Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff


Specific Link – Colonization Affirmative



Download 2.75 Mb.
Page93/154
Date18.10.2016
Size2.75 Mb.
#1118
1   ...   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   ...   154

Specific Link – Colonization Affirmative


[____]


[____] A Mars mission would deplete intellectual resources for a decade and hurt studying climate change on Earth.
J. Scott Christianson, writer at the Columbia Daily Tribune, 3/11/2011, “We can’t afford manned mission to Mars”, http://thefreerangetechnologist.com/2011/03/manned-mission-to-mars/
A manned mission to Mars will tie up most of NASA’s intellectual resources for a decade or more as they toil on an incredibly expensive project whose success and scientific value is uncertain. The American public should have a better chance of receiving a decent return on its investment in NASA. Perhaps the most compelling argument for not proceeding with a manned mission to Mars is NASA’s great success with unmanned missions to Mars and other planets. These “smaller, cheaper, faster” space probes have been extremely useful and cost-effective and have proved themselves capable of performing real science or, at the very least, capable of being the on-the-ground technicians for scientists safely located on Earth. A better use of NASA’s budget for exploration and planetary science would be to fund several smaller unmanned missions to explore Mars and other planets, thus spreading out both the risks and the rewards. While some of these are bound to fail, most of these little probes would be successful, and several would be successful beyond their original design. The Spirit and Opportunity probes continue to operate on Mars some five years past their original mission of 90 days. Even Voyager 1, launched in 1977, is still operating some 30 years later. Investing in several smaller missions with clear scientific goals offers much more reward for the risk. If NASA is to receive more appropriations, it should be for investigating problems here on Earth. Studying climate change is an unprecedented opportunity to learn about a sophisticated planetary processes happening right here, right now. Moreover, we need NASA to not just document the effects of global warming and other environmental problems but provide us with possible solutions and new technologies addressing these challenges. Solving the problem of global warming would be a greater step for mankind than any trip to space and is much more deserving of public investments. Landing humans on Mars and bringing them back safely would be a great technological feat and no doubt resplendent with numerous spinoff technologies, but it is not one of the major technical problems currently facing the human race. A manned mission to Mars will happen someday, but we should concentrate our scientific resources on figuring out how to leave future generations with a habitable Earth and leave it to them to discover how to make it to Mars.
[____] Missions to Mars drain funding allocated to answer science questions.
Frank Gaglioti, high school science teacher and contributing journalist, 5/20/2006, “Cuts to NASA Budget Gut Space Research http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/may2006/nasa-m20.shtml
In a far-reaching reorientation of its programs, the US National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) budget has effectively capped science spending for the five-year period from 2007 to 2011. Programs designed to investigate more fundamental scientific questions about the character of the solar system and the universe are being sacrificed to enable NASA to carry out President George Bush’s grandiose scheme to establish a permanent settlement on the moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. NASA’s announcement in February was part of Bush’s budget cuts to federal science spending by 1 percent to $59.8 billion. The changes to NASA’s program are mirrored in the overall science budget, which is focussed more narrowly on projects with commercial payoffs or to strengthen the US military. Bush’s “American Competitive Initiative,” which is aimed at bolstering US corporate interests at the expense of their rivals, will consume $5.9 billion. Presidential science adviser John Marburger bluntly declared: “The point is, we’re prioritising.”



Specific Link – Constellation Affirmative


[____]
[____] Climate science would be cut to build the replacement to the space shuttle.
Agence France-Presse, French news agency 3/6/2011, “NASA reels from climate science setbacks”, http://www.spacemart.com/reports/NASA_reels_from_climate_science_setbacks_999.html
But some Republicans, who hold a majority in the House of Representatives, want to see NASA give up climate science so it can focus on returning astronauts to space once the 30-year-old shuttle program ends later this year. "NASA's primary purpose is human space exploration and directing NASA funds to study global warming undermines our ability to maintain our competitive edge in human space flight," said Republican Congressman Bill Posey last month. Earth science has been a distinct mission of NASA ever since Congress formed the agency with the 1958 Space Act, setting its first objective as "the expansion of human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space." Further revisions of the Space Act in 1976 gave NASA "authority to carry out stratospheric ozone research," and a 1984 change broadened NASA's earth science authority from the stratosphere to "the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth." But budget squeezes have crippled NASA's efforts since the 1990s, when NASA first set out to create a global Earth observing system and budget deficits forced engineers to scale back to one third of their original plan, according to Wielicki. "What we have now are pieces of that system that have lived well beyond their design life," he said. "Space missions are expensive by nature, risky by nature, and our nation has decided not to spend the kind of resources it would take for a more robust set of climate research observations."
[____] Returning to the moon will cause funds to be taken from science.
Stefanie Olsen, staff writer at CNET, 2/6/2006, “NASA budget emphasizes space exploration”, 2/6/6, http://news.cnet.com/NASA-budget-emphasizes-space-exploration/2100-11397_3-6035753.html#ixzz1PsWvN4gW
Science will play a diminishing role at NASA as the space agency emphasizes lunar exploration in the next five years, according to a new governmental budget. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who was appointed to the office by the Bush administration only 10 months ago, announced a $16.8 billion budget request for NASA on Monday, per recommendations from President Bush. The budget, outlined in a press briefing here at NASA Ames Research Center, is a 3.2 percent rise over expected 2006 spending. It comprised about 0.7 percent of the federal budget. "This is a modest investment to extend the frontiers of space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research," Griffin said. NASA's spending, Griffin said, will concentrate on implementing Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, a plan the president announced roughly two years ago to launch human missions to the moon. Science, such as studying the solar system or the origin of the universe, will play a lesser role at NASA organizations, resulting in cutbacks to divisions like astrobiology studies and life sciences at Ames Research Center. Ames' life sciences budget was cut by roughly 80 percent in November 2005, resulting in the loss of 100 contractor jobs.



Download 2.75 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   ...   154



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review