HAYS Tahn SKFTA 2AC 1. Non Unique <Insert updated ev> 2.
. No Link - space policies are determined by ideology, not horsetrading.
2AC Politics 2011-2012
Launius and McCurdy 97, NASA Chief historian and Professor in the School of Public Affairs at American University (Roger D
and Howard E., Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership, pg 234-5) If presidential leadership and bipartisan agreement do not affect space policy to a greater degree than other issues, then what does? What has motivated politicians and other leaders to either embrace or reject space exploration? Historically, two factors have shaped the space policy debate in American politics: ideology and the pragmatism of the government contract. Among all the factors affecting space exploration, ideology is the most important. Politicians come to Washington with agendas to complete. Their attitudes toward space exploration are strongly influenced by those agendas. Only when countervailing forces are strong do politicians move off of their ideological agendas. This is not to say, however, that ideology provides a stable continuum for predicting individual positions. Ideological perspectives on the value of a strong space program have undergone a complete reversal since the space age began.'
3. Link turn plan is popular in all areas a. Bipartisan support Pace 11, Director of the Space Policy Institute, and professor of the practice of international a airs at George Washington
Universitys Elliott School of International A airs, and former associate administrator for program analysis and evaluation at NASA (Scott, Conversations with Scott Pace, Aerospace America, April, Ebsco) If you look solely inside the Beltway, you find a relatively small cadre of dedicated, sharp, committed people on both sides of the aisle who are supportive of human spaceflight, human space exploration, not just for whats in their congressional districts, for example, but also because they think it is good for the country. The broader public supports it but doesnt know very much about it. On the other hand, I think space is so entrenched in peoples idea of what the United States is and what it stands for, that turning away from
space would be quite a shock.
b. Republicans love the US military space capabilities CongressDaily 7 (House Republicans call for greater military effort in space, Megan Scully, January 31,
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0107/013107cdpm1.htm) Republican leaders on the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday launched a push for more spending on classified space programs, stating that China's recent anti-satellite missile test ushered in a "new era of military competition." House Armed Services ranking member Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told reporters that the military needs a "new dimension" in its space capabilities after China successfully destroyed a low-orbit weather satellite in a test earlier this month. "That should sharpen our focus and redouble our efforts," Hunter said. Neither Hunter nor House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee ranking member Terry Everett, R-Ala., would discuss specific programs that could receive increased investments. But the United States must be prepared to pre-empt threats, shield U.S. military assets in space from adversaries and quickly replace destroyed systems, Hunter said. Hunter also emphasized that the United States should lean on European allies to halt sales to China of any technologies that could be used to attack U.S. space technologies. With less than a week before the White House sends its fiscal 2008 budget request to Capitol Hill, Hunter and Everett appeared eager to get out front on an issue they believe deserves more attention from both the administration and their congressional colleagues. They wrote a letter Tuesday to President Bush, contending that space systems are "integral to the daily execution of virtually every military campaign, operations and exercise involving U.S. forces today." They called on the administration to review Defense Department programs that protect U.S. space assets, and they encouraged the development of new systems. "The dependency of American warfighting capability, and the economy, on space assets compels our nation to take the necessary steps to ensure our forces cannot be targeted through an adversarial space strike," they wrote.
4. Fiat solves the link backlash means we wouldnt get a case otherwise 5. Case outweighs and solves the impacts a. Global Missile Defense our IFPA evidence indicates that space primacy will allow the develop of a global layered defense system which can shoot down nukes released from their scenarios preventing conflict b. Space col - extinction is inevitable if we stay on earth due to overpopulation and resource scarcity, only colonizing can preserve humanity thats Monga Bay
Ashtar.
HAYS Tahn
2AC Politics 2011-2012
c. Hegemony Dolman ev indicates that rising powers make conflict in space inevitable now is key to concrete in US dominance which prevent all power wars due to the United States ability to box in and control conflict thats Khalizad. d. China Rising Chinese dominance makes conflict inevitable because the US will feel pressured to strike first to preserve dominance, additionally China is arming ASATs now to blind US satellites in the case of a Taiwan invasion, this destroys the economy which would produce nuclear war because great powers would get drawn into conflict, thats Mead. 6. Perm rational policy maker can do the plan and vote for SKFTA. 7. Congressional support is therewe just need to get the plan passed now
Popular Science 11 (By Rebecca Boyle, New Bill Directs NASA Back to the Moon By 2022, With Permanent Habitation In Mind, April 25, http://www.popsci.com/ technology/article/2011-04/new-bill-directs-nasa-back-moon-2022-permanent-base-mind) A moon base had been NASAs goal since 2005, you may remember, after President Bush directed the agency to develop a new rocket and crew transportation system that could go back to the moon and eventually to Mars. President Obama ordered a review of these plans upon taking office. The Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee, also known as the Augustine commission after its chairman, Norman Augustine, determined NASA didnt have nearly enough money to accomplish the goal. Obamas new course for NASA initially ditched the entire Constellation program, including the Ares rocket, but was later tweaked to include funding for a heavy-lift launch vehicle of some kind. The problem is, theres no clear destination for that heavy-lift rocket, and even the commercial spaceflight companies developing new crew vehicles on NASAs behalf arent sure where they would go. Many space exploration advocates insist that NASA needs a destination, not just a journey. Obama has dismissed a moon mission, saying Weve been there before, but some still believe the moon is a viable option for just that reason. Plus, it has plentiful resources although this fact is strangely absent from the new bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla. Cosponsors include Rep. Rob Bishop, RUtah; Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas; Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas; and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. All of the above represent districts with an interest in ongoing NASA space exploration, but Wolfs support is interesting because he chairs the appropriations subcommittee that covers NASA activities. H.R. 1641 has been referred to the House Science, Space and Technology committee. The bill basically follows Obamas vision, loosely defined as exploring elsewhere in the solar system: A sustained human presence on the Moon will allow astronauts and researchers the opportunity to leverage new technologies in addressing the challenges of sustaining life on another celestial body, lessons which are necessary and applicable as we explore further into our solar system, to Mars and beyond, the bill reads. It simply states that NASA funding should be aligned in accordance with this goal. With members of both parties still hammering out a federal budget, additional spending to go back to the moon seems as likely as, well, a trip to the moon. But Posey, advocating for the bill earlier this month, said a clear mission for NASA is necessary. "Without a resolute vision for our human spaceflight program, our program will flounder and ultimately perish," he wrote in an op-ed published in Florida Today.
8. We will preempt their funding links - investments in NASA are popular
Gordon 9, Representative Democrat of Tennessee (Bart, Fiscal 2010 Budget: NASA, May 19, Lexis)
As the overwhelming bipartisan support for the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 demonstrated, Congress believes that NASA is an important contributor to America's future wellbeing, and worthy of our increased investment in it. At the same time, I don't view
investing in NASA as a blank check this Committee is going to be vigilant in seeking to ensure that NASA is a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Indeed, the first hearing of Chairwoman Giffords' Space and Aeronautics subcommittee earlier this year was on NASA's cost management practices, and I have no doubt the Committee will continue our oversight of those issues in the months ahead.
Ashtar.
