The USFG should reinstate and substantially fund the Constellation program.

Thanks for the debate willy. ==My case== According to the Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee (henceforth "RHSFPC"), the Constellation program had been developing the Ares I rocket and Orion space capsule in order to put astronauts in low-Earth orbit; the Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle, designed to launch astronauts and equipment to the Moon and beyond low-Earth orbit, was NOT in the works at the time Obama cancelled the program. [1] Lastly, the Constellation program included development of the Altair lunar lander. ==Manned low-Earth orbit== The only reason to send manned missions to low-Earth orbit is to reach the International Space Station (henceforth, "ISS"). Ares I/Orion were initially slated to launch in 2012, but the launch was rescheduled until 2017, and the RHSFPC thinks 2019 is more likely. [1] "The Committee estimates that the Ares I vehicle planned to transport humans to low-Earth orbit will not be available until two years after the ISS ceases to operate under the current plan." [1] Obama cancelled Constellation because its only component currently under development would not be ready in time to be useful. Cost overruns were also a huge issue, since the initial total cost of developing Ares I/Orion was projected at $10 billion, but newer cost estimates put the figure at closer to $40 billion, which is huge given NASA's small budget. [2] The General Accountability Office estimates that over the next two decades, the Ares I/Orion would cost US taxpayers a total of $230 billion. [2] This is a lot of money considering that we won't need manned low-Earth orbit capabilities once the ISS is closed down. ---Private companies could perform this duty cheaper and faster--- According to the RHSFPC, "Recently, several aerospace companies began developing new rockets and on-orbit vehicles as part of the commercial cargo delivery program. Several other U.S. companies are contemplating orbital passenger flight. There is little doubt that the U.S. aerospace industry, from historical builders of human spacecraft to the new entrants, has the technical capability to build and operate a crew taxi to low-Earth orbit . . . In the existing COTS A-C contracts, two commercial suppliers have received or invested about $400-$500 million for the development of a new launch vehicle and unmanned spacecraft." [1] SpaceX, a private company, is already nearly ready to fill this role. According to Wired, "SpaceX is one of several private ventures (including Mohave Aerospace Ventures and Virgin Galactic) which have been launched in recent years to develop launch vehicles for satellites, cargo, and human crews. These private companies have already made significant advances toward a non-governmental option for manned space flight, most notably SpaceX's successful flight of a multistage rocket, and deployment of a satellite to orbit. The company's "Dragon" module (which is projected to be capable of carrying seven passengers) is scheduled for testing, including a fly-by of the International Space Station, this year." [3] The RHSFPC estimates the cost to NASA of using private companies to fly their astronauts to low-Earth orbit at one-sixth of the cost of developing its own low-Earth program. [1] The Committee recommends NASA allow private companies to focus on this much easier task to free NASA to concentrate on more grandiose endeavors. "This [contracting low-Earth flights] would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit." [1] ==Moon First vs. Mars First== The RHSFPC explains that the Constellation program was designed to be a Moon First program, meaning it was designed to reach the moon and would then need significant redesigns to reach Mars. [1] The RHSFPC found the lunar program significantly behind its schedule of a lunar landing in 2020. [4] Obama points out, in a speech at the JFK Space Center, "I understand that some believe we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here. We've been there before...there's a lot more of space to explore." [4] Obama's plan calls for a $19 billion annual budget for NASA, and an additional $6 billion for NASA to develop a heavy launch vehicle by 2015, capable of first landing on an asteroid and then moving on to Mars. [4] Obama's program has a better goal than the Constellation program, bypassing the need to redesign an entirely new space program and lunar lander merely to return to the moon. ---Air Force--- The RHSFPC goes through each potential method of developing a superheavy launch vehicle to achieve Obama's vision. There are three main options: retool the old shuttle design (unviable), use the Orion/Ares-V (too expensive, possibly unviable), or retool the Air Force's expandable launch vehicle (EELV), the Delta V. [5] The RHSFPC reports, "The EELV heritage superheavy launchers represent a potential family of vehicles derived from the current Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles heritage. They are distinguished technically from the NASA heritage vehicle by their use of liquid booster (rather than the solid rocket boosters) and secondarily by a hydrocarbon (RP-1) fueled rocket in the first stage core . . . The Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run." [1] ==Rebuttal== R1) Space development I've already shown that there are significant private sector efforts to get into space and that Obama has not stopped superheavy launch vehicle development to get us beyond Earth's orbit; in fact, the Constellation program was spending all of NASA's money on Ares I/Orion to get us into low-Earth orbit, not beyond it, and Obama cancelled the program so we could REFOCUS on exactly what my opponent wants – getting into space, beyond low-Earth orbit, first landing on an asteroid, then Mars. Obama even increased NASA funding to achieve this. R2) Industrial base This is a clear example of the broken window fallacy – forgetting opportunity cost. Many authors, like Christopher Preble, document how wasteful government procurement programs are of our industrial base, since they divert resources from the private sector into expensive, often useless, ventures. My opponent provides no evidence on how the aerospace industry is essential to US hegemony or deterrence. We are not losing our ability to launch satellites into orbit since we still have the Delta V. In addition, these lost contracts don't result in lost jobs. Popular Mechanics notes that NASA can't fire people, so no one at NASA is losing their job. [5] In addition, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), which was building the Ares I, is still developing the rocket for use in the private sector, renaming it the "Liberty" rocket.[6] "ATK and Astrium are pitching the Liberty rocket for NASA's Commercial Crew Development-2 competition, which is seeking proposals for commercial spacecraft to transport astronauts to and from space." [6] R3) Space leadership This argument essentially deals with international cooperation. However, if anything, we have to cooperate more now with the Russians since we temporarily need to hitch rides with them to the international space station (turn). Constellation was NOT a multi-lateral project, as my opponent asserts. ---Space Debris--- Unilateral action can solve. A well-studied solution is to use a remotely controlled vehicle to rendezvous with debris, capture it, and return to a central station. The commercially-developed MDA Space Infrastructure Servicing vehicle is a refueling depot and service spacecraft for communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit, slated for launch in 2015. [7] Additionally, the momentum of the photons in a laser beam could be used to impart thrust on the debris directly. Although this thrust would be tiny, it may be enough to move small debris into new orbits that do not intersect those of working satellites. NASA research from 2011 indicates that existing 5 kW industrial lasers could be used in this role, making it a low-cost option. [8] ---Weaponization of Space--- The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prevents nations from deploying weapons of mass destruction in space. [9] In regards to other weapons, the United Kingdom government has pointed out that progress would be easier if each issue was approached separately on its merit rather than taking a comprehensive approach. Since many of the weapons we are so worried about being deployed in space are still many years from being developed, we should take a bilateral approach on a weapons-by-weapons basis. R4) NASA budget is small "Fully-funding" Constellation could have meant a 400% increase in NASA's budget since the program was so wasteful and behind schedule [1]. Even if NASA's budget is small as a percentage, 0.5% of GDP is an awful lot of money to pay when the entire budget is going to sending astronauts to the International Space Station, a task that could be performed for cheaper by the private sector (for example, 0.5% of GDP is how much we'd need to increase our international aid budget to meet our UN target and significantly increase our soft power and international influence [another turn to international leadership]). Remember, the GAO projected that the low-Earth orbit missions alone would cost taxpayers $230 billion over the next two decades. [1] http://www.nasa.gov... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://arxiv.org... [9] http://tinyurl.com...