CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization CP
1nc .................................................................................................................................................................................2 1nc Net Benefit - Spending............................................................................................................................................3 2nc Spending NB (extension) .....................................................................................................................................4 1nc Politics Net benefit ...............................................................................................................................................6 Net benefit NASA bad ................................................................................................................................................7 NASA bad - extension ...................................................................................................................................................8 Privatization solves - general ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Privatization solves US heg ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Privatization solves - Constellation ............................................................................................................................. 13 Privatization solves Space solar power ..................................................................................................................... 14 Privatization solves - Asteroids ................................................................................................................................... 15 Privatization solves launch vehicles ......................................................................................................................... 16

**Aff answers** Affirmative solvency answers ..................................................................................................................................... 17 No spending net benefit ............................................................................................................................................... 18

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

1nc
Plan: The United States federal government should fund research and development and sponsor liability insurance for private ventures to _______________________. CP solves - Incentives to private companies solves best for space exploration. Jakhu and Buzdugan 08 (Ram and Maria, Professor Kakhu is the chairman of the legal and regulatory committee of international
association for the advancement of space safety and a member of the board of the international institute of the space law international astronautical federation, Maria Buzdugan is a member of the institute of air and space law, Development of the Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies: Economic and Legal Aspects, http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905076663)

The path of gradual commercialization of current space applications, such as launch services, satellite communication services, direct broadcasting services, satellite remote sensing and navigation services, and satellite weather monitoring services, will most likely be followed by future activities of use of space resources. Ventures, like mining the natural resources of the Moon and asteroids, are likely to become technologically feasible in the near future. The question is what would be the most appropriate approach to address the future needs of exploitation of space resources: should it remain the exclusive province of state governments; should the private sector take over such space activities; or should a public-private partnership type of venture be encouraged? As state governments are becoming constrained by budget deficits, an increased reliance on private sector involvement in space activities involving the extraction and use of space resources is to be expected. When deciding whether to invest in commercial ventures of resource use exploitation , any potential private investor will be faced with the issues of economic costs, risks, and perceived regulatory barriers.
This study argues that the perceived regulatory barriers, i.e., the licensing requirement, the common heritage of mankind principle of international space law, and protection of intellectual property rights, are not obstacles to economic development . Governments should

provide both policy and regulatory incentives for private sector participation in the area of space natural resource use by funding basic research and development and by sponsoring liability insurance for private ventures among other incentives.

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

1nc Net Benefit - Spending

Private sector is more efficient than government at spending. Scatz 11(Thomas, president of Citizens Against Government Waste and spent six years as legislative director,
Testimony Before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 2-17, http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/government-affairs/testimony/house-committee-oversight.html NASAs Constellation Program has come under frequent criticism, for good reason . Despite having spent more than $10
billion on the program to date, NASA is no closer to sending an astronaut to space than it was when the program began. According to a letter from NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin to Sens. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) on January 13, 2011, due to restrictive language in NASAs fiscal year (FY) 2010 appropriation, coupled with the fact that NASA and the rest of the Federal Government are currently being funded by a continuing resolution (CR) that carries over these restrictions and prohibits initiation of new projects, NASA is continuing to spend approximately $200 million each month on the Constellation Program, aspects of which both NASA and Congress have agreed not to build . Furthermore, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 requires NASA to spend more than $10 billion in the next three years to continue Constellation, now referred to as the Space Launch System and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle. Unfortunately, NASA delivered a report to Congress on January 12, 2011 concluding that

it simply cant build a rocket that fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined in the Authorization Act. Even so, some members of Congress are insisting that NASA move forward with the program. The private sector can spend money more effectively than government bureaucrats. As a result, the governments role in space exploration should be minimized .

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

2nc Spending NB (extension)

Private sectors taking over allows money to be spent more efficiently Diamandis 10 (Peter, chief executive of the X Prize Foundation and chairman of the Rocket Racing
League,Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?, 2-13, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
Perhaps the most important factor is the empowerment of youth over the graybeards now running the show. The average age of the engineers who built Apollo was 28; the average age in the aerospace workforce is now over 50. Young doers have less to risk when proposing bold solutions. This is not to say that the government will have no role in the next 50 years in space. Governments will retain the critical work of pure science, and of answering some of the biggest unknowns : Is there life on Mars, or around other stars? Governments will play the important role of big customer as they get out of the operations business. Private industry routinely takes

technologies pioneered by the governmentlike air mail, computers and the Internetand turns them into affordable, reliable and robust industries.

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

1nc Politics Net benefit

The Congress supports funding for private sector space exploration
Powell 10 (Stewart M. Powell, Writer for the Houston Chronicle, Private Sectors Role May Expand in Space Travel, Houston Chronicle, August 1st 2010, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/7134009.html) The long-winded skirmish between President Barack Obama and Congress over NASA and the future of the Johnson Space Center teeters largely on one issue: How much money will be handed over to commercial spacecraft companies to carry astronauts into orbit. As Congress prepares to head home for summer recess, one thing is clear. The president won't get the entire $812 million he wants next year to begin his $6 billion commercial program because Congress is unlikely to give it to him. But the Senate and to a lesser extent the House has signaled that the White House probably will get enough in the $19 billion NASA budget to begin a historic change in that direction. Until now, the space agency has relied exclusively on NASA spacecraft or NASA-contracted Russian spacecraft to carry every American astronaut into orbit since John Glenn's breakthrough mission in 1962. "From the earliest days on the American frontier, commercial interests have always followed the steps of explorers," says Howard McCurdy, an American University scholar. "There's widespread political consensus now for the commercial space sector to have a go at transportation into low earth orbit.

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Net benefit NASA bad

NASA fails; corrupt and inefficient - is empirically proven to be incompetent Thomas 2010 [Mike Thomas, Journalist for the Orlando Sentinel, 9/15/10, NASA incompetent or just lying
to us?, Orlando Sentinel, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-15/news/os-mike-thomas-abolish-nasa091610-20100915_1_nasa-s-ares-nasa-administrator-michael-griffin-steve-isakowitz] This is the latest plan NASA is considering to get us to infinity and beyond. It would break the shuttle into pieces. It would take the engines off the orbiter, put them on the bottom of the fuel tank, and throw the rest of the orbiter away. Then it would put the astronauts in a capsule on top of the fuel tank. It's sort of like putting Mr. Potato Head's nose where his hat used to be, and switching his arms and ears around. Why didn't someone think of this before? Wait a minute. Someone did! Some space buffs and engineers came up with the idea in 2006, without the requisite $5 billion in research-and-development funding from Congress. They worked under the program name Direct and dubbed their creation Jupiter. Direct gained a cult following, particularly when it became apparent that NASA's Ares rocket had about as much chance of getting off the ground as Rosie O'Donnell wearing a helicopter beanie cap. NASA boss investigated for possible conflict of interest on biofuel project But that was something NASA Administrator Michael Griffin the brain and the brawn behind Ares would never admit. Ares was his vision, his place in history. Many tried, but he would be the one to rescue NASA from years of floundering, the one to finally send people to Mars and beyond. Standing straight and tall on the launchpad, Ares was a 21stcentury Washington Monument. Jupiter was a 20th-century Mr. Potato Head, with his nose where his hat should be. Oh, the horror. Gone would be the billions of research-and-development dollars flowing into NASA, money spent on minor details such as figuring out how to stop Ares from shaking astronauts to death at liftoff. So Griffin unleashed the NASA public-relations machine against Jupiter. It defied the laws of physics. It was a dodo bird that would never fly. Meanwhile, a growing group of dissident engineers within NASA were reaching the same conclusion about Ares. To them, this Jupiter idea wasn't so crazy. But Griffin kept pumping billions into Ares with the full blessing of the Bush administration. Like Brownie over at FEMA, Griffin was doing a heck of a job. President Barack Obama didn't agree. He showed Griffin the escape hatch and went looking for a replacement.

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

NASA bad - extension

NASA fails in steady decline and private companies are better TalkTank, 2011 Privatization of the Space Industry: Changing of the Guard January 13,
2011http://talktank.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/privatization-of-the-space-industry-changing-of-the-guard/ NASA is no longer valuable. The group was never founded for scientific purposes, which are currently its only goals at present time. It was founded to countera ct Sputnik 1, launched October 4, signaling soviet space aggression. America was aghast, the Russians had surpassed the American sciences, morale plummeted and many questioned if the United States could prevail in the Cold War.The answer to this question was the formation of NASA, on July 29, 1958. The administration was constructed as a propaganda tool, their goals was to surpass the Russian space program, invigorate the American morale, demoralize the Russian people, and perhaps figure out the logistics of putting nuclear missiles in space.None of these goals apply to today, the USSR has fallen apart there is no longer a need for large numbers of nuclear missiles. A few more powerful modern nukes are now considered much more useful than several hundred less powerful and expensive to maintain, nukes. This has directly lad to NASAs steady decline; they no longer have the financial resources to pursue any courses of action effectively.Private companies are taking advantage of this federal slip up, capitalizing on failing NASA programs and creating new space markets that will make the cosmos accessible to the everyman..

Corruption among NASA leaders

Zax 10 (David Zax, Company Journalist, Is NASAs Chief Corrupt?, Fast Company, September 21st 2010, http://www.fastcompany.com/1690381/is-nasas-chief-corrupt?partner=rss) Back in June, the Orlando Sentinel reported that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was up to something fishy. NASA was at work on an exciting new algae fuel project called OMEGA (Offshore Membrane Enclosure for Growing Algae). But it seemed Bolden was trying to slow down OMEGA. The Sentinel claimed it was because he was advised to do so by Marathon Oil, a company with a competing biofuels project--and a company in which Bolden held stock worth up to $1,000,000. "It definitely does not pass the smell test," the director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics told the Sentinel. NASA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) began an investigation. We got the results of that investigation yesterday, which has since been making headlines in science sections. "Investigator Says NASA Chief Erred in Call," wrote the New York Times. NASA administrator Charlie Bolden rapped for violating ethics pledge," says the Sentinel. Laboratory Equipment journal went for the old standby: "NASA, We have a problem." Most quoted a highlight of the report, an email from one NASA employee who griped about his boss: "This is frankly the worst of NASA, and I don't like it. It is 'good ole boy' networks at it's [sic] worst and not worthy of NASA and this administration." Skim the stories and you'd get the sense that Bolden was up to something seriously corrupt, and that he might be on his way out.

NASA is corrupt all the way to the top Block and Matthews 2010 [Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews, journalists with the Orlando Sentinel,
6/20/10, NASA boss investigated for possible conflict of interest on biofuel project, Orlando Sentinel, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-06-20/news/os-nasa-administrator-scandal-20100620_1_nasaadministrator-charlie-bolden-marathon-oil-biofuel] But government ethics watchdogs say Bolden should have steered clear of involvement with the project because of his ties to the industry and financial holdings. "It definitely does not pass the smell test," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, who called Bolden's conversation "wholly inappropriate." Bolden's action has infuriated the director of NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif., where the project is based. In an e-mail obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, Pete Worden, a former astronomy professor and retired Air Force general, angrily demanded an explanation. "I think my folks are entitled to know who talked to Charlie and the basis of their criticism so we can respond. This is frankly the worst of NASA, and I don't like it. It is 'good ole boy' networks at its worst and not worthy of NASA and this administration," he wrote. The controversy comes amid a time of unprecedented turmoil surrounding the agency, with the space shuttle retiring soon and the future of the human-spaceflight program caught in a tug of war between Congress and the administration. Privately, White House and congressional officials have expressed growing doubts about Bolden's judgment.

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

NASA bad - extension

NASA has serious fiscal mismanagement and incompetence issues and uses aggressive Public Relations campaigns to try and hide it Thomas 2010 [Mike Thomas, Journalist with the Chicago Tribune, 9/12/10, NASA incompetent or just lying
to us?, The Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/os-mike-thomas-abolish-nasa091610-20100915,0,3242038.column?page=1] Ares was his vision, his place in history. Many tried, but he would be the one to rescue NASA from years of floundering, the one to finally send people to Mars and beyond. Standing straight and tall on the launchpad, Ares was a 21st-century Washington Monument. Jupiter was a 20th-century Mr. Potato Head, with his nose where his hat should be. Oh, the horror. Gone would be the billions of research-and-development dollars flowing into NASA, money spent on minor details such as figuring out how to stop Ares from shaking astronauts to death at liftoff. So Griffin unleashed the NASA public-relations machine against Jupiter. It defied the laws of physics. It was a dodo bird that would never fly. Meanwhile, a growing group of dissident engineers within NASA were reaching the same conclusion about Ares. To them, this Jupiter idea wasn't so crazy. But Griffin kept pumping billions into Ares with the full blessing of the Bush administration. Like Brownie over at FEMA, Griffin was doing a heck of a job. President Barack Obama didn't agree. He showed Griffin the escape hatch and went looking for a replacement. Several good candidates surfaced, including Steve Isakowitz, the chief financial officer at the Department of Energy. His strength was NASA's weakness: fiscal management. Enter Sen. Bill Nelson, dubbed "Ballast" by some astronauts before his 1986 shuttle flight.

NASA is corrupt lost U.S. competitiveness and uses destructive pork barrel spending Space Projects 2000 [Space Projects, Washington Times, NASAs crimes against capitalism in space,
November 5, 2000] Meanwhile, the U.S.A. slipped to having just 29% of the worlds launch marketshare in the year 2000, even though it had 48% of it in 1996, and approximately 100% of it just 2 decades ago. How did this happen if NASA is legally obligated to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space"?. NASA has a larger space budget than practically all of the rest of the world's civilian space agencies COMBINED. So how is it, then, that U.S. private industry has rapidly lost so much of its global competitiveness? Other countries evolved from being essentially nonplayers in space 2 decades ago, to possessing dominant commercial players today. This transpired even as the USA shedded merely a little of its space-related statist baggage from the Cold War, while astonishingly missing the chance to avoid fading into commercial obscurity. "Coincidentally", perhaps, NASAs annual budget is a little over 3 times larger than the National Science Foundations, but NASA participates or collaborates in nearly 9 times as much pork barrel spending. It would be inaccurate for NASA to claim that such earmarks are all involuntarily imposed upon it by Congressional representatives, too. NASA willingly funnels money into politically significant districts in order to persuade Congressional oversight officials and appropriators to forgive NASA's flagrant wastefulness. All this pork barrel spending has its consequences for genuinely entrepreneurial companies, as well as taxpayers and fans of space. Is a true merit-based award system not worth restoring to the U.S. space program, considering how technological revolutions, the inspiring of students, and resource acquisition stemming from space could hopefully empower the U.S.A. to finally repay its growing $6.2 trillion national debt? Or are you satisfied with how Uncle Sugar is performing for us?

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves - general

Private Sector Solves- the sooner space is switched to the private sector, the better. Connor 11 (Paul Connor, online editor of the daily caller, Gingrish blasts NASA, imagines private sector
creating permanent moon station, The Daily Caller, June 14th 2011, http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/14/gingrich-blasts-nasa-imagines-private-sector-creating-permanentmoon-station/) Newt Gingrich took aim at NASA Monday night during the New Hampshire GOP debate, calling it an absolute case study in why bureaucracy cant innovate. If you take all the money weve spent at NASA since weve landed at the moon and you applied that money to incentives for the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles, Gingrich said. Instead what weve had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure, he continued. The question was on whether or not the candidates thought that space exploration was a worthy investment of federal money. Were at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities, and unfortunately NASA is standing in the way of it when NASA ought to be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector, Gingrich said.

Private sector solves better Cleavelin 11(Cade, writer of The Maneater, newspaper at University of Missouri, 1-21, In The Private Sector,
Space Will Pay For Itself, http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2011/1/21/private-sector-space-will-pay-itself/) Private firms, headed by savvy and capable business leaders, will be able to make space flight profitable in ways NASA cannot. Space flight will become a stable and viable industry, and therefore research and space exploration will progress faster than it would in the hands of one government entity. Granting private corporations the opportunity to
continue down the path NASA has carved and pursue new opportunities of development will make space flight a more secure undertaking. Space flight and exploration will never take off like it should if the work is limited to one government entity that is ever strapped for cash. Its not as if privatizing space flight will suddenly allow conniving rocket tycoons to monopolize scientific exploration. Some of the most brilliant people in their fields work in private industry. Companies like SpaceX employ intelligent individuals, with the same degrees as NASA engineers, who know what theyre doing in designing rockets and planning missions. One of the

most optimistic outcomes of privatizing space flight is that rocket engineers will finally earn salaries befitting their education level and performance.

NASAs bureaucracy kills space development private sector solves better Garmong, 2005 [Robert Garmong, Ph.D in Philosophy, Capitalism Magazine, Privatize Space Exploration,
July 22, 2005] There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.

10

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves - general

Private Sector Solves Better i.e. SpaceX Carberry 2010 [Chris Carberry, head of Explore Mars Inc., Explore Mars Inc. Congratulates SpaceX on
Outstanding Success of Dragon/Falcon 9, December 8, 2010] Explore Mars, Inc. congratulates SpaceX for its successful first flight of the Dragon spacecraft. By all accounts, this inaugural flight of the Dragon, launched by SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle, was a resounding success. SpaceX's success in developing both the Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft in just a few years for a relatively modest sum of money validates a new approach for developing the launch vehicles and spacecraft necessary to reach Mars and beyond. As noted by Explore Mars Policy Director Joe Webster, "SpaceX has shown that there is new approach to opening the space frontier that is both sustainable and affordable. The importance of what Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX have accomplished for getting humans to Mars cannot be overstated."

11

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves US heg

Privatization solves best for US leadership Steven Nelson Fiscal conservatives call for increased privatization of space Published: 4:14 PM 02/08/2011 | Updated: 4:30 PM 02/08/2011 Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/fiscal-conservatives-call-for-increased-privatization-of-space/#ixzz1QPb7DPqr Former Republican Rep. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania said, If we really want to win the future, we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through the American entrepreneur.Task Force chairman Rand Simberg, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said, By opening space up to the American people and their enterprises, NASA can ignite an economic, technological, and innovation renaissance, and the United States will regain its rightful place as the world leader in space.

Privatization solves US leadership TalkTank, 2011 Privatization of the Space Industry: Changing of the Guard January 13,
2011http://talktank.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/privatization-of-the-space-industry-changing-of-the-guard/ The future of the space industry is a race, a race between the independent American corporations and various international superpowers. China, India, and Japan have launched initiatives to put members of their own nationalities in space, hoping to beat America back to the moon and then beating them to Mars. SpaceX and the remnants of NASA, who will be revitalized by the foreign threat similar to their old opponent, will lead the Americans. These four sides will race to every celestial body in the solar system, staking rights and claiming glory. The great race of our times is almost upon us.

12

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves - Constellation

Private solves constellation better Thomas 2010 [Mike Thomas, Journalist with the Chicago Tribune, 9/12/10, NASA incompetent or just lying
to us?, The Chicago Tribune, http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/os-mike-thomas-abolish-nasa091610-20100915,0,3242038.column?page=1] Obama wants to dump Ares and turn much of the space program over to the competitive world of private enterprise. He sees the future in companies such as SpaceX, a start-up venture in California that is developing rockets at a fraction the previous cost. Nelson and the anti-government Republicans in Texas and Alabama want no part of this. They want big-government inefficiency and all the wasted billions that brings their states. They are joined by the aerospace giants, which see their guaranteed profits and $100,000 shuttle tool belts threatened. So here we sit. Ares won't fly. Congress won't give it up. Obama won't fund it. NASA is devoid of a strong leader to break the logjam. And this takes us back to Direct's Jupiter. The rocket that NASA once said was not physically capable of flight has now become a NASA option."It turns out Direct was right," a NASA engineer working on the project told the Orlando Sentinel this week. Now they tell us? This means that NASA either is completely incompetent, has been lying for four years or is praying its last Hail Mary.

Privatization solves Constellation more efficiently David 10 (N, david is a freelance writer for helium, The NASA 2011 Budget and the Future of Americas
Program, http://www.helium.com/items/1734055-nasa-2011-budget, 2/7) One encouraging sign is that the commercialization of low Earth orbit is part of the plan. The Space Shuttle fleet will be retired at the end of 2010. Rather than use NASA resources to develop a replacement for the Shuttle, the goal is to have the commercial sector develop the means to reach low Earth orbit. The commercialization of space is long overdue. Private enterprise will do it more efficiently and cost-effectively, and leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector frees up NASA resources to explore deep space. Billions of dollars are allocated to NASA in the 2011 budget and beyond for research and development of new technologies and approaches to space flight. Hopefully, breakthrough technologies will make space flight easier, faster, and more affordable.

13

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves Space solar power

Private Sectors already taking initial steps towards SBSP Hadhazy 09 (Adam Hadhazy, Editor in chief at portal to the universe, Will Space Based Solar Power
Finally See the Light of Day?, Scientific American, April 16th 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finally-see-the-light-ofday) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) has long invested in renewable energy sources, including geothermal, wind and solar. Earlier this week, the utility company reached for the stars in announcing the first-ever deal of its kind: The California power utility, says spokesperson Jonathan Marshall, plans to purchase clean energy generated by a satellite beaming solar power from orbit. The agreement between PG&E and Solaren Corp., an eight-year-old company based in Manhattan Beach, Calif., still hinges on state regulatory approval. If the deal gets the green light, Solaren must then privately raise billions of dollars to design, launch and operate a satellite as well as an energy-receiving ground station slated for the Fresno County area, says Cal Boerman, director of energy services for Solaren.

Private sectors can get sbsp up by 2016

Westenhaus 09 (Brian Westenhaus, manager of new energy and fuel, Space Based Solar Energy Gets the Regulatory OK, New Energy and Fuel, December 10th 2009, http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/12/10/space-based-solar-energy-deal-gets-theregulatory-ok/) Late last week after a 6 month wait, the California Public Utilities Commission approved Pacific Gas & Electrics power purchase agreement with Solaren. If Solaren successfully deploys its space-based solar collectors, the deal would be the first of its kind and the first commercial space based energy production at commercial scale. PG&E has contracted to buy 1,700 gigawatt hours per year for 15 years from Solaren produced by the space-based solar arrays. The arrays will have a generating capacity of 200 megawatts. While thats smaller than a full scale nuclear or natural gas plant its enough to supply thousands of homes. The anticipated date of operation is amazingly, June of 2016. Thats not so far out to see if the plan can be made to work.

14

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves - Asteroids

Private Sector programs detect asteroids early Peckyno, 2004 [Robert Peckyno, Bachelor of Science at Middle Tennessee State University, The Sky is Falling:
Disaster Mitigation, Management and Media Regarding the Asteroid Threat, August 2004] If a 50-100 m object was found by any of the ongoing public or private observation programs, it would be uploaded to and announced by the Minor Planet Center (MPC) on the NEO Confirmation Page (NEOCP) with a rough orbital prediction to help follow-up observers find the object. Initially, the approximate size of the object would be
unknown. Under normal circumstances, the MPC would receive some follow-up observations during the following 24 hours and would revise the initial prediction published on the NEOCP (even though the orbit would still be somewhat speculative). At this point, institutions around the world including many amateur astronomers -employed by no government or institution in their backyard endeavors would help with the follow-up observations needed to pin down the newly discovered rock's actual trajectory. Once three groups of observations are obtained, the MPC could reasonably calculate an initial orbit and would run the orbit forward for the Minor Planet Electronic Circular (MPEC) announcement of the observations, orbit, and ephemeris. This first MPEC is usually issued when the MPC has three groups of observations.

After another couple of days, however, there would be many additional observations and any inconsistencies would be uncovered defining the orbit even better. Within a few days, it should be pretty obvious if there is a significant impact probability. Intuition would suggest that the impact probability increases progressively with every additional set of data, but this is not always the case mainly due to systematic observational errors. The evolution of impact probability during the first 100 days shows a rather erratic pattern though the situation has improved somewhat since 1997, however, since modern star catalogs based on Hipparcos results have smaller systematic errors: the 50% probability might be reached 4-5 weeks earlier.

15

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Privatization solves launch vehicles

Private sector has already built launch vehicles Hertzfeld et al, 2005 [Henry R. Hertzfeld, Research Professor at George Washington University, Ray A.
Williamson, Research Professor at George Washington University, and Nicolas Peter, Research Assistant, Space Policy Institute, Launch Vehicles: An Economic Perspective, December 14, 2005] Two EELVs were developed in joint government-private sector programs: Boeings Delta IV and Lockheed Martins Atlas V. Both vehicles have successfully entered service. Originally, one of those companies would have been selected in 1998 to develop the EELV. In November 1997, responding to indicators at the time that the commercial space launch market would be larger than expected, DOD announced that it would help fund development of both Atlas V and Delta IV. In October 1998, DOD awarded Boeing $1.88 billion for the Delta IV ($500 million for further development plus $1.38 billion for 19 launches), and awarded Lockheed Martin $1.15 billion for the Atlas V ($500 million for further development plus $650 million for 9 launches). The companies were expected to pay the rest of the development costs themselves. (Boeing officials state that Boeing invested $2.5 billion in design, development, and infrastructure for the Delta IV, of which the company wrote off $2 billion.) In 2000,
however, new market forecasts showed a reduction in expected commercial demand, and DOD began reevaluating its EELV strategy. It renegotiated the contracts with both companies. The companies also approached DOD to obtain additional government funding because of the downturn in the commercial market. This is called assured access to space in the sense of assuring that both companies remain in the EELV business so DOD has redundancy in capability should one of the launch vehicles experience difficulties

Government control of launch vehicles stops the private sectors progress CP solves Space Exploration Technology Corporation, 2011 [Space Exploration Technology Corporation
(SpaceX), Testimony Before the House of Representatives Subcommittee On Space and Aeronautics, 2011] In the case of launch vehicles, the level of uncompetitiveness is so great that we at SpaceX are confident of not just a significant improvement in reliability, but also of establishing and maintaining a several fold price reduction. Hopefully, this will stimulate the other three US launch vehicle companies to re-examine their processes, as GM and Ford did in their time, and provide a better and lower cost product to their customers. I am also optimistic that the success of SpaceX will result in other entrepreneurial companies entering the space business, both in launch and the manufacture of lower cost spacecraft. Some look at the cost of launch and comment that it only represents a portion of the total mission cost. This is a very nave conclusion. In fact, it all starts with launch cost. If you are paying
$5000/lb to put something in orbit, you will naturally pay up to $5000/lb to save weight on your satellite, creating a vicious circle of cost inflation. The result is a cost impedance match between the spacecraft and the launch vehicle, but it is driven by the launch vehicle. If you could launch for much lower cost and manifest quickly, instead of the two years advance notice required to launch in the US, that satellite would cost a lot less. A case example is TacSat-1, the DoD satellite on the maiden flight of Falcon I.

16

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

Affirmative solvency answers

Privatization empirically fails Butler 10 (Katherine, Butler is a leader writer at greenopia.com and at MNN, The Pros and Cons of
Commercializing Space Travel, http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/the-pros-and-consof-commercializing-space-travel, 3-8) Further, Dinerman points out that private efforts into space have failed again and again. He refers to dozens of private start-ups that never got off the ground, let alone into space. Dinerman points to Lockheed Martin's X-33 design, which was supposed to replace the space shuttle in 1996. The design never succeeded and ultimately cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. Amazon.com Chief Executive Jeff Bezos company Blue Origin set up the DC-X program in the early 1990s. Its suborbital test vehicle was initially successful but was destroyed in a landing accident. Dinerman claims, The Clinton administration saw the DC-X as a Reagan/Bush legacy program, and was happy to cancel it after the
accident.

Privatization ends with failure no tech breakthroughs McGowan 6/8/09 worked at NASA Ames Research Center as a contractor and is active in the Mars Society
(John, Can the private sector make a breakthrough in space access?, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1388/1) A number of modern business practices, common in high technology business, are incompatible with the general pattern of major breakthroughs. This is not to say that these business practices will always prevent a breakthrough, but in general there is a serious conflict. For this reason, private sector attempts to achieve cheap access to space are likely to continue to fail. To succeed, public, private, and public/private attempts to achieve cheap access to space must consider carefully the cost and duration of trials. Most major breakthroughs have involved hundreds to thousands of trials. The total cost and schedule is thus driven by the cost and duration per trial. Thus, technologies and approaches with high per-trial costs and durations are likely to fail, even if they otherwise seem promising, absent very heavy funding. Thus, efforts to achieve cheap access to space need to look closely at traditional methods such as scale models for affordable research and development of space access. The private sector needs to develop funding and management mechanisms that are consistent with the longer time frame of major breakthroughs. The issue is not necessarily one of money. At least historically, major breakthroughs have sometimes been made on small budgets. It is not clear that this cannot be done with space access. However, these breakthroughs usually take a long time and involve numerous frustrating failures. Sharply lowering the per-trial cost can help make this process more acceptable. As a practical matter, it can be rather difficult to sensibly manage a process that usually involves long periods of repeated failures.

17

CHS Debate 11-12

Privatization CP

Bunnell/Splitter

No spending net benefit

Space privatization wastes money Gagnon 03 (Bruce, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and Senior
Fellow at The Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Space Privatization: Road to Conflict?, 6-21, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/road_to_conflict.htm)
Three major issues come immediately to mind concerning space privatization . Space as an environment, space law, and profit in space. We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100 ,000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18,000 m. p. h. Several space shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked windshields. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because space junk was coming dangerously close . Some space writers have predicted that the ISS will one day be destroyed by debris. As we see a flurry of launches by private space

corporations the chances of accidents, and thus more debris, becomes a serious reality to consider. Very soon we will reach the point of no return, where space pollution will be so great that an orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space. The time as certainly come for a global discussion about how we treat the sensitive environment called space before it is too late. The taxpayers, especially in the U. S. where NASA has been funded with
taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space . Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier. " Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself

in profits. One Republican Congressman from Southern California, an ally of the aerospace industry, has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free". In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment. " Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone " where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth. Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more . Privatization really means that profits will be privatized . Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit . Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created .

Private sector fails too expensive and experimental Foust 2/15/10 editor and publisher of The Space Review (Jeff, Commercial space takes center stage,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1566/1) The Obama Administrations shift in direction for NASA has been criticized primarily on two fronts: that it strips from NASA specific goals and deadlines for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), and that it relies too strongly on the private sector. Even some conservatives who might normally be receptive to the privatization of government programs have expressed opposition to NASAs shift in direction. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts, wrote conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer in his latest column on Friday. But they cannot do it. Its too expensive. Its too experimental.

18