Sbsp affirmative- arl lab- ndi 2011
Download 1.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: Prizes CP- Perm Solves
- Only the perm can solve/The plan solves better
- Only the Perm Solves
- ***AT Consult CPs*** Unilateral Action key
- Full secession of veto power is ridiculous – kills all semblance of leadership
Solvency Deficit- R&DPrizes are not a substitute for R&D / Only the Perm solvesLampson 04 (Nick, Congressman From Texas, Hearing: NASA CONTESTS AND PRIZES: HOW CAN THEY HELP ADVANCE SPACE EXPLORATION?, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy94832.000/hsy94832_0.HTM, grubbs) However, the establishment of incentive prizes should not be viewed as a substitute for adequate and sustained investment by the Federal Government in aeronautics and space R&D. We need to support a robust NASA budget this year and in the years to come. I hope that today's focus on prizes will not divert from the importance of continuing that critical federal involvement in space exploration and utilization. AT: Prizes CP- Perm SolvesPerm Do both - Solely private space industry fails -- government involvement’s a key insurance policyPM 10 – Popular Mechanics, March 9, 2010, “What Happens If NASA's Constellation Program Dies?,” online: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4343791 President Obama is selling the idea of bringing private space into NASA's fold as a whole new way of thinking, but NASA under the Bush administration already got the ball rolling with ISS resupply contracts to the private space companies Orbital and SpaceX. But the Bush team hedged their bets by keeping a government program functional. What will happen if private space fails to create a reliable launch vehicle? So far they are doing well, but a small engineering flaw or a mishap could grind the effort to a halt. Also, as private space companies morph into large contractors, will the risk of bureaucratic lethargy increase, as seen in the defense industry among prime contractors? Only the perm can solve/The plan solves betterCOSA 04 (Committee on Space Aeronautics, Hearing: NASA CONTESTS AND PRIZES: HOW CAN THEY HELP ADVANCE SPACE EXPLORATION?, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy94832.000/hsy94832_0.HTM, grubbs) If a technology is critical to a NASA objective—returning to the Moon by 2020, for example—should NASA depend on prizes for the development of relevant technologies? The timing of technology development may be easier to control through traditional means of doing business (although traditional programs have been plagued by delays at times). If NASA wanted to use both prizes and traditional grants and contracts to develop a technology, would those two paths be undertaken simultaneously? Would those with a contract have an unfair advantage? NASA and prize advocates have not yet made clear how they would answer such questions. Only the Perm SolvesWalker 04 (Robert, Chairman of Court of Scieneces, Hearing: NASA CONTESTS AND PRIZES: HOW CAN THEY HELP ADVANCE SPACE EXPLORATION?, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy94832.000/hsy94832_0.HTM, grubbs) Now I don't suggest that this should be NASA's sole way of pursuing space technology for the future. NASA has a lot of contributions to make on the high-tech arena or in the high-tech arena. And this should simply be a mechanism by which NASA reaches out beyond what it can traditionally do to get new thinking into the mix. I think that NASA can play a role in helping some of these people who are pursuing prizes by being a high-tech advisor to them along the line and give them ideas where they run into places where they might otherwise stumble. But it should be a part of a totality of a program, not just the only piece of the program. Only the Perm SolvesMacauley 04 (Molly, Senior Fellow Resources for the future, Hearing: NASA CONTESTS AND PRIZES: HOW CAN THEY HELP ADVANCE SPACE EXPLORATION?, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy94832.000/hsy94832_0.HTM, grubbs) I have a couple of buts to add with that, so let me go ahead and mention those. First of all, we are not working with a clean slate. We have a heavy hand of government in space R&D already through procurement contracts and through peer-reviewed research, which hasn't been mentioned a lot yet, so we have to think of prizes as a tool in an already existing portfolio. But with that in mind, you know, peer-reviewed research and contracts have a lot of imperfections, as do prizes. But some of them offset each other, so taken together, these are all a set of tools that I think we can effectively use to marshal innovation in our space program. ***AT Consult CPs***Unilateral Action keyUS needs unilateral freedom in space policy – homeland security and military readinessKaufman 6 (Marc, staff writer for the Washington Post, “Bush sets defense as space priority,” Washington Post, 10/18/06. The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasizes security issues, encourages private enterprise in space, and characterizes the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy. "Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said in written comments that an update was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of U.S. economic, national and homeland security." The military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communication and navigation, as have providers of cellphones, personal navigation devices and even ATMs. Full secession of veto power is ridiculous – kills all semblance of leadershipCarroll 9 (James FF, Notes & Comments Editor @ Emory International Law Review, J.D. with Honors @ Emory University School of Law, “Back to the Future: Redefining the Foreign Investment and National Security Act's Conception of National Security,” Emory International Law Review, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 167, Lexis) n221. See Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed., 9/11 is Over, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2007, § 4, at 12. This does not mean, however, that foreign countries should hold a veto over U.S. foreign or domestic policies, particularly policies that are not directly related to their national survival. Allowing foreign countries or international institutions to veto or modify unrelated U.S. policies would make a mockery of our foreign policy and destroy the credibility of American leadership. International cooperation does not require making our policy subservient to the whims of other nations. See generally The Allies and Arms Control (F.O. Hampson et al. eds., 1992). See also Khalilzad, supra note 177. 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:
|