Space Exploration

We affirm that resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. In this round, the Con has the burden of proving that human space exploration is worthwhile for the government to fund, and that this approach is superior to all other alternatives. To clarify, we would like to define two terms. First, according to Princeton University, investment is "laying out money or capital in an enterprise with the expectation of profit." This means that when NASA contracts with private companies, it is considered a purchase, not an investment. Second, Merriam Webster Dictionary defines exploration as "the act of investigating, studying, or analyzing," so human space exploration is not limited to long trips into deep space. Contention 1: Human space exploration programs are not suitable for the government to fund. In decision making, the government must always be held to highest possible standards. When a private individual makes an investment, he or she risks losing their own money; however, when the government carelessly invests, any incurred loss essentially affects millions of citizens. With its limited funds, the government must ascertain that every expenditure is closely examined and completely justified, so as to satisfy the numerous needs of its diverse citizens. Today, no country in the world with an adequate space program can afford to allocate money to human Madison Memorial CS space exploration. According to the Space Review on January 11th, 2010, even the United States, an original pioneer in space exploration and the currently outstanding leader in relevant technologies, has acknowledged a decreased interest in pursuing long term projects in space. Despite its historic prestige, political support has shifted elsewhere—to things like education, tax cuts, and environmental programs. The recent retirement of the Space Shuttle Program only further marks a shift in values to cutting spending. The rest of the world is in a similar state—whether it is the EU, where members are constantly defaulting, or Russia, who relies on a fragile oil market—deciding to spend their money in safer, smarter ways. Additionally, even if the government insisted on continued investment, robotic space exploration has proven to be much more efficient, lacking human problems of radiation, pressure, time, age and much more. Kluwer Academic Publishers even notes that the majority of the scientific community and NASA have started to see human spaceflight as "an expensive ‘stunt'." Considering the high standards of the government, it would seem reasonable to invest in the most effective method of furthering scientific knowledge. Contention 2: Private sector investment will produce better results. Currently, private corporations have shown to be far more effective at improving technology. For example, according to the Orlando Sentinel on Dec 28th, 2010, Madison Memorial CS Space X, a private company, tested its Dragon capsule—an equivalent to NASA's nearly $10 billion expenditure on the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule, plagued with technical issues and worries—for a miniscule $300 million, including design, manufacture, testing and launch. Even including costs for the Falcon 1and Falcon 9 rockets and building various launch sites, costs still total to less than $800 million. In addition, MIT's Technology Review on April 22nd, 2011 even stated that, due to the failure in public sector technology development, NASA would be paying Russians to take American astronauts into space, at a deal of $63 million per spacecraft seat, while SpaceX has the capability to do the same at a fraction of the cost. The driving force of competition, to encourage research and development will never appear in public sector investments. Private corporations have consistently proven to have quicker, better results and advance every individual aspect of their technologies. If the private sector had full responsibility for complete research, new developments for rockets would additionally translate to, for example, futuristic car engines. Furthermore, a full industry of scientific innovation and high paying jobs would grow, perhaps helping multiple states out of harsh economic times. Notably, the possibility of a high profit, upper atmospheric tourism industry is showing heavy promise with private investment. Contention 3: State space programs often stall and halt the progress of the Madison Memorial CS punctual and successful private industry. Timeliness has been a constant problem in space programs. Originally, NASA's Constellation program planned its first human space launch to the ISS in 2012; however, Norman Augustine on September 29th, 2010, notes that, because of ineffective allocation of funds and little external pressure, the task would not be completed for another nine years, until 2021. Contrastingly. NewSpace Journal on February 4th, 2011, indicates that five private companies, Blue Origin, Boeing, Paragon Space Development Corporation, Sierra Nevada Corporation and United Launch Alliance completed various tasks given by NASA in a very efficient and timely manner. Private sector corporations face constant pressure from both investors and competitors to improve already state of the art technology. Societies everywhere can, without fail, rely on private industries to perform and improve. For all the reasons stated above, my partner and I affirm the resolution.