The USFG should reinstate and substantially fund the Constellation program.

Before making any arguments – I would like to point out the framework of this round. In judging these debates I ask the judges who are reviewing to stick to what the debaters have said and to not substitute our positions for their own ideology. Additionally I think it's time to pick apart the voting issues – 1. "Who had better conduct?" This is a direct appeal to ethos/pathos, but I think at least in debate forums a focus on logos is much more productive and conducive to educational discussions. Just because many people ARE swayed by ethos and pathos doesn't mean we should fall prey to similar shortcomings. 2. "Who had better spelling and grammar?" This shouldn't matter, if you can understand the debate, then judge the debate. Frankly this is just oppressive and exclusionary. As a first generation immigrant, writing this rebuttal is already such a challenge. Focusing on spelling in grammar just makes it much harder for debaters whose first language isn't English. 3. "Who made more convincing arguments?" I don't think this is external from "what do you think afterwards." So this shouldn't be a relevant voting issue. 4. "Who used the most reliable sources?" Again, this shouldn't be separate voting issue. Reliable sources should contribute to "convincing argument" which should contribute to "what you think." Now onto the debate proper: Before anything else, I would like to point out the lack of offense my opponent has. His "case" is not a reason why Constellation is bad, it's just a reason why it doesn't work or isn't necessary. But that's not a reason why at least trying to do Constellation is bad. I'll elaborate when I refute his points. Now, my case – 1. Space Development – Opponent has not questioned the inevitable extinction of the human race if we do not get off the rock – this is something we should NOT play around with. This is a prior issue to spending concerns and any other problems. Now, I control the direction of development. The private sector is NOT developing a sustainable launch industry. Sterner 2011 points out that private companies do not want to take the risk and cannot create the technology. My opponent points out SpaceX, but the fact that he points out a specific company proves that overall private sector fails. Pepsi Challenge – point out one piece of evidence that the private sector can develop a sustainable, long-term, launch industry that get us beyond low-earth orbit. He will not be able to – any evidence he does provide will be driven by financial our political incentives to make that claim. I also control the direction of crowd out. He has not made the argument that a focus on government development crowds out the private sector. Robel in 2004 actually says that the two are not exclusive. Thus, if my opponent wins the premise that the private sector IS developing launch vehicles now, the government working won't stop the private sector from doing so. Also Obama's focus is on Earth Science and robotic missions, this won't gut humans out of LEO. A mission to Asteroids/Mars will be subject to the same "problem" as Constellation. It's much easier for Obama to reinstate Constellation than for him to get us to go the Asteriods/Mars. 2. Industrial base – If I'm right, it's not a broken window fallacy. Two reasons why Constellation is critical to the industrial base: A. Slazer 2011 – lack of a human spaceflight industry makes engineers and scientists to leave the space industry B. Maser 2011 – Constellation produces continued GROWTH in the industrial base, it's not just "lost contracts --> job loss" it's lack of growth. My opponents argument is also incoherent. Just because people who work for NASA still have their jobs doesn't mean contracts for private companies are maintained. Aerospace is critical to hegemony and deterrence – we need to develop new technologies to keep up with other countries' military capabilities. Delta V is insufficient, that's just a launcher. We need NEW tech. A. National Aerospace Week 10 B. Albaugh 2011 3. Leadership Dependence on Russian launch isn't the same as cooperation, it doesn't turn the advantage. He has not questioned the premise that leadership is critical to cooperation – that's Friedman and Rendleman, so I don't have to argue that Constellatino was multilateral. Two scenarios as a result of this – First – weaponization. Other wars can be deterred, but space weaponization results in computer glitches and accidental war, that's Mitchell. Now the Rendleman in 2010 says that only through space cooperation can we create international coalitions to deter space weaponization. The OST has no ability to stop weaponization outside of countries' decision to cooperate and work together. Even if we need to establish a weapon-by-weapon basis of cooperation, that doesn't change the premise that we need that cooperation in the first place. Only the US can do it. Second – I'll concede unilateral action can solve U.S. debris, but those actions can't stop debris from hitting other debris or from other countries engaging in ASAT tests. Those lasers and technologies aren't being established in the status quo and he doesn't provide any evidence that it can be done fast enough. Senechal in 2007 says we are at a critical mass now before a cascade effect. Without stopping that cascade effect, all of space and our satellites will be rendered useless. I WILL GROUP THE OPPONENTS OFF-CASE 1. BUDGET PROBLEMS This is not an intrinsic reason why Constellation is bad. We can withdraw troops from Afghanistan or cut Medicare/Medicaid budgets. To think that even quadrupling NASA's budget will change anything is absurd. NASA's budget is so low anyways that it doesn't matter and we overspend so much anyways that it doesn't matter. Additionally a bigger aerospace industry boosts federal government revenue. 2. Tradeoff with other programs – This is answered by the development advantage. Also again, not an intrinsic reason why Constellation is bad – we can give NASA more money and we don't stop other technologies from being developed. The only reason the technology failed was BECAUSE of the cost overruns. The resolution posits that we will "substantially funds" it so we overcome all of his solvency deficits.