Skfta da 1nc 1nc skfta da
Download 0.85 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Link: Costs Capital (General)
AT: Link TurnEven if NASA is popular SPENDING for NASA is not Stewart Powell Political Reporter 08 Houston Chronicle, “NASA popular, but tax hike for funding isn't, poll finds” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5843539.html WASHINGTON — Key arguments being made by supporters of increased NASA funding are not resonating with the American public, a new Gallup Poll released Tuesday found. The poll conducted for a business group called the Coalition for Space Exploration found that voters strongly approve of the venerable space agency's work but are reluctant to pay more taxes to finance new initiatives. The Gallup survey — released just a day before the House is scheduled to vote on adding $2.9 billion to the NASA budget — undercut a key argument being used by Texas lawmakers in their bid to persuade Congress to boost spending: that more money is needed to compete in space against China and to close a five-year gap in manned U.S. space operations between retirement of the shuttle fleet in 2010 and launch of the Constellation program in 2015. The Gallup survey of 1,002 adults found that two of three Americans were not alarmed by the prospect that China plans to send astronauts to the moon by 2017 — at least one year ahead of the first scheduled U.S. lunar mission since 1972. Congressional supporters and space agency officials said that public opinion should not be the guiding force behind NASA spending. "The international challenge to our dominance in space and the impending gap in our domestic program pose serious concerns which must be addressed head-on by increasing funding for NASA," said Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford. "It is my hope that it will not take another Sputnik moment for America to reignite the spirit of exploration that changed the world half a century ago and put man on the moon." Lampson is working with other Houston-area lawmakers to increase President Bush's proposed $18.2 billion budget for NASA. The bipartisan measure is expected to pass, over White House objections. NASA supports the president's smaller budget request but will carry out its missions "based upon the budget that ultimately is approved by Congress," said David Mould, NASA's assistant administrator for public affairs. He says the agency "does not and cannot modify its missions and activities in response to polls." Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, emphasized the strong grass-roots support for NASA, despite tough times in federal budgeting. "Space exploration is an integral part of America's identity, and keeping our competitive advantage in the areas of innovation, exploration, research and development will shape America's future," said Culberson. "This poll proves that Americans understand the link between a successful, well-funded space program and our prosperity as a nation." Group backs more funds Despite the mixed results, Mary Engola, an official with Boulder, Colo.-based Ball Aerospace and Technologies, said her organization hoped the poll would "help support efforts to support an increase in the NASA budget." Engola, a spokeswoman for the pro-NASA coalition, attributed Americans' absence of concern over China's space ambitions to the popular view that China's space program remains "relatively benign and not aligned with the competition that we had with the Russians in the 1960s and the 1970s." Lawmakers pressing to boost NASA spending concede they will fall short of what the coalition of aerospace industries wants — 1 percent of the nation's $2.7 trillion federal budget next year — or $27 billion, an increase of 48 percent. The poll found overwhelming support for NASA's mission and majority backing for a $27 billion NASA budget. But it also found opposition to a federal tax hike to help cut the five-year gap in manned U.S. space operations, with 57 percent opposed and 43 percent in favor. The survey was commissioned by a business coalition of 41 aerospace firms and related industries and associations. Link: Costs Capital (General)NASA unpopular – budget indicates that NASA is waste of time and money Cunningham, ’10 (Pilot of first manned Apollo mission, “Taking a Bite Out of NASA”, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6854790.html) President Barack Obama's budget proposal may not be a death knell for NASA, but it certainly would accelerate America's downward spiral toward mediocrity in space exploration. Now it's up to NASA's leaders to put the best face possible on this nail that the administration is trying to hammer into their coffin. This proposal is not a “bold new course for human spaceflight,” nor is it a “fundamental reinvigoration of NASA.” It is quite the opposite, and I have no doubt the people at NASA will see it for what it is — a rationalization for pursuing mediocrity. It mandates huge changes and offers little hope for the future. My heart goes out to those who have to defend it. NASA has always been a political football. The agency's lifeblood is federal funding, and it has been losing blood for several decades. The only hope now for a lifesaving transfusion to stop the hemorrhaging is Congress. It is hard to be optimistic. President Obama has apparently decided the United States should not be in the human spaceflight business. He obviously thinks NASA's historic mission is a waste of time and money. Until just two months before his election, he was proposing to use the $18 billion NASA budget as a piggybank to fund his favored education programs. With this budget proposal, he is taking a step in that direction. NASA is not just a place to spend money, or to count jobs. Congress doesn’t view NASA as a national necessity Schmitt, May 24, 11, Former US Senator, former Apollo astronaut, and member of the new Committee of Correspondence (Harrison H. Schmitt, Former Senator Schmitt Proposes Dismantling of NASA and Creation of a New, Deep Space Exploration Agency, http://aerospaceblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/former-senator-schmitt-proposes-dismantling-of-nasa-and-creation-of-a-new-deep-space-exploration-agency/, July 28,2011) How notions of leadership have changed since Eisenhower and Kennedy! Immense difficulties now have been imposed on the Nation and NASA by the budgetary actions and inactions of the Bush and Obama Administrations between 2004 and 2012. Space policy gains relevance today comparable to 50 years ago as the dangers created by the absence of a coherent national space policy have been exacerbated by subsequent adverse events. Foremost among these events have been the Obama Administration’s and the Congress’s spending and debt spree, the continued aggressive rise of China, and, with the exception of operations of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station, the loss of focus and leadership within NASA headquarters. On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced to a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth by the end of that decade. President Kennedy’s confidence that this Cold War goal could be accomplished rested on the post-Sputnik decision by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to form the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and, in January 1960, to direct NASA to begin the development of what became the Saturn V rocket. This release of a collection of essays on Space Policy and the Constitution [1] commemorates President Kennedy’s decisive challenge 50 years ago to a generation of young Americans and the remarkable success of those young Americans in meeting that challenge. How notions of leadership have changed since Eisenhower and Kennedy! Immense difficulties now have been imposed on the Nation and NASA by the budgetary actions and inactions of the Bush and Obama Administrations between 2004 and 2012. Space policy gains relevance today comparable to 50 years ago as the dangers created by the absence of a coherent national space policy have been exacerbated by subsequent adverse events. Foremost among these events have been the Obama Administration’s and the Congress’s spending and debt spree, the continued aggressive rise of China, and, with the exception of operations of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station, the loss of focus and leadership within NASA headquarters. The bi-partisan, patriotic foundations of NASA underpinned the remarkable Cold War and scientific success of the Apollo Program in meeting the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. Those foundations gradually disappeared during the 1970s as geopolitical perspectives withered and NASA aged. For Presidents and the media, NASA’s activities became an occasional tragedy or budgetary distraction rather than the window to the future envisioned by Eisenhower, Kennedy and the Apollo generation. For Congress, rather than being viewed as a national necessity, NASA became a source of politically acceptable pork barrel spending in states and districts with NASA Centers, large contractors, or concentrations of sub-contractors. Neither taxpayers nor the Nation benefit significantly from this current, self-centered rationale for a space program. Congress doesn’t give space exploration a high priority Anderson, 11, a member of both the Planetary Society and the National Space Society, (Gregory Anderson, Scrap NASA?, http://thewayoutspace.blogspot.com/2011/05/scrap-nasa.html, 5/28/11) Former Apollo astronaut and Moonwalker and former U. S. Senator from New Mexico Harrison Schmitt says NASA should be dismantled and replaced by a new agency focused on space exploration. Schmitt acknowledges NASA has some remarkable achievements to its credit, but argues that after fifty years a new start for a new era would be best. NASA should be reformed and refocused, but replacing it and starting from scratch would probably waste money. It's not obvious, after all, why Congress would give more money to a new space exploration agency than it gives NASA. The problem isn't NASA. The problem is that Congress doesn't give space exploration a high priority. There is also the matter of staffing a new agency. Because of the specialized skills and knowledge required for space exploration, a new agency would probably be peopled by many ex-NASA hands. It's not clear, therefore, what advantage a new agency would have over a rejuvenated NASA. Space funding is politically controversial --- benefits aren’t perceived Cunningham 10 (Walter, Former Apollo Astronaut, “Slashed NASA Budget Would Leave the U.S. No Longer a Space Leader”, Houston Chronicle, 2-6, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6854790.html) NASA has always been a political football. The agency's lifeblood is federal funding, and it has been losing blood for several decades. The only hope now for a lifesaving transfusion to stop the hemorrhaging is Congress. It is hard to be optimistic. President Obama has apparently decided the United States should not be in the human spaceflight business. He obviously thinks NASA's historic mission is a waste of time and money. Until just two months before his election, he was proposing to use the $18 billion NASA budget as a piggybank to fund his favored education programs. With this budget proposal, he is taking a step in that direction. NASA is not just a place to spend money, or to count jobs. It is the agency that has given us a better understanding of our present and hope for our future; an agency that gives us something to inspire us, especially young people. NASA's Constellation program was not “over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies,” as stated in the White House budget plan. The program's problems were due to perennial budget deficiencies. It would have been sustainable for an annual increase equal to the amount thrown away on the “cash for clunkers” program, or just a fraction of the tens of billions of dollars expended annually on congressional earmarks. It's debatable whether Constellation was the best solution to President George W. Bush's vision of “Moon, Mars and Beyond,” but it was far better than the vacuum in which we now find ourselves, and without a viable alternative in sight. Yes, jobs will be lost and the local economy will suffer. This will hurt and be readily measured. In the long run, intangible losses (those on which we cannot put a price tag) will be far more devastating. The cancellation of Constellation will guarantee several things. Most important, strategically, is the gap, the period during which we will be dependent on Russia to carry Americans to our own space station. With the cancellation of Constellation, that gap will grow longer, not shorter. American astronauts will not travel into space on American-developed and -built spacecraft until at least 2016 or 2017. We are not trying to fix any deficiencies in Constellation; our fate will be in the hands of commercial companies with COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program awards. They will attempt to regain our lost greatness with new capsules and new rockets or military rockets, after man-rating them. Supposedly, they will do this faster and cheaper than NASA. Cheaper, maybe; faster is not going to happen. These will be companies that have never made a manned rocket and have little idea of the problems they face trying to man-rate a brand new launch vehicle and space capsule. Even under the best of circumstances, humans will not be flying to the space station on COTS-developed vehicles before 2017. After 50 years and several hundred billion dollars, the accomplishments of NASA and the U.S. space program in science, technology and exploration are unchallenged. They are admired, respected and envied by people and countries around the world. Our space program has provided inspiration to the human spirit for young and old alike. It said proudly to the world that Americans could accomplish whatever they set their minds to. Look at the efforts of China and India in the past 30 years to emulate this success. Young people have always been inspired with talk of sending explorers to the planets. Do you think they will have the same reaction when we speak of the new plan for “transformative technology development”? NASA may have been backing away from the real challenge of human spaceflight for years, but in canceling Constellation and NASA manned vehicles we are, in effect, abdicating our role as the leading spacefaring nation of the world. America will lose its pre-eminence in space. The real economic impact will not be immediate. The public at large is not fully aware of NASA's role as a principal driver in our economy for the past 50 years. They forget that much of the technology we now take for granted either originated in the space program or was utilized and improved by the space program. That is NASA's real legacy. The investments we made in NASA in the 1960s are still paying off in technology applications and new businesses. Plan causes massive fight – saps capital. Whittington, 5-4-11 [Mark, Staff Writer, “Harrison Schmitt's Plan to Solve the Energy Problem by Mining the Moon,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110504/us_ac/8419965_harrison_schmitts_plan_to_solve_the_energy_problem_by_mining_the_moon] Harrison Schmitt, Apollo moonwalker, geologist, and former U.S. Senator, spoke at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference recently and presented his plan to solve the long-term energy needs of the world by mining the moon. The idea is to mine a substance that is almost nonexistent on the Earth, but extant on the moon called helium 3 (3HE), an isotope of the well known substance usually put in party balloons. Helium 3 has been deposited in lunar soil over billions of years by solar wind and exists in trace amounts waiting to be extracted. 100 kilograms of helium 3 could be obtained from processing a 2 kilometer square area of lunar soil down to the depth of three meters. That amount would run a 1,000 megawatt fusion reactor for a year. Schmitt says helium 3 is an ideal fuel for future fusion reactors because it leaves little or no radioactive residue, which obviates the need to decontaminate the reactor periodically. The downside is that a helium 3 fusion reaction has to take place at hotter temperatures than other fusion reactions using, for example, deuterium. Schmitt proposes that $5 billion be spent to build a test reactor that would burn helium 3 to create power. In the meantime a return to the moon would have as its main focus the extraction and shipping back to Earth helium 3 to fuel the reactor. A return to the moon was ruled out over a year ago by President Barack Obama when he canceled the Constellation space exploration program. However, there has recently been a resurgence in interest in sending astronauts back to the moon, especially in the Congress. Schmitt's scheme has the virtue of connecting the desire to go back to the Moon with solving the long term energy needs of planet Earth. While there are abundant fossil fuels, the supply is finite and in any case using oil and coal causes various forms of pollution. Solar and wind have thus far proven inadequate as a means of replacing fossil fuels. Helium 3 fueled hydrogen provides a potential of providing clean, virtually limitless energy for the foreseeable future. Of course, there are obstacles in the path of a helium 3 fusion future, both technical and political. Developing a reactor that will create more energy than it consumes to create a helium 3 fusion reaction will be daunting. Then there are the problems of developing of lunar mining techniques and a cost effective transportation infrastructure between Earth and the moon. The political problem is almost as acute. The Fusion Technology Institute is funded with private money, as the Energy Department thinks that space based helium 3 is a NASA problem and NASA thinks fusion energy is an Energy Department problem. It will take a leader of vision to sort out the turf battles and get Schmitt's plan rolling. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.85 Mb. Share with your friends:
|