The USFG should initiate a public contract bid for a pilot lunar terraforming project.

Renewable Energy Tradeoff Disadvantage: a) Clean energy is at the top of Obama’s agenda- he recently proposed spending $2 billion on renewable energy research [4]. b) Moon Base unpopular, both Bush SR and JR called for lunar bases and the issue went nowhere; when Newt Gingrich called for a lunar base during the Republican primary he was laughed at from both sides of the aisle. Lunar bases are seen ad pie in the sky unnecessary spending. Undertaking such a massive endeavor would tank Obama’s political capital. c) The massive costs associated with lunar terraforming make it a political millstone, dragging down anyone who advocates it; in this case that means the Obama administration. d) Clean energy is key to reducing oil dependence, which is key to national security. Foreign dependence on oil forces the US to protect volatile regions like the Strait of Hormuz and oil money frequently winds up in the hands of terrorists and destabilizing organizations like Hamas. Clean energy is key to preventing global warming, which poses a threat to the survival of the human race as climate shifts causes the desertification of farm land and the collapse of ecosystems. e) There are 2.7 million green energy jobs in the US, and the clean energy sector is manufacturing and export intensive [5]. This turns Pro’s industry advantage- Green energy is much more important to industry. Spending Disadvantage: a) Current US budget negotiations are rocky but both sides express optimism that a deal will emerge. Secretary Lew said March 14 that “we can get there.” However, the deal hinges on reducing spending [1]. b) A budget deal is key to reducing the deficit- reform of structural issues like Medicare, the tax code, and defense spending are key to long term solvency [3]. c) Terraforming the moon would be massively expensive. NASA priced a moon base at $100 billion, the actual price would be in the range of $250-$500 bil [2]. But the Resolution calls for not just a moon base but the development and implementation of non-existent terraforming technology on the moon. This would entail a massive Research and Development project that would make the endeavor a multi-trillion dollar affair. d) Pro’s low-bid contract mechanism is no different from the type of government contracts used to build F-35’s. A company will be awarded the contract based on the bid documents and the government will have to foot the bill for the company’s work throughout the project. e) The plan will collapse the possibility of a budget deal by introducing massive spending into delicate negotiations. Additionally, the long term spending will independently add to the deficit. Unchecked deficits will ultimately lead to the economic ruin of the US. CP1: The USFG should increase its investment in clean energy research. 1) CP1 guarantees passage of research in clean energy. CP1 is orders of magnitude less expensive than Pro’s advocacy, so it will not trigger the spending disadvantage. Pushing for a massive technology expenditure on lunar terraforming will trade off with energy research; given a choice between the two we should choose alternative energy. 2) Research shows the Alternative Energy is the future. A commitment to alternative energy could yield a 158% growth in the US economy and total independence from non-renewable energy sources.[8] 3) Funding of alternative energy research is key to solving financial barriers to private adoption. These barriers include things like electric vehicle (EV) battery life, economy of EV charging stations, cost of solar cells and batteries. CP2: The USFG should institute prize-on-delivery awards for lunar and asteroid mining endeavors 1) Prize-on-delivery awards are monetary compensation for companies which accomplish certain tasks, in this case the retrieval of precious metals from the moon or nearby asteroids. This mechanism is much cheaper and more reliable than low-bid contracts because: a. The government sets a fixed cost for the deliverable and is free from project expenses. b. Multiple companies can actively compete for the award, whereas a contract goes to only one company. 2) Prize-on-delivery has a history of success; the X Prize award successfully motivated 26 companies to compete to build private space craft, with a winner emerging in 2004 [6]. 3) Since multiple teams compete, CP2 better stimulates development and dispersion of new technology throughout the private sector. Prize-on-delivery engages a wide talent base and mobilizes the private sector. 4) Linking prizes to space mining rather than terraforming better engages the capitalist motivation toward profit. Companies have the monetary incentive of the prize as well as the promise of a wide open mining operation for profit beyond the prize claim. The monetary award effectively acts as a combatant to the high entry cost of the lunar mining market. 5) Award Prizes are much more reasonable in cost than permanent contracts- the Google X Prize is $20 million [7]. 6) The more modest cost of CP2 means it does not trigger the Spending Disadvantage. CP2 represents an expansion of economic development into space, making the rationale more accessible to the public and avoiding political blowback. The small cost and engagement of the private sector also avoid the political unpopularity of large spending. Pro’s Case: 1) Technology a. Pro gives no explanation of what technology would emerge out of lunar colonization or why we should care about this technology in particular. b. It would be much more efficient to just fund technology research directly without growing flowers on the moon in the process. If we want new medical equipment, we should fund research in medical equipment. c. My CP1 and CP2 both promote technological development much better than the Rez. 2) Space Colonization a. Pro gives no reason why we should value space colonization other than it is “pretty awesome.” I actually think not bankrupting the USA and achieving oil independence is “pretty awesome;” I might even go so far as to call it frickin’ sweet. b. Pro gives no analysis on the likelihood or timeframe for space colonization; obviously we do not have the means to sustain ourselves as a species anywhere beside Earth. Earth is our species’ only home and we must prioritize the care of Earth above pie-in-the-sky science fiction. c. My CP2 also offers a path to space colonization. 3) Industry a. Pro offers no warrant or explanation on how the plan helps industry. b. Destroying the US economy via massive deficit spending renders any possible bump to private industry meaningless. c. My CP1 and CP2 both promote private industry growth much better than the Rez. 4) Feasibility Multiple factors make lunar terraforming infeasible. a) Lack of shielding from solar radiation means atmosphere is periodically stripped away [9]. My cite is about Mars, but lunar conditions are similar. [10] b) The moon’s atmosphere is nearly non-existent; conditions are similar to those in the vacuum of space, meaning there are no molecules such as CO2 for plants to use. c) Lunar soil is abrasive and glassy, making it physically antagonistic to possible lunar life. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com... [2] http://money.cnn.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [5]http://www.brookings.edu... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.rmi.org... [9] http://www.popsci.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org...