Aff Outline

I.Inherency
A.Heavy Lift Capacity is underfunded both thru NASA and thru commercial
B.Next Generation commerical HLC underfunded
C. Specific programs underfunded
II.Harms
A.low-cost HLC Vital for US Space Transportation Infrastructure
B.Low-cost HLC vital for asteroid moon mars and solar power mission success
C.low-cost commercial heavy lift capacity essential for space exploration
Adv1.Resource Depletion / Environment
A.lack of resources dooms mankind to extinction
B. Asteroid Mining feasible and ensures
C.Solar power ensures resources
Adv2.Economy
Adv3.Hegemony
Adv4.Asteroid Collision
A.Inevitable Asteroid will collide with the earth
B.Collision = Extinction Level Event
C.Asteroid Mining creates techonology for successful asteroid diversion
plan - USFG shall substantially increase funding for Space Transp Infrastructure
HLCapacity projects.
Solvency
A. NASA can develop cost-competitive HLC through Orion rocket
B.Commericial can develop Dragon proves

Initially we note Observation I. I nherency

A. United States Space Transportation Infrastructure depends on
advances in Heavy Lift Capacity technology for fulfillment of
space objectives

DoD Space Technology Guide 2001 [Dept of Defense Space

Technology Guide, Fiscal year 2000-2001, National Space Studies Center, Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama,
http://space.au.af.mil/guides/stg/,

http://space.au.af.mil/guides/stg/stg_transportation.pdf]
Space Transportation encompasses space launch and orbit transfer vehicles and
related propulsion systems for the traditional spacelift missions of delivering
payloads to orbit and on-orbit spacecraft propulsion for station-keeping, plus
emerging missions such as on-orbit refueling, servicing, maintenance, repositioning,
and recovery. The DoD employs both military and

commercial
expendable launch vehicles, occasionally augmented
by use of NASAs Space Shuttle.
Military launch systems currently comprise an array of medium- and heavylift expendable boosters. The Air Force, NASA and industry are collaboratively
funding reusable propulsion technologies with Air Force funding being
directed toward supporting militarily unique capabilities. Both independently
and in partnership with NASA, industry is developing reusable boosters to add
to the launch system inventory and to lower costs
to orbit. In addition to military launches, there could be as many as 500
commercial launches worldwide over the next 10 years if costs and risks can
be significantly reduced. The DoD is seeking to ease present bottlenecks in
access to space via:
Increased privatization of the launch infrastructure
to broaden the launch base
A launch-on-demand capability,
especially for Space Control and
other missions where timeliness
to orbit or reconstitution of highdemand
space-based systems
may be paramount.
This area represents the sine qua non
of space power: unless sufficient lift
capability becomes readily available
at significantly less cost, U.S. capabilities
to place its projected systems
on orbit in sufficient quantities to
achieve mission objectives will

increasingly lag behind demand.

Major technological advances
leading to improved launch capability
will be needed to achieve the very
first of USSPACECOMs objectives
for the future Assured Access to
Space without which its other
objectives may remain beyond reach.
Improvements to lift capability may be achieved by improving launch
and propulsion systems, by reducing the size and weight of
spacecraft and payloads, or by some combination of the two. Heavy
lift will be needed indefinitely for outsize cargo, so improvements in
engines and propellants continue to be a priority. On the other hand,
as increasingly fewer spacecraft can do more from a given orbit and/or live
longer on orbit, replacements are needed less often,
which also reduces relative demand on launch assets.
The advent of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) will reduce per unit launch
costs even further. In parallel, we continue to reduce spacecraft size and
weight on both a unit and constellation basis. As this miniaturization
approach enables entire new classes of small and microsatellites to meet
mission utility criteria (see

space transportation infrastructure

of the future may also include assets that
remain on orbit or are recoverable for reuse.
Such space support vehicles could provide orbit-changing and
Section 12), the

maintenance
services, thus potentially reducing the life-cycle
costs of many space systems.

B.Despite this fact Investments in Heavy lift Capacity

Technology and Deployment are underfunded
USFG severely underfunds investments in next generation heavy lift capacity
Posey 2011 [Bill Poset, congressman, posey.house.gov, Bill Posey, Washington, Mar 30
2011, Posey Testimony to Budget Committee: Preserve Human Space Flight and
Give NASA Clear Direction, http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=232177]
Today Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) testified before the House Budget
Committee lamenting the lack of direction at NASA and asking the Budget Committee to
make human space flight the highest priority within NASAs overall budget.
In August of 2008, the President promised Space Coast residents that he would close the
3

gap between Shuttle and its replacement Constellation program, but he has since
cancelled the Constellation program and NASAs latest budget proposal cuts $2 billion
from NASAs next generation heavy lift rocket.
Congressman Poseys testimony before the House Budget Committee can be
viewed HERE and a transcript has been provided below:
Thank you Madam Chairman and Members, for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning and urge you to preserve NASAs core mission which is human space flight.
More specifically, I would ask that as you proceed in developing a budget resolution that
you include sufficient funding and language directing NASA to make human space flight
its highest priority.
Our nation is critically near the tipping point of ceding our leadership in space
exploration for our future generations, as many of you already know.
Direction from NASA Administration has been seriously lacking with respect to their
goals. By failing to set priorities within NASAs budget, the Administration has left
NASA with no priorities.
As a result, human space flight and Exploration are suffering and the U.S. will be ceding
its leadership in space to China and Russia.
Should Congress fail to step in where the Administration has left a leadership void we
will be making an unacceptable compromise in our national security and lose economic
and intangible benefits from our space program.
The President abandoned the Constellation program in his budget, calling for it to be
cancelled with no solid alternative or plan for the future. By so doing, he set our human
space flight program dangerously adrift with vague milestones for the worlds premiere
space exploration organization.
Last year, Congress and the Administration agreed on an Authorization Bill that focused
on developing goals after the Space Shuttles retirement. This included plans for a new
heavy lift capacity while giving limited support to commercial operations.
Unfortunately, the Presidents proposed budget is a substantial departure from the
Authorization Bill that he signed into law in Octobercutting $2 billion from the heavy
lift program while increasing taxpayer subsidies for the low earth orbit commercial space
companies.
This cut is in spite of the fact that, by the Administrations own estimate, the 2016
timeline for a return to flight would have been unattainable at last years projected
funding levels.
The Presidents Budget has misplaced prioritiesgutting vital heavy lift capability
while dealing significantly lighter cuts to unrelated projects like studying climate change.
In Fiscal Year 2010, 16 16 federal agencies and departments were funded at over $8
billion to address climate change. There are NO, zero, zilch, nada, NO other agencies
funded to pursue human space flight.

C.HLC is and will continue to be grossly underfunded

USFG/NASA underfund Heavy Lift Capacity projects in status quo and
future funding is not certain
Nextbigfuture.com 2011

[NASA heavy lift rocket proposed but

faces budget funding challenges, September 15, 2011,
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/09/nasa-heavy-lift-rocket-proposedbut.html]

NASA announced the development of the Space Launch System -- an advanced heavy-lift launch vehicle. The new
heavy-lift launch vehicle will cost $18 billion, with its first test flight planned for 2017. It will be designed to carry the
Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle for transport of crew and cargo.
I think there is very little chance that this vehicle will be funded and developed to completion given the current budget
climate. If it gets funded now it would have to not get delayed and have cost overruns and survive through the 2012 and
2016 elections.
The new rocket will include technology from the Space Shuttles and the Constellation program, which was building
two rockets, Ares I and Ares V, and it will share a resemblance to the Saturn V, the first rocket to travel to the moon.
Basically it is a proposal to support the old technology base and legacy aerospace companies.
There was a previous analysis of an evolved space Launch System, that would take until 2032 for the full 130 ton
advanced system to launch
SLS-5, in August 2024, would be the debut of the Cargo SLS, with a new fairing and a vehicle hardware change
possible as the winner of the booster competition would debut with this HLV.
SLS-6 August 2025 would return to the manned configuration, although no mission other than exploration
possibly as part of a Near Earth Object (NEO) mission has been cited by the information.
SLS-7 August 2026 a Cargo SLS launch, would see one change to the vehicle, as the expendable SSME known as
the RS-25E would be employed on the vehicle, taken over from the exhausted Shuttle SSME stock. Again, three
engines would be required, as much as all of the SLS vehicles will be designed to have space for five engines.
SLS-11 August, 2030 would be the next change, as the five engine core is filled with the two extra RS-25Es,
utilizing the full core power plant.
This configurations debut would be a cargo based mission, followed by a crewed mission one year later.
And then, in August of 2032, the evolved SLS is expected to debut (see image left), again based on the same 5xRS-25E
driven core, but this time with a full Upper Stage, becoming the 130mt+ HLV. This debut (SLS-13) would be as
expected based around a cargo mission.
There are other cost estimates that go as high as $62.5 billion to build and operate SLS through 2015. The $38 billion
estimate to 2025 has been criticized as unrealistic. Just a simple projection of maintaining $3 billion per year to 2032 is
$63 billion. Given the history of this kind of rocket development costs to 2032 are more likely to be $120-250 billion
and there would be delays to 2035-2045.

D. Congress set to cut NASA/Space

budget for fiscal 2013
Nasawatch.com 2012 [Sequestration Impact at NASA: $1.4 billion Cut for FY 2013, By
Keith Cowing on September 14, 2012 7:03 PM. 81 Comments,
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/09/sequestration-i.html]
White House details automatic cuts, calls them 'blunt, indiscriminate', The Hill
"Cuts of approximately $110 billion are set to take effect in Jan. 3, according to an agreement reached by the
administration and Congress, with half of the cuts falling on discretionary and non-discretionary defense budgets, and
the other half affecting non-defense budgets."
U.S. budget sequester cuts science over 8 percent, Nature
"NASA would lose $417 million from its science budget, $346 for space operations, $309 for exploration, $246 for
cross agency support, among other cuts."
Sequestration Would Cut U.S. Science Budgets By 8.2%, White House Estimates, Science
"NASA's science programs would drop by $417 million to about $4.7 billion, and its Exploration account would fall by
$309 million to about $3.5 billion."
Sequestration report: Embassy security cut by $129 million, Human Events
"Other alarming cuts include $1.4 billion in funding for NASA ..."
- OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2013, White House
- OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112-155), White House

Observation II. Is Harms/Advantages

Advantage I. Resource Depletion and Wars
A.The earths biosphere will inevitably collapse due to increasing population and
resource demands
Caldwell 01
[Joseph George Caldwell, On Saving the Environment, and the Inevitability of Nuclear
War. www.foundation.bw. 2001]
The destruction of the planet's environment and biodiversity may coincidentally be
halted by global war, but saving biodiversity or the environment will not be the cause of global war. Less and
less of nature remains with each passing year of the current "global peace" of global industrialization. The longer
global war is delayed, the less of nature (species, biodiversity) will remain after
its occurrence. The large human population has been made possible because of access to fossil fuel. The planet can
support only a small fraction of its current human population on recurrent solar energy (which includes hydroelectric,
biomass, and wind power). Global petroleum and natural gas deposits will not be exhausted until about 2050 (and coal
somewhat later), so the world's current fossil-fuel-driven economy can hypothetically continue for some time to come.

If

industrialized human society continues to destroy other species at the current

rate (estimated 30,000 per year) until fossil fuels are exhausted, little will remain of the
planet's natural environment as we know it. Mankind is hurtling toward disaster -- the biosphere's and its own -- and there is
nothing that will be done to stop it. Industrial development has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The situation is out of
control. The human population explosion has already occurred, and the resultant destruction -- first of the environment and
then of industrial society and then, perhaps, of the human race itself -- is at hand. Mankind has chosen its destiny, and is well
along the path to its realization.
production rates of commodities must equal depreciation rates.

B.Resource Wars will inevitably lead to the extinction of humankind

Caldwell 02
[Joseph George Caldwell, A Brief Guide to Planetary Management
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm, 2002 SUzman]
It is believed that current human civilization will destroy itself in a global nuclear
war, or perhaps in some other catastrophic event brought on by mankinds exploding
population (e.g., a disease similar to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but more easily transmitted). It is
intended to establish a minimal-regret population after that event. The current
planetary system of government is best described as anarchic it consists of about 200 independent
states, each striving for large populations and high levels of industrial output, each striving to out-produce and out-consume
the other, regardless of consequences to the planets biosphere. The momentum and power of the worlds industrial society is
currently so great, however, that there

is no point to attempting to establish a minimalregret population at the present time. Any attempt to do so now would be ridiculed at best and quashed
at worst. In the wake of global nuclear war, the survivors will see first-hand the
folly of the worlds current way of global industrialization, and they will be
very receptive to a promising alternative. It is at that time that steps will be
taken to establish and maintain a minimal-regret population.

C. Internal Link - ALL future space exploration endeavors rely upon cost-efficient
access to space via HLC, its expense hinders all US space development
Valyn 2006

[Ferris Valyn, writer blogger for the Daily Kos, Space for 06 and 08 - NASA Economics 101
Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:14 AM PST, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/01/03/175740/-Space-for-06-and-08-NASAEconomics-101]

Let me start off by being very clear - I am talking about development and colonization not exploration. Also - why does it cost so much to go into space?
Let me start off by being very clear - I am talking about development and colonization not exploration. This isn't about finding water on mars, or the chemical makeup of
comets and asteroids - although the basic science is worthwhile. What I am talking about
for space development is utilizing space to create jobs for people on earth, and space
colonization makes outer space available for the common man.

The act of space colonization is not in itself spectacular. It is the ordinary day-to-day
routine of living. It is the point at which an average middle class family can afford to
move to a colony located either in a space station or on another planet for an investment
comparable to purchasing a home and moving across a continent where colonization will
become routine. However, the philosophy of space colonization is a profound affirmation
of humanity's ability to move beyond the limitations and risks of remaining on Earth.
Space colonization is as profound as the American Revolution was to political
philosophy and the rise of a market economy.
But, as has been pointed out, starry-eyed dreams can cost money. Which brings us to
launch costs, and price per pound to orbit. Now, as I promised on Sunday, the current
cost to put 1 pound of stuff in orbit, is between $10,000-$24,999 dollars. This is the key
figure to remember. This is the expense that is holding back space development and
colonization. The reason cost to orbit is most important is because most of the energy
required to go anywhere is used up just getting to orbit - compare the size of the rocket
that sent the Pathfinder probe with the size of Pathfinder itself. As Robert Heinlein said,
"get to low-earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."

D. cheaper HLC Opens up space development and allows unparalleled

access to Limitless Space resources
Valyn 2006

[Ferris Valyn, writer blogger for the Daily Kos, Space for 06 and 08 - NASA Economics 101
Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:14 AM PST, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/01/03/175740/-Space-for-06-and-08-NASAEconomics-101]

And, this brings us to the structural issues in NASA that has perpetuated the shuttle, when
it should've been replace many years ago. To understand this, you have to go further
back into the history of Space Travel. The conception of NASA was very similar to the
conception of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The unknowns were so great (basic
questions of survival) that there was no way the average person could and would face the
risks of the expedition. Hence both the Lewis and Clark expedition and the original
concept of NASA were given a monopoly to proceed; the only customer was the
government. The technology required for space travel is obviously much greater than the
technology required by Lewis and Clark, but the underlying issues of survival were the
same. So NASA blazed a trail into the unknown, and were subsequently the only
customer in town. If you didn't get a NASA contract, you were probably out of business
(yes, you could theoretically go to the military, but after 1970, or so, the concept of
manned military hardware in space was replace with unmanned satellites). And today we
see the result - we have 1 consumer of rockets into space, NASA, and a rapidly shrinking
set of companies from which to get rockets from - In fact, earlier this year we saw the
beginnings of the end result - Lockheed Martin and Boeing currently trying to get
permission to create a single company for NASA to buy rockets from. In other words, we
have a price fixing scheme, and the government has been encouraging the price fixing!
While you can spin a number conspiracy schemes, and there is some evidence of
corruption, the truth is, in my honest opinion, it was mainly a combination circumstances
8

that came from the unknown dangers of Space flight. Another way of looking at it is that
NASA, and manned space flight, suffer from the problems of the planned economy. And
planned economies almost always suffer severe stagnation.
It is this monopoly, on both the producer AND CONSUMER ends that makes space
expensive, and beyond the means of the average person. Because, if we can address the
cost of orbital access, the limitless resources of space do open up to us. And, they are
limitless; energy from the sun, minerals from asteroids, just to name a few.

Advantage II is Hegemony
A. Lack of Heavy Lift Capacity Sacrifices US military leadership in
Space
Posey 2011 [Bill Poset, congressman, posey.house.gov, Bill Posey, Washington, Mar 30
2011, Posey Testimony to Budget Committee: Preserve Human Space Flight and
Give NASA Clear Direction, http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=232177]
Today Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) testified before the House Budget
Committee lamenting the lack of direction at NASA and asking the Budget Committee to
make human space flight the highest priority within NASAs overall budget.
In August of 2008, the President promised Space Coast residents that he would close the
gap between Shuttle and its replacement Constellation program, but he has since
cancelled the Constellation program and NASAs latest budget proposal cuts $2 billion
from NASAs next generation heavy lift rocket.
Congressman Poseys testimony before the House Budget Committee can be
viewed HERE and a transcript has been provided below:
Thank you Madam Chairman and Members, for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning and urge you to preserve NASAs core mission which is human space flight.
More specifically, I would ask that as you proceed in developing a budget resolution that
you include sufficient funding and language directing NASA to make human space flight
its highest priority.
Our nation is critically near the tipping point of ceding our leadership in space
exploration for our future generations, as many of you already know.
Direction from NASA Administration has been seriously lacking with respect to their
goals. By failing to set priorities within NASAs budget, the Administration has left
NASA with no priorities.
As a result, human space flight and Exploration are suffering and the U.S. will be ceding
its leadership in space to China and Russia.
Should Congress fail to step in where the Administration has left a leadership void we
will be making an unacceptable compromise in our national security and lose economic
and intangible benefits from our space program.
9

The President abandoned the Constellation program in his budget, calling for it to be
cancelled with no solid alternative or plan for the future. By so doing, he set our human
space flight program dangerously adrift with vague milestones for the worlds premiere
space exploration organization.
Last year, Congress and the Administration agreed on an Authorization Bill that focused
on developing goals after the Space Shuttles retirement. This included plans for a new
heavy lift capacity while giving limited support to commercial operations.
Unfortunately, the Presidents proposed budget is a substantial departure from the
Authorization Bill that he signed into law in Octobercutting $2 billion from the heavy
lift program while increasing taxpayer subsidies for the low earth orbit commercial space
companies.
This cut is in spite of the fact that, by the Administrations own estimate, the 2016
timeline for a return to flight would have been unattainable at last years projected
funding levels.
The Presidents Budget has misplaced prioritiesgutting vital heavy lift capability
while dealing significantly lighter cuts to unrelated projects like studying climate change.
In Fiscal Year 2010, 16 16 federal agencies and departments were funded at over $8
billion to address climate change. There are NO, zero, zilch, nada, NO other agencies
funded to pursue human space flight.
Human space flight is a matter of national security. Space is the worlds military
high ground, our Golan Heights if you will.
By ceding our leadership to other nations such as China, Russia, and India we
would be literally giving them the ultimate military high ground.
China and Russia have announced plans to colonize the Moonthey are not going
there to collect and study rocks like we did.
We also must not lose sight of the major asset that the human space flight workforce is
to our nation. The workforce is not a spigot that you can turn on and off. It has taken
decades to build and it will evaporate overnight with no programs in place.
Without a clear vision and a robust investment in our human space flight program the
community will quickly atrophy as these engineers and their expertise are lost to other
pursuits and possibly even other countries.
The Administration plans to retire the Shuttle program this summer after over 30 years
of service: ferrying astronauts, modules, and components to the International Space
Station; launching and repairing numerous satellites including the Hubble; launching
three interplanetary probes; and advancing scientific experimentation including
microgravity researchall important goals for this nation.
Despite this incredible list of accomplishments, when Space Shuttle Atlantis touches
down for the final time this summer, it will be more bitter than it will be sweet because
there is currently no clear vision of the future of Americas human space flight program.
And, it is a step backward for American leadership in space.
The time to refocus NASA on its primary human space flight mission is now. The
Budget Committee has the authority to reject the Administrations continued efforts to
reshape NASA as yet another agency without a clear focuswithout a clear mission.
Just imagine one day without your cell phones, one day without your laptops, one day
without a weather report, one day without your GPS, one day not being able to use your
10

credit card or withdraw cash from the bank all satellite linked communications. Most
of the public realizes the compelling importance of this and thats why I ask you to give
this your best consideration.
Thank you for your leadership, and the opportunity to address you concerning human
space flight.

B. Lack of leadership causes global war

Kagan 07
[Robert Kagan, is senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund., End of Dreams, Return of
History, Hoover Institution Stanford University,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136, 2007]
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the
new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international
competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying its
regional as well as its global predominance. Were

the United States to diminish its influence in

would settle disputes as great and
lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation
and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar
world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could
make wars between them less likely, or it could
simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States
plays in providing 4 stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the
dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it
even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the
guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets
the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations

and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the
waterways. In

a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would

compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations
would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and
other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not
merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great
geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would
never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe

stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United
States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar
world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often
succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power.
They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would
remain in place. But that s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by
configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World
War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles
were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms
reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an
improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment
liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee

11

against major conflict among the world s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving
the large powers may erupt. War

could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the
and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European
allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and
Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too,
could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what
policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States
weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia,
United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia

where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly
the view of most of China s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant
power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist
Japan.

C. AND, U.S. hegemony reduces any risk of war

Gray 05
[Colin Gray, How has war changed since the end of the cold war?, BNET,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_1_35/ai_n15674067/?tag=content;col1,
2005]
Logically, the reverse side of the coin which proclaims a trend favoring political violence internal to states is the claim that
interstate warfare is becoming, or has become, a historical curiosity. Steven Metz and Raymond Millen assure us that "most
armed conflicts in coming decades are likely to be internal ones." (21) That is probably a safe prediction, though one might
choose to be troubled by their prudent hedging with the qualifier "most." Their plausible claim would look a little different in
hindsight were it to prove true except for a mere one or two interstate nuclear conflicts, say between India and Pakistan, or North
Korea and the United States and its allies. The same authors also offer the comforting judgment that "decisive war between major
states is rapidly moving toward history's dustbin." (22) It is an attractive claim; it is a shame that it is wrong. War, let alone
"decisive war," between major states currently is

enjoying an off-season for one main reason: So extreme is

the imbalance of military power in favor of the United States that potential rivals rule out
policies that might lead to hostilities with the superpower. It is fashionable to argue that major interstate war
is yesterday's problem--recall that the yesterday in question is barely 15 years in the past--because now there is nothing to fight
about and nothing to be gained by armed conflict. Would that those points were true; unfortunately they are not. The menace of
major, if not necessarily decisive, interstate

war will return to frighten us when great-power rivals feel

able to challenge American hegemony. If you read Thucydides, or Donald Kagan, you will be reminded of
the deadly and eternal influence of the triad of motives for war: "fear, honor, and interest." (23)

D. AND, hegemony solves Nuclear Escalation

Walt 2K
[Dr. Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University. Professor Walt received his doctorate in political science from the University of California, Berkeley. A
research fellow at Harvard University, 198184, and assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University
from 1984 to 1989, he has also been a resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a guest scholar at the
Brookings Institution, and a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he was master of the Social Science
Collegiate Division and deputy dean of the Graduate Division of Social Sciences. His The Origins of Alliances (1987) received
the 1988 Edgar S. Furniss National Security Book Award. Recent publications include Keeping the World Off-Balance: SelfRestraint and U.S. Foreign Policy (2000), Revolution and War (1996), and articles in Foreign Policy, The National Interest,
International Security, and Foreign Affairs., American Primacy Its Prospects and Pitfalls, Naval War College Review
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/swalt/files/art1-sp2.pdf, 2002 suzman]
A second consequence of U.S. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of overall international
tranquility. Ironically, those who argue that primacy is no longer important, because the danger of war is slight, overlook the fact
that the extent of American

primacy is one of the main reasons why the risk of great-power

war is as low as it is. For most of the past four centuries, relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive,
12

often punctuated by major wars and occasionally by all-out struggles for hegemony. In the first half of the twentieth century, for
example, great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Today, however, the dominant position of the United States places
significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition, for at least two reasons. One reason is that because the United
States is currently so far ahead, other major powers are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. Not only is there no
possibility of a hegemonic war (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge), but the risk of war via

miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other
major powers. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even, because in this
situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. When the balance of power is heavily skewed,
however, the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare not try.8 12 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW The
second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops in Europe and in Asia provides a further
barrier to conflict in each region. So long as U.S. troops are committed abroad, regional powers know that launching a war is
likely to lead to a confrontation with the United States. Thus, states within these regions do not worry as much about each other,
because the U.S. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. What
Joseph Joffe has termed the American pacifier is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia, but it is an important one.
This tranquilizing effect is not lost on Americas allies in Europe and Asia. They resent U.S. dominance and dislike playing host
to American troops, but they also do not want Uncle Sam to leave.9 Thus, U.S. primacy is of benefit to the United States, and to
other countries as well, because it dampens the overall level of international insecurity. World politics might be more interesting if
the United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each othermore actively, but amore exciting world
is not necessarily a better one. A comparatively boring era may provide few opportunities for genuine heroism, but it is probably a
good deal more pleasant to live in than interesting decades like the 1930s or 1940s. Primacy Fosters Prosperity By facilitating
the development of a more open and liberal world economy, American primacy also fosters global prosperity. Economic
interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace, but it is more accurate to say that peace

encourages

interdependenceby making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international
intercourse.10 Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is
remote, and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be
severed. When states are relatively secure, they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. In
particular, they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative
disadvantage over time.11 By providing a tranquil international environment, in short,

U.S. primacy has created

political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment. Indeed, American primacy
was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union,which is often touted as a triumph of economic
self-interest over historical rivalries. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and
from each other, they WALT 13 It may not be politically correct to talk about enjoying the exercise of power, but most people
understand that it is better to have it than to lack it. could safely ignore the balance of power withinWestern Europe and
concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of
increased global prosperity, and U.S. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests.12 The United States also
played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. As a number of
commentators have noted, the current era of globalization is itself partly an artifact of American power.As Thomas Friedman
puts it, Without America on duty, there will be no America Online.13 Primacy Maximizes Influence Finally, primacy gives
theUnited States greater freedomof action and greater influence over the entire agenda of global issues. Because it is less
dependent on other countries, the United States is to a large extent able to set the terms for its participation in many international
arrangements. Although cooperating with others is often in its interest, the option to go it alone gives the United States greater
bargaining power than most (if not all) other states.14 The United States can also choose to stay out of trouble if it wishes;
because it is objectively very secure, it can remain aloof frommany of the worlds problems even when it might be able to play a
constructive role.15 Yet primacy also means that the United States can undertake tasks that no other state would even contemplate
and can do so with reasonable hope of success. In the past decade, for instance ,

the United States played a key role in

guiding the reunification of Germany; negotiated a deal to endNorth Koreas nuclear weapons program; and convinced

Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to give up the nuclear arsenals they had inherited fromthe
SovietUnion. It also rescued the Mexican economy during the peso crisis in 1994, brought three new members into the Nato
alliance, defeated and defanged Iraq in 1991, and kept the Iraqi regime under tight constraints thereafter. The United States also
played an important role in the recovery fromthe Asian financial crisis of 1997, led the coalition that defeated Serbia in the 1999
war in Kosovo, and used its economic power to encourage the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic and his prosecution for alleged war
crimes. U.S.

power probably helped prevent any number of events that might have occurred but at this writing
have notsuch as a direct Chinese challenge to Taiwan or a nuclear conflict between India and
Pakistan. Each of these achievements required resources, and Americas capacity to shape world events would be much
smaller were its relative power to decline. In short, saying that Americans like a position of primacy is akin to saying that they
like power, and they prefer to have more of it rather than less. It may not be politically correct to talk about enjoying the
exercise of power, but most 14 NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW people understand that it is better to have it than to lack it.
Having a great deal of power may not guarantee success or safety, but it certainly improves the odds. One imagines, for example,
that Senator Tom Daschle likes being majority leader of the U.S. Senate more than he liked being minority leader, just as one
suspects that Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, and now Vladimir Putin would have acted quite differently had Russian (or
Soviet) power not deteriorated so dramatically. The reason is simplewhen one is stronger, one can defend ones interests more
effectively and can more easily prevent others from imposing their will.16 Power also gives people (or states) the capacity to

13

pursue positive ends, and a position of primacy maximizes ones ability to do so. Thus, anyone who thinks that the United States
should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction, promote human rights, advance the cause of democracy, or
pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nations ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. The
United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker, and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world
politics if its own power were to decline. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago, Peace must be built upon power, as well as
upon good will and good deeds.17 The bottom line is clear. Even in a world with nuclear weapons, extensive
economic ties, rapid communications, an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations, and other such novel
features, power still matters, and primacy is still preferable. People running for president do not declare that their
main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. They understand, as do most
Americans, that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep.

Advantage III. Economy

A. HLC Necessary for US Economy, without cost-efficient HLC
economic benfoits of the space program will be lost
Posey 2011 [Bill Poset, congressman, posey.house.gov, Bill Posey, Washington, Mar 30
2011, Posey Testimony to Budget Committee: Preserve Human Space Flight and
Give NASA Clear Direction, http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=232177]
Today Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) testified before the House Budget
Committee lamenting the lack of direction at NASA and asking the Budget Committee to
make human space flight the highest priority within NASAs overall budget.
In August of 2008, the President promised Space Coast residents that he would close the
gap between Shuttle and its replacement Constellation program, but he has since
cancelled the Constellation program and NASAs latest budget proposal cuts $2 billion
from NASAs next generation heavy lift rocket.
Congressman Poseys testimony before the House Budget Committee can be
viewed HERE and a transcript has been provided below:
Thank you Madam Chairman and Members, for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning and urge you to preserve NASAs core mission which is human space
flight. More specifically, I would ask that as you proceed in developing a budget
resolution that you include sufficient funding and language directing NASA to make
human space flight its highest priority.
Our nation is critically near the tipping point of ceding our leadership in space
exploration for our future generations, as many of you already know.
Direction from NASA Administration has been seriously lacking with respect to their
goals. By failing to set priorities within NASAs budget, the Administration has left
NASA with no priorities.
As a result, human space flight and Exploration are suffering and the U.S. will be ceding
its leadership in space to China and Russia.
Should Congress fail to step in where the Administration has left a leadership void
14

we will be making an unacceptable compromise in our national security and lose

economic and intangible benefits from our space program.
The President abandoned the Constellation program in his budget, calling for it to be
cancelled with no solid alternative or plan for the future. By so doing, he set our human
space flight program dangerously adrift with vague milestones for the worlds premiere
space exploration organization.
Last year, Congress and the Administration agreed on an Authorization Bill that focused
on developing goals after the Space Shuttles retirement. This included plans for a new
heavy lift capacity while giving limited support to commercial operations.
Unfortunately, the Presidents proposed budget is a substantial departure from the
Authorization Bill that he signed into law in Octobercutting $2 billion from the heavy
lift program while increasing taxpayer subsidies for the low earth orbit commercial space
companies.
This cut is in spite of the fact that, by the Administrations own estimate, the 2016
timeline for a return to flight would have been unattainable at last years projected
funding levels.
The Presidents Budget has misplaced prioritiesgutting vital heavy lift capability
while dealing significantly lighter cuts to unrelated projects like studying climate change.
In Fiscal Year 2010, 16 16 federal agencies and departments were funded at over $8
billion to address climate change. There are NO, zero, zilch, nada, NO other agencies
funded to pursue human space flight.
Human space flight is a matter of national security. Space is the worlds military high
ground, our Golan Heights if you will.
By ceding our leadership to other nations such as China, Russia, and India we would be
literally giving them the ultimate military high ground.
China and Russia have announced plans to colonize the Moonthey are not going there
to collect and study rocks like we did.
We also must not lose sight of the major asset that the human space flight
workforce is to our nation. The workforce is not a spigot that you can turn on and
off. It has taken decades to build and it will evaporate overnight with no programs
in place.
Without a clear vision and a robust investment in our human space flight program
the community will quickly atrophy as these engineers and their expertise are lost to
other pursuits and possibly even other countries.
The Administration plans to retire the Shuttle program this summer after over 30 years
of service: ferrying astronauts, modules, and components to the International Space
Station; launching and repairing numerous satellites including the Hubble; launching
three interplanetary probes; and advancing scientific experimentation including
microgravity researchall important goals for this nation.
Despite this incredible list of accomplishments, when Space Shuttle Atlantis touches
down for the final time this summer, it will be more bitter than it will be sweet because
there is currently no clear vision of the future of Americas human space flight program.
And, it is a step backward for American leadership in space.
The time to refocus NASA on its primary human space flight mission is now. The
Budget Committee has the authority to reject the Administrations continued efforts to
15

reshape NASA as yet another agency without a clear focuswithout a clear mission.
Just imagine one day without your cell phones, one day without your laptops, one day
without a weather report, one day without your GPS, one day not being able to use your
credit card or withdraw cash from the bank all satellite linked communications. Most
of the public realizes the compelling importance of this and thats why I ask you to give
this your best consideration.
Thank you for your leadership, and the opportunity to address you concerning human
space flight.

B. Economic decline breeds world wars

Mead 2k9
[Walter Russell Mead,"Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for "U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/2009,
The New Republic, Only Makes You Stronger,]
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a
progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian
development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the
power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated

Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist

radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of
into the world.

reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the
consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and
countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when
crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global
distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy
the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has
other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal
capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the

Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars;
the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial
crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but
the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If
the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward
Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we
can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

C. Global economic crisis causes war---strong statistical support---their ev doesnt

account for global crises
Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at DOD, 10
[Jedediah Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense,
2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,
in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215]

16

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external
conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the
security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national
levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996)
work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms

in the global economy are associated with the rise

and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent
leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power
balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively
certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a
rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also
shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium
and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions
remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of
trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent
states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if

the

expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as
energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations
either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the
link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and
Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal
and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been
linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which
has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have
increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the
flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that
economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009)
suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that
democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has
provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity,
are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic

scholarship positively
correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises,
whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict al
systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured
prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives

that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict,
such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence
instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and
conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.

17

Advantage IV. Asteroid Collision

A. Inevitably an Asteroid will strike the planet, resulting in an
extinction-level event
Brandenburg 2011

[John E. Brandenburg Ph.D., Doctor Brandenburg was born in

Rouchester Minnesota but grew up in Medford Oregon. He obtained a BA in Physics from Southern Oregon
University in Ashland Oregon, home of the Shakespearean Festival. He obtained his MS in Applied Science
at University of California at Davis and his PhD in Theoretical Plasma Physics at the UC Davis extension
campus at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore California. The Title of his Thesis was A
Theoretical Model of a Reversed Field Ion Layer Made of Monoenergetic Ions and dealt with the magnetic
confinement of plasmas for controlled nuclear fusion. Inspired by the Apollo missions to choose a career in
Physics he has always been an avid fan of space exploration and science fiction. He is the author the
Dead Mars, Dying Earth(1999) with Monica Rix Paxson , ( see Amazon.com) which dealt with the
problems of energy and global warming from a comparative planetary science ( Earth-Mars) perspective
and has been published the USA, Great Britain, Germany and Japan. It was the winner of the Silver Medal
in the Ben Franklin awards for books on science and environment. He has published two science fiction
novels: Asteroid 20-2012 Sepulveda and its sequel Morningstar Pass, The Collapse of the UFO Coverup
( see Amazon.com for both) under the pen name Victor Norgarde these deal with the problems of living
in the real cosmos and initial contact between humanity and extraterrestrial intelligence.
Preparing for a Future Asteroid Crisis Astronomic Review, May 16, 2011p.
http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/preparing-for-a-future-asteroid-crisis]

The detection of a large asteroid on a collision course with earth is inevitable and could
create an unprecedented crisis in human affairs. We live in a dangerous cosmos that doles
out death as well as life. Asteroid impacts are the one danger that humanity faces which
has the potential to wipe it out. The demise of the dinosaurs by the Chixulube impact
stands as example of what happens to species faced with the asteroid threat, who have
neither the perception, the capability, or the organization to rise to such a challenge. Such
an asteroid crisis will test humanitys abilities across the full spectrum : its telescope and
space technology, its ability to determine the characteristics , orbit, and impact area of
the asteroid, and thus its time- to-impact, its ability to prepare whatever countermeasures
are required, from simple direct impactor or nuclear rockets or weapons, and finally to
government and societal reaction. I explored this type of crisis mentally by writing a
technically accurate novel about it. In the novel I explored the dramatic case of a
Chicxlube class impactor discovered with only a years warning. It is one thing to solve
such a problem in the abstract; it is another to sit mentally in impact zone.
18

B.HLC Insures routine use of space to asteroids and diversion for carefree mineral extraction and asteroid diversion time is critical
Brandenburg 2011

[John E. Brandenburg Ph.D., Doctor Brandenburg was born in

Rouchester Minnesota but grew up in Medford Oregon. He obtained a BA in Physics from Southern Oregon
University in Ashland Oregon, home of the Shakespearean Festival. He obtained his MS in Applied Science
at University of California at Davis and his PhD in Theoretical Plasma Physics at the UC Davis extension
campus at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore California. The Title of his Thesis was A
Theoretical Model of a Reversed Field Ion Layer Made of Monoenergetic Ions and dealt with the magnetic
confinement of plasmas for controlled nuclear fusion. Inspired by the Apollo missions to choose a career in
Physics he has always been an avid fan of space exploration and science fiction. He is the author the
Dead Mars, Dying Earth(1999) with Monica Rix Paxson , ( see Amazon.com) which dealt with the
problems of energy and global warming from a comparative planetary science ( Earth-Mars) perspective
and has been published the USA, Great Britain, Germany and Japan. It was the winner of the Silver Medal
in the Ben Franklin awards for books on science and environment. He has published two science fiction
novels: Asteroid 20-2012 Sepulveda and its sequel Morningstar Pass, The Collapse of the UFO Coverup
( see Amazon.com for both) under the pen name Victor Norgarde these deal with the problems of living
in the real cosmos and initial contact between humanity and extraterrestrial intelligence.
Preparing for a Future Asteroid Crisis Astronomic Review, May 16, 2011p.
http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/preparing-for-a-future-asteroid-crisis]

The time-to-impact for an impactor is so important because all countermeasures require

time and careful study. The time-to-impact for positively indentified impactor will
probably be of the order of years, longer than this and the orbit itself cannot be predicted
accurately and shorter than this is very unlikely given our present knowledge of the nearEarth-asteroid population. Fortunately, larger, and therefore more massive asteroids, are
easier to detect, so the worst case scenario of a large asteroid found only shortly before
impact is the least likely. However, it can be said that the shorter the time to impact and
the more massive the asteroid, the more severe will be the crisis that ensues and the more
extreme the countermeasures required against it.
Countermeasures against positively identified impactor of significant size are ultimately
complicated by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. For small asteroids, with long warning
times, the impact of a space probe may be sufficient to nudge it out of a dangerous orbit.
However, for large asteroids, particularly those with short warning times, nuclear
weapons will immediately appear on the table of options. This creates problems with the
Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The Treaty, signed and ratified by the US and every other
space capable nation has two important clauses 1. It forbids claims of national
sovereignty over any heavenly body or region of space. 2. It forbids the presence and use
19

of nuclear weapons in space. Technically then, no nation may have the right to change
the orbit of an asteroid, since this would assert sovereignty. It is also certainly forbidden
to use nuclear weapons to try to deflect or destroy such an impactor. It would be best if
exceptions to the Treaty were negotiated beforehand to cover asteroid contingencies,
however, such negotiations have not even begun and would take years. If an asteroid
crisis begins tomorrow, the treaty may simply be ignored or declared void. Governments
may simply decide to pick up the pieces of the 1967 Treaty afterwards. Government
action and societal reaction are two areas needing study in preparation for an asteroid
crisis. It does little good if warning was given and countermeasures are available, if the
nation or nations affected are too dysfunctional to make use of them. Panic, paranoia,
paralysis, despair, doomsday cults, terrorism, and incompetence become deadly hazards
in an asteroid crisis. Surviving a severe asteroid crisis will require not just technical skill
but true statecraft. However, all these problems can be solved. The key to dealing with a
future asteroid crisis is to foresee and prepare for one.

Plan- The United States Federal Government shall provide all necessary
US Space infrastructure investment funding for the development of
efficient Heavy Lift Capacity and the deployment of a Space
Infrastructure Fueling Depot System as per David Smitherman and
Gordon Woodcock. Ebforcement guaranteed
Observation III. Solvency
A. Solvency HLC price can be reduced space shuttle proves
Valyn 2006

[Ferris Valyn, writer blogger for the Daily Kos, Space for 06 and 08 - NASA Economics 101
Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 08:14 AM PST, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/01/03/175740/-Space-for-06-and-08-NASAEconomics-101]

Now, an important question that isn't asked often; how are the prices for cost to orbit set?
Is it a result of market economics? Of anti-competitive pricing? Of a vast intergalactic
conspiracy against humanity? As you will see, it's quite complex, but it is most definitely
not free and fair market forces.
To address where these costs come from, and why it's quite conceivable that they can
come down, and come down rather quickly, we need to examine both an individual rocket
for space travel, and the history of manned space flight itself.

20

B.Massive Space Transportation Infrastructure Investment would solve

transport problems to the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Colonization Needs,
And Solar power
Smitherman and woodcock
[David Smitherman1, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, ED04, Huntsville, Alabama, 35802, U.S.A.
andGordon Woodcock2Gray Research, Engineering, Science, and Technical Services Contract,
655 Discovery Drive Ste. 300, Huntsville, AL 35806 U.S.A., Space Transportation Infrastructure Supported By
Propellant Depots, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:ZE82PsrRvP0J:ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120001435_2012001131.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
&client=firefox-a
This is the html version of the file http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120001435_2012001131.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.]

Aspacetransportationinfrastructureisdescribedthatutilizespropellantdepotsto
supportallforeseeablemissionsintheEarthMoonvicinityanddeepspaceouttoMars.The
infrastructureutilizescurrentexpendablelaunchvehiclessuchastheDeltaIVHeavy,Atlas
V,andFalcon9,forallcrew,cargo,andpropellantlaunchestoorbit.Propellantlaunches
aremadetoaLowEarthOrbit(LEO)DepotandanEarthMoonLagrangePoint1(L1)
Depottosupportnewreusableinspacetransportationvehicles.TheLEODepotsupports
missionstoGeosynchronousEarthOrbit(GEO)forsatelliteservicing,andtoL1forL1
Depotmissions.TheL1DepotsupportsLunar,EarthSunL2(ESL2),Asteroid,andMars
missions.AMarsOrbitalDepotisalsodescribedtosupportongoingMarsmissions.
Newconceptsforvehicledesignsarepresentedthatcanbelaunchedoncurrent5meter
diameterexpendablelaunchvehicles.ThesenewreusablevehicleconceptsincludeaLEO
Depot,L1Depot,andMarsOrbitalDepotbasedonInternationalSpaceStation(ISS)
heritagehardware.ThehighenergydepotsatL1andMarsorbitarecompatiblewith,but
donotrequire,electricpropulsiontuguseforpropellantand/orcargodelivery.New
reusableinspacecrewtransportationvehiclesincludeaCrewTransferVehicle(CTV)for
crewtransportationbetweentheLEODepotandtheL1Depot,anewreusableLunar
LanderforcrewtransportationbetweentheL1Depotandthelunarsurface,andaDeep
SpaceHabitat(DSH)tosupportcrewmissionsfromtheL1DepottoESL2,Asteroid,and
Marsdestinations.A6meterdiameterMarslanderconceptispresentedthatcanbe
launchedwithoutafairingbasedontheDeltaIVheavyPayloadPlannersGuide,which
indicatesfeasibilityofa6.5meterfairing.Thislanderwouldevolvetoreusableoperations
whenpropellantproductionisestablishedonMars.
Figure1providesasummaryofthepossiblemissionsthisinfrastructurecansupport.
Summarymissionprofilesarepresentedforeachprimarymissioncapability.Theseprofiles
arethebasisforpropellantloads,numbersofvehicles/stagesandlaunchesforeachmission
capability.Dataincludesthenumberoflaunchesrequiredforeachmissionutilizingcurrent
expendablelaunchvehiclesystems,andconcludingremarksincludeideasforreducingthe
numberoflaunchesthroughincorporationofheavyliftlaunchvehicles,solarelectric
propulsion,andothertransportationsupportconcepts.

C.Topical all spacecraft are considered US territory and fly under the
jurisdiction of the FAA
Kleiman 2012
[Matthew Kleiman is Corporate Counsel at the Draper Laboratory in Cambridge, MA, chair of the Space Law
Committee of the ABA Section of Science and Technology Law, and teaches Space Law at Boston University. He can be
reached at matthew.kleiman@gmail.com. Space Law 101: An Introduction to Space Law
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/the_101_201_practice_series/space_law_101_an_intro
duction_to_space_law.html]

21

In the United States, each government agency that operates spacecraft is responsible for complying with U.S.
law and international treaty obligations. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates non-government
spaceports and the launch and reentry of private spacecraft under the Commercial Space Launch Act, as
amended by the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act. Various other federal laws, such as the 1992
Land Remote Sensing Policy Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations, state contract and tort laws, and
decades of commercial practice in the telecommunications, remote sensing and launch services industries also affect
government and private space operations.
The Challenges Ahead
The legal regime established by the Outer Space Treaty has been successful in maintaining peace in outer space since
the height of the Cold War. However, there are many issues that current space law is not fully equipped to address. The
remainder of this article will discuss four of these issues.
Commercial human spaceflight
Humans will soon routinely travel into outer space on spacecraft built and operated by private companies. The first of
these flights will be suborbital spaceflights, where the spacecraft launches from and returns to the same spaceport and
is in outer space for only a few minutes. By the middle of the decade, private companies are expected to take
passengers on orbital spaceflights to the International Space Station (ISS) and privately operated space habitats.
Commercial human spaceflight will raise many complicated legal issues. The FAA is already in the process of
establishing licensing and safety criteria for private spacecraft, a process that will continue to evolve as the industry
matures. Space companies, legislatures and courts will need to address questions of liability in the event of accidents,
the enforceability of liability waivers, insurance requirements, and the sufficiency of informed consent for passengers.
Indeed, Florida, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia have already passed laws limiting the liability of space tourism
providers under state tort law.

And D. all materials on US spacecraft are also considered part of US

territory and are not considered as having left US territory upon return
Chapter 19 Section 1484 of the United States Code explains
[19 USC 1484a - Articles returned from space not to be construed as importation
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1484a]
The return of articles from space shall not be considered an importation, and an entry of such articles shall not be
required, if:
(1) such articles were previously launched into space from the customs territory of the United States aboard a
spacecraft operated by, or under the control of, United States persons and owned
(A) wholly by United States persons, or
(B) in substantial part by United States persons, or
(C) by the United States;
(2) such articles were maintained or utilized while in space solely on board such spacecraft or aboard another spacecraft
which meets the requirements of paragraph (1)(A) through (C) of this section; and
(3) such articles were returned to the customs territory directly from space aboard such spacecraft or aboard another
spacecraft which meets the requirements of paragraph (1)(A) through (C) of this section;
without regard to whether such articles have been advanced in value or improved in condition by any process of
manufacture or other means while in space.

22