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.