Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Moon Mining Neg.

Solvency
AT: solvency- no qualified engineers
There is a huge deficit of qualified NASA engineers now Fisher 05 (Anne, Fortune, How to Battle the coming Brain Drain, Academic Search Complete, NC)
Consider the chilling example of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Way back in the 1960s it spent $24 billion (in 1969 dollars)--and at one point employed 400,000 people--to send 12 astronauts to the moon. But in the 23 years since the Apollo program ended, the engineers who carried crucial know-how in their heads, without ever passing it on to colleagues, have retired or died (or both). At the same time, important blueprints were catalogued incorrectly or not at all, and the people who drew them are no longer around to draw them again. So to fulfill the Bush administration's promise to return to the moon in the next decade, NASA is essentially starting all over again. Estimated cost to taxpayers in current dollars: $100 billion.

AT: Solvency- lack of infrastructure/cost


Space Mining unlikely too many challenges with cost. SpaceDaily, 1999. (Space News. The Challenge of Space Mining. 9-14-1999. Available at: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/asteroid-99i.html, T.Q)
biggest impediment to space industrialisation is the cost involved getting raw materials back to Earth orbit. Unfortunately, at least five infrastructure challenges need to be met before we can move space mining from science fiction to economic fact. The first is debt servicing arrangements capable of handling projects where payoff periods are measured in decades (if not centuries) that will need to be put into place (which is why debt servicing will be a most interesting challenge for this potential space business; although large scale
The projects such as terrestrial mines & skyscrapers - as well as the illfated Iridium consortium - seem to suggest that this problem isn't completely insurmountable). Mind you: the payday from a large metal rich asteroid suddenly dropping a large load of processed material on terrestrial markets would certain put a new spin on the old traders' cry of optimism: When my boat comes in!.... (It is assumed here that debt servicing will be handled by futures sales of the processed raw material being mined... to avoid flooding the market, the ideal would be to have every gram of processed material presold before delivery; which could be incremental during near. Earth flybys - an especially attractive option if the final intent of the mining operation is to create some kind of spaceship/city/whatever or dropping it en bulk from a final Earth orbit) The second & third challenges have (probably) almost been met even now; & with development incentives could be tested in space within a couple of years. Both are technological - the bulk of space mining

operations are almost certainly going to be robotic rather than human - & involve the creation of spacerated automated materials processing technology for turning floating piles of rock into valuable raw material; & mobile mining technology which can make the raw material available for processing. Elements of these technologies are almost available now (with a few systems existing on the drawing board... or should i say CAD nowadays?); & some systems testing has already taken place... the main challenge here would be to spacerate designs which are capable of the years of work they'll be required to do.... (It's worth noting that
the same basic technology could also be adapted as Earth-impacting asteroid mitigation strategy... something we're going to have to develop sooner or later. Roll on real space industrialisation) A.

Trips to moon too costly


Dunbar 08
Editor of NASA website, NASA, February 24, 2008 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#13 The Space Shuttle Endeavour, the orbiter built to replace the Space Shuttle Challenger, cost approximately $1.7 billion. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.

Q. How much does the Space Shuttle cost?

1.7 billion.

AT: Solvency- low gravity prevents mining


Lack of gravity on asteroids would pose a serious handicap problem for asteroid mining Hayabusa mission proves Durda 06 (Daniel D, writer for Ad Astra, magazine of the National Space Society, Ad Nastra Volume 18, Number 2, Summer 2006, Mining Near-Earth Asteroids, Summer 2006, AG)
The question before us here is: Could we mine a small NEA right now and actually make use of some of this mineral wealth? That is, assuming that the operational and economic infrastructure were now in place and required the in-space utilization of materials mined from small asteroids, do the techniques and technologies exist that would allow us to do so? If not, what do we still need to do and to learn in order to make asteroid mining a reality? The answers to these questions also bear directly on the closely related requirements for preventing the impact of a threatening asteroid. Let's first look at the environment that exists on and around small NEAs before considering the technological requirements for harvesting their mineral riches. Planetary scientists estimate that there are some 1,100 asteroids larger than a kilometer in diameter. Smaller, football-field-size objects are much more numerousmore than 100,000 of them orbit the Sun in near-Earth space (although at present we have catalogued only a few percent of them). Objects so small exert only a feeble gravitational pull befitting their diminutive stature. The surface gravity of even a modest-size kilometer-diameter rocky asteroid is only of order 1/30,000 of a g. It is in fact the negligible surface gravity of these objects that makes them such attractive targets for future mining activities; the materials mined from their surface need not be lifted back out of a deep gravity well in order to be delivered to the places where the resources are needed. But this low gravity can cause serious operational challenges as well. Simply moving around in the close vicinity of a lumpy and potentially rapidly rotating or tumbling NEA can be counterintuitive. Rather than orbiting the smallest asteroids, oilplatformlike equivalents of future mining factories may instead "station keep" in close proximity, rather like a Space Shuttle orbiter maneuvering around the International Space Station. Human and robotic mining engineers moving about along the surface will similarly need their own on-board and very capable navigation systems for the real-time trajectory calculations necessary in simply moving from point A to point B. The difficulties faced by the Hayabusa mission in trying to simply "drop" the tiny MINERVA rover onto the surface of the 500-meter-diameter asteroid Itokawa show that we still have some work to do in even this most basic area of mining operations.

AT: solvency- tech


Humans are not ready to mine asteroidsrobots arent developed enough and not ready to send humans back into space Durda 06 (Daniel D, writer for Ad Astra, magazine of the National Space Society, Ad Nastra Volume 18, Number 2, Summer 2006, Mining Near-Earth Asteroids, Summer 2006, AG)
Once finally on an asteroid's debris-strewn surface, fine dusteasily motivated in the milli-g environmentwill likely be a problem. Electrostatic charging now becomes a dominant force on dust particles, causing them to adhere to just about anything, the fine workings of mining equipment included. And once it is there you can't simply brush it away. Apollo 16 Commander John Young doesn't mince words when describing what he sees as one of the most serious concerns for future lunar explorers, and the same goes for asteroids as well: "When people talk about long-duration operations on the Moon, the thing they better worry about is the dust." Now, how do we actually go about mineral mining in such an environment? First, we have to get there! Today, we can obviously travel to and even "land" on asteroids, but real mining operations are going to require much more massive and expansive spacecraft operations than NASA's NEAR-Shoemaker mission or Japan's Hayabusa. Ion propulsion allowing for sustained and highly efficient operations will be essential if we decide we'd like to move a

particularly attractive (or threatening) asteroid into a more accessible orbit. The nuclear electric propulsion technology that NASA was pursuing through the Prometheus program was a very promising move in the right direction, but, unfortunately, that program has been abandoned for now. Although certainly challenging, Prometheus required no extraordinary technological stretch. Revamping something like that program will simply require the political and financial will to do it. What about power to run the operation? No problem! Solar power is a practical and abundant option in near-Earth space. And of course, if you're moving about the Solar System in nuclear fission-powered spacecraft, you have a lot of power to spare coming along for the ride. Affixing or docking to the surface of a small asteroid in order to actually dig into its regolith or drill into its bedrock, may be easier said than done. And the methods that work for one object may not work at all for another. Harpoons or penetrators may be a tractable option for objects with porous but cohesive surfaces. Electromagnet pads might just work on the iron-rich asteroids. If we pick very small asteroids, our mining facility may not even "land" on the object at allthe rock could be swallowed whole by the spacecraft itself and mechanically and chemically digested for its resources. That, of course, is a technology yet to be demonstrated for large-scale, in situ operations. So, are we ready? Could we mine an asteroid today? Clearly the answer is "no." Our autonomous robotic capabilities are not yet developed enough to allow it (we don't even have the capabilities to do so in a fully autonomous manner here on Earth), and we're still at least a decade away from returning people to the Moon. But as soon as the scale of our operations in space reach a point where it becomes more economical to obtain and use mineral resources there rather than delivering them from deep in the Earth's gravity well, we'll be off and mining the most attractive resources out therethe asteroids.

Human Exploration Unpopular No Political Consensus (1/2) Space Exploration Unpopular Public

Half of Americans want to cut back on space exploration Rasmussen Reports, 1/15/10 (Biggest public opinion poll conductor in the United States, 50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_fa vor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration, accessed 6/27/11) EK
Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the United States should cut back on space exploration given the current state of the economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.Just 31% disagree with cutting the space program, and 19% more are not sure. The new findings mark a six-point increase in support - from 44% last July - for cutting back on space exploration.

Ozone Link Chemical Propulsion


Chemical propulsion is one of the main threats to ozone Shapiro 95 (Lynn Anne, Contributor, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 1994-1995, p. 748, JM)
In order to put the above numbers in perspective, it is useful to look at the effluent contributions by United States rockets in comparison with other factors contributing to ozone depletion. For example, during each launch, the Space Shuttle will emit sixty-eight tons of highly destructive chlorine (CI) into the stratosphere, and a Titan IV booster rocket will emit thirty-two tons.60 At a projected rate of nine Shuttle and six Titan launches per year, the chlorine contribution from these two vehicles will be 800 tons compared to 300,000 tons from worldwide industrial sources.6' While this may appear to be a relatively

inconsequential amount, the amount of chlorine injected into the stratosphere by each Shuttle launch

is more damaging to the ozone supply than the aggregate annual chlorofluorocarbon emissions of most of the world's factories. This occurs, in part, because the chlorine (Cl) is injected directly into the stratosphere and immediately begins participating in ozone destruction.62 Rocket propellant effluents also have a uniquely dangerous depleting effect on the ozone layer in that the depletion is highly concentrated.
Measurements of ozone loss in the launch trail of a Titan II booster rocket thirteen minutes after launch, at an altitude of eighteen kilometers, have shown that ozone is reduced by more than forty percent within the trail63 Other studies have shown that within kilometer of the exhaust trail of the Space Shuttle and Energia vehicles ozone may be reduced up to eighty percent between one and three hours after launch.64

one

Ozone Link Combustion


Chemical propulsion uniquely damages key ozone areas. Alexeyev et al 2 (Yu, speaker @ The Second World Space Congress, The Impact of the chemical propulsion on the ozone layer,
October, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE.102A, JM) The space activity is considered in the investigation real trend changes of total column ozone amounts (TCO). In combustion gas of all propulsion systems, especially solid ones, there are main ozone destroyers - Cl, NOx, OH, condensed particles Al2O3 etc. During every launch several tons such substances are practically immediately going into the atmosphere on 20-30 km altitude (i.e. layer with maximum ozone concentration) inaccessible for other ozone destroyers. The determination real consequences interaction between combustion gas and stratospheric ozone is the urgent problem of the practical astronautics. The analytical estimates for atmospheric ozone destroyed in a rocket plume are made more then 20 years. The results very differ even for the same rocket types and prognoses vary from extremely pessimistic to restrained optimistic ones. Such divergence is a result, first of all, high chemical kinetics calculations sensitivity to the rate constants values varying more then several times for the numerous reactions taking into account, initial data for a rocket plume, initial data for the atmosphere performance etc. The wide known comparisons the calculated results with the real TCO change above the space-vehicle launching sites are absent till now despite the regular TCO space monitoring is conducted since 1978 year. In the article the analyses of the spline-interpolation total ozone mapping spectrometer (TOMS) measurements [1,2] is presented. We have examined 773 launches space rockets ARIAN, CZ, DELTA, PROTON, SHUTTLE, TITAN, ZENIT families was made for period since 1978 until 2001 year. For every launch the ozone level maps for regions corresponding to 10o

latitude on 20o longitude during 7 days elapsed time have been built. For ~30% launches we have exposed the areas with TCO decreased on 15-20 Dobson units. The areas have shape either "spots" with 200-300km
diameter or "stripes" 200-300km width parallel to plume. Such local ozone "holes" appear in 1-2 days after launch and disappear in 5-7 days as rule. For comparison, we also made the ozone level maps for regions similar to launching sites latitude. So far as the probability (frequency) of appearance of natural ozone "holes" with same dimension and shape above the launching sites is less then exposed ones, with good reason it may be assumed that in some cases the "holes" are the result of stratospheric ozone depletion by propulsion gas components. The space rockets families we compared from point of frequency appearance the ozone "holes". The worse result gave us the SHUTTLE family (~50%). With aid of the results it is offered to make the prognosis for every launch of "dirty" rockets and choose the most convenient launching time for stratospheric ozone depletion minimization.

Ozone ! Climate Change


Ozone depletion causes climate change ERW 6-13 (Environmental Research Web, Ozone hole has affected whole Southern Hemisphere,
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/46255, JM) While previous work has shown that the ozone hole is changing atmospheric flow at high latitudes, a Science paper by researchers from Columbia University, US, demonstrates that the ozone hole is able to influence tropical circulation and increase rainfall at low latitudes in the entire Southern Hemisphere. This is the first time that ozone depletion an upper atmospheric phenomenon confined to the polar regions has been linked to climate change from the Pole to the equator. "The ozone hole is not even mentioned in the summary for policymakers issued with the last IPCC report," says Lorenzo Polvani, co-author of the paper. "We show in this study that it has large and far-reaching impacts. The ozone hole is a big player in the climate system." Lead author Sarah Kang says:

"It's really amazing that the ozone hole, located so high up in the atmosphere over Antarctica, can have an impact all the way to the tropics and affect rainfall there it's just like a domino effect." The
ozone hole is now widely believed to have been the dominant agent of atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere in the last half century. This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone ozone needs to be considered, too. "This could be a real game-changer," says Polvani. Over the past decade ozone depletion has largely halted. Scientists now expect it to fully reverse, with the ozone hole closing by mid-century. "While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we're now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that's been observed," says Polvani. Together with colleagues at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Kang and Polvani used two different state-of-the-art climate models to show the ozone hole effect. They first calculated the atmospheric changes in the models produced by creating an ozone hole. They then compared these changes with the ones that have been observed in the last few decades: the close agreement between the models and the observations shows that ozone is likely to have been responsible for the observed changes in the

Southern Hemisphere.

Kang and Polvani plan next to study extreme precipitation events, which are associated with major floods, mudslides, etc. "We really want to know," says Kang, "if and how the closing of the ozone hole will affect these."

Ozone ! Cancer
Ozone depletion causes disproportionate increases in cancer rates Martens 98 (WJM, Mathematics Department @ Maastricht University, Environmental Health Perspectives 106, 1, February, JM)
Analysis of what happens with the tumor incidences in the course of time after the ozone layer changes is more complex than the previous example, due in particular to the relatively long incubation time between initial UV exposure and the first appearance of cancer. Although there is a large body of data, both experimental and epidemiologic, that confirms a causal relationship between accumulated UV dose and squamous cell carcinoma (33,34), the UV dose dependencies of basal cell carcinoma and melanoma skin cancer (MSC) (except for lentigo maligna melanoma) are less certain. Earlier skin cancer assessments were based on comparison of two stationary situations (35) and did not include the delay between exposure and tumor development (36). The

assessment model used here integrates dynamic aspects of the full source-risk chain: from production and emission of ozone-depleting substances, global stratospheric chlorine concentrations, local depletions of stratospheric ozone, resulting increases in UV-B levels, and finally, the effects on skin cancer rates (37-39). Figure 5 clearly shows the delay mechanisms in the effect of ozone depletion on skin cancer rates. Full
compliance with the Copenhagen Amendments to the Montreal Protocol would lead to a peak in the atmospheric chlorine concentration around 1995, a peak in stratospheric chlorine concentration and ozone depletion around 2000, and a peak in skin cancer by about 2050 (50 years after the peak in ozone depletion). The latter delay is mainly due to the fact that skin cancer incidences depend on cumulative UV-B exposure. An important aspect in this modeling experiment is that skin cancer rates are very sensitive with respect to lifestyle (i.e., sun exposure habits). Changing lifestyles such as the trend toward sun worshipping during the last half century contribute greatly to the increases in the incidence of skin cancer. This has been identified as a serious public health problem in several western countries, and campaigns have been launched to curb excessive exposure to the sun.

An increase in UV exposure of 50% would increase the excess number of skin cancer cases to 135%
(Figure 6). Another factor contributing to a steady increase in the number of skin cancers is the aging of the population. Because older people build up a high cumulative UV dose during their lives, skin cancer occurs more frequently among the elderly. Figure 6 also shows that if a population is aging, the same level of UV exposure would lead to higher incidences of skin cancer than in a younger population, perhaps a 50 to 60% increase in the overall incidence. So it appears that in view of the several delay mechanisms involved in cancer onset and, additionally, the aging of the

population, increases in incidences of skin cancer are likely to occur.

Ozone ! Disease/Food/Environment
Ozone depletion causes disease, crop failure, and ecosystem disruption Mishra 10 (M. P., Chief Editor of ECOSOC, international environmental newsletter, Ozone Layer: Its depletion, consequences, and
protection, September 12, http://www.ecosensorium.org/2010/09/ozone-layer-its-depletion-consequences.html, JM)

Ozone absorbs ultraviolet radiations so that much of it is never allowed to reach to the earth surface.
The protective umbrella of ozone layer in the stratosphere protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiations. Ozone plays an important role in the biology and climatology on the earths environment. It filters out all the radiations that remain below 3000. Radiations below this wavelength are biologically harmful. Hence any depletion of ozone layer is sure to exert catastrophic impacts on life in the biosphere. The Ultraviolet radiation is one of the most harmful radiations contained in the sunlight. Ozone layer in the stratosphere absorbs these radiations and does not allow it to reach to the earth. The depletion of

Ozone layer may lead to UV exposures that may cause a number of biological consequences like Skin Cancer, damages to vegetation, and even the reduction of the population of planktons (in the oceanic Photic
zone). Some of the remarkable effects of the UV radiations or the effects of depletion of the Ozone Layer are mentioned below. (1)

UV radiation causes sun- eye- diseases (cataract), skin diseases, skin cancer and damage to immune systems in our body. (2) It damages plants and causes reduction in crop productivity. (3) It damages embryos of fish, shrimps, crabs and amphibians. The population of salamanders is reducing due to UV-radiations reaching to the earth. (4) UV- radiations damage fabrics, pipes, paints, and other nonliving materials on this earth. (5) It contributes in the Global Warming. If the ozone depletion continues, the temperature around the world may rise even up to 5.5 Celsius degrees. II.Specific Effects The specific effects of depletion of Ozone Layer have been observed on Human Society, Agriculture, Plants and Animals etc. These effects have been
summarized as below- A. Effects of Ozone Depletion on Human Society (i).The flux of ultra violet radiation in the biosphere is increased due to ozone depletion. It has seriously harmful effects on human societies like formation of patches on skin and weakening of

the human immune system. (ii). It may cause three types of skin cancer like basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma. A 10 per cent decrease in stratospheric ozone has been reported to cause 20 to 30 per cent increase in cancer in human society. Each year, about 7000 people die of such diseases each year in USA. About 10 percent increase in skin cancer has been reported in Australia and New Zealand. (iii).Exposure to UV radiations damages skin of the sun-bathing people by damaging melanocyte-cells or by causing sun-burns due to faster flow of blood in the capillaries of exposed areas. (iv).Exposure to UV radiations due to ozone depletion may cause leukemia and breast cancer. (iv).Exposure of UV radiation to human eye damages cornea and lens leading to Photo keratitis, cataract and even blindness. (v).The Ambient Ozone Exposure may cause Emphysema, bronchitis, asthma and even obstruction of lungs in human beings. (vi).Exposure

to radiations due to ozone depletion has been reported to cause DNA breakage, inhibition and alteration of DNA replication and premature ageing in human beings. B. Effect of Ozone Depletion on Agriculture (i). Radiations reaching to the earth due to ozone depletion cause severe damage to plants including crops. As per reports, ultra violet radiations reaching to the earth cause losses up to 50 per cent in European countries. (ii).The radiation reaching to the earth due to the depletion of the ozone layer cause visible damages in plants. They adversely affect the rate of photosynthesis that finally results into decrease in the agricultural production. (iv).The
UV radiation enhances the rate of evaporation through stomata and decreases the moisture content of the soil. This condition adversely affects the growth and development of crop plants and reduces the crop yield. (v). The ozone reduction adversely affects

the weather pattern which in turn affects the crop production by encouraging plant injuries and disease development. (vi). The UV radiation reaching to the earth surface alters the global balance between radiation and energy. This condition of imbalance causes seasonal variations that further reduce the crop production. (vii). A number of economically important plant species such as rice, depend on cyanobacteria residing in their roots for the retention of nitrogen. These bacteria are sensitive to UV light and they are hence, are killed instantly. C. Effects of Ozone Depletion on
other Plants and Animals (i).The ozone layer depletion causes climatic alterations that cause physiological changes in plants and animals. The change in the energy balance and radiation may affect the survival and stability of living organisms. (ii).The depletion of ozone layer may cause changes in thermal conditions of the biosphere. It may affect type, density and stability of vegetation which in turn may affect different bio-geo-chemical cycles operating in nature. Interruption in these cycles damages important process of ecosystem leading to dangerous conditions for plants and animals. (iii).The depletion of ozone layer causes death of planktonpopulations in fresh as well as marine waters .This condition seriously affects the transfer of materials in ecosystems. The recent researches gave analyzed a widespread extinction of planktons 2 million years ago that coincided with the nearby supernova.

Planktons are particularly susceptible to effects of UV light and are vitally important to the marine food webs.

DA 1NC (1/2)
A. Space Debris is reaching a critical point Dickinson 10 (Boonsri Dickinson is a contributing editor for Smart Planet- destination for savvy advice, thought-provoking analysis and expert discussion on the intersection of technology, Space junk could destroy communications on Earth, June 1, 2010, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/space-junk-could-destroy-communications-onearth/2117, QJ)
You cant exactly see space junk when you look up into the sky, but its a problem that wont go away. Sure, youve heard warnings before. But this time, the Department of Defense found that the space junk is reaching a critical
tipping point. Sputnik One was the first piece of debris to orbit the Earth. Today, there are 370,000 pieces of junk in space, but only 1,100 satellites, according to Popular Science. Do the math. A collision is inevitable. And when that happens, our communication would be disrupted and the $200 billion industry would suffer. The DoDs Interim Space Posture Review warned of the congestion problem in space. Worse, there could be wide-spread disruption to daily activities if such a series of chain-reactions was set off by chance collisions. The junk is sometimes as large as a school buses and can orbit the Earth at 17,500 miles per hour. Imagine the damage space junk could do to a satellite or manned vehicle. If two hit, then the debris will break into tiny pieces and create even more junk. One collision turned into 1,500 bits of rubbish. And another produced 150,000 pieces of space junk. This could quickly get out of hand. As the commercial space industry takes off, more regulations and policing will be needed so our GPS systems, communication, and economic stability are maintained. Theres no getting around this one: more junk, more problems.

B. Space mission that involves launch will increase space debris and the chances of a satellite collision Lenov and Bagrov 10 (V.A. Leonov and A.V. Bagrov, Institute of Astronomy, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Study of Space Debris Burning in Earths Atmosphere via

Television Meteor Monitoring, February 15, 2010 http://www.springerlink.com/content/210n5wt3t1388283/fulltext.pdf , QJ)


According to model counts there currently exists at least one million millimeter-sized space debris particles in near space [11] with the total accumulated mass of objects of artificial origin equal to about 6000 tons (Fig. 2). The rate of space debris population growth in the near space, with continuing launches, notwithstanding the counter-debris measures is estimated to be 120 tons/year, i.e. up to 20000 millimeter-sized space debris particles per year. Our estimates show that the rate of self-deorbiting makes almost no compensation for the continued growth of the near space debris population. In the above estimates we reviewed the meteors,

the direction of which was close to horizontal, i.e. only the space debris particles moving at very low nearcircular orbits made it into our analysis. The measurements of the meteor velocity vector in basic observations give reason to broaden our approach for the SD elements on higher elliptical orbits, for example, resulting from satellite destruction via impacts or explosions [12]. If we observe the meteors resulting from the burning fragments of such destructions, it will not only provide
another channel confirming the cataclysms in the near space, but will as well determine the nature of devastation from the number of wreckages reaching the upper atmosphere.

Spending Link Moon

Space exploration is expensive. Kaku 9 (Michio, theoretical physics@CCNY, Forbes, 16 July 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/apollo-moon-landing-anniversary-opinions-contributorscost-money.html) JT
After all is said and done about what went wrong, the bottom line is simple: money. It's about $10,000 to put a pound of anything into a near-earth orbit. (Imagine John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth, made of solid gold, and you can appreciate the enormous cost of space travel.) It costs $500 to $700 million every time the shuttle flies. Billionaire space tourists have flown to the space station at a reputed price of $20 million per head. And to put a pound of anything on the moon costs about 10 times as much. (To reach Mars, imagine your body made of diamonds.) We are 50 years into the space age, and yet space travel is just as expensive as it always was.

Cutting space programs is key to fiscal discipline. The Tech 10 (9 April 2010, 130(18), p. 6) JT
The White House has announced plans to host a conference in Florida on April 15 during which President Obama will unveil his vision for the U.S. space program. If recent moves by the administration are any indication, this new vision will significantly curtail public funding for space activity. The president is working hard to spin the upcoming change as a transition rather than a cut, and perhaps for good reason: He is unlikely to find a receptive audience in Florida, long a recipient of the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations largess. But while the swing-state politics of the Sunshine State may compel Obama to tread carefully, we as the general public should recognize this new policy for what it is: a dramatic reduction in human space exploration. We should also support Obama for his fiscal discipline in cutting what has been a horrendous waste of our societys resources.

Any new missions to space would add billions of un-appropriated dollars to NASAs budget exceeding the current monetary ability. AFP 9 (Staff Writers, Sept. 9, http://www.spacetravel.com/reports/US_manned_space_program_too_expensive_White_House_panel_999.html JALO)

NASA's plans to fly to the moon and Mars are under threat from a lack of funds and the space agency needs another three billion dollars for its dreams to become reality, a presidential panel said. In a 12-page summary report released Tuesday offering a bleak assessment of plans to send astronauts back to the moon, the committee said the space agency would need the three billion dollars on top of its 18-billion-dollar budget to meet its ambitious targets. "Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations," the committee wrote. "Such is the case today." As US president in 2004, George W. Bush launched a program dubbed Constellation with the goal of returning to the moon by 2020 and then establishing a lunar launchpad for a first trip to Mars. But in an executive summary of its report, a White

House commission named by Bush's successor Barack Obama to review the US manned space program, said the current schedule was unachievable.

Moon mission will cost in the hundreds of billions Morgan, Congressional Research Service specialist in science and technology policy, 7-8-10 [Daniel, Congressional Research Service, The Future of NASA: Space Policy Issues Facing Congress, p.6, opencrs.com/document/R41016/, accessed 6-20-11, AFB] NASA has not provided a cost estimate for the Vision as a whole. In 2004, it projected that developing capabilities for human exploration, not including robotic support missions, would cost a total of $64 billion up through the first human return to the Moon.19 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that, based on historical trends, the actual cost could be much higher.20 In its 2005 implementation plan, NASA estimated that returning astronauts to the Moon would cost $104 billion, not including the cost of robotic precursor missions or the cost of servicing the ISS after the end of the shuttle program.21 In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the total cost for the Vision as $230 billion over two decades.22 In April 2009, as directed in the 2008 authorization act, the CBO updated its 2004 budgetary analysis of the Vision. It found that NASA would need an additional $2 billion per year through FY2025 to keep the Vision activities on schedule, not counting probable cost growth in other activities.23 In October 2009, the Augustine report stated that executing NASAs current plans would require an additional $3 billion per year, even with some schedule delays.24

1NC Shell
Economy on the brink New spending crushes growth Rahn 11 (Richard, CATO Institute, PhD @ Colombia, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12785)JFS
There is evidence that once

a government lets its debt/GDP ratio rise more than 90 percent, the economy begins to seriously weaken and government spending starts to spiral out of control as the interest payments on the debt grow faster than the economy. The United States will probably hit the 90 percent threshold within a year (the current level is 68 percent, up from 37 percent in 2008). Up to now, foreigners have been willing to buy U.S. debt, but as inflation heats up (which it is now doing globally), domestic and foreign lenders will insist on higher interest to compensate for the expected inflation. The United States has been able to finance its debt with very low interest rates over the past few years, with the Federal Reserve's "quantitative easing" programs that is, they have been buying debt with money they just print. We are probably close to the endgame with this particular racket, which
cannot go on forever. Greece has already shown the world what happens when the debt/GDP ratio reaches critical levels. Government services, employment and transfer payments are drastically cut because there is no other

choice and the economy goes into the tank. The rest of the world will be in no position to help the United States. Britain and a number of other European countries will also likely breach the 90 percent threshold this year, while
Japan will be at 200 percent. Japan has been able to get away with a higher debt/GDP ratio because almost all of the debt is held by the Japanese and Japanese institutions. But this has led to economic stagnation and now the endgame is upon them (China just replaced Japan as the world's second largest economy). What will the United States do as the Japanese begin to sell their trillion dollars in U.S. government securities to meet their own liabilities? Mr. Obama has also proposed a number of tax increases in his budget. These tax increases will only slow economic growth, particularly given the high level of debt service that will be required to finance not only the federal debt but also the growing state and local government debts. Economic growth depends on having sufficient saving, which is put into productive investment to create jobs and technologies. If government is grabbing most of the savings of private individuals and businesses through debt issuance, inflation and taxes, the result is economic stagnation and increasing unemployment. Is there a way out of this bleak scenario? Yes. Real not phony reductions in government spending, particularly on transfer payments (commonly known as entitlements).

Extinction Bearden 2k (Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc) ET


Bluntly, we foresee these factors - and others { } not covered - converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate

nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released.
As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China - whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States - attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the

mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is his side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without
effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The

resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.