The United States should establish a base on the moon.

c1. ?, how are you going to get the O2 from the H2O. The card states that it would take along time to terraform the moon. cc2. But not on the moon such a manuver can take days even weeks and cost billions of dollars. cc3. Are you sugesting the moon has Earth like gravity? Anyways, Moon has lower gravity than Earth which leeds to bone loss. cc5. Pro agrees new refutes (arguing Solar power stuff) ----SBSPs are illegal. The Outer Space Security and Development Treaty of 2011 (http://www.openminds.tv..., accessed Nov. 20, 2011, AL) The Outer Space Security and Development Treaty of 2011 establishes a Framework and procedures to assure that space will be a neutral realm from Which all classes of weapons are banned and from which no hostile action shall Be taken toward Earth or the surrounding Cosmos. ----SBSP can't happen for another 30 years Mok 11 (Brian Mok, CEO at Takezawa, written July 2, 2011, http://www.pickar.caltech.edu..., accessed Dec. 6, 2011, AL) Right now, SPSP is not viable as a mainstream source of energy. In fact, even when accounting for the most optimal effects, we would need to wait at least 30 more years before beginning a large attempt at adopting space based solar power. In order for SBSP to be feasible before then, we would require some sort of disruptive technology in orbital launch, such as a space elevator. Another case might be where the Earth's atmosphere suddenly prevented more of the sunlight from reaching the Earth, increasing the efficiency gains from using SBSP. ----SBSP tech won't be available for years. Skarb 09 (Justin Skarb, staff writer for the spacereview.com, written Jan. 16, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com..., accessed Dec. 6, 2011, AL) The danger in making large investments into SBSP while the economy is reeling is that there is only so much money to go around. As such, there is a danger that scarce investment dollars will be siphoned way from more immediately viable and beneficial programs such as terrestrial green energy programs. Some three decades ago the Department of Energy reported in its review of SBSP that "every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization". Unfortunately, it is these very programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic crisis. It would be nothing less than a tragedy of political judgment if the country was forced to forgo the near-term economic benefits of terrestrial green energy programs simply to fund a SBSP program that will not be viable for years, if not decades. ----Even discounting most costs even after 30 years you don't even have 15% back in profit Mok 11 (Brian Mok, CEO at Takezawa, written July 2, 2011, http://www.pickar.caltech.edu..., accessed Dec. 6, 2011, AL) Using data from previous studies and our own linearized estimations, we are able to obtain a chart for annual returns on investment. This only supposes that the only cost incurred are putting solar panels up in space. All other costs are completely ignored, such as fixed costs, capital costs, etc. Even the costs of putting up a transmitting array, or construction is ignored. In other words, the costs shown here are similar to marginal costs, if all the space and ground infrastructure was already set up. We are only looking at "when is it even remotely feasible to begin thinking about SBSP as a mainstream source of energy." We see from the graph that in fact, for a median estimate, even waiting thirty year is not enough to reach a 15% return. Since we are discounting the roughly 80% of the costs from other sources, 15% is the minimum to begin considering SBSP. ----SBSPs causes Kessler Syndrome Dutt 11 (Varun Dutt, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University, http://www.mydigitalfc.com..., written Oct. 10, 2011, accessed Nov. 28, 2011, AL) According to a recent NASA report, the space around earth is home to over 135 million small pieces of junk; another 300,000 medium size pieces (between 1 and 10 centimeters); and over 22,000 significant pieces of trash (over 10 centimeters across). Over 30 per cent of the debris can be attributed to the US alone, reports NASA. In 2009, a US Iridium commercial satellite and an inoperative Russian satellite collided, spreading debris everywhere. A report by the US National Research Council (NRC) says that the problem of space debris is getting worse and has passed a "tipping point." According to the NRC report, we are currently reaching a critical capacity, known as the "Kessler Syndrome" (named after former head of NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, Donald Kessler), in which debris collisions create more debris, which, in turn, is more likely to hit other objects