New Aff Updates - Paperless Debate

Document Sample
New Aff Updates - Paperless Debate Powered By Docstoc
					SDI 11
File Title

             New Aff Updates
SDI 11
File Title

                                        New U.S. Leadership Evidence

Abandoning the mission to the moon will crush U.S. global leadership and without a government program
private efforts will fail
Dinnerman August 1-11
Taylor, Senior editor Hudson Institute
Space exploration is not only critical in refusing to surrender the battlefield of space – our next serious theater of war -- to our present and
future adversaries; it also necessary in retaining US technological superiority and being able to utilize the energy and
mineral resources of the Solar system essential for future global prosperity. The major problem is that It is not just
NASA but the whole of the US space industry that is in trouble. It is laying off men and women by the thousand;
their skills and experience will be lost forever. Reconstituting the ability to build complex and reliable space systems
without these people will be an even more expensive and time consuming process. Meanwhile, this strategically vital
industry will see its overseas competitors, such as China, grow and develop. America's edge in space is endangered, and if it
disappears, a large proportion of America's global power will disappear along with it. Presidents have traditionally used
NASA for both diplomatic and military purposes. During the Eisenhower administration the President's advisors wrote that "The novel nature of
space exploration offers opportunities for international cooperation in it's peaceful aspects. " Nixon did not hesitate to use the success
of the Apollo Moon mission to enhance America's global position , the Astronauts traveled around the world as living symbols of
US technological superiority. Bill Clinton sought to cement a positive relationship with post communist Russia by giving them a major role in the
Space Station project. NASA has also been useful in developing and preserving technologies with important military applications. The sensors
used on interplanetary probes are similar and sometimes identical to the ones used on the most advanced spy satellites. Life support technologies
developed for the shuttle find their way into the flight suits worn by pilots who fly high altitude military jets. And while America has not built a
new ICBM or submarine launched nuclear missile for decades, NASA, by keeping the solid rocket motor industry alive has insured that if the
decision were made to build a new type of missile for the US nuclear deterrent force, the Defense Department could do so without having to
rebuild the nation's solid fueled rocket making expertise from nothing. By keeping America's space industry alive and healthy
NASA has in the past directly contributed to overall US global power. As the agency succumbs to confusion and a
lack of clear direction its ability to help keep America secure and prosperous will inevitably diminish. So, too, with
the rest of the US aerospace industry. Boeing's effort to set up a second production line for its new 787 airliner has been declared illegal
by the National Labor Relations Board on the grounds that it was going to be built in South Carolina, a "right to work" state. The courts seem to
have thought that this was supposedly Boeing's way of illegally punishing the unionized workers in Washington state, who, by the way, will not
suffer from a single layoff or lose a single hour's pay due to this increase in 787 production. The F-22 manufacturing program is also shutting
down. The administration claimed that it onlyneeds 187 of these air superiority fighters. Those parts of the F-35 program that are not "on
probation" are under attack for what are perceived as massive cost overruns. It looks as if the Defense budget will be cut by more than $500
billion; and there is serious talk of shutting down America's ability to build nuclear powered aircraft carriers As America's space shuttle program
comes to an end, NASA faces an uncertain and probably painful future. With a smaller budget and without a mission that has broad national
support, the space agency has been floundering amid what the Washington Post calls "Rancor". If NASA was in "disarray" in January 2009, as
the current NASA leaders claim, then every single agency of the federal government that tries to accomplish or build anything was, and still is, in
equal disarray. NOAA, the FAA, the Coast Guard, The Departments of Agricultural, Energy and Education, to name a few, have all proven
incapable of meeting their goals or building hardware on time or within budget. Only those parts of the Government that are dedicated to stopping
people from doing things,or regulating human activity, are not in "disarray." They may not be doing anything useful, but they are not in disarray.
To say, as Newt Gingrich did recently, that the problem at NASA is "Bureaucracy" is too miss the point. It was not NASA's employees who got
America into this humiliating mess; it was America's politicians. Admittedly, NASA's Administrator and his Deputy worked hard, along with the
President's science advisor and the rest of the White House team, to alienate a critical mass of members of Congress by ignoring their concerns,
rejecting their advice and blindsiding them with critical space policy decisions. . The Obama administration then wrecked the previous program
on the grounds that it was underfunded and behind schedule, and replaced it with a new program that looks as if it is now underfund and behind
schedule. Congressmen and women being human, and under massive pressure to cut spending, have now cut the guts out of the space agency's
proposed budget. One of the more irony-laden recent press releases, at a time when this nation is saturated with them, is from the American
Astronomical Society (AAS), protesting the House Appropriations committee's cancellation of the James Webb Space Telescope. What did the
astronomers expect? Did they really believe that the US Government would demolish the human spaceflight program and leave their precious
"science" programs untouched? The House Appropriations Committee has cut deeply into NASA's overall budget, leaving it with $1.9 billion less
than the President requested. Its members slashed the Commercial Crew Development program, and agreed to increase support only for the new
Space Launch System, sometimes referred to as the Congressional Rocket. To say that NASA is "screwed up" is to put it kindly. Sometimes
destabilizing an institution may be necessary to revive it, but more often the destabilizing is simply destructive. NASA's leadership seems
honestly to believe that everything is A-OK. In a Washington Post article on July 2nd, the agency's Deputy Administrator, Lori Garver, is quoted
as saying, "We have a Program. We have a Budget. We have Bipartisan Support. We have a Destination." Unpacking that statement is an
interesting exercise: it will show that while NASA is losing support for its budget on Capitol Hill, NASA's leaders do not seem to understand why
this is happening. NASA has rejected the policy that the Bush administration had carefully crafted in cooperation with
Members of Congress from both parties and which had been accepted with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was
a policy that not only would get America back to the Moon sometime in the middle of the next decade , but would do so
with a minimum of job losses. Of course NASA has a program; that is the easy part. Turning the program into reality is hard, and there is no sign
that NASA's current leadership can convince Congress to fund the Program. Traditionally NASA has undertaken the job of opening
SDI 11
File Title

up the frontier and without the assurance that NASA can create it is hard to imagine that investors will be willing to
risk providing the financing that the economic expansion of the US into the Solar system. NASA plays a role similar to one the
US cavalry played when America moved west: it provides the settlers and business people with enough security to
risk building a new economy. The House Appropriations Committee has given NASA a budget. It Is hard to imagine how that budget can
be made compatible with Lori Garver's and the administration's program. Congress is funding its priorities: a new rocket and the new exploration
vehicle that the new rocket will launch. Congress is cutting the budget for the things that the administration wants such as the budget for
unfocused technology development The NASA program that the administration wants is one based on the idea that a new kind of 'commercial'
space industry can provide access to orbit, while NASA invents new technologies that can explore the solar system at a lower cost than current
technology would allow. The Congress disagrees and has ordered NASA to build a new heavy-lift rocket using existing technology. With this
rocket, the US will be able to send human missions to the Moon or to Mars or, as the administration wants, to visit an asteroid. The administration
says that it wants to go to an asteroid because it wants to gather information about the formation of the Solar system; that it believes that the
experience of going to an asteroid will help develop the technology and expertise needed to go to Mars. Last year, Congress passed the NASA
Authorization Bill with bipartisan support, but it lacked the overwhelming bipartisan support that previous NASA authorization bills had received
in 2005 and 2007. Sadly, the space agency has lost much of its traditional base of Congressional support and has not been able to find much of a
new one. People at NASA say that they have a destination:a so-far unidentified asteroid.They say this will provide better scientific information
about the early development of the Solar System and that the operation will be a low-cost way to develop technologies that will be needed if
NASA is someday to send people to Mars. But NASA lacks a serious plan to get there and also is having a real problem finding other nations
ready to cooperate. As long as the US cannot maintain a space policy for more than several years at a time, few countries will dare to invest their
time and efforts in cooperating with it. Last February, America's premier space policy expert, John Logsdon, pointed out that, "Today, there most
certainly is no pressing national security question for which the answer is: "go to an asteroid." In an era of tight budgets and angry partisanship, it
may be foolish to imagine that any national leader could convince a large majority of Congress to fund an ambitious national program, let alone
the kind of transnational "feel good" project -- such as the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission that was supposed to symbolize US- Soviet "détente"--
that some people in this administration seem to believe is desirable. The expectation that the "New Space" commercial human
spaceflight industry -- which can be described as a collection of small entrepreneurial firms that have been building
small rockets and have been trying to find low cost ways to get into space -- will be able to replace NASA may not
be realistic.
Considering how things are going in Washington,however, it may be more realistic than any other part of the space agency's current program.
Congress seems ready to cut more than two thirds of the proposed budget for commercial human spaceflight --from the proposed roughly $900
million, down to about $300 million. That cut, however, will just slow the industry down rather than stop it.
This will mean that for many years there will be no way for Americans to get into orbit other than to buy a seat on a Soyuz capsule from the
Russians. As long as NASA depends on Russia for access to the ISS, Russia will be able to shut down that access at any moment and take full
control of a station that America spent more than $80 billion dollars building. There is also the ongoing international image of America's
astronauts dependent on Russia for their professional existence. If NASA chooses to spread tiny -- by government standards -- sums of this $300
million around to all of the current recipients of "commercial" space contracts, the country will end up with a collection of
undercapitalized, nearly bankrupt "New Space" companies that are totally dependent on government funding. There is
also the possibility that regulatory actions by the Federal Aviation Administration, or by some other part of the
government, could bring the whole effort to build the "New Space" industry to an a loud halt, in which event the US
would lose an important body of technical and business knowledge,as well as the drive, enthusiasm and imagination that these bring to the whole
aerospace industry. The problem is that the "New Space" industry is a valuable source of ideas and often pushes NASA and the large
aerospace companies to innovate, to abandon their old procedures in favor of better new ones;but the industry lacks the capital to
accomplish any really big projects such as building a rocket that can actually reach orbit. If America is going to be able to
obtain access to the minerals and energy resources in the Solar System that it needs to thrive in the second half of the 21st century.

Shared By: