Choose

Whoever controls outer-space controls the battlefield. My opponent has conceded this point to me. This is just one more reason to keep the space program alive. For the military. D1. Cataclysmic Events My opponents rebuttals to this point can be summed up in two points: R1. Improbability of cataclysmic events a)Magnetic pole shift Scientists have concluded Earth's magnetic poles "flip" every 300-400 thousand years (the exact number varies). The the rotation of the earth's magma is directly correlated to the rotation of the earth. With a magnetic pole shift, the earth is now spinning the opposite direction, from east-west into west-east. If a magnetic pole shift happens rapidly, the Earth's crust will change directions rapidly meaning a MASSIVE displacement of the oceans, a wall of water will wipe through all western shorelines with the potential to destroy western civilization. How this happens is simple. When the magnetic poles "flip" the earth's rotation will have to change. "Earth currently rotates west to east which means that the ocean is being naturally pulled, by centrifugal forces, towards every east coastline and away from every west coastline. If Earth's crust were simply to stop rotation, the oceans would immediately inundate every western coastal area and would create new coastlines several hundred miles inland from their current positions. And yes, the tsunami from that event alone would be cataclysmic and of biblical proportions." (1) We do not know when this next shift could begin, but, should mankind not prepare? b)Volcanoes & Nuclear Winter It is quite obvious that a magnetic pole shift would cause a huge change in the earth's crust. This would cause volcanoes to become super active, not to mention earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. All around the world there are supervolcanoes, the largest of which resides under the federal park Yellowstone. An eruption would devastate over two thirds of the United States and the resulting "nuclear winter" could cool the earth up to 20 degrees. This is just Yellowstone alone. There are in fact six known supervolcanoes all around the world in Yellowstone, Long Valley, New Mexico, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Japan. "According to some volcanologists, Yellowstone volcano, located in the central US, may be on the verge of a large scale eruption. Some researches even suggest that it's past due for such an eruption. The changes around Yellowstone don't seem to get much media coverage for obvious reasons, but the effects are getting more extreme every year with the water tables becoming highly acidic, deforestation, and increased tremors. The caldera of Yellowstone lies under a lake, and it's rising. It also happens to rest on a bed of Uranium, so when it does erupt, the result will be very radioactive." (1) I conclude it would be irresponsible to not prepare for such events. R2. The length of travel Let's talk about Mars. While there are risks with the task, as of 2009, NASA had the capabilities to send a team to Mars the travel would take several months. The United States, in fact, has the capability to send people to another planet. (2) D2. Economics I have quoted several reliable people; my opponent provides a Wikipedia article. Who should we trust? The world would neither be as technologically advanced without space travel I mean NASA represented "about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States." (3) I shall just tie my defense of #3 and 4 with my opponents rebuttals as their arguments against the Space Program are their rebuttals. R1 and R2. Issues and money should be spent elsewhere a)War Exactly how would stopping the space program end war? It will not these issues are completely unrelated. b)Poverty What ends poverty? An influx of jobs and money. Let's take Florida, for example, the end of the space shuttle program will, in fact, slow Florida's economic growth "The end of the shuttle program will potentially eliminate as many as 7,000 – 8,000 jobs"… "According to a state study, in the 2008 fiscal year NASA generated $4.1 billion dollars in revenue and benefits for the state. $2.1 billion of that was in household income, and over 40,000 jobs were created due to NASA-related activities." This was in Florida alone. (4) If what my opponent is saying was true, ending the space shuttle would help Florida's economy, not hurt it. NASA advanced the computer. How many jobs did that industry create? Thousands. NASA puts out contracts to private corporations to invent, how much money did that put into the economy? Millions. In 2006, directly, NASA created 25,000 jobs and added 2.8 billion dollars to the national economy. Indirectly, NASA created thousands more jobs. (5) c)Over-population To end over population, you need more places to put people…why not another planet? This would help with over population problems. d)Limited resources NASA has the most scientific patents of any organization in the world. To use resources in an economical manner you need scientific innovation. The United Stated should invest MORE money into NASA to allow it to patent technological innovations in this field. They have the most patents. You see these inventions every day. The money and jobs created by these inventions is exponential. Let's look at ten of their inventions you may see every day: (6) 1)Invisible Braces 2)Scratch Resistant Lenses 3)Memory Foam 4)Ear Thermometer 5)Shoe Insoles 6)Long-Distance Telecommunications (phones) 7)Adjustable Smoke-detector 8)Safety grooving (in roads and runways) 9)Cordless tools 10)Water Filters Now here is a list of patents which are important to everyday life and stemmed directly from the space program (there are over 6,300 hundred used today…I'll give 15): (7) 1)CAT scanner 2)Computer microchip (important for starting up companies such as Microsoft) 3)Cordless tools 4)Ear Thermometer 5)Freeze-dried food 6)Insulation 7)Invisible Braces 8)Joystick 9)Memory Phone 10)Satellite TV 11)Scratch Resistant Lenses 12)Shoe Insoles 13)Smoke Detector 14)Swim Suit 15)Water Filter Why end NASA when they have done so much? NASA has creating jobs, helped the economy, and revolutionized the computer industry; you cannot mitigate the importance of Microsoft or Apple in the United States economy these companies would NOT exist without NASA's Space Program. NASA has helped the economy exponentially. Indirectly, NASA has created millions of jobs as microchips are used basically everywhere (computers, cars, you name it). The Space Program directly creates thousands of jobs, but, indirectly, in the long term, has created millions. Keep the Space Program intact, it does help. While ending the space program hurts the economy. This is especially seen in Florida. Sources 1.http://www.timeline2012.net... 2.http://www.chron.com... 3.http://en.wikipedia.org... 4.http://www.universetoday.com... 5.http://www.nasa.gov... 6.http://curiosity.discovery.com... 7.http://www.telegraph.co.uk...