concerte" in*estment in recent years, an in*estment that #its inwell with the Nla"imirQ 8utin "octrine o# tryin& to restore ussian pri"e throu&h capacity. Manne" spaceight and exploration are one of the last

remaining &elds in hich the "nited States maintains an undenia#le competitive advantage over other nations. $o !al# a!ayis shortsighted and irresponsible. Our global competitors have no intention of scaling bac# their

ambitions in space. 5ames A. Fewis with the -enter #or !trate&ic an" +nternational !tu"ies recently sai" that the Obama a"ministration<s proposal is 7a

con#irmation o# America<s "ecline. $he 2011 budget proposal &uarantees that the %nite" !tates will be &roun"e" #or the ne)t "eca"e !hile gambling all ofour exploration money on unproven research%and%development experiments. Althou&h + am an ar"ent supporter o# #e"eral Gin*estments, + belie*e it is unacceptable that the a"ministration woul" &amble our entire space e)ploration pro&ram #or the ne)t #i*e years on research. he "irty littlesecret o# this budget proposal is that it all but ensures that the United States !ill not have an exploration system for at leastt!o decades. $hat is a fundamental abdication of U.S. leadership in space R no matter how much the a"ministration tries to "ress it up.Our international competitors are not slowin& "own, an" neither shoul" we.

Failure o! American s#ace leadershi# allos China to overta'e the /S% threatens s#ace assets and miscalc

od, 234

(Alan, !enior $ellow o# the $raser +nstitute, !urren"erin& Outer !pace,http://www.#raseramerica.or&/commerce.web/article_"etails.asp)Lpub+GTHDC3 Naccesse" H/1I/11Q;

7+ am concerne" that America"s real and #erceived leadershi# in the standing o! the orld"s s#ace%!aring nations

is sli##ing aay, 4ri##in warns. @e worries that 7e ill !ace groing com#etition !rom the advancing Chineses#ace #rogram. he concerns are real. -hina con"ucte" its #irst spacewal in 200D. Accor"in& to 4ri##in, ei?in& plans to 7launch about 100 satellites o*er the

ne)t #i*e to ei&ht years. here is nothin& untowar" about this in an" o# itsel#. +t is only natural #or a state with a &rowin& economy an" &lobal interests to &ain a toehol"in space. hat is worrisome is how the -hinese are &oin& about this an" the prospect that the %.!. will be less able to eep a close eye on -hina<s celestial acti*ities.he 8enta&on estimate" -hina<s military=relate" spen"in& last year at B10C billion to B1C0 billion an" has note" that 7-hina has accor"e" space a hi&h priority #orin*estment. $or e)ample: +n 200E, -hina "eploye" its #irst lunar orbiter. hat same year, ei?in& also teste" a "irect=ascent anti=satellite (A!A; missile a&ainst one o#its own satellites, "emonstratin& its ability to attac satellites in low=earth orbit. +n a""ition to the "irect=ascent A!A pro&ram, the 8enta&on reporte" in its annualreport to -on&ress on -hina<s military power, that ei?in& is 7"e*elopin& other technolo&ies an" concepts #or inetic (hit=to=ill; weapons an" "irecte"=ener&y (e.&.,lasers an" ra"io #re>uency; weapons #or A!A missions. -hina is buil"in& up its capacity to ?am satellite communications an" 48! recei*ers, which are crucial to %.!.commerce an" security. A 200D 8enta&on report >uotes -hinese military planners as openly en*isionin& a 7space shoc an" awe strie . . . NtoQ shae the structure o# theopponent<s operational system o# or&ani'ation an" . . . create hu&e psycholo&ical impact on the opponent<s policymaers. he 8enta&on note" in 200I that -hinesemilitary 7writin&s emphasi'e the necessity o# K"estroyin&, "ama&in&, an" inter#erin& with the enemy<s reconnaissance/obser*ation an" communications satellites,<su&&estin& that such systems, as well as na*i&ation an" early warnin& satellites, coul" be amon& initial tar&ets o# attac to Kblin" an" "ea#en the enemy.< 7-hina is"e*elopin& a multi="imensional pro&ram to limit or pre*ent the use o# space=base" assets by its potential a"*ersaries "urin& times o# crisis or con#lict, accor"in& to the

http://culberson.house.gov/space-news-frank-wolf-dont-forsake-u-s-leadership-in-space/


http://www.fraseramerica.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=6853






Ge#ense Gepartment. China is develo#ing microsatellites, which cost a #raction o# what a normal satellite costs an"can be used #or a ran&e o# passi*e, beni&n operations or to attac', disable, and 'ill other satellites. 7ith a

microsat you can &o close enou&h to other spacecra#ts in or"er to repair them, but also to sabota&e them, physicist Faura 4re&o tol" the - in 200E. Microsatellitescan sha"ow their prey #or months or years be#ore attacin&. ith plans to be&in "eployin& elements o# a manne" space station ne)t year, -hina<s &oal is to con"uct alunar lan"in& by 2020. @ow ironic: 5ust as the communist nation be&ins to leap towar" the moon, earth<s #irst emissary to the moon surren"ers the hi&h &roun". >uallyworrisome is the opa>ue manner in which -hina con"ucts military operations, as e*i"ence" by the unannounce" A!A test in 200E. -artwri&ht sai" that test ha"

pro"uce" "an&erous "ebris that coul" potentially harm billion="ollar e>uipment an" astronauts. 7he lac' o! trans#arency in China"s

military and security a!!airs #oses ris's to stability by increasing the #otential !or misunderstanding and

miscalculation, the 8enta&on note" last year. +t ominously a""e", 7his situation will naturally an" un"erstan"ably lea" to he"&in& a&ainst the unnown.

Cutting Constellation crushes /S s#ace leadershi# hich 'ills Heg

Olson, 11 ($ebruary 2011, 8ete Olson is a con&ressman, 7Fetter to @ouse Appropriations, accesse" 5une 2 th,<11, http://olson.house.&o*/in"e).c#mLsectioni"T1Hparenti"T13sectiontreeT13itemi"T2HD, !;

!ince that historic speech, the %nite" !tates ma"e the commitment an" we became the &lobal lea"er in human space#li&ht. America not only put the #irst man on themoon, but also ma"e technolo&ical a"*ancements that ha*e impro*e" our e*ery"ay li*es. he economic, scienti#ic an" technolo&ical returns o# space e)ploration ha*e#ar e)cee"e" our nation<s in*estment. arth obser*ations throu&h space e)ploration ha*e pro*i"e" 4.8.!., meteorolo&ical #orecasts, pre"ictions an" mana&ement o#hurricanes an" other natural "isasters, as well as sur*eillance an" intelli&ence. !atellite communications ha*e chan&e" how we li*e throu&h computer operations, cell

phones, an" tele*ision. he /nited States global su#eriority de#ends u#on a vital human s#ace !light #rogram$ $or

the last C0 years, e have been the orld leader economically, militarily, and scienti!ically$ Our nation !orged

#aths that ere #reviously unimaginable throu&h our willin&ness to mae the in*estments an" tae the riss re>uire" to be the best. America

pri"es itsel# on this ability an" we ha*e seen many &reat accomplishments as a result o# this commitment. he A"ministrationUs $iscal 9ear 2011 bu"&et will shut "own

AmericaUs ability to continue human space #li&ht by illin& the -onstellation pro&ram within A!A. Constellation is the best o#tion to &et to the

Moon an" beyon". he Moon shoul" be our #irst "estination so that we can "e*elop the e)pertise an" systems necessary to &o e*en #urther. 9et the A"ministration<sown Au&ustine report state" that, 7here is now a stron& consensus in the %nite" !tates that the ne)t step in human space#li&ht is to tra*el beyon" low=arth orbit. +t isabsur" to aban"on the only pro&ram "esi&ne" #or operations beyon" low earth orbit. -ommercial operations, while important, still set the %nite" !tates bac "eca"eswith respect to human space #li&ht. hey ha*e no pro*en trac recor" in this arena. @uman space #li&ht is enormously comple) an" the costs cannot be un"erestimate"

#rom a sa#ety stan"point$ NASA has -. years o! ex#erience and the trac' record to continue these o#erations, not

start !rom scratch$ 5! the /nited States abandons human s#ace !light e are, ithout 6uestion, #lacing

America in the second tier at most ith all other nations$

S#ace ill be the next battle!ield o! the 21st century% delays in American s#ace !light colla#se leadershi#,

endangers s#ace assets and national security

od, 234

(Alan, !enior $ellow o# the $raser +nstitute, !urren"erin& Outer !pace,http://www.#raseramerica.or&/commerce.web/article_"etails.asp)Lpub+GTHDC3 Naccesse" H/1I/11Q;5n the second ar o! the 21st century, hich looms somehere beyond the War on error, s#ace itsel!

could become the battle!ield. 7e now #rom history that e*ery me"ium R air, lan" an" sea R has seen con#lict, the -ommission to Assess %nite"

!tates ational !ecurity !pace Mana&ement an" Or&ani'ation conclu"e" in 2001. 70eality indicates that s#ace ill be no di!!erent. he

commission<s chairman, Gonal" ums#el", ar&ue", 7&ore than any other country, the /nited States relies on s#ace !or its

security and ell%being. %n"erscorin& this assertion, the %nite" !tates has more satellites than the combine" total o# the rest o# the worl", as A8 has

reporte". @owe*er, America<s comman" o# the ultimate hi&h &roun" is increasin&ly precarious. he ashin&ton 8ost reports that in the past "eca"e ussia has put more

satellites into space than has the %.!. +n #act, C3 %.!.=built satellites were launche" in 200E, "own #rom 121 in 1IID (Marc au#man, 7%.!. #in"s it<s &ettin& crow"e"out there, Washington Post (5uly I, 200D;;. Moreo*er, many other nations are plantin& their banners in spaceV -hina is the most acti*e newcomer. he uropeans are

poolin& their resources to "eploy e*ermore sophisticate" space assets. Accor"in& to the ashin&ton 8ost, 5apan is committe" to usin& space assets to buttress itsnational "e#enseV +n"ia recently launche" ten satellites on ?ust one rocetV an" ra'il, +srael, !in&apore, an" a &rowin& list o# other nations are "eployin& a ran&e o#space assets. hat list inclu"es +ran, which has plans to put #i*e satellites into orbit by 2010. o be sure, much o# this acti*ity is ci*ilian, but e*en ci*ilian satellites can

be "i*erte" #or military uses. +n 1II1, #or instance, the %.!. military 7procure" commercial remote sensin& ima&ery #rom a non=%.!. company "urin& Gesert !torm(Guane 8. An"rews, et al., 7-ommission to Assess %nite" !tates ational !ecurity !pace Mana&ement an" Or&ani'ation, (5anuary 11, 2001;. Fiewise, the 8enta&on

pai" #irms #or e)clusi*e control o*er satellite ima&ery "urin& the war in A#&hanistan, thereby "epri*in& the enemy o# in#ormation. Accor"in& to 4eneral 5ames-artwri&ht, *ice chairman o# the 5oint -hie#s o# !ta##, 7+ntentional inter#erence with space=base" intelli&ence, sur*eillance, reconnaissance, na*i&ation an"

communication satellites, while not routine, now occurs with some re&ularity. @e warne" the !enate Arme" !er*ices -ommittee in 200E that America"s

)increasing a##etite !or s#ace%based technical solutions $ $ $ could become our Sord o! amocles $ +n"ee", the

ability to attac %.!. space assets is no lon&er limite" to a select club o# military powers. Anti=satellite weapons, satellite=?ammin& e>uipment, an" microsatellites areine)pensi*e an" increasin&ly accessible on the &lobal maret. 7o minimi'e the threat to our space capabilities now an" in the #uture, -artwri&ht has ar&ue", 7we nee"continue" support o# pro&rams that enhance our space situational awareness, space protection capabilities, an" satellite operations in or"er to preser*e un#ettere",reliable, an" secure access to space. -i*ilian pro&rams must be *iewe" as part o# this mi). +t pays to recall that many shuttle missions ha*e been strictly military





missions, some o# them hi&hly classi#ie". +n"ee", the lin between manne" space#li&ht, national security, an" satellites shoul" not be brushe" asi"e. he space shuttle,a#ter all, is a manne" satellite, per#ormin& #unctions, &atherin& in#ormation an" con"uctin& operations (such as rescue, repair, an" e)perimentation; that unmanne"satellites cannot. +t<s har" to ima&ine that, "urin& the #i*e=year &ap without a shuttle, the %.!. will be better ser*e" by unmanne" satellites an" ussian=pilote" rocets

than by America<s best an" bri&htest "eployin& into space on American *essels. 7ust as the /nited States relies on s#ace, much o! the

orld relies on the /nited States to ensure the unencumbered use o! s#ace. 8rotecting what Ge#ense !ecretary ober

4ates has calle" 7the 21st century"s global commons + in #articular, s#ace and cybers#ace* is America"s duty,

(ust as #rotecting the sea lanes !ell to America a!ter World War 55. 9ut can America de!end the heavens

ithout the ca#acity to deliver its on into s#aceL e will soon #in" out, because other countries ill not stand still

hile America regrou#s$

he loss o! constellation"s drain on scienti!ic leadershi# (eo#ardies the War on terror and hegemony

8aarlberg ; (obert 8aarlber& is a political science pro#essor at ellesley, accesse" 5une 2H th, 2011, nowle"&e as 8ower

!cience, Military Gominance, an" %.!. !ecurity, http://muse.?hu.e"u/?ournals/international_security/*02I/2I.1paarlber&.htmlWauthbio, !;

&ilitary #rimacy today rests on scienti!ic #rimacy, an" the scienti#ic primacy o# the %nite" !tates rests on a remarably "urable

#oun"ation. ather than threatenin& %.!. primacy in science, &lobali'ation has stren&thene" it. 9et science=base" military primacy on the battle#iel" is clearly not a&uarantee o# security. Getermine" a"*ersaries can inno*ate increasin&ly asymmetric tactics a&ainst an en"less list o# so#t tar&ets, an" the more "omination an"resentment they #eel un"er %.!. con*entional military he&emony, the more incenti*e they will ha*e to mo*e towar" these uncon*entional responses. -on*entional

*ictories that mae new enemies may encoura&e a "an&erous shi#t towar" asymmetry, an" i! the /nited States then res#onds by

indiscriminately denying !oreigners access to the homeland, /$S$ #rimacy in science could itsel! be

critically ea'ened$ he ar against international terror should be !ought ith science , rather than at the e)pense o#

science. he homelan" security strate&y o# the %nite" !tates shoul" inclu"e much lar&er science in*estments in "isciplines such as chemistry, physics, biotechnolo&y,nanotechnolo&y, an" in#ormation technolo&y, where promisin& new counterterror applications are sure to be #oun". !mart societies can "e*elop not only smart newweapons #or con*entional use abroa", but also smart new capabilities #or threat "etection an" so#t tar&et protection Nn" 8a&e 1C0Q at home. $or e)ample,nano#abrication may hol" the ey to a timely "etection system #or some terror bombin& threats. !ilicon polymer nanowires 2,000 times thinner than a human hair cancheaply "etect traces o# an" piric aci" in both water an" air, an" mi&ht some"ay be "e*elope" an" "eploye" into XsmartX car&o containers, to protect a&ainst

terrorist bombs. ew in#ormation technolo&ies usin& powerhouse terascale com#uting ca#abilities may soon be able to hel# in

trac'ing and antici#ating the behavior o! terror netor's.I0 Ne systems ca#able o! detecting dangerous

amounts o! radiation are increasingly a!!ordable and unobtrusive , an" the Gepartment o# @omelan" !ecurity has propose"

"e*elopment o# a #ully networe" national sensor system to monitor the air continuously #or patho&ens, "an&erous chemicals, an" other public ha'ar"s. One line o#"e#ense alrea"y in place in thirty cities is a Fawrence Fi*ermore ational Faboratory="esi&ne" system #or monitorin& the air #or biolo&ical attac.

<00O05S& CA/S<S <=5NC5ON

Alexander 2..> (9onah pro# an" "ir. o# +nter=%ni*ersity #or errorism !tu"ies, ashin&ton imes, Au&ust 2D;

?ast ee'@s brutal suici"e bombin&s in a&h"a" an" 5erusalem ha*e once again illustrate" "ramatically that the international community !ailed,thus #ar at least, to understand the magnitude and im#lications o! the terrorist threats to the very survival

o! civiliation itsel#. *en the %nite" !tates an" +srael ha*e #or "eca"es ten"e" to re&ar" terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical

strate&ic challen&e to their national security concerns. +t is not surprisin&, there#ore, that on !eptember 11, 2001, Americans were stunne" by the unprece"ente" tra&e"yo# 1I al 6ae"a terrorists striin& a "e*astatin& blow at the center o# the nationUs commercial an" military powers. Fiewise, +srael an" its citi'ens, "espite the collapse o# the Oslo A&reements o# 1II3 an" numerous acts o# terrorism tri&&ere" by the secon" inti#a"a that be&an almost three years a&o, are still Xshoce"X by each suici"eattac at a time o# intensi*e "iplomatic e##orts to re*i*e the moribun" peace process throu&h the now re*oe" cease=#ire arran&ements Nhu"naQ. hy are the %nite"!tates an" +srael, as well as scores o# other countries a##ecte" by the uni*ersal ni&htmare o# mo"ern terrorism surprise" by new terrorist XsurprisesXL here are manyreasons, inclu"in& misun"erstan"in& o# the mani#ol" speci#ic #actors that contribute to terrorismUs e)pansion, such as lac o# a uni*ersal "e#inition o# terrorism, thereli&ioni'ation o# politics, "ouble stan"ar"s o# morality, wea punishment o# terrorists, an" the e)ploitation o# the me"ia by terrorist propa&an"a an" psycholo&icalwar#are. %nlie their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists ha*e intro"uce" a new scale o# *iolence in terms o# con*entional an" uncon*entional threats an"

impact. he internationaliation and brutaliation o! current an" #uture terrorism ma'e it clear e have

entered an Age o! Su#er errorism Ne.&. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber ith itsserious im#lications concerning national, re&ional an" global security concerns.

/$S$ithdraal ould leave behind a #oer vacuum, s#urring terrorism, economic turmoil and multi#le

nuclear ars$

iall Ferguson, 5uly/Au&ust 2004 7A orl" ithout 8ower, $O+4 8OF+-9 +ssue 13

!o what is le#tL Waning em#ires$ 0eligious revivals$ 5nci#ient anarchy. A comin& retreat into #orti#ie" cities. hese are the ar'

Age ex#eriences that a orld ithout a hy#er#oer might 6uic'ly !ind itsel! reliving . he trouble is, o# course, that

this Gar A&e woul" be an alto&ether more "an&erous one than the Gar A&e o# the ninth century. $or the worl" is much more populous=rou&hly 20 times more==so#riction between the worl"Us "isparate XtribesX is boun" to be more #re>uent. echnolo&y has trans#orme" pro"uctionV now human societies "epen" not merely on



#reshwater an" the har*est but also on supplies o# #ossil #uels that are nown to be #inite. echnolo&y has up&ra"e" "estruction, too, so it is now possible not ?ust to sac a city but to obliterate it. $or more than two "eca"es, &lobali'ation==the inte&ration o# worl" marets #or commo"ities, labor, an" capital==has raise" li*in& stan"ar"s

throu&hout the worl", e)cept where countries ha*e shut themsel*es o## #rom the process throu&h tyranny or ci*il war. he reversal o! globaliation%%

hich a ne ar' Age ould #roduce%%ould certainly lead to economic stagnation and even de#ression. As the %nite" !tates sou&ht to protect itsel# a#ter a secon" !eptember 11 "e*astates, say, @ouston or -hica&o, it woul" ine*itably become a less open society, lesshospitable #or #orei&ners seein& to wor, *isit, or "o business. Meanwhile, as uropeUs Muslim encla*es &rew, +slamist e)tremistsU in#iltration o# the % woul" becomeirre*ersible, increasin& trans=Atlantic tensions o*er the Mi""le ast to the breain& point. An economic melt"own in -hina woul" plun&e the -ommunist system intocrisis, unleashin& the centri#u&al #orces that un"ermine" pre*ious -hinese empires. estern in*estors woul" lose out an" conclu"e that lower returns at home are

pre#erable to the riss o# "e#ault abroa". he worst e##ects o# the new Gar A&e woul" be #elt on the e"&es o# the wanin& &reat powers. he wealthiest ports o# the&lobal economy==#rom ew 9or to otter"am to !han&hai==woul" become the tar&ets o# plun"erers an" pirates. ith ease, terrorists coul" "isrupt the #ree"om o# theseas, tar&etin& oil taners, aircra#t carriers, an" cruise liners, while estern nations #rantically concentrate" on main& their airports secure. Meanwhile, limite"

nuclear ars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the 3orean #eninsula and 3ashmir , perhaps ending catastro#hically in the &iddle <ast. +n Fatin America, wretche"ly poor citi'ens woul" see solace in *an&elical -hristianity importe"

by %.!. reli&ious or"ers. +n A#rica, the &reat pla&ues o# ai"s an" malaria woul" continue their "ea"ly wor. he #ew remainin& sol*ent airlines woul" simply suspen"ser*ices to many cities in these continentsV who woul" wish to lea*e their pri*ately &uar"e" sa#e ha*ens to &o thereL $or all these reasons, the prospect o# an apolar

worl" shoul" #ri&hten us to"ay a &reat "eal more than it #ri&htene" the heirs o# -harlema&ne. 5! the /nited States retreats !rom global

hegemony==its #ra&ile sel#=ima&e "ente" by minor setbacs on the imperial #rontier==its critics at home an" abroa" must not preten" that they are usherin& in a new

era o# multipolar harmony, or e*en a return to the &oo" ol" balance o# power. e care#ul what you wish #or. he alternati*e to unipolarity woul" not be multipolarity at

all. 5t ould be a#olarity%%a global vacuum o! #oer$ And !ar more dangerous !orces than rival great

#oers ould bene!it !rom such a not%so%ne orld disorder.

Nuclear terrorism is an existential threat+it escalates to nuclear ar ith 0ussia and China$

Ayson B%B%2.1.

Nobert Ayson, 8ro#essor o# !trate&ic !tu"ies an" Girector o# the -entre #or !trate&ic !tu"ies: ew Yealan" at the ictoria %ni*ersity o# ellin&ton, 2010, 7A#ter a errorist uclear Attac:n*isa&in& -atalytic ##ects, !tu"ies in -on#lict errorism, olume 33, +ssue E, 5uly, A*ailable Online to !ubscribin& +nstitutions *ia +n#ormaorl"Qut these two nuclear worl"sRa non=state actor nuclear attac an" a catastrophic interstate nuclear e)chan&eRare not necessarily separable. +t is ?ust possible that some sort o# terrorist attac, an" especially an act o# nuclear terrorism, could #reci#itate a chain o! events leading to a massive exchange o! nuclear ea#ons

beteen to or more o! the states that #ossess them. +n this conte)t, to"ay<s an" tomorrow<s terrorist &roups mi&ht assume the place allotte" "urin&

the early -ol" ar years to new state possessors o# small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raisin& the riss o# a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers starte" by thir" parties. heseriss were consi"ere" in the late 1IC0s an" early 1IH0s as concerns &rew about nuclear proli#eration, the so=calle" nZ1 problem. +t may re>uire a consi"erable amount o# ima&ination to "epictan especially plausible situation where an act o# nuclear terrorism coul" lea" to such a massi*e inter=state nuclear war. $or e)ample, in the e*ent o# a terrorist nuclear attac on the %nite"!tates, it mi&ht well be won"ere" ?ust how ussia an"/or -hina coul" plausibly be brou&ht into the picture, not least because they seem unliely to be #in&ere" as the most ob*ious statesponsors or encoura&ers o# terrorist &roups. hey woul" seem #ar too responsible to be in*ol*e" in supportin& that sort o# terrorist beha*ior that coul" ?ust as easily threaten them as well. !ome possibilities, howe*er remote, "o su&&est themsel*es. $or e)ample, how mi&ht the %nite" !tates react i# it was thou&ht or "isco*ere" that the #issile material use" in the act o# nuclear terrorismha" come #rom ussian stocs,0 an" i# #or some reason Moscow "enie" any responsibility #or nuclear la)ityL he correct attribution o# that nuclear material to a particular country mi&ht not be a case o# science #iction &i*en the obser*ation by Michael May et al. that while the "ebris resultin& #rom a nuclear e)plosion woul" be 7sprea" o*er a wi"e area in tiny #ra&ments, itsra"ioacti*ity maes it "etectable, i"enti#iable an" collectable, an" a wealth o# in#ormation can be obtaine" #rom its analysis: the e##iciency o# the e)plosion, the materials use" an", most

important S some in"ication o# where the nuclear material came #rom.1 Alternati*ely, i# the act o# nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, an" American o##icials re#use" to belie*e that a terrorist &roup was #ully responsible (or responsible at all; suspicion woul" shi#t imme"iately to state possessors. ulin& out estern ally countries liethe %nite" in&"om an" $rance, an" probably +srael an" +n"ia as well, authorities in ashin&ton woul" be le#t with a *ery short list consistin& o# orth orea, perhaps+ran i# its pro&ram continues, an" possibly 8aistan. ut at what sta&e woul" ussia an" -hina be "e#initely rule" out in this hi&h staes &ame o# nuclear -lue"oL +n

particular, i# the act o! nuclear terrorism occurred against a bac'dro# o! existing tension in Washington"s

relations ith 0ussia andor Chin a, an" at a time when threats ha" alrea"y been tra"e" between these ma?or powers, ould o!!icials and #olitical leaders not be tem#ted to assume the orst L O# course, the chances o# this occurrin&

woul" only seem to increase i# the %nite" !tates was alrea"y in*ol*e" in some sort o# limite" arme" con#lict with ussia an"/or -hina, or i# they were con#rontin& each other #rom a "istance in

a pro)y war, as unliely as these "e*elopments may seem at the present time. he re*erse mi&ht well apply too: shoul" a nuclear terrorist attac occur in ussia or -hina "urin& a perio" o# hei&htene" tension or e*en limite" con#lict with the %nite" !tates, coul" Moscow an" ei?in& resist the pressures that mi&ht rise "omestically to consi"er the%nite" !tates as a possible perpetrator or encoura&er o# the attacL ashin&ton<s early response to a terrorist nuclear attac on its own soil mi&ht also raise the

possibility o# an unwante" (an" nuclear ai"e"; con#rontation with ussia an"/or -hina. $or e)ample, in the noise an" con#usion "urin& the imme"iate a#termath o# theterrorist nuclear attac, the %.!. presi"ent mi&ht be e)pecte" to place the country<s arme" #orces, inclu"in& its nuclear arsenal, on a hi&her sta&e o# alert. +n such a tenseen*ironment, when care#ul plannin& runs up a&ainst the #riction o# reality, it is ?ust possible that Moscow an"/or -hina mi&ht mistaenly rea" this as a si&n o# %.!.intentions to use #orce (an" possibly nuclear #orce; a&ainst them. +n that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions mi&ht &row, althou&h it must be a"mitte" thatany preemption woul" probably still meet with a "e*astatin& response. As part o# its initial response to the act o# nuclear terrorism (as "iscusse" earlier; Washington might decide to order a signi!icant con*entional (or nuclear; retaliatory or disarming attac'

against the leadershi# o! the terrorist grou# andor states seen to su##ort that grou#. Gepen"in& on the i"entity an"

especially the location o# these tar&ets, ussia an"/or -hina mi&ht interpret such action as bein& #ar too close #or their com#ort, an" potentially as an in#rin&ement on their spheres o# in#luencean" e*en on their so*erei&nty. One #ar=#etche" but perhaps not impossible scenario mi&ht stem #rom a ?u"&ment in ashin&ton that some o# the main ai"ers an" abetters o# the terrorist actionresi"e" somewhere such as -hechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the 7-hechen insur&ents< S lon&=stan"in& interest in all thin&s nuclear.2 American pressure on that part o# the worl" woul" almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that mi&ht re>uire a "e&ree o# a"*ance" consultation #rom ashin&ton that the latter #oun" itsel# unable or unwillin& to pro*i"e.

Existential impacts come first

BOSTROM ‘2, Philosophy Professor, Yale [Dr. Nick, Department of Philosophy @ Yale University "Existential Risks !nalyin# $%manExtinction &cenarios an' Relate' $aar's," Journal of Evolution and Technology, (ol. ) * +arch --, http///.0etpress.or#vol%me)risks.html 1

Existential risks are istinct from #lo2al enura!le risks" Examples of the latter kin' incl%'e threats to the 2io'iversity

of Earth3s ecosphere, mo'erate #lo2al /armin#, #lo2al economic recessions 4even ma0or ones5, an' possi2ly stiflin# c%lt%ral or reli#io%s eras s%ch as the6'ark a#es7, even if they encompass the /hole #lo2al comm%nity, provi'e' they are transitory 4tho%#h see the section on 6&hrieks7 2elo/5. 8o say that apartic%lar #lo2al risk is en'%ra2le is evi'ently not to say that it is accepta2le or not very serio%s. ! /orl' /ar fo%#ht /ith conventional /eapons or a

http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html

http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html



Nai*style Reich lastin# for a 'eca'e /o%l' 2e extremely horri2le events even tho%#h they /o%l' fall %n'er the r%2ric of en'%ra2le #lo2al risks sinceh%manity co%l' event%ally recover. 49n the other han', they co%l' 2e a local terminal risk for many in'ivi'%als an' for persec%te' ethnic #ro%ps.5 : shall%se the follo/in# 'efinition of existential risks Existential risk ; 9ne /here an a'verse o%tcome /o%l' either annihilate Earth*ori#inatin# intelli#ent lifeor permanently an' 'rastically c%rtail its potential. !n existential risk is one /here h%mankin' as a /hole is imperile'. Existential 'isasters have ma0ora'verse conse<%ences for the co%rse of h%man civiliation for all time to come. 8he %ni<%e challen#e of existential risks Risks in this sixth cate#oryare a recent phenomenon. 8his is part of the reason /hy it is %sef%l to 'istin#%ish them from other risks. =e have not evolve' mechanisms, either 2iolo#ically or c%lt%rally, for mana#in# s%ch risks. 9%r int%itions an' copin# strate#ies have 2een shape' 2y o%r lon# experience /ith risks s%ch as'an#ero%s animals, hostile in'ivi'%als or tri2es, poisono%s foo's, a%tomo2ile acci'ents, >herno2yl, ?hopal, volcano er%ptions, earth<%akes, 'ra%#hts, =orl' =ar :, =orl' =ar ::, epi'emics of infl%ena, smallpox, 2lack pla#%e, an' !:D&. 8hese types of 'isasters have occ%rre' many times an' o%rc%lt%ral attit%'es to/ar's risk have 2een shape' 2y trial*an'*error in mana#in# s%ch haar's. ?%t tra#ic as s%ch events are to the people imme'iatelyaffecte', in the 2i# pict%re of thin#s ; from the perspective of h%mankin' as a /hole ; even the /orst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on thes%rface of the #reat sea of life. 8hey haven3t si#nificantly affecte' the total amo%nt of h%man s%fferin# or happiness or 'etermine' the lon#*term fate of

o%r species. =ith the exception of a species*'estroyin# comet or asteroi' impact 4an extremely rare occ%rrence5, there /ere pro2a2ly no si#nificantexistential risks in h%man history %ntil the mi'*t/entieth cent%ry, an' certainly none that it /as /ithin o%r po/er to 'o somethin# a2o%t. 8he firstmanma'e existential risk /as the ina%#%ral 'etonation of an atomic 2om2. !t the time, there /as some concern that the explosion mi#ht start a r%na/aychain*reaction 2y 6i#nitin#7 the atmosphere. !ltho%#h /e no/ kno/ that s%ch an o%tcome /as physically impossi2le, it <%alifies as an existential riskthat /as present at the time. or there to 2e a risk, #iven the kno/le'#e an' %n'erstan'in# availa2le, it s%ffices that there is some s%20ective pro2a2ilityof an a'verse o%tcome, even if it later t%rns o%t that o20ectively there /as no chance of somethin# 2a' happenin#. :f /e 'on3t kno/ /hether somethin# iso20ectively risky or not, then it is risky in the s%20ective sense. 8he s%20ective sense is of co%rse /hat /e m%st 2ase o%r 'ecisions on.[1 !t any #iven time /e m%st %se o%r 2est c%rrent s%20ective estimate of /hat the o20ective risk factors are.[A1 ! m%ch #reater existential risk emer#e' /ith the 2%il'*%p ofn%clear arsenals in the U& an' the U&&R. !n all*o%t n%clear /ar /as a possi2ility /ith 2oth a s%2stantial pro2a2ility an' /ith conse<%ences that mi#hthave 2een persistent eno%#h to <%alify as #lo2al an' terminal. 8here /as a real /orry amon# those 2est ac<%ainte' /ith the information availa2le at thetime that a n%clear !rma#e''on /o%l' occ%r an' that it mi#ht annihilate o%r species or permanently 'estroy h%man civiliation.[B1 R%ssia an' the U&retain lar#e n%clear arsenals that co%l' 2e %se' in a f%t%re confrontation, either acci'entally or 'eli2erately. 8here is also a risk that other states may one'ay 2%il' %p lar#e n%clear arsenals. Note ho/ever that a smaller n%clear exchan#e, 2et/een :n'ia an' Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk,since it /o%l' not 'estroy or th/art h%mankin'3s potential permanently. &%ch a /ar mi#ht ho/ever 2e a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to 2etar#ete'. Unfort%nately, /e shall see that n%clear !rma#e''on an' comet or asteroi' strikes are mere prel%'es to the existential risks that /e /ill

enco%nter in the Cst cent%ry. 8he special nat%re of the challen#es pose' 2y existential risks is ill%strate' 2y the follo/in# points Our

approac# to existential risks cannot !e one of trial$an$error" T#ere is no opportunit% to learnfrom errors" 8he reactive approach ; see /hat happens, limit 'ama#es, an' learn from experience ; is %n/orka2le. Rather, &e must takea proacti'e approac#" T#is re(uires foresig#t to anticipate ne& t%pes of t#reats an a

&illingness to take ecisi'e pre'enti'e action an to !ear t#e costs 4moral an' economic5 of s%ch actions. =ecannot necessarily rely on the instit%tions, moral norms, social attit%'es or national sec%rity policies that 'evelope' from o%r experience /ith mana#in#other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a 'ifferent kin' of 2east. =e mi#ht fin' it har' to take them as serio%sly as /e sho%l' simply 2eca%se /e havenever yet /itnesse' s%ch 'isasters.[1 9%r collective fear*response is likely ill cali2rate' to the ma#nit%'e of threat. Re'%ctions in existential risks are#lo2al p%2lic #oo's [CA1 an' may therefore 2e %n'ers%pplie' 2y the market [CB1. Existential risks are a menace for every2o'y an' may re<%ire actin# onthe international plane. Respect for national soverei#nty is not a le#itimate exc%se for failin# to take co%ntermeas%res a#ainst a ma0or existential risk.

)f &e take into account t#e &elfare of future generations, t#e #arm one !% existential risks ismultiplie !% anot#er factor, the sie of /hich 'epen's on /hether an' ho/ m%ch /e 'isco%nt f%t%re 2enefits [C,CF1.



Advantage 2: Cash 0ules <verything Around &e

Funding NASA is critical to the American economy

Slaer 11($ran, +- 8!+G O$ !8A- !9!M! $O @ AO!8A- +G%!+! A!!O-+A+O, !A -OMM+O -OMM-, !-+- AG A!8OA+O, !%-OMM+ O !-+- AG !8A-, -ommittee @earin&s,!. +FF F!O @OFG! A @A+4 O -O+%+O! O$ !8A- O A+OAF +M8A+! May 1D;

A robust and sustainable s#ace ex#loration #rogram is essential to building our !uture economy $ A5A believesthat the !undamental driver o! economic groth since the 14D.s has been our nation@s investments in

s#ace %"ri*en technolo&y an" inspiration. +n #act, to"ay a number o# new commercial space systems are bein& "e*elope" by entrepreneurs who ha*e ma"e their

#ortunes in in#ormation technolo&y or other #iel"s, but whose intellectual "e*elopment was inspire" "urin& the Apollo era. +n conclusion, the %.!. space pro&ram is at a

critical ?uncture. hile cuttin& the #e"eral "e#icit is essential #or our economic #uture, cutting bac' on s#ace investments is a penny=wise but

poun"= !oolish a##roach that ould have an in!initesimal im#act on the de!icit , e*en as an emer&in& worl" powers are

&rowin& their space capabilities. +nstea" o# the embarrassin& situation o# buyin& crew launches #rom ussia C0 years a#ter our #irst manne" space #li&ht, our nationUs#uture will hope#ully inclu"e one or more commercially "e*elope" American crew *ehicles supportin& the international space station, an" possibly new commercialspace stations, alon& with a robust A!A multipurpose crew e)ploration *ehicle an" a hea*y li#t launch system #or missions o# e)ploration beyon" earth orbit. ut this bri&ht an" inspirin& !uture is de#endent on our nation continuing to ma'e the investments necessary to lead

in s#ace$

<conomic decline causes nuclear and biological ar

3er#en, E P -onser*ati*e policy analyst in ashin&ton, G.-.N7$rom 8anic to GepressionL, O $inancial, http://article.nationalre*iew.com/3EHHC/#rom=panic=to="epression/phil=erpenQ5t"s im#ortant that e avoid all these #olicy errors R not ?ust !or the sa'e o! our prosperity, but #or our survival. he

Great e#ression, a#ter all, didn"t end until the a"*ent o# World War 55, the most destructive ar in the history o!

the #lanet. 5n a orld o! nuclear and biolo&ical ea#ons and non%state terrorist organiations that breed

on #overty an" "espair, another global economic brea'don o! such extended duration ould ris' armed

con!licts on an e*en greater scale.

Constellation"s death destroyed morale and (obs it a!!ected the national economy

Har#er 11 N-harlie @arper, columnist #or -ourier @eral". -ourier @eral", 5an 2D 2011: 7A !putni, A

-hallen&er, an" A Missin& -onstellation accesse" 5une 2, 2011 #romhttp://www.peachpun"it.com/2011/01/2D/a=sputni=a=challen&er=an"=a=missin&=constellation/QAs is sometimes my custom on $ri"ays, +<m &oin& to stray a bit #rom 4eor&ia politics to tal about an issue o# national politics, economics, an" the spirit o# our nationas a whole. he &reatest technolo&ical inno*ations o# the last hal# century ha*e their roots in our space pro&ram, yet as we mo*e #orwar" into this new millennium, the

thou&ht we seem to put into A!A seems rele&ate" to @ollywoo" mo*ie sets rather than the a"*ancements in science this a&ency has accomplishe" #or us . At !tate O#

he %nion a""ress ues"ay e*enin&, 8resi"ent Obama calle" #or the nation to reali'e that our &eneration was ha*in& our 7!putni moment to "escribe our muchnee"e" mo*e to alternati*e ener&y sources. 9et "espite the acnowle"&ement an" enthusiasm most o# us ha*e #or the #rontier o# &reen ener&y, + thin most o# us woul"a&ree that the !putni re#erence was a la'y appeal to hi&h min"e" rhetoric, which has essentially been Obama<s relationship with our nation<s space a&ency. henObama was still presi"ent elect, the relations were so ba" with the incomin& a"ministration that the A!A a"ministrator re#use" to meet with Obama<s transition team.

One o! the ne 8resident"s !irst acts as to cancel George 9ush"s Constellation #rogram, ith the intent

to revisit the moon, then go on to &ars ith manned s#ace !light$ Only when simultaneously pushin& #or 7sho*el rea"y pro?ects

#or his stimulus pro&ram, an" reali'in& he was about to put 30,000 people out o# wor in electoral rich $lori"a, "i" Obama conce"e an" sa*e #ace by "eterminin& thatwe<*e been to the moon an" sent a ro*er to Mars, so we shoul" "o somethin& "i##erent: e shoul" put a man on an asteroi". he speech, which + watche" li*e, ha" therhetorical #lourish o# a mi""le school stu"ent who ha" to &i*e an oral report on a "ay he #or&et his homewor. + ha" the "istinct pleasure this year o# atten"in& A!A<s

on roun "inner at Marshall !pace -enter in @unts*ille, Alabama. +t is an e*ent similar to A!A<s emmy<s, where those who ha*e pioneere" space #li&ht honor theirown annually. e#ore an" a#ter, + was able to mi) an" min&le with some o# our country<s ori&inal rocet scientists. hey came to the a&ency as youn& men "urin& theH0<s, when !putni was still a #ear, an" walin& on the moon still a "ream. @a*in& ha" the pri*ile&e o# worin& with some o# A!A<s employees, + can tell you they"on<t #it the &o*ernment employee stereotype. hey un"erstan" they are on a mission, with apolo&ies to ir, to &o where no man has &one be#ore. An" they tae it

seriously, with a wor ethic that "emonstrates this. 9et, in the wae o# the 7"o& ate my homewor *ision by this presi"ent, remar's !rom the lectern

ere less than celebratory$ hey ere donright de#ressing, including: )INASA em#loyeesJ are ready to

go, e (ust need to turn them loose*K )5 am embarrassed by hat 5 see*K )he administration and

Congress have !ailed us*K and )We are (ust standing by and mar'ing time$* wenty #i*e years a&o to"ay, + stoo" in my

#ather<s store, o## #rom school because o# snow an" bitter col", an" learne" that the !pace !huttle -hallen&er ha" e)plo"e" on li#to##, illin& all aboar". +t was a truenational tra&e"y, yet one that rea##irme" our commitment to space e)ploration. o"ay, + sit with echoes o# a 8resi"ent speain& o# a !putni moment, yet with the#eelin& that !putni is ?ust a wor", #ille" with empty rhetoric, bace" with neither *ision nor action. America has a relati*ely short, yet honestly prou" tra"ition o# spacee)ploration. he employees o# A!A are amon& our nation<s most committe" an" loyal in &o*ernment ser*ice. hey "eser*e, an" ha*e earne", the ri&ht to be morethan a presi"ent<s empty rhetorical #lourish. +t<s not ?ust America that nee"s a !putni moment. +t appears our presi"ent can use one too.

http://www.peachpundit.com/2011/01/28/a-sputnik-a-challenger-and-a-missing-constellation/

http://www.peachpundit.com/2011/01/28/a-sputnik-a-challenger-and-a-missing-constellation/



American em#loyment is 'ey to the orld economy: Obama Agrees

rica Werner, o*ember 20th, 2.1., http://www."eseretnews.com/article/E000D023D/Obama=!tron&=%!=economy=ey=to=&lobal=reco*ery.html

8resident 9arac' Obama said a strong, (ob%creating economy in the /nited States ould be the country@s

most im#ortant contribution to a global recovery as he pleaded ith orld leaders to or$ together despite sharp di'erences. Arriving in South

(orea on )ednesday for the G*+ summit, %#ama is expected to #e on the defensive #ecause of plans #y the -ederal eserve to #uy /0 #illion in long*term government #ondsto try to drive don interest rates, spur lending and #oost the ".S. economy. Some other nations complain that the move ill give American goods an unfair advantage. 1n a letter

sent Tuesday to leaders of the Group of + ma2or economic poers, %#ama defended the steps his administration and 3ongress have ta$en to help the economy. 4he

/nited States ill do its #art to restore strong groth, reduce economic imbalances and calm mar'ets,& he

rote. LA strong recovery that creates (obs, income and s#ending is the most im#ortant contribution the/nited States can ma'e to the global recovery$L

Global <conomic colla#se causes neocolonial nuclear ar

?eis 4, (-hris @., en*ironmental historian, %ni*ersity o# -olora"o=oul"er;, @ -OM+4 A4 O$!-A-+9, 1IID, p. CH AG: E=E=0I -!

Most critics woul" ar&ue, probably correctly, that instead o! alloing un"er"e*elope" countries to ithdra !rom the global

economy and undermine the economies o! the develo#ed orld, the /nited States, <uro#e, 7a#an, and

others ill !ight neocolonial ars to !orce these countries to remain ithin this colla#sing global economy$

hese neocolonial ars ill result in mass death, su!!ering, and e*en re&ional nuclear ars. +# $irst orl" countries

choose military con#rontation an" political repression to maintain the &lobal economy, then e may see mass death and genocide on a

global scale that ill ma'e the deaths o! World War 55 #ale in com#arison . @owe*er, these neocolonial wars, #ou&ht to

maintain the "e*elope" nationsU economic an" political he&emony, will cause the #inal collapse o# our &lobal in"ustrial ci*ili'ation. hese wars will so "ama&e thecomple) economic an" tra"in& networs an" s>uan"er material, biolo&ical, an" ener&y resources that they will un"ermine the &lobal economy an" its ability to support

the earthUs D to billion #eo#le$ his woul" be the worst=case scenario #or the collapse o# &lobal ci*ili'ation.

8lan: he /nited States !ederal government ill ex#lore and develo# outer s#ace by reim#lementing the

Constellation 8rogram$



Solvency: Hit the 0eset button

8lan #rovides the budgetary bac'ing to ensure Constellations success hile maintaining commercial

s#ace develo#ment

Chyba, 11(-hristopher, 8O$!!O O$ A!O8@9!+-! AG +A+OAF A$$A+! AG G+-O O$ @ 8+-O%+!+9U! 8O4AM O !-+- AG 4FOAF !-%+9, !A -OMM+ O -OMM-, !-+-AG A!8OA+O, !%-OMM+ O !-+- AG !8A-, -ommittee @earin&s, !. +FF F!O @OFG! A

@A+4 O -O+%+O! O$ !8A- O A+OAF +M8A+! May 1D;

he committee e)amine" A!AUs planne" architecture o# the Constellation 8rogram an" conclu"e" that itcould not be executed !or reasons that ere #rimarily budgetary. he committee consi"ere" a *ariety o# alternati*es. $i*e

principle == #our (ph; principle inte&rate" options were e*aluate" a&ainst 12 metrics inclu"in& science nowle"&e, technolo&y inno*ation, economic e)pansion,wor#orce impact, public en&a&ement an" mission sa#ety. ut no architecture woul" pro*i"e missions beyon" low arth orbit until close to 2030 un"er the $9 2010

bu"&et pro#ile. ut, + belie*e that the most important contribution o# our committeeUs report lies in the #ramewor it su&&este" #or thinin& about human space #li&ht.

$irst, the report emphasi'e" that the choice #acin& us is one o# &oals, not "estinations. he debate over human s#ace !light should not

begin as an argument over destination. $or e)ample, shoul" we &o bac to the Moon, or shoul" we &o toMarsL Framing the discussion this ay ris's choosing a destination and then searching !or reasons to

(usti!y that choice. he committee conclu"e" that human space #li&ht ser*es a *ariety o# national interests, certainly inspirin& the ne)t &eneration, #urtherin&

national security, "ri*in& technolo&y inno*ations an" other areas are amon& these. ut sen"in& human bein&s beyon" low arth orbit with the enormous e)pense an"lon& timelines that that entails, "oes not mae contributions to these areas that are so uni>ue or cost=e##ecti*e that the in themsel*es, ?usti#y the "ecision to &o beyon"low arth orbit. ather, sen"in& humans beyon" FO has as its #un"amental &oal, chartin& a path #or human e)pansion into the solar system. his &oal embraces the

+nternational !pace !tation as a means to an en", rather than a "estination that weU*e le#t behin". !econ", the report insists on scienti#ic inte&rity. @uman space #li&htshoul" not be ?usti#ie" with e)a&&erate" claims about its scienti#ic payo##. e li*e in a time o# e)traor"inary "isco*eries about space. eU*e learne" that early Mars ha"stan"in& li>ui" water on its sur#ace an" that the resultin& se"imentary rocs, which coul" retain recor"s o# early li#e on Mars are still accessible. eU*e learne" that thereare many other ocean worl"s in our solar system. he moons o# the outer planets that host li>ui" water oceans beneath their ice co*ers, oceans that are as bi& as ourown. eU*e learne" that other solar systems are common. An" weU*e learne" that most o# the mass ener&y o# the uni*erse is not ma"e up o# the in" o# matter weUre#amiliar with here on arth an" that we "onUt now >uite what this more e)otic mass ener&y is. @uman space #li&ht shoul" be an ally in an" certainly not a bu"&etaryopponent o#, these momentous "isco*eries. hir", the committeeUs report calle" #or the 4o*ernment !pace A&ency to concentrate on the har"est technical problemsassociate" with our &oals in space #li&ht. $or the rest, inclu"in& sen"in& astronauts into low arth orbit, the commercial sector shoul" play a bi&&er role. he

commercial sector shoul" #ill=in behin" A!A, while A!A spearhea"s e)ploration out into the solar system. An" #ourth, the committeeUs report note" that a#roblem !orever con!ronting NASA is that it seemingly can have either the budget to develo# a ne

human s#ace !light architecture, or it can have the budget !or ongoing astronaut o#erations, but not both.

o a##or" a ma?or new launch system, A!A has to stop #lyin&. his is the ultimate reason #or the upcomin& &ap in %.!. launch access to the +nternational !pace!tation. +n"ee", to "e*elop -onstellation, A!A ha" planne" both to stop #lyin& the shuttle an" to terminate the +nternational !pace !tation in 201H. he A!AAuthori'ation Act o# 2010, "eclares that the lon& term &oal o# the human space #li&ht an" e)ploration e##orts o# A!A shall be to e)pan" permanent human presence

beyon" low arth orbit. At this hi&hest le*el an" in many "etails as well, the 2010 Authori'ation Act is consistent with our committeeUs #ramewor. An important

ob?ecti*e i"enti#ie" by the Authori'ation Act, is to sustain the capability #or lon& "uration presence in low arth orbit an" throu&h assistin& an" enablin& an e)pan"e"commercial presence in an access to low arth orbit, as elements o# low arth orbit in#rastructure. here will always be ar&uments o*er relati*e an" absolute le*els o##un"in&, but the *ision in the Authori'ation ill o# FO becomin& an economic 'one sustaine" by &o*ernment acti*ities, but with increasin& commercial opportunities,

pro*i"es our best chance o# brin&in& costs "own an" creatin& a *ibrant human space #li&ht #uture in low arth orbit. eyon" FO, the 2010 Authori'ation Act calls on A!A to "e*elop a hea*y=li#t *ehicle to preser*e the nationUs core capabilities in space launch an" to pro*i"e a #inal bacup shoul" it be nee"e" #or car&o or crew"eli*ery to the +!!. e want to ensure that #un"in& to maintain this core capability "oes not pre*ent the "e*elopment o# a commercial ecosystem in FO that may be

our best lon&er term hope #or a robust human #uture in space. 5! there is one #lace here ne resources should be targeted to

mitigate NASA@s budget dilemma, it may be here $ o conclu"e, 0 years later, the "eca"e o# Apollo is still remembere" as A!AUs heroic

a&e. ut the A!A o# the heroic a&e was spen"in& almost B20 billion annually in $9 200I "ollars on human space #li&ht, not B10 billion. *i"ently weUre not &oin& tospen" B10 billion per year more #or human space #li&ht. Our committee ar&ue" that B3 billion per year more coul" enable e)ploration beyon" FO on a reasonable timescale. *i"ently that too is not &oin& to happen. An" i# not, then e)perience == our e)perience o# the last #our "eca"es shoul" triumph o*er hope an" we shoul" embracea mo"el "i##erent #rom the Apollo mo"el as we mo*e #orwar".

Government leadershi# and budget su##ort is essential to American s#ace dominanceCulbertson 11($ran -OMMAG O$ +A+OAF !8A- !A+O 8G++O 3 !A -OMM+ O -OMM-,!-+- AG A!8OA+O, !%-OMM+ O !-+- AG !8A-, -ommittee @earin&s, !. +FF F!O@OFG! A @A+4 O -O+%+O! O$ !8A- O A+OAF +M8A+! May 1D;

ut it will re>uire in the #uture, a robust system #or both resupply an" crew transport. e can "ebate the timetable we are on, the "etails o# who pro*i"es what, but in

the en", A!A an" the %.!. !pace +n"ustry are a&&ressi*ely pursuin& systems that will == no, must be sa#e an" reliable. A combination o! commercial

endeavors and government endeavors ill need to or' to ma'e a balance o! research !or long duration

human s#ace !light with #re>uent *isits by e)perimenters an" obser*ers. + personally thin we nee" to &o to the station as o#ten as possible with as many

spacecra#t as we can. his ill re6uire the solid su##ort o! Congress, &o*ernment lea"ers an" the American people. An" the Authori'ation



ill, + thin, mo*es us in that "irection. ith respect to how much we in*est in the space pro&ram, + woul" ima&ine that members o# the committee probably share my#rustration that sur*ey shows the public *astly o*erestimates A!AUs bu"&et. 9et this is somewhat un"erstan"able &i*en the hi&h pro#ile o# the missions. + was simplyastoun"e" the other "ayV howe*er, when + rea" a recent -on&ressional 6uarterly co*er story on the space pro&ram, in which the author wrote that A!AUs bu"&et hasho*ere" aroun" one percent o# the total bu"&et since the mi" 1IE0s. +# only that were the case. At last, the reality is that to"ay A!AUs bu"&et represents less than onehal# o# the bu"&et == one hal# o# one percent o# the bu"&et. +# it were a mere one percent, actually, we probably woul"nUt ha*e to ha*e this hearin&. $inally, a "iscussiono# A!AUs contribution to national imperati*es must inclu"e the sub?ect o# which this nation == o# which nation will be the #irst amon& nations in lea"in& peace#ulhuman an" robotic e)ploration o# the solar system while learnin& how to li*e an" tra*el more sa#ely, e##iciently, here on earth. +t is not a #ore&one conclusion that the%nite" !tates will remain the preeminent space #arin& nation an" may reap the bene#its o# lea"in& the march o# pro&ress to our low earth orbit. hat is why +Um &rati#ie"that this hearin& is bein& hel" an" +Um honore" to sit alon&si"e people who care as "eeply about our #uture in space as + "o. +n closin&, + am prou" that our nationcontinues to inspire people throu&hout the worl". My mother an" #atherUs &eneration a#ter orl" ar ++, too on responsibility o# lea"in& the worl" as a &reat nation.hey assume" the lea"ership. hey assume" the responsibility, but when you assume that responsibility, a lot &oes with it. An" to me, the space pro&ram is a part o# thatresponsibility. 9ou ha*e to set an e)ample. 9ou ha*e to shine a li&ht on the unnown an" you ha*e to put beacons on the sy, such as the +nternational !pace !tation,

which can easily be seen with the nae" eye. 4reat nations "o &reat thin&s. e nee" to continue "oin& that. + #eel a special responsibility because o# my uni>ue positionas the only American who was o## the planet on !eptember 11th, to sprea" the worl" that our leadershi# in s#ace is vital to our ay o! li!e

and our !uture. 5t@s a hard on accom#lishment and one e should never consider surrendering easily. +nspace, we inspire respect an" sometimes en*y. ut always we show we are lea"in&. Our #ree"oms allow us to "o that. his to me is the abi"in& lesson o# my uni>uee)perience.

/nder !unding constellation s#illed over to cause other #roblems% #rogram !ailures lie ith Congress"s

budget, not NASA

S#ace ravel$com 2..4 ($un"in& !hort#alls @a*e @urt A!AUs -onstellation 8ro&ram, !ep 2D, 200I; he 4o*ernment Accountability O##ice (4AO; has release" a report, XA!A: -onstellation 8ro&ram -ost an" !che"ule ill emain %ncertain %ntil a !oun" usiness-ase is stablishe"X. he report was re>ueste" by @ouse -ommittee on !cience an" echnolo&y -hairman art 4or"on (G=;, as part o# the -ommitteeUs on&oin&

o*ersi&ht o# A!AUs ma?or ac>uisition pro&rams. A!AUs -onstellation pro&ram is "e*elopin& the Ares + -rew Faunch ehicle an" the Orion -rew )plorationehicle as the a&encyUs #irst ma?or "e*elopment pro?ects in a national initiati*e to return Americans to the Moon an" e*entually sen" humans to Mars as well as other"estinations in the solar system. 4AOUs report, which was base" on a re*iew con"ucte" earlier this year, was complete" prior to the success#ul completion o# the Orion

preliminary "esi&n re*iew (8G;, the success#ul test #irin& o# the Ares + #irst sta&e booster rocet, the establishment o# a launch "ate #or the Ares += test #li&ht, an" the"ecision to a"opt a sin&le= or "ual=plane isolator system to a""ress any thrust oscillation *ibrations that mi&ht occur on the Ares + launch *ehicle. -hairman 4or"onase" 4AO to assess A!AUs pro&ress in implementin& prior 4AOUs recommen"ations #or the Ares + an" Orion pro?ects, an" to i"enti#y riss, i# any, #ace" by the-onstellation 8ro&ram. 4AO #oun" a poorly phase" #un"in& plan that runs the ris o# #un"in& short#alls in #iscal years 200I throu&h 2012, resultin& in planne" wornot bein& complete" to support sche"ules an" milestones. his approach, 4AO reporte", has limite" A!AUs ability to miti&ate technical riss early in "e*elopment an"

preclu"es the or"erly ramp up o# wor#orce an" "e*elopmental acti*ities. X$ollowin& on the heels o# the !cience an" echnolo&y -ommitteeUs !eptember 1C, 200I

hearin& on the e*iew o# %.!. @uman !pace $li&ht 8lans -ommitteeUs !ummary eport, "urin& which it became crystal clear that NASA hasn@t been

given ade6uate resources to im#lement the Constellation 8rogram, it should come as no sur#rise that

!unding is at the center o! NASA@s inability to com#lete the or' necessary to build con!idence in the cost

and schedule estimates the agency develo#s !or Constellation X 4or"on sai". At the !eptember 1Cth hearin& the chair o# the re*iew

committee, Mr. orman Au&ustine, pro*i"e" the committeeUs assessment o# the -onstellation pro&ram, statin& that: XWe did revie the #rogram, its

management$ We believe it to be soundly managed$$$We believe that the existing #rogram, given ade6uate!unds, is executable and ould carry out its ob(ectives$L X-onstellation has been un"erway #or #our years, an" we ha*e in*este" almost

BD billion in it to "ate. + am heartene" that the re*iew committee #oun" the pro&ram to be soun" an" one that can be success#ully implemente" i# &i*en a"e>uateresources in a timely manner. 4AOUs report pro*i"es a soberin& in"ication o# the ne&ati*e impact that #un"in& short#alls can ha*e on comple) an" technically "i##icultspace #li&ht pro&rams lie -onstellation, no matter how "e"icate" an" sill#ul the pro&ramUs wor#orce is,X a""e" 4or"on. 4AO recommen"e" that, as A!A a""ressesthe #in"in&s an" recommen"ations o# the e*iew o# %.!. @uman !pace $li&ht 8lans bein& con"ucte" per "irection #rom the presi"ent, the A!A A"ministrator "irectthe -onstellation pro&ram, or its successor, to "e*elop a soun" business case be#ore procee"in& into its ne)t phase. A!A concurre" with 4AOUs recommen"ation.Xhe 4AOUs report is a timely remin"er o# the "eman"in& steps an" "etaile" analyses an" in#ormation nee"e" to ensure the success#ul completion o# human space #li&ht

pro&rams. -onstellation is alrea"y well "own the roa" to "eli*erin& #li&ht har"ware un"er e)tremely challen&in& con"itions. he choice is clear: either

e give the Constellation #rogram the !unding it needs so the dedicated men and omen o! NASA and its

contractor team can success!ully do their (obs, or e let our lac' o! commitment !ritter aay all that has

been accom#lished to date,X a""e" !pace an" Aeronautics !ubcommittee -hairwoman 4abrielle 4i##or"s (G=AY;.

Fully !unding constellation is critical to s#ace travel and 'ic' starting the #rivate sector

Chyba, 11(-hristopher, 8O$!!O O$ A!O8@9!+-! AG +A+OAF A$$A+! AG G+-O O$ @ 8+-O%+!+9U! 8O4AM O !-+- AG 4FOAF !-%+9, !A -OMM+ O -OMM-, !-+-AG A!8OA+O, !%-OMM+ O !-+- AG !8A-, -ommittee @earin&s, !. +FF F!O @OFG! A@A+4 O -O+%+O! O$ !8A- O A+OAF +M8A+! May 1D;

!o +Um not surprise" that in the en" it was the option that was chosen. +t also ha" the &reat a"*anta&e = or has the &reat a"*anta&e = o# pro*i"in& the best bu"&et pro#ile. 5! you imagine a scenario in hich you@re going bac' to the moon 6uic'ly, you not only have to develo#

the heavy launch vehicle, but you have to develo# the landers$ And in the case o! the Constellation

#rogram, that as a very ca#able, a very ca#able lander, the Altair lander$ ith the #le)ible path you "o not ha*e to up#ron



"e*elop all the lan"er in#rastructure alon& with the hea*y li#t *ehicle. ut the path, + thin i# itUs not #rame" well, itUs open = or itUs easy to le*el the criticisms you ?ustmentione". ut + thin that in the en" we ha*e to thin more care#ully about what our #uture beyon" the earth orbit loos lie. + sai" in my brie# comments thate*eryone loos bac on the Apollo pro&ram with a"miration. ut we also nee" to "raw lessons, not only #rom that pro&ram, but #rom the 0 subse>uent years o# humanspace #li&ht. wice since Apollo there ha*e been e##orts ma"e by %.!. presi"ents to launch an Apollo=lie initiati*e. 4eor&e @.. ush = 8resi"ent 4eor&e @.. ush =

announce" his space e)ploration initiati*e, but the bu"&et wasnUt there. hat was an initiati*e to &o to Mars. 8resi"ent 4eor&e . 9ush had his vision !or

s#ace ex#loration hich led to Constellation$ Mirtually immediately, the budget as belo that to hich

Constellation as #lanning. hey ha" been plannin& = they were plannin& a&ainst an ultimate stea"y state o# B10 billion a year. hat was lower

*irtually instantly, as well as not tain& into account the costs o# "e=orbitin& station, which they were &oin& to ha*e to "o in 201H. An" ultimately, with the presi"entUs =8resi"ent ObamaUs = bu"&et, we were looin& at somethin& close to BE billion a year. !o + thin weU*e learne" #rom e)perience that that in" o# Apollo *ision, as"esirable an" inspirin& as it is, is not worin& #or us as a *ision #or the #uture #or A!A. !o we nee" a "i##erent approach. An" + thin the ri&ht approach is an approachin which we still eep our eye on the human mo*e out into the solar system, on that inspirin& *ision. + want to &et there as ba"ly as anybo"y else. ut weUre not &oin& to"o it = our e)perience says weUre not &oin& to "o it by announcin& an Apollo=lie pro&ram. hat we ha*e to "o instea" + thin is two#ol". e ha*e to "e*elop a in" o#in#rastructure or e*en you mi&ht e*en call it an ecosystem in low arth orbit that has a *ariety o# ways o# encoura&in& the a"*ance o# human space #li&ht an" cost

cuttin& in human space #li&ht. An" that inclu"es this robust = encoura&in& this robust commercial sector. ut in or"er to "o that the government is going

to have to #rovide demand #ull V all ri&htL +tUs &oin& to ha*e to pro*i"e the station as a "estination. ot #or mae=wor, but #or important e)periments

an" "e*elopments that will #urther enable human space #li&ht. An" also, letUs hope = letUs hope = this remains to be "emonstrate", but let@s ho#e there ill

turn out to be a commercial mar'et, both with respect to suborbital #li&hts an" perhaps also with an a""itional pri*ate station=lie in#latable entity

that people want to &o to. hat remains to be seen. ut + thin that the government demand%#ull alone is #robably su!!icient to get

that ball rolling. ut simultaneously, because the commercial sector inde#endently is not there yet, e have to

have the heavy launch vehicle ca#ability that@s going to allo us to move out beyond lo <arth orbit$ !o +

#a*or, + absolutely support, the authori'ation billUs approach to this. his is not = #le)ible path is not a mission to nowhere. +tUs a mission to e)pan" human ci*ili'ationinto our solar system, the most ambitious possible space ob?ecti*e. ut it tries to "o it in a way that + thin has the hope o# bein& sustainable, o# actually pro*i"in& uswith that #uture.

Obama has guaranteed !unding !or NASA

&ace 11 N$ran Mace, online columnist #or @8. @ar*ar" 8olitical e*iew, April E 2011: 7+n Ge#ense o# the Obama !pace )ploration 8lan

accesse" 5une 2, 2011 #rom http://hpronline.or&/unite"=states/in="e#ense=o#=the=obama=space=e)ploration=plan/Q

?ast A#ril, 8resident Obama unveiled a com#rehensive overhaul o! NASA"s !uture an" cancelle" much o# the ush=era

-onstellation plan to return to the moon. Obama"s #lan loo'ed to add D billion to the NASA budget over the next !ive

years, renew the #ocus on scienti#ic "isco*ery, len&then the li#espan o# the +nternational !pace !tation, an" most importantly, "ramatically increase the role o# pri*ate contractors in A!A

missions. Obama ri&htly prioriti'e" ?obs, science, an" national inspiration with his new "irection #or A!A



Advantage > is Aeros#ace

Aeros#ace industry is 'ey to the economy and global leadershi#% NASA to recruiting and maintaining the

or'!orce

hom#son .4 NGa*i" hompson, 8resi"ent o# American +nstitute o# Aeronautics an" Astronautics. $e"eral ews !er*ice, 12=10=200I: 7he Aerospace or#orce accesse" 5une 2H, 2011 #rom Fe)isQ

M. @OM8!O: han you, -hairwoman 4i##or"s, -hairman 4or"on, anin& Member @all, an" "istin&uishe" members o# the committee an" subcommittee. +woul" lie to than you #or the opportunity to a""ress se*eral topics o# &reat importance to the %.!. aerospace sector an" to the nation as a whole. As presi"ent o# the

American +nstitute o# Aeronautics an" Astronautics #or the 200I=2010 year, +Um prou" to represent a constituency o# more than 3H,000 aerospace en&ineers, scientists,an" other pro#essionals as well as thousan"s o# aerospace stu"ents #rom all C0 states an" #rom many o*erseas locations. +n"ee", #or nearly D0 years, A+AA has been the

principal pro#essional society #or aerospace en&ineers an" scientists in America an" aroun" the worl". On behal# o# A+AA, + woul" lie to e)press our appreciation tothis committee #or its lea"ership in space an" aeronautics policy an" #or its interest in the aerospace wor#orce an" in"ustrial base. +Um please" to respon" to the three>uestions that you ha*e ase" relatin& to the e##ects o# A!AUs "irection an" #un"in& on the countryUs aerospace sector. 9our #irst >uestion ase" about the most

si&ni#icant concerns re&ar"in& the aerospace wor#orce an" in"ustrial base. A+AAUs response to this >uestion is as #ollows . Aeros#ace systems are o!

considerable im#ortance to /$S$ national security, economic #ros#erity, technological vitality, and global

leadershi#. Aeronautical an" space systems protect our citi'ens, arme" #orces, an" allies abroa". hey connect the #arthest corners o# the worl" with sa#e an"

e##icient air transportation an" satellite communications, an" they monitor the arth, e)plore the solar system, an" stu"y the wi"er uni*erse. he %.!. aerospace sectoralso contributes in ma?or ways to AmericaUs economic output an" hi&h= technolo&y employment. Aerospace research an" "e*elopment an" manu#acturin& companies&enerate" appro)imately B20 billion in sales in 200D, or nearly 1.EC percent o# our countryUs &ross national pro"uct. hey currently employ about HC0,000 peoplethrou&hout our country. %.!. &o*ernment a&encies an" "epartments en&a&e" in aerospace research an" operations a"" another 12C,000 employees to the sectorUswor#orce, brin&in& the total to o*er EEC,000 people. +nclu"e" in this number are more than 200,000 en&ineers an" scientists == one o# the lar&est concentrations o#

technical brainpower on arth. @owe*er, the /$S$ aeros#ace or'!orce is no !acing the most serious demogra#hic

challenge in his 1..%year history$ Sim#ly #ut, today, many more older, ex#erienced #ro!essionals areretiring #rom or otherwise lea*in& our in"ustrial an" &o*ernmental aerospace wor#orce than early career pro#essionals are enterin& it. his imbalance is e)pecte"

to become e*en more se*ere o*er the ne)t #i*e years as the #inal members o# the Apollo=era &eneration o# en&ineers an" scientists complete 0= or C=year careers an"transition to well="eser*e" retirements. +n #act, aroun" C0 percent o# the current aerospace wor#orce will be eli&ible #or retirement within ?ust the ne)t #i*e years.Meanwhile, the supply o# youn&er aerospace en&ineers an" scientists enterin& the in"ustry is woe#ully insu##icient to replace the mountin& wa*e o# retirements an"other "epartures that we see in the near #uture. +n part, this is the result o# broa"er technical career tren"s as en&ineerin& an" science &ra"uates #rom our countryUsuni*ersities continue a multi="eca"e "ecline, e*en as the "eman" #or their nowle"&e an" sills in aerospace an" other in"ustries eeps increasin&. o"ay, only about 1C

percent o# %.!. stu"ents earn their #irst colle&e "e&ree in en&ineerin& or science, well behin" the 0 or C0 percent le*els seen in many uropean an" Asian countries.Gue to the "ual=use nature o# aerospace technolo&y an" the limite" supply o# *isas a*ailable to hi&hly=>uali#ie" non=%.!. citi'ens, our in"ustryUs ability to hire the bestan" bri&htest &ra"uates #rom o*erseas is also se*erely constraine". As a result, unless e##ecti*e action is taen to re*erse current tren"s, the %.!. aerospace sector ise)pecte" to e)perience a "ramatic "ecrease in its technical wor#orce o*er the ne)t "eca"e. 9our secon" >uestion concerns the implications o# a cutbac in human

space#li&ht pro&rams. A+AAUs *iew on this is as #ollows. While /$S$ human s#ace!light #rograms directly em#loy somehat

less than 1. #ercent o! our country@s aeros#ace or'ers, its in!luence on attracting and motivating

tomorro@s aeros#ace #ro!essionals is much greater than its immediate em#loyment contribution . $or nearly

C0 years the e)citement an" challen&e o# human space#li&ht ha*e been tremen"ously important #actors in the "ecisions o# &enerations o# youn& people to prepare #or

an" to pursue careers in the aerospace sector. his remains true to"ay, as in"icate" by hun"re"s o# testimonies A+AA members ha*e recor"e" o*er the past two years, a#ew o# which +Ull show in brie# *i"eo inter*iews at the en" o# my statement. $urther e*i"ence o# the catalytic role o# human space missions is #oun" in a recent stu"ycon"ucte" earlier this year by M+ which #oun" that 0 percent o# current aerospace en&ineerin& un"er&ra"uates cite" human space pro&rams as the main reason theychose this #iel" o# stu"y. here#ore, + thin it can be pre"icte" with hi&h con#i"ence that a ma?or cutbac in %.!. human space pro&rams woul" be substantially"etrimental to the #uture o# the aerospace wor#orce. !uch a cutbac woul" put e*en &reater stress on an alrea"y weaene" strate&ic sector o# our "omestic hi&h=technolo&y wor#orce. 9our #inal >uestion centers on other issues that shoul" be consi"ere" as "ecisions are ma"e on the #un"in& an" "irection #or A!A, particularlyin the human space#li&ht area. +n conclusion, A+AA o##ers the #ollowin& su&&estions in this re&ar". eyon" the pre*iously note" critical in#luence on the #uture supplyo# aerospace pro#essionals, a"ministration an" con&ressional lea"ers shoul" also consi"er the collateral "ama&e to the space in"ustrial base i# human space pro&ramswere substantially curtaile". Gue to low annual pro"uction rates an" hi&hly=speciali'e" pro"uct re>uirements, the "omestic supply chain #or space systems is relati*ely#ra&ile. Many secon"= an" thir"=tier suppliers in particular operate at mar&inal *olumes to"ay, so e*en a small re"uction in their business coul" #orce some criticalsuppliers to e)it this sector. @uman space pro&rams represent aroun" 20 percent o# the BE billion in total %.!. space an" missile systems sales #rom 200D. Accor"in&ly,

a ma(or cutbac' in human s#ace s#ending could have large and highly adverse ri##le e!!ects throughout

commercial, de!ense, and scienti!ic s#ace #rograms as well, potentially tri&&erin& a series o# "isrupti*e chan&es in the common in"ustrial

supply base that our entire space sector relies on. han you #or the opportunity to a""ress these important >uestions this mornin&. + loo #orwar" to your a""itional>uestions. An" now +U" lie to let you hear #rom se*eral o# my #ellow A+AA members on this topic.

Air 8oer is 'ey: there is no alternative

ellis 4.(Ashley, !enior 8olitical !cientist P AG, !ources o# -on#lict in the 21s t -entury ,http://www.ran".or&/publications/M/MDIE/MDIE.chap3.p"#;he brittle >uality o# Asian air #orces implies that /$S$ Air Force assets ill be re6uired to !ill critical ga#s in allied air

ca#abilities as ell as to counter both the groing ca#abilities o! #otential adversaries such as China and

the ne nontraditional threats emerging in the !orm o! ballistic and cruise missiles, in!ormation ar!are,

W&, and possibly e*en the revolution in military a!!airs $



Air #oer remains 'ey intermediate !orce to avoid resorting to nuclear ea#ons

Grant, 4 (ebecca 4rant, 8h.G., is a senior #ellow o# the Fe)in&ton +nstitute, March 1E th, 200I, Accesse" 5une2H, 2011, 7%.!. air superiority #aces new challen&es, http://www.upi.com/op_ews/Analysis/Outsi"e=iew/200I/03/1E/%!=air=superiority=#aces=new=challen&es/%8+=C32C123E2ID01D/, !;

5n the last to decades, the /nited States has used airstri'es to contain dictators, #unish aggression, turn

around international violations o! sovereignty and sto# regime%in!licted humanitarian disasters . o=#ly 'ones

s>uelche" +ra>i military acti*ity #or a "eca"e. here@s no reason to thin' the /nited States and its armed !orces illde#end less on air#oer !or conventional deterrence in the !uture$ 5t remains (ust the ty#e o! !lexible,

#ro#ortionate tool essential to credible, conventional deterrence . %.!. Ge#ense !ecretary obert 4ates e)plaine" the nee" #or

options well. XA conventional stri'e !orce means that more targets are vulnerable ithout our having to resort

to nuclear ea#ons,X he sai" in an Oct. 2D speech to the -arne&ie n"owment #or +nternational 8eace in ashin&ton.

?oss o! air#oer leads to ar in Asia hich s#ills over to global con!lict

ellis 4.(Ashley, !enior 8olitical !cientist P AG, !ources o# -on#lict in the 21s t -entury ,http://www.ran".or&/publications/M/MDIE/MDIE.chap3.p"#;he #irst ey implication "eri*e" #rom the analysis o# tren"s in Asia su&&ests that American air and s#ace #oer ill continue to

remain critical #or con*entional an" uncon*entional deterrence in Asia. his ar&ument is ?usti#ie" by the #act that several subregions o!

the continent still harbor the #otential !or !ull%scale con*entional ar$ his #otential is most cons#icuouson the 3orean #eninsula an", to a lesser "e&ree, in !outh Asia, the 8ersian 4ul#, an" the !outh -hina !ea. +n some o# these areas, such as orea an" the

8ersian 4ul#, the %nite" !tates has clear treaty obli&ations an", there#ore, has preplanne" the use o# air power shoul" contin&encies arise. %.!. Air $orce assets coul"also be calle" upon #or operations in some o# these other areas. +n almost all these cases, %.!. air power woul" be at the #ore#ront o# an American politico=militaryresponse because (a; o# the *ast "istances on the Asian continentV (b; the "i*erse ran&e o# operational plat#orms a*ailable to the %.!. Air $orce, a capability unmatche"

by any other country or ser*iceV (c; the possible una*ailability o# na*al assets in close pro)imity, particularly in the conte)t o# surprise contin&enciesV an" ("; the hea*y payloa" that can be carrie" by %.!. Air $orce plat#orms. hese plat#orms can e)ploit spee", reach, an" hi&h operatin& tempos to sustain continual operations until the political ob?ecti*es are secure". he entire ran&e o# war#i&htin& capabilityR#i&hters, bombers, electronic war#are (;, suppression o# enemy air "e#ense (!AG;,combat support plat#orms such as AA-! an" 5=!A!, an" tanersRare rele*ant in the Asia=8aci#ic re&ion, because many o# the re&ional contin&encies will in*ol*earme" operations a&ainst lar&e, #airly mo"ern, con*entional #orces, most o# which are built aroun" lar&e lan" armies, as is the case in orea, -hina=aiwan, +n"ia=8aistan, an" the 8ersian 4ul#. +n a""ition to con*entional combat, the "eman"s o# uncon*entional "eterrence will increasin&ly con#ront the %.!. Air $orce in Asia. he 3orean #eninsula, China, and the 5ndian subcontinent are already arenas o! W& #roli!eration. hile

emergent nuclear ca#abilities continue to receive the most #ublic attention , chemical an" biolo&ical war#are threats will

pro&ressi*ely become #uture problems. he "eli*ery systems in the re&ion are increasin& in ran&e an" "i*ersity. -hina alrea"y tar&ets the continental %nite" !tates with ballistic missiles. orth orea can threaten northeast Asia with e)istin& !cu"=class theater ballistic missiles. +n"ia will ac>uire the capability to pro"uce +-M=class

"eli*ery *ehicles, an" both -hina an" +n"ia will ac>uire lon&=ran&e cruise missiles "urin& the time #rames e)amine" in this report. he secon" ey implication "eri*e"#rom the analysis o# tren"s in Asia su&&ests that air an" space power will #unction as a *ital rapi" reaction #orce in a breain& crisis. -urrent &ui"ance tass the Air$orce to prepare #or two ma?or re&ional con#licts that coul" brea out in the 8ersian 4ul# an" on the orean peninsula. +n other areas o# Asia, howe*er, such as the+n"ian subcontinent, the !outh -hina !ea, !outheast Asia, an" Myanmar, the %nite" !tates has no treaty obli&ations re>uirin& it to commit the use o# its military #orces.ut as past e)perience has shown, American policymaers ha*e re&ularly "isplaye" the "isconcertin& habit o# "isco*erin& strate&ic interests in parts o# the worl"

pre*iously ne&lecte" a#ter con#licts ha*e alrea"y broen out. Min"#ul o# this tren", it woul" behoo*e %.!. Air $orce planners to pru"ently plan #or re&ionalcontin&encies in nontra"itional areas o# interest, because na*al an" air power will o# necessity be the primary instruments constitutin& the American response. !uchresponses woul" be necessitate" by three &eneral classes o# contin&encies. he #irst in*ol*es the politico=military collapse o# a ey re&ional actor, as mi&ht occur in the

case o# orth orea, Myanmar, +n"onesia, or 8aistan. he secon" in*ol*es acute #olitical military crises that have a #otential !or

ra#id escalation, as may occur in the aiwan !trait, the !pratlys, the +n"ian subcontinent, or on the orean peninsula. he thir" in*ol*es cases o# prolon&e"

"omestic instability that may ha*e either s#illover or contagion e!!ects, as in -hina, +n"onesia, Myanmar, or orth orea.

Documents

Speech 1AC