THBT space exploration should be pursued by private companies rather than governments.

Thank you missmozart and Biodome.I. IntroThe United States has the most successful and storied space program in history. Despite this, NASA is floundering. Though this debate is not exclusive to any country, we assume it will mostly be regarding the United States, as this is where the powerhouse of space travel is located, along with most of the private entities looking to make that transition into being major players in the next space race.II. Obstacles to publicly funded venturesA. PoliticsNASA's funding is subject to congressional will. This is problematic, as it is almost universally agreed upon that NASA is underfunded. It is unable to fulfill everything it has been tasked with."There is widespread agreement that NASA does not have the resources to do all of the things it has been asked to do, but there is not much confidence that the political process within Washington will give NASA what it needs to succeed."[1] When politics play a role in the allocation of funding, NASA is subject to the whims of politicians, who may vote along party lines rather than in the best interest of the space program. In the private sector, money is spent and can be adjusted whenver the need arises; with the public-sector, allocation funding is required and cannot be adjusted without Congressional action. These actions can be lengthy and aren't even a guarantee of success. Because of this, the private sector has an advantage; it can do space exploration better and cheaper than NASA, and adjust spending whenever it needs to. More on that later, though.B. Taxpayer Taste AversionFollowing disasters such as Columbia and Challenger, the taxpayers, those who ultimately fund NASA, have grown wary of manned exploration projects. It's no surprise that we have launched only 23 manned missions in the thirteen years since the Columbia disaster, while having launched 80 in the thirteen years prior. [2] When disaster strikes, taxpayers cringe, and the agency has to push back or cancel future manned missions. Privately funded agencies would not be subject to this form of scrutiny, as investors would be conscious of risks and be scrupulous in their spending. Moreover, being directly accountable to victims of accidents creates a clear chain of accountability; it also creates a more direct obligation to ensure travel is as safe as possible. And given the expense of space travel, private agencies have another key incentive to ensure safety. By nature, private exploration firms have to be careful and ensure near absolute certainty that the mission will be successful. This is a good thing - in the long run, it will not only lower risk, but also ensure a greater percentage of missions are successful. III. Private firms are already an integral part of explorationCompanies such as SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Boeing, and many others are joining in the next step in space travel. NASA is dishing out contracts to these companies to support current plans. As the NASA budget is cut, it is looking for a more cost-efficient way of providing supplies to the ISS, as well as finding more cost-efficient equipment and labor. When a government agency isn't effective enough, it turns to the private sector. SpaceX is currently working on converting its Dragon spacecraft to accomodate a crew.[3] A conference hosted by the Brookings Institution in 2014 discussed the merits of continuined pursuit of such partnerships. The VP of the Brookings Institution said that "This is no longer your grandfather's space program,"[3] implying that due to increased proliferation of technologiccal advances, a new era of increased private ventures must occur to ensure continued success of space exploration. As time progresses, these private firms will become more ingrained in the system. This is an area of bipartisan agreement - both Obama and the Republican-led Congress are pushing for expaned private ventures in the field of space exploration.[4] This should come as no surprise, as SpaceX is on track to be on Mars between 2020 and 2030, a decade before NASA's SLS craft is projected to be able to match the feat.[4] The fact government is increasingly reliant on these private organizations shows just how much more effective they are, and how they represent the future of our space program.IV. NASA is ineffectiveIn an organization reliant upon technology, an organization where IT comprises about 11% of the budget,[5][6] you'd think that IT would be one of, if not the most efficient department in the agency. Not so much. In 2010, NASA alloted $1.6 billion to IT. It ended up spending $2 billion. [5] The IT branch is also a mess when it comes to governance. Lines intertwine, giving unclear pictures of who is in charge of what, creating an unproductive, money wasting mess. This is, to but it bluntly, a total disaster for an organization that requires a massive amount of organizational interaction and connectivity. One infamous example of the ineffectiveness of NASA was the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter. This $125 million satellite failed because NASA failed at something basic - ensuring measurements used were either consistently metric or US customary units. Because they were mixed, the orbiter burned up in the Martian atmosphere.[7] This costly disaster demonstrated a major flaw within NASA that no private agency, putting up their own money, would tolerate.V. ConclusionNASA is ineffective. They need huge sums of money, more than their current budget of ~$20 billion, as well as more time, in order to accomplish tasks that private entities have already done or are on track to do soon. A vote for Pro is a vote toward continued exploration of space in a more efficient, timely, and cost-effective manner.Over to Pro![1] http://www.space.com......[2] https://en.wikipedia.org......[3] http://www.informationweek.com......[4] http://www.economist.com......[5] http://www.law360.com......[6] http://www.nasa.gov......[7] http://www.wired.com......