The USFG should reinstate and substantially fund the Constellation program.

Thanks for the quick response willy! ==Rebuttal== R1) Critique of the voting system I have my own issues with the voting system, but it's really not my job to defend it here. I urge voters to vote like normal; if my opponent wanted to modify the voting system for this debate, he should have so specified before I accepted. R2) My "lack of offense" All my offense comes from opportunity cost – Obama's NEW plan will get us beyond low-Earth orbit more quickly than Constellation (which was focused primarily on getting astronauts to the ISS). ====================== "Space Development" ====================== R3) Extinction if we don't get off Earth My opponent didn't make the argument, until now, that we will INEVITABLY go extinct if we don't get "off this rock." Global warming will not lead to extinction and can easily be solved by geoengineering, in an emergency, using sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere (SuperFreakonomics). Resource scarcity is solved by scientific improvement (Malthus being wrong, for example, because of technological improvement) and it only leads to extinction if we completely run out of ALL resources, which is tens of thousands of years in the future – it's not a today problem. War is deterred by nuclear weapons. Regardless, my opponent must prove that human survival outweighs any potential cost and that the burden is on the US to ensure this survival (as opposed to Russia). Personally, if a cataclysmic event happens that kills me, I don't really care if 5 people survive on Mars or zero people survive, and I am not willing to pay any of my income to Mars colonization to "safeguard the human genome." R4) Private sector ability to get beyond low-Earth orbit I never argue that they can; in fact, my RHSFPC says specifically that NASA should leave low-Earth orbit to private companies so it can focus on getting BEYOND low-Earth orbit. NASA should outsource manned trips to the ISS to the private sector, which is one-sixth the cost of developing their own option through the Constellation program. Remember the RHSFPC evidence that before Obama cancelled Consternation, the program had NASA spending all of its money on the Ares I, which was designed only to enter low-Earth orbit. Obama has refocused the program to get us beyond low-Earth orbit; his goal is to first land on an asteroid, then on Mars. ---The Crowd out--- NASA generally only uses one method to get astronauts to the ISS, historically it's been the shuttle program. If NASA is developing its own launch vehicle, private companies have much less incentive to offer an alternative, since they know NASA won't use it. Cancelling Constellation accelerates private sector research into manned missions to low-Earth orbit. R5) Evidentiary standards My opponent cites a number of pieces of evidence using the format "author's last name, date," but without citing the original source or actually providing the evidence in his speech. He is clearly just referencing his evidence from his policy debate summer camp, but neither I nor the judge have access to said evidence to challenge it, so don't accept any of his evidence. He's basically trying to have a policy debate where he doesn't read any of his evidence, only references it. R6) Obama's plan is flawed? My opponent claims it is easier to reinstate Constellation than to develop a new plan. RHSFPC shows this is not true since Constellation had NASA spending all its money on the wrong goal (low-Earth orbit, not beyond) and on a system that was increasingly behind schedule and increasingly costly. Using the Air Force's EELV launch vehicles is a better prototype for development of long-range space flight than using the Ares as a prototype. ====================== "Industrial Base" ====================== R7) Slazer "evidence" Obama did not cancel the space program, he merely scrapped the Ares design and refocused the mission AWAY from low-Earth orbit to the ISS and a "moon first" policy towards a new heavy launch vehicle and a "Mars first" approach. He even INCREASED NASA funding after cancelling Constellation to help them achieve this goal. So engineers are not lost from the aerospace industry. R8) Mazer "evidence" I have no idea what Mazer actually argues based on what my opponent has stated. Industrial base is wasted if it leads to an Ares I launch vehicle that is NEVER used because the ISS is gone. However, no one from the Ares project is losing their job because the same company is repositioning the rocket for use in the private sector. R9) Delta V insufficient My opponent never explains why. The RHSFPC says we should base our new space program on the EELV's, not that we use the specific Delta V to launch astronauts to Mars. We would be designing a new space launch vehicle and launcher. ====================== "Leadership" ====================== R10) Increased cooperation with Russia This is a turn because we are now forced to cooperate more with Russia on space since they are our only path now to the ISS. Our government officials have to stay in contact with their government officials, which makes it easier to secure Russian cooperation on future international space legislation. R11) Leadership is key to cooperation My opponent cites two pieces of evidence here that he, again, never reads and doesn't provide a citation for. He never explains why the US reaching Mars first is critical to getting China, for example, to sign an agreement not to weaponize space. R12) Space weaponization Constellation has nothing to do with space weaponization. No link is ever established. R13) Space debris My opponent concedes that technology (trash vehicles in space and lasers) can solve this. R14) Anti-satellite tests If someone shot down one of our satellites, it would be viewed as an act of war; classical deterrence prevents this. ====================== His attacks on my case ====================== R15) Budget problems Realistically, neither side would have approved of huge increases in NASA's budget during the debt ceiling negotiations. Regardless, the huge cost overruns went along with structural problems in the Ares design, according to the RHSFPC. In addition, it wasn't just a problem with the budget; NASA was spending on the wrong GOAL – getting astronauts to the ISS, not getting astronauts to the Moon, and definitely not to Mars. My opponent claims, "a big aerospace industry actually boosts government revenue." How??? Sinking $230 billion over the next two decades, according to the GAO, into the Ares I, which won't even be ready in time to get astronauts to the ISS, when the private sector can do this instead, is simply a HUGE waste of government money and doesn't make the government any money back. In fact, inhibiting the private sector from doing this actually loses the government tax revenue, since it does tax business, but does not tax NASA. My opponent drops my turn as well, that if we put all the money he proposes to put into Constellation instead in our foreign aid budget this would increase our world leadership much more, accessing all his leadership advantages (space debris, weaponization, etc), since this would do far more to improve our global image than would reaching the Moon again. This drop effectively ends the whole debate. R16) Tradeoff with other programs The disadvantage to running both Obama's Mars First plan and Constellations Ares V Moon First plan is that NASA has limited resources. Even if we increase their funding, they only have so much brainpower. The RHSFPC concludes that developing off the EELV will lead to a quicker path to Mars than will developing the Ares V. Also, reinstating Constellation would still mean wasting huge amounts of money on a useless Ares I rocket that we won't need anymore by the time it's ready. We can't just waste $230 billion whenever we feel like it. ====================== Reasons to vote Con ====================== 1. Constellation inhibits private sector development of manned missions to low-Earth orbit, which are one-sixth of the cost to the Federal government compared to Ares I, according to the RHSFPC. SpaceX already has a prototype ready to be tested this year. 2. Constellation splits NASA's focus, when all their energy should be focused on getting beyond low-Earth orbit. Obama's plan is better to accomplish all of what my opponent wants, and Constellation seriously detracts from his plan since NASA can only develop one vehicle at a time. 3. Constellation is a Moon First program. As Obama pointed out, "we've already been there." Why spend so much money on a lunar lander specifically designed to do something we've already done. If the Earth is destroyed, the Moon is not a good candidate for a long-term colony. We should be focusing on getting deeper into space. 4. If we did reinstitute Constellation, it would once again focus on Ares I and low-Earth orbit. According to the RHSFPC, Ares V required NASA to first develop Ares I. Obama's new plan would bypass this wasteful step. Obama's plan is projected to have a heavy launch vehicle ready for development by 2015; Ares V would not be ready for development until at least 2020. 5. Developing a vehicle based on the Air Force's expandable launch vehicles will get us to Mars faster. If you believe my opponent that a world nuclear war could kill us all at any moment, you'll vote for the side that gets us off Earth faster, which is Con. 6. $230 billion for Ares I, when it won't even be ready in time to be useful, is a huge waste of money.