- If reading Politics, be careful with the interaction between the tradeoff args about public popularity and the Politics link.
- A lot of the Space DA neg funding key evidence talks about all these proposed 2014 cuts to NASA’s budget – these didn’t actually end up happening so the DA still has UQ.
- Bolster the link about how the plan is expensive with lines from 1AC/2AC ev – they are probably much more specific to the plan.
- The NOAA DA tradeoff arg isn’t that strong – frame it as the government only funding the plan if they pull funding from Beaufort due to the current fiscal climate
Space Tradeoff DA
1NC Space Tradeoff DA
Space spending high now but Obama is looking for excuses to cut it
Dreier 14 (Casey, The Planetary Society, 01.14.14, “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary Exploration…Again¶ “, http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
Pasadena, CA (January 14, 2014) - The FY2014 Omnibus spending bill, now before the U.S. Congress, once again rejects cuts to NASA's Planetary Science Division that were sought by the White House. The Planetary Society commends Congress for this action, and strongly encourages the White House to prioritize Planetary Science in its future budget requests commensurate with its strong public and legislative support. The Society supports the passage of this bill for its additional Planetary Science funding as well as its overall funding levels allocated for NASA.¶ Congress plans to allocate $1.345 billion for NASA's Planetary Science Division, $127 million more than requested by the White House. We strongly support the increase, but note that the number is well below the program's historical average of $1.5 billion per year.¶ The additional funding ensures the steady development of the next major mission to Mars in 2020, which will store samples of the red planet for eventual return to Earth. It also provides $80 million for continued research into a flagship-class mission to explore Europa, the enigmatic moon of Jupiter that was recently revealed to be spouting its liquid-water ocean into space.¶ "Exploring Europa is no longer a 'should' but a 'must'," said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Societazy's Director of Advocacy, "Congress made a smart decision to continue studying the Europa Clipper mission concept. There is bipartisan support and strong public interest in exploring Europa, the mission is technically feasible, and it is high priority within the scientific community. The White House should embrace this bold search for life and request a new start for this mission in FY2015."¶ The Society also supports the congressional recommendation that NASA increase the pace of small planetary missions. We are particularly happy to see full congressional and White House support for restarting the nation's Plutonium-238 production capability, which provides electrical power for many planetary science missions that can't utilize solar panels.¶ The White House has requested cuts to planetary science for two years in a row, and for two years in a row Congress has rejected them. In light of this and the more than 50,000 messages sent to Congress and President Obama in support of NASA's planetary science program last year, we urge the Office of Management and Budget to recognize the unprecedented public and legislative support for solar system exploration, and propose $1.5 billion for this program in their FY2015 budget request.
The public won’t let the government spend any more money on exploration – investment in oceans has to come from the space budget
Nnamani 11 (Sally, International Development grad student at The New School, 10.31.11, “Government Should Fund NOAA and Marine Research, Not NASA Space Research”, http://mic.com/articles/2218/government-should-fund-noaa-and-marine-research-not-nasa-space-research, Accessed 07.03.14)//LD
In the midst of the ongoing debt and budget crises, politicians and voters continue to engage in the contentious debate regarding the faulty prioritization of U.S. government spending. Most Americansremain concerned with the recklessness of large government spending in what they consider lesser priority areas. Operating on a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, Congress awarded $18.7 billion to NASA, encouraging the administration to reinvigorate its traditional role of innovation, technological development, and scientific discovery. On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $4.5 billion, $1 billion less than their requested amount.¶ ¶ This large discrepancy between the dollars allocated to these agencies is a clear-cut example of the growing concern among Americans regarding profuse government spending. Given that 95% of the underwater world remains unexplored and the space program has experienced little to no progress in recent years, should the space program remain a priority?¶ ¶ The last half of the 20th century was marked by the ideological and technological warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet bloc. The Cold War morphed itself in several arenas from proxy wars to political conflict to economic and technological competition such as the Space Race. The Space Race is synonymous with the arms race, where one of the main frontiers where the Cold War was waged. As a result, accomplishments and developments made in these areas not only enhanced American power, but were also received with a strong sense of national pride. ¶ ¶ However, the backbone of the Information Age lies in developing innovative science and technology that will enable us to explore new worlds and increase our understanding of the earth. Space exploration has contributed largely to this effort as a result of relentless government support and a strong lobbyist backing. Lawmakers from Alabama, Maryland, and Utah, where NASA and the corporations typically awarded its contracts operate, invest heavily in lobbyists and PACs to push their agendas forward in Washington. ¶ ¶ On the contrary, although oceans are exploited for economic activities such as mineral extraction, dumping, commercial transportation, fisheries, and aquaculture, oceanic exploration has lagged behind due to insufficient support from the U.S. government. According to NOAA, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. GNP originates in coastal areas, the ocean is key to transportation, recreation, and its resources may hold the cures to many diseases." Since its potential contribution to human sustainability stands at equal footing with space research, government should apportion the necessary capital needed to explore the deep-sea frontier. ¶ ¶ Moreover, since its establishment in 1957, NASA has always faced attack from social activists accusing the agency of wasting resources that could be used here on earth. Given the daunting issues in the country today such as poverty, unemployment, lack of access to health care, a broken education system, and many others, many believe that the large amount of money poured into space research could be used to tackle these issues. Moreover, due to our limited understanding of oceanic activities and processes, we continue to remain subject to the implications of natural disasters stemming from the ocean. Investing in oceanic research may help discover preventive mechanisms against catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and oil spills.
Continuing NASA funding is key to new long-term projects like Mars colonization and finding habitable planets
Siegel 14 (Ethan, astrophysicist, science communicator & NASA columnist, 06.05.14, “NASA’s Budget ‘Victory’ is Anything But¶ “, https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/nasas-budget-victory-is-anything-but-2d6c4b28981, Accessed 07.05.14)//LD
There’s no doubt in terms of the technology developed, the education that’s arisen, the amount scientists have learned, or the public benefits in terms of return-on-investment (not to mention job creation) that these investments have all been a wild success by all metrics. Every time you use a GPS, make a cellphone call or send a text, or even simply take the time to wonder about the Universe, you’re benefitting from the paltry investment we made in understanding and exploring the Universe.¶ So stop it already with the small dreams of hanging on to the table scraps; dream of the main course. Dream of the big missions and hopes that we can achieve right now, if we only invest the realistic and comparatively small amounts of capital necessary to make it happen.¶ Dream of humans living on and studying Mars, something we could achieve with an investment of about $50 billion over 10 years. Could we do it with today’s technology? We could have done it with “modern” technology for that amount 20 years ago. If we want it, we can do it; all we have to do is invest.¶ Are you excited about the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope? Yes, it’s expensive; it’s going to be an $8.7 billion project when all is said and done, but it’s poised to teach us about the Universe nearly twice as far back, distance-wise, as Hubble can reach.¶ Are you enthralled by the discoveries of planets around other stars, and what the Kepler mission has accomplished? Do you want to learn more about the potentially habitable ones? About Earth-like (or smaller) planets in the habitable zones of stars?¶ Of course you are; our dreams of what we can do on Earth are limited by the scope and scale of the planet, but the Universe? Now there’s something to dream about!¶ The thing is, for around $2-to-10 billion dollars apiece over the span of a few years, we could have any or all of the following projects:¶ SAFIR, a far-infrared space telescope that wouldteach us about the Universe in wavelengths we’ve never looked — about gas, dust, star-formation and distant galaxies — to approximately 100-1,000 times greater precision than we’ve ever looked. This would be the next-generation successor to Spitzer.¶ IXO, or the international X-ray observatory, the next-generation successor to Chandra. We could measure and detect black holes to unprecedented accuracy, gain a better understanding of the supermassive ones at the centers of galaxies, learn about regions of hot, colliding gas in galaxy clusters, study more distant galaxies, AGNs, galactic outflows and more. This would be about 100 times more powerful than Chandra.¶ The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM PlanetQuest), both of which would hunt for and take actual, direct images of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones around stars capable of supporting chemical-based life.¶ WFIRST, or the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, an infrared space observatory that is the best-designed piece of equipment ever for studying dark energy, hitting on the three-pronged approach of measuring baryon acoustic oscillations, measuring distant supernovae and weak gravitational lensing all to unprecedented accuracy. The plans for WFIRST have grown out of first SNAP (the SuperNova Acceleration Probe) and then JDEM (the Joint Dark Energy Mission), projects that could have flown every year for the past 13 years, if only the funding would materialize.¶ And LISA, or the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, which would have accurately measured and directly detected gravitational waves for the first time.
Space colonization is key to human survival, growth and wealth – we have to get off the rock
Karoub 14 (Amabel, Michigan Daily Staff, 04.03.14, “NASA researcher explores idea of space colonization”, http://www.michigandaily.com/news/nasa-researcher-talks-space-colonization, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
Space: the final frontier? Well, that’s what Al Globus, a NASA researcher, thinks, anyway.¶ Globus is a strong advocate of space colonization. At a lecture Thursday night hosted by Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, he told students why living in space is the next step for humanity.¶ At the beginning of the lecture, Globus pulled up space residence designs from the 1970s. The plans looked like they were taken directly from the science-fiction film “Elysium” – fully equipped with mansions and a peaceful river. Globus said, technology wise, such proposals are not ridiculous, but a matter of cost.¶ “This is the place to live,” Globus said, referring to the renderings. “There’s a baseball field and a golf course!”¶ Globus gave three main reasons why space settlement would be worth the high cost: survival, growth and wealth. In terms of survival, Globus said it is only a matter of time until an asteroid or some other fatal event wipes out humans on Earth.¶ “Someday, something really bad is going to happen to the Earth and we’re all going to die,” Globus said. “Before then, we’d like to have space settlements so that not all of humanity is exterminated.”¶ Discussing the possibility for growth, Globus referenced how the land on Earth is virtually all owned by someone, but the area available for orbital settlements is practically limitless.¶ “Somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times the surface area of the Earth — that’s how much living area you’d get,” Globus said. “The solar system could easily support trillions of people this way.”¶ As for power and wealth, Globus said there were great possibilities to generate energy and materials.In space, solar energy is equal to 625 million times the amount available on Earth. Thousands of small asteroids in our solar system, contain materials worth tens of millions of dollars each, Globus said.¶ Having articulated the reasons space colonization should be a priority, Globus proposed funding opportunities that would also advance technology, tourism, solar power and planetary defense.