Trade-off da – gdi 2011 1 Earth Science D/A 2

Download 0.9 Mb.
Size0.9 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   83

Earth Science Shell

Science is the top priority – NASA reallocated its resources from human space flight

Scientific American 11 (Staff, “Obama's 2012 Budget Resists Research Cuts”, 2/15/11, JPG

In contrast to the increases at other agencies, NASA's overall proposed budget remained level at the $18.7 billion it received in fiscal year 2010. Within that, however, the agency's science budget is slated to grow by roughly half a billion dollars, with $360 million allocated to earth science and about $175 million for planetary science. Astrophysics and heliophysics would also see modest increases of $36 million and $14 million, respectively. "Science is moving gingerly forward amid greater uncertainty at the rest of NASA," says Matt Mountain, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland. One science project that exemplified the uncertainty is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, which an independent review found would cost at least $1.5 billion more than anticipated (see Nature 468, 353-354; 2010). The White House budget grants $374 million to the JWST for 2012, although the review revealed that the telescope would need $500 million over the next two years to meet an expected launch date of September 2015. With the 2011 budget still in limbo, a 2015 launch date is unrealistic and could even slip past 2016, said JWST programme manager Rick Howard in a press briefing. The delay could mean further cost overruns for the mission. Most of NASA's 2012 reductions stem from the retirement of the space-shuttle fleet, which will see its final two budgeted flights, plus an additional flight that has been authorized by Congress but not yet funded in 2011. The new budget will usher in a post-shuttle future, albeit tentatively. It includes $840.6 million to fund commercial companies to develop a vehicle that could ferry astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station, and $2.8 billion towards a heavy-lift launch vehicle that would replace the now-defunct Constellation programme of the George W. Bush era. Neither decision will sit well with elected representatives who favour a more robust human programme. "This budget ignores the human space flight priorities outlined by Congress last year," congressman Peter Olson (Republican, Texas) posted on his web site after the budget's release. "We fought this battle last year and won, and I believe we will do so again."

Republicans are looking to cut earth science – It’s on the chopping block

LaRouche 11 (Lyndon, political activist, 4/20/11, JPG

NASA's Earth science programs are now under scrutiny by the Republicans, and threatened with large cuts, since these circles stupidly think that any satellite that looks at the Earth, is looking for global warming. * The precious teams of highly skilled workers and engineers, who have prepared the Space Shuttles for 30 years, are now being dispersed to the wind. United Space Alliance (USA), whose workers train the astronauts, prepare Shuttle payloads, and launch and refurbish the orbiters, announced April 15th the details of the last big round of layoffs in the Shuttle program. After the last Shuttle mission, now scheduled for June, half of the remaining USA workforce, around 2,800 workers, will be gone. In 2009, USA had 10,500 people working in the Shuttle program.
Cuts to earth science kill competitiveness

House Committee SSTD 11 (Science, Space, and Tech Democrats, 2011, JPG

The budget resolution that these Views and Estimates are intended to inform is being developed even while the FY 2011 budget remains in play.  The House consideration of the FY 2011 budget has been marked by severe cuts to important research and development (R&D) initiatives in order to meet arbitrary fiscal goals.  The end result of those cuts, if enacted into law, would be thousands of layoffs and furloughs among the best and brightest of our scientists and engineers; curtailment of critical research activities to protect the public from environmental hazards; fewer innovative technologies to enable the industries of the future; and serious damage to our core scientific and technological capabilities. The President’s FY 2012 budget request, on the other hand, recognizes that even in these challenging economic times, we need not—and should not—sacrifice our future for the sake of crippling cuts to a small fraction of the total federal budget.  With vision and perseverance, we can be both fiscally responsible and make the necessary investments to keep the American economy competitive in the coming decades while keeping our people and our environment healthy.

Earth Science Shell

US technological leadership and economic competitiveness is key to hegemony

Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, fellow at RAND, “Losing the moment? The United States and the World after the Cold War?” Washington Quarterly, volume: 18, Spring) HD

The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen.

Heg collapse causes nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 [Zalmay, Former RAND Fellow, Current US Ambassador, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis]

a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Download 0.9 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   83

The database is protected by copyright © 2024
send message

    Main page