Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011
Download 1.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- No Trade-off Link
- NASA’s budget isn’t set – deliberation process means no tradeoff
- NASA’s budget isn’t set – has to pass the House and Senate, who love space
- SBSP won’t be within NASA’s jurisdiction – won’t trade off
- Won’t trade off – budget internally flexible
Link N/ULink’s non-unique – plutonium should trigger the linkFoust 6/15 – freelance writer who runs Space Politics [Jeff, 6/15/2011, Space Politics, ‘Another push for Pu-238 funding,” http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/15/another-push-for-pu-238-funding/, DS] Plutonium 238 (Pu-238), the radioactive isotope used in the radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), is essential to a number of spacecraft missions, particularly those bound for the outer solar system. However, getting the relatively modest funding (no more than a few tens of millions of dollars a year) needed to restart Pu-238 production in the US to ensure that a supply of the isotope is available for future missions has been difficult in recent years. The latest push is taking place this week. The Obama Administration included $10 million each for NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to restart Pu-238 production, but a draft version of the Energy and Water appropriations bill in the House does not include that funding. The full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to markup the bill in a hearing today. Emily Lakdawalla of The Planetary Society reported yesterday that the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is making a last-minute push to get the money added to the appropriations bill. In an email, the AGU said that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose district includes JPL, plans to introduce an amendment to the bill to include the Pu-238 funding. (The AGU alert is not included in its list of “Science Policy Alerts” on its web site; it apparently went out to AGU members whose representatives are on the committee.) The AGU asked its members to contact their congressmen and ask them to support the Schiff amendment, providing a variety of talking points to use in those calls. No Trade-off LinkNo trade-offs – empirics proveLandis, ‘95 [Geoffrey, NASA John Glenn Research Center, “ Footsteps to Mars: An incremental approach to Mars exploration,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 48, pp. 367-342 (1995); http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Footsteps.pdf] Recently there has been an alarming tendency in the scientific and space advocacy communities for advocates to attack one project, in the belief that if that project could be canceled, the money saved would be used for their own, more desirable projects. This is false. Quoting from senate staffer Steve Palmer [17]: “What space station and ASRM [advanced solid rocket motor] add up to is a drop in the bucket. If Congress cuts out both space station and ASRM, will the money be used for other programs of interest to the space industry? The short answer is no”. Arguments to cancel space projects are eagerly picked up in Congress, by people who have agendas and pet projects that have nothing to do with space. Further, attacking space projects has the result of making enemies out of allies. When we attack someone else’s project, we can count on having them attack ours. The result is that the arguments against both projects will be remembered by a money-starved Congress. It is not true that manned missions eclipse funds for unmanned science missions. In fact, there is an excellent case to be made for precisely the opposite correlation: the presence of large manned missions increases the funding and opportunities for unmanned science missions. Historically, the science budget of NASA has been a roughly constant fraction of the total budget; any major new initiative which increases the overall space budget is likely to increase the funding for science. If Mars advocates adopt the approach of pushing our initiatives by tearing down other space programs, the likely result is that nothing, neither Mars nor other programs, will be accomplished. NASA’s budget isn’t set – deliberation process means no tradeoffChow 7/12 – writer for Space.com [Denise, Space.com, 7/12/11, "Scientists Condemn Plans to Scrap Hubble Telescope Successor ", http://www.space.com/12245-james-webb-telescope-cancellation-scientist-reactions.html, DS] "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." NASA’s budget isn’t set – has to pass the House and Senate, who love spaceRopp 7/10 – Staff writer at the Huntsville Times (Lee, 7/10/11, “NASA celebrates triumph as Congress takes first step to cut its funding ", http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/07/nasa_celebrates_triumph_as_con.html, DS) [NOTE: Citing US Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville] There are no more shuttles to fly, which means lower costs to NASA, Brooks pointed out. And this was just a subcommittee vote. The full appropriations committee must pass this cut, and so does the full House. Whatever passes must pass the Senate, too, and the Senate is a bastion of NASA support that forced the White House to compromise and agree to the new rocket last year. SBSP won’t be within NASA’s jurisdiction – won’t trade offNSSO, ‘7 – National Security Space Office [10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security: Report to the Director, National Security Space office Interim Assessment Release 0.1,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, DS] FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development over the past 30 years has made little progress because it “falls between the cracks” of currently‐defined responsibilities of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government. The current bureaucratic lanes are drawn in such a way to exclude the likelihood of SBSP development. NASA’s charter and focus is clearly on robotic and human exploration to execute the Moon‐Mars Vision for Space Exploration, and is cognizant that it is not America’s Department of Energy (DOE). DOE rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to SBSP all lie in spacefaring activities such as space access, and space‐to‐Earth power‐beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would make it dependent upon a space‐capable agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this mission, and no dedicated Space Development Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary development expertise in‐house, and clearly has a responsibility to look to the long term security of the United States, but it is also not the country’s Department of Energy, and must focus itself on war prevention and warfighting concerns. Won’t trade off – budget internally flexibleMoskowitz 4/15 - senior writer at Space [Clara, 4/15/2011, SPACE, “NASA’s 2011 Budget Should Allow Flexibility Despite Cuts,” http://www.space.com/11411-nasa-2011-budget-cuts-constellation-funding.html, DS] A new federal spending bill represents a cut to NASA's funding, but a lessening of restrictions on how the agency spends that money for the rest of this year. The new measure is a political compromise between democrats and republicans, and includes significant spending cuts in the 2011 federal budget. NASA will have to make do with about $18.5 billion, putting its budget roughly $240 million below last year's funding level. NASA and the rest of the federal government had been in limbo while lawmakers haggled over the budget. But on Thursday (April 14), Congress passed a spending measure called a continuing resolution that will cover the last five months of the year 2011. The new budget compromise followed a series of stopgap measures Congress had used to fund the government in lieu of agreeing on an official fiscal year 2011 budget. Experts said NASA will likely be able to accomplish most of the plans on the table under the new bill. "NASA will be able to do what it has to do until the next budget," space policy expert Roger Handberg, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida, told SPACE.com. "NASA has been survival mode since last fall when the first continuing resolution was put in place." The new budget at least frees NASA from a stifling provision under its 2010 budget that prevented it from cutting funding to the moon-bound Constellation program. Yet that program was canceled by President Barack Obama in early 2010, and NASA has been targeting new goals ever since. [NASA's Shuttle Program in Pictures] Now the space agency will finally be free to stop spending money on canceled Constellation projects. "The elimination of the Constellation provision will free up resources otherwise committed," Handberg said, saving NASA some of the money that it loses in the reduction of its annual budget. NASA leaders expressed gratitude that the agency can now move forward fully toward its new direction. "This bill lifts funding restrictions that limited our flexibility to carry out our shared vision for the future," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "With this funding, we will continue to aggressively develop a new heavy lift rocket, multipurpose crew vehicle and commercial capability to transport our astronauts and their supplies on American-made and launched spacecraft." Overall, Bolden admitted the need for spending cuts, and was optimistic that the agency would be able to do a lot with what it's given. "We are committed to living within our means in these tough fiscal times - and we are committed to carrying out our ambitious new plans for exploration and discovery," Bolden said. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
|