Space leadership affirmative – case explanation

Скачать 128.75 Kb.
НазваниеSpace leadership affirmative – case explanation
Дата конвертации14.02.2013
Размер128.75 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13

2011 Novice Core Files Page of

Space Leadership Affirmative

space leadership affirmative – case explanation

The Space Leadership Affirmative simply states that the United States

Federal Government has cut its space programs, specifically, long-range space exploration programs. This is stated in both the Inherency and Solvency observations. Further, as the U.S. decreases its space exploration budget, other nations, specifically China, are looking to fill the void, and are spending far more money on space exploration missions. Much like the atmosphere during the Cold War, the new recession has not only meant cut-backs in spending on federal programs, but competition between the United States and other world powers, to prove they have the capability to launch space missions.

The Harms observation states that space exploration is critical to U.S.

leadership, also known as hegemony. Hegemony is the amount of power a nation can project to the world. The U.S. is currently known as a world leader, but it is known as such because of its military capabilities, known as “hard power,” and its diplomatic capability, known as “soft power.” Space exploration programs, as Observation II states, are a reflection of hard power, and soft power. Space exploration demonstrates the United States’ hard power by showing its ability to protect the nation and its allies by using space satellites for military programs. Space exploration demonstrates U.S. soft power because a lack of U.S. presence in space signals to the world that the U.S. no longer has the money to run a strong space program, which can diplomatically compete with other super powers, such as China.

The Affirmative Plan would have the U.S. Federal Government increase its

long-range space exploration programs. The goal is to compete with nations such as China, who would hope to take over as the world super power by surpassing the U.S. in space. Finally, the Solvency Observation states that U.S. space capability is critical to U.S. hegemony, and that only by asserting its leadership in space, can the United States conquer other nations militarily, as so many of the United States’ military power is now space-based.

Space Leadership – 1AC

observation I: Inherency

  1. despite president obama’s early promises, american space exploration efforts drastically declined

Lou Friedman, former Executive Director, The Planetary Society, March 7, 2011

[The Space Review,]

Eleven months ago fans of space exploration cheered as President Obama, for the first time since John Kennedy, went on the road to support a program for a new venture of human exploration: “We’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow.” Then Congress went to work and, today, we have no coherent human space exploration goals, objectives, or program. We instead have a weak jobs program, spending money on a cancelled project and ordering a new rocket-to-nowhere project. In that same speech the president said, “We will ramp up robotic exploration of the solar system” and “We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world.” In his very next budget submission last month, with still no budget passed by Congress for the current fiscal year, he proposed elimination of robotic precursor missions, a decrease in planetary science funding, and delays of vitally needed Earth science missions (a need which just increased as a result of the loss of Glory). All of the proposed increases that were submitted to Congress last year (and which they failed to act upon) are eliminated. In addition, the budget submission ignored the James Webb Space Telescope and the future Mars program—kicking the can of their consideration down the road. NASA is now not just paralyzed, but its vital signs are weakening.

  1. the private sector is not ready to take over for government space programs

David Freedman, science and tech journalist for 30 years, December 2010

[Scientific American December 2010, Vol 303, Issue 6]

What, then, could the Obama administration have been thinking when it announced this past February that NASA should essentially get out of the manned-spaceship business and turn it over to private industry? Under the plan, NASA will write off most of the $9 billion invested so far in Constellation, the program to develop a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle capable of ferrying astronauts and supplies to the space station and, eventually, to the moon. Instead the agency will provide seed money to start-ups such as SpaceX, then agree to buy tickets to the space station on their rockets. It is a naive and reckless plan, a chorus of voices charged. Among the loudest was that of former astronaut and space icon Neil Armstrong, who was quick to scoff at the notion that the private sector is ready to take over from NASA. "It will require many years and substantial investment to reach the necessary level of safety and reliability," he stated. Leaving orbital ferrying in the hands of private companies, Armstrong and others insisted, would at best be setting the clock back on manned space exploration. And were private enterprise to drop the ball, perhaps even catastrophically, as many believe it would, the entire grand enterprise of sending people into space might come to a long-term or even permanent halt. Once NASA's massive manned-spaceflight machine is dismantled, rebuilding it might take far more time and money than anyone would want to spend. Yet despite these concerns, Congress reluctantly agreed to the plan this fall.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13

Добавить в свой блог или на сайт


Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconSsp affirmative 1ac – plan The United States federal government should commit to developing four satellites for space based solar power. 1ac – space control

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconSpace Colonization Affirmative

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconSpace Elevators Affirmative

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconSpace Case ftw

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconDestructive Corporate Leadership and Board Loyalty Bias: a case study of Michael Eisner’s long tenure at Disney Corporation

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconConstructing places. The (re)production of space. The public space as political space

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconPort Security Affirmative – Northwestern 2012 – Abelkop/Vellayappan Lab First Affirmative Constructive

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconStrategic use of space is controlled by the military yielding space warfare

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconSpace telescopes like Hubble help scientists study space in a broader spectrum, and have already been successful in finding other planets which could sustain life

Space leadership affirmative – case explanation iconOne city in this state was the center of a 2005 Supreme Court Case which found that the use of eminent domain to take Susette Kelo’s home was constitutional. A 1965 Supreme Court Case struck down this state’s ban on using contraception. 2009 Supreme Court Case

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2012
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница