Space Taxis

[brubaie]

Some in NASA want new space taxis to go to the ISS. Their message is simple: pay us to do it or pay the Russians, because there's no other way up.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... ians-later

If NASA can't provide as much support for U.S. spaceship-builders as it's hoping for, it'll have to keep paying the Russians $450 million for every year of delay, the space agency's No. 2 official said today. Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver laid out that "pay now or pay later" message was laid out by Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in Las Cruces, N.M.

[brubaie]

That message didn't seem to get through.

Space taxis to the ISS were not winners in the latest budget. They received less than half of their desired funding, setting their likely departure date back further
Washington Post, 11-16 – http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

But their prize comes at a price: a likely delay in flights of American spacecraft to the space station. Obama asked for $850 million in fiscal 2012 for NASA’s “commercial crew” initiative, which in April doled out $270 million to four American companies to develop rockets, capsules and space planes to ferry astronauts to the space station. Instead, NASA will get $406 million.

[brubaie]

Could this become an interesting new affirmative?

New evidence should give the Affirmative some good ideas.

The plan would simply double an existing budgetary allocation to meet Obama's original estimate. This denies uniqueness to every major disadvantage but politics. It seems like it has a good angle against politics since Obama has already requested it receive a full budgetary allocation. It also has good angles against CPs like privatization since the Aff would be rewarding a bigger contract to Boeing.

Orlando Sentinel, 11-20-11 - "Myopic space budget keeps U.S. grounded," http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opi ... 7405.story.

But Boeing cautioned that its launch schedule and hiring plans would depend on enough federal dollars to support commercial space development. Last week, Congress took an ax to President Obama's funding request in that category. The president wanted $850 million. Lawmakers put up about $400 million.

A cut that size might postpone the first manned flights from a U.S. company — whether it's Boeing or one of its rivals — by two years or more, industry analysts say. That'll prolong U.S. dependence on Russia to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station, NASA's only option until a U.S. successor to the shuttle is ready. That gets harder to stomach as Russia gets more authoritarian at home and more brazen abroad in challenging U.S. interests.

NASA already is committed to paying Russia $1.5 billion over the next five years as its taxi to the space station. A seat on Soyuz is costing NASA $62 million per ride. That's one expensive fare. It's penny wise and ruble foolish for Congress to extend such dependency by starving funding for shuttle successors.

[CodyArmstrong]

So have the USFG fund it through a contract towards Boeing, but have Boeing do all the leg work? Wouldn’t extra-topicality be something really difficult to win here? This idea sounds more like a counterplan than an affirmative.

[brubaie]

Hi Cody!

Those are very good points. I also thought that a Topicality argument questioning the word "its" (its space development/exploration) was one of the stronger ways to approach this affirmative.

There are three things I think the Aff would say:

1. We meet: The U.S. still develops space. Boeing just develops the vehicle.

2. Counter-interpretation: "Space development" means space travel, not the development of the tools for space travel.

3. The opposite interpretation is over-limiting. The Obama administration has been very clear; the government is licensing all near-earth space contracts to private companies. NASA's *development* role will be reduced to conducting deep-space exploration. This would have the practical result of removing the newest proposals in the literature, such as this one.

Don't get me wrong, I still think you have accurately spotted a very good T violation and raised the issue well. I simply think the Affirmative also has a good angle.

This reveals a very important point with "new" affirmatives. The weakness is usually an issue like Topicality which requires careful forethought. This greatly benefits the Aff because they've had time to put together a very technical set of responses to T.

[brubaie]

Hi Cody!

Those are very good points. I also thought that a Topicality argument questioning the word "its" (its space development/exploration) was one of the stronger ways to approach this affirmative.

There are three things I think the Aff would say:

1. We meet: The U.S. still develops space. Boeing just develops the vehicle.

2. Counter-interpretation: "Space development" means space travel, not the development of the tools for space travel.

3. The opposite interpretation is over-limiting. The Obama administration has been very clear; the government is licensing all near-earth space contracts to private companies. NASA's *development* role will be reduced to conducting deep-space exploration. This would have the practical result of removing the newest proposals in the literature, such as this one.

Don't get me wrong, I still think you have accurately spotted a very good T violation and raised the issue well. I simply think the Affirmative also has a good angle.

This reveals a very important point with "new" affirmatives. The weakness is usually an issue like Topicality which requires careful forethought. This greatly benefits the Aff because they've had time to put together a very technical set of responses to T.

[brubaie]

This continues to be a pressing issue.

The United States currently lacks the means to ferry astronauts to and from the ISS. U.S. policy-makers don't enjoy depending on Russian taxis and mandated NASA to achieve its own capsule by 2016. 4 years out, those plans are already facing delays
Irene Klotz, Space.com writer, Reuters, 12-15-11, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... 1820111215.

Budget cuts in a program to spur commercial space taxis will likely keep the United States dependent on Russia to fly astronauts to the International Space Station until 2017.