Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Space Index
Space Index.....................................................................................................................................................................1
___________...................................................................................................................................................................2
**Uniqueness .................................................................................................................................................................2
U—Colonization Now....................................................................................................................................................3
______.............................................................................................................................................................................4
**Links............................................................................................................................................................................4
Link—Solar.....................................................................................................................................................................5
___________...................................................................................................................................................................6
**Space Good.................................................................................................................................................................6
Space Good—Peace ......................................................................................................................................................7
Space Good—Thinking/Mindsets...................................................................................................................................8
Colonization Good—Extinction.....................................................................................................................................9
Colonization Good—Laundry List...............................................................................................................................11
Colonization Good—Over-Population ........................................................................................................................12
Colonization Good—Hegemony ..................................................................................................................................13
Colonization inevitable.................................................................................................................................................14
AT Colonization Fails...................................................................................................................................................15
AT Colonization Fails—Tech.......................................................................................................................................16
AT Mars Uninhabitable................................................................................................................................................17
AT Not Enough Water..................................................................................................................................................18
AT Not Enough CO2 ...................................................................................................................................................19
AT Not Enough Minerals..............................................................................................................................................20
AT Radiation/UV .........................................................................................................................................................21
AT No Launch Capabilities .........................................................................................................................................22
AT No Impact—Earth Resilient...................................................................................................................................23
AT No Asteroids ..........................................................................................................................................................24
AT No Food in Space....................................................................................................................................................25
AT Cosmic Radiation ...................................................................................................................................................26
__________...................................................................................................................................................................27
**Space Bad..................................................................................................................................................................27
Colonization Fails ........................................................................................................................................................28
Colonization Fails—Oxygen.........................................................................................................................................29
Colonization Fails—Launch Capabilities ....................................................................................................................30
Colonization Fails—Tech ............................................................................................................................................31
Colonization Fails—Debris...........................................................................................................................................32
Colonization Bad—Cosmic Radiation..........................................................................................................................33
Space Bad—War ..........................................................................................................................................................34
Space Bad—Militarization............................................................................................................................................35
Space Bad—Radiation..................................................................................................................................................36
Space Bad—Solar Radiation.........................................................................................................................................37
Space Bad—Disease ....................................................................................................................................................38
Space Bad—Timeframe ...............................................................................................................................................39
AT Asteroid Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................40
Econ Link—Transports ................................................................................................................................................41
_______.........................................................................................................................................................................42
**Aliens .......................................................................................................................................................................42
Yes Aliens ....................................................................................................................................................................43
No Aliens .....................................................................................................................................................................45
Aliens Bad—Disease....................................................................................................................................................47
Aliens Bad—War .........................................................................................................................................................48
Aliens Good—Unity.....................................................................................................................................................49
AT Alien War................................................................................................................................................................50
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 2
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
___________
**Uniqueness
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 3
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
U—Colonization Now
No uniqueness- space colonization planned in status quo
National Post 07 (June 1,
“Space Hotels Seen in Exploration Vision,” L/N)
Mining the moon and space tourism -- including "space hotels" -- are part of a grand plan for space
exploration agreed to by agencies from around the world. The Global Exploration Strategy, released
yesterday by the Canadian Space Agency and 13 other organizations, spells out what officials are calling their
shared vision for space exploration and colonization. The strategy makes no mention of the enormous costs
involved, but says agency officials have agreed after months of negotiation to co-ordinate their ambitious plans.
"With increasing intent and determination, we are resolved to explore our nearest companions -- the Moon,
Mars and some nearby asteroids," the strategy says. "Our goal is not a few quick visits, but rather a
sustained and ultimately self-sufficient human presence beyond Earth supported by robotic pathfinders." The
document outlines the rationale for returning to the Moon and exploring Mars, noting it is fundamental human
nature to explore the unknown. The agencies, notorious for incurring cost overruns on such projects as the
international space station, also make reference to economic opportunities related to the plan. "Already, far-sighted
entrepreneurs are thinking about further commercial expansion into space," says the report, pointing to opportunities
for companies to provide crew and cargo transportation services, telecommunications and navigation systems, and
space-based resource extraction and processing capabilities. Moon rocks, for instance, are rich in oxygen that might
be exploited to provide life-support systems for lunar operations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 4
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
______
**Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 5
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Link—Solar
Solar can supply all the power we need for Colonies
Globus 08, member of the board for the National Space Society, senior research associate for
Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research
Center ( Al, “Orbital Space Colonies” ,http://space.mike-combs.com/excerpts.html, July 14,
2008)
In orbit there is no night, clouds, or atmosphere. As a result, the amount of solar energy available per
unit surface area in Earth orbit is approximately seven times that of the Earth's surface. Further, space
solar energy is 100 percent reliable and predictable. Near-Earth orbits may occasionally pass behind the
planet, reducing or eliminating solar power production for a few minutes, but these times can be precisely
predicted months in advance. Solar power can supply all the energy we need for orbital colonies in the
inner solar system. Almost all Earth-orbiting satellites use solar energy; only a few military satellites
have used nuclear power. For space colonies we need far more power, requiring much larger solar
collectors. Space solar power can be generated by solar cells on large panels as with current satellites,
or by concentrators that focus sunlight on a fluid, perhaps water, which is vaporized and used to turn
turbines. Turbines are used today by hydroelectric plants to generate electricity, and are well understood.
Turbines are more efficient than today's solar cells, but they also have moving parts and high temperature
liquids, both of which tend to cause breakdowns and accidents. Both panels and concentrator/turbine
systems can probably work, and different orbital colonies may use different systems. Understand though
that orbital colonies can have ample solar-generated electrical energy 24/7 so long as sufficiently sized
solar panels or appropriate concentrator-turbine systems can be built. This is a matter of building what
we already understand in much greater quantities - which gives us the much sought after economies of scale.
Economies of scale simply means that if you do the same thing over and over, you get good at it.
Solar and nuclear power, should be used for our colonization efforts
Lunar and Planetary Institute 05, research institute that provides services to NASA and
other in the planetary science community, (“About Space Colonies”,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/colonies/, July 13, 2008)
Sunlight is available for near planets and moons — like Mars and Earth's Moon. Sunlight, captured by
solar panels, is converted into energy that can be stored. The International Space Station gets its power
from solar panels. The challenge to storing sufficient solar energy on the Moon is its long night —
equivalent to two Earth weeks. On Mars, the prolonged dust storms may inhibit solar energy
collection. For planets and moons far from the Sun, and for transportation between these planets,
other energy sources will be necessary. Nuclear power is probably the most efficient power source for
transporation to distant planets.
___________
**Space Good
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 7
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Space Good—Peace
Empirically proven, space engenders human unity
Daley 07 (Tad, Why Progressives Should Care About Human Destiny in Space, August 11, p. 2,
http://www.alternet.org/story/59310/?page=1)
And space has already shown that it can serve as perhaps the single greatest engine of human unity. On
July 20, 1979, on the tenth anniversary of humanity's first footsteps on the moon, Neil Armstrong was
asked how he had felt as he saluted the flag up there. "I suppose you're thinking about pride and
patriotism," he replied. "But we didn't have a strong nationalistic feeling at that time. We felt more that it
was a venture of all mankind." (One wonders if any consideration was given, in the high councils of the
Johnson and Nixon administrations, to having Armstrong and Aldrin plant not a flag of the United States on
the moon, but a flag of Planet Earth.) Many of the fortunate souls who have made it into Earth orbit (and
the infinitesimal 27 who have left Earth orbit and ventured to the moon) have expressed remarkably
similar sentiments. "The first day or so we all pointed to our countries," said the Saudi astronaut Sultan bin
Salman Al-Saud. "The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were
aware of only one Earth." "The Earth was small, light blue, and so touchingly alone," said the Russian
astronaut Aleksei Leonov, "our home that must be defended like a holy relic." "From out there on the
moon, international politics look so petty," said Edgar Mitchell, one of only 12 humans to have walked on
the surface of another world. "You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter
million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a bitch.'" This is why the late Carl Sagan claimed that
spaceflight was actually subversive. Although governments have ventured into space, Sagan observed,
largely for nationalistic reasons, "it was a small irony that almost everyone who entered space received
a startling glimpse of a transnational perspective, of the Earth as one world." Seeing our planet as a
whole, apparently, enables one to see our planet as a whole.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 8
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Space Good—Thinking/Mindsets
( ) Colonization propagates human life
The Economist, 07 (September 29, “Spacemen are from Mars; Sputnik”, L/N, accessed on 7/14/08)
Half a century of space exploration has actually served to illuminate the Earth FIFTY YEARS ago the
Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite. Sputnik burst into orbit on October 4th 1957, in the
midst of the cold war. It was a surprise to the world, a shock to many Americans, and the starting gun for the
space race between the superpowers. Thereafter, America vied with the Soviet Union for supremacy in
aerospace's equivalent of "mine's bigger than yours", as successively taller rockets lobbed larger payloads
further afield. The legacy of all this posturing is a view of space travel as a macho, gung-ho affair, all about
the conquest of the solar system by men with shiny suits and very big rockets. In the 1950s many people
imagined that in the decades to come the new frontier would be beaten back by pioneers bent on
interplanetary colonisation. By the end of the millennium there would be a moon base at the very least.
Probably, there would be hotels in orbit, frequent missions to other planets and mines on asteroids extracting
metals considered rare and precious on Earth. To extend John Gray's metaphor about men and women: space
was from Mars. As it has turned out, space is actually from Venus. People have hardly travelled anywhere at
all—although a scandalous amount of money has been wasted on the conceit that voyaging across the
cosmos is humanity's destiny. Instead, what has happened is inward-looking and Venusian in an almost
touchy-feely way rather than outwardly directed. Most of the satellites in orbit round Earth look down,
rather than up, and the biggest mental change wrought by spaceflight has been not an appreciation of
the vastness of the universe, but rather of the smallness, fragility and unity of Earth. This mental
change began in a very Martian way. Before Soviet engineers built the rockets that put Sputnik in orbit,
warfare was seen as being, in some sense, a limited thing. Even in the atomic decade that had preceded the
space age, bombers flown by real people would have to deliver nuclear death to their targets. Negotiations
could take place while they were in the air. They could be shot down. And those that got through would
probably not destroy everything. After Sputnik, megadeath would arrive in minutes by rocket, non-
negotiably, and in such quantities that global annihilation looked on the cards. But bellicose intercontinental
ballistic missiles were not the only spawn of Sputnik's launch. There was also the satellite itself. Today
almost 900 of the things are in orbit around Earth, operated by more than 40 countries. Some are old-
fashioned martial spy satellites, but many more are Venusian—watching the weather, the oceans, the
changing climate and the use of land. Others broadcast television programmes, relay telephone calls, or send
out the signals that tell people exactly where they are on the Earth's surface. Such satellites have enabled
scientists and engineers to treat the planet as a single thing in a way that they previously did not. More
subtle—and just as far-reaching—was the message epitomised during the next leg of the space race
when the crew of Apollo 8 photographed Earth-rise over a lunar horizon on Christmas Day, 1968.
Earth is a fragile pocket of life in a very large and lonely universe. Looking back at a small, blue-green
planet from outer space and seeing its unity and its vulnerability also changed perspectives. It was a
force behind the environmental movement, which began at about that time. Rather as a foreign
country helps a traveller understand his home, so it has taken space flight to understand Earth. Some
insist that humanity must hurry on with the Martian vision, to explore and ultimately to colonise other
planets to secure the species's future. That may be necessary one day and many countries, and some
companies, still pursue this vision of space. America's government wants a moon base, the Chinese are
interested in going there, too. There might be a rekindling of the kind of nationalistic fervour of
yesteryear. The lesson of the past 50 years, however, is that the more humanity discovers about space,
the rarer and more precious life on Earth seems. For the moment Venusian voyages to understand
mankind's home planet are better than Martian ones to understand how to abandon the mother ship.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 9
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Colonization Good—Extinction
Space is key to prevent extinction
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from
opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men
into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and
help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from
all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and
conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must
venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high
costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on
colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday
smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert
inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares
humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will
wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new
directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space
would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set
with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of
more than our country.
Colonization Good—Extinction
Travelling to space is the only way to save the human race
Engdahl, an American science fiction writer, 03, (“Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of Colonizing
Space
”, http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm, February, accessed on July 14, 2008 )
Until recently, the reason most commonly offered for believing our survival depends on space travel was
that our species will need to move elsewhere in order to survive the ultimate death of our sun, or the
possibility of our sun turning into a nova. (Scientists now believe that these specific scenarios won’t happen; but the sun
will eventually become a red giant, which as far as Earth is concerned, is an equally disastrous one.) This is not of such remote concern
as it may seem, as I’ll explain below. However, it surely is a remote event, billions of years in the future, and I don’t blame anyone for
not giving it very high priority at present. It is far from being my main reason.
A more urgent cause for concern is the need not to “put all our eggs in one basket,” in case the worst
happens and we blow up our own planet, or make it uninhabitable by means of nuclear disaster or
perhaps biological warfare. We would all like to believe this won’t happen, yet some people are seriously afraid that it will—
it’s hardly an irrational fear. Peace with Russia may have drawn attention from it, yet there are other potential troublemakers, even
terrorists; the nuclear peril is not mere history. Furthermore, there is the small but all-too-real possibility that Earth might be struck by an
asteroid. We all hope and believe our homes won’t burn down, and yet we buy fire insurance. Does not our species as a whole need an
insurance policy? Even Carl Sagan, a long-time opponent of using manned spacecraft where robots can
serve, came out in support of space colonization near the end of his life, for this reason; see his book Pale
Blue Dot. And in an interview with Britain’s newspaper Daily Telegraph, eminent cosmologist Stephen
Hawking said, “I don’t think that the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we
spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet.” Hawking is more
worried about the possibility of our creating a virus that destroys us than about nuclear disaster. However, he said, “I’m an optimist. We
will reach out to the stars.”
Colonization Good—Over-Population
Colonies solve overcrowding
Bloomfield 06 (National Space Society, Book Review: The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, Masse
Bloomfield, 2006, http://www.nss.org/resources/books/non_fiction/review_008_highfrontier.html)
O'Neill's solution in 1976 was “We now have the technological ability to set up large communities in
space — communities in which manufacturing, farming, and all other human activities could be
carried out.” In a caption under the famous drawing of an O'Neill cylinder it says, “Human colonies in
space — not a luxury, but a necessity. Earth is overcrowded, running out of raw materials, in
desperate need of a growing energy supply, and being ecologically destroyed. The problems are worse
with each passing day, and there are no solutions to be found on Earth itself. Mankind's destiny — its
very survival — is in space.… But a commitment is needed, a decision to go for it and the
determination to see it through.”
Extinction
Joel Campbell, St. Joseph Scollard Hall, May 20th, 1998, http://dieoff.org/page142.htm, accessed 5/6/03
"If humanity fails to act, nature may end the population explosion for us, in very unpleasant ways, well
before 10 billion is reached" (Ehrlich, 98). Population in our world is like a disease, its wide spread will only
bring devastation to a people who will eventually end up breeding themselves into extinction. The world as
we know it cannot sustain much more population growth without increasing the instances of food shortages,
lack of resources, poverty, ozone depletion, deforestation, and desertification, to name a few.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 13
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Colonization Good—Hegemony
Colonization yields military high ground
Michaels, Aerospace Specialist, 2008 (Paris, A Space Odyssey, April 15, l/n)
Eric Sterner's Friday Op-Ed column, " More than the Moon, " describing the future of the United States'
manned space program, portrayed some disturbing perspectives to all Americans who take pride in this
nation's space accomplishments. Space exploration and lunar colonization are the kind of spectacular
undertakings expected of superpower nations. The first to arrive on the moon will dominate a military
high ground never before exploited by those preceding them. How will the world respond to a second
nation's reoccupation of the moon?
Nuclear War
Khalilzad 1995 – RAND, Ambassador to Afghanistan
Washington Quarterly, Spring
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment
would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems,
such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts.
Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United
States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a
global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar
or a multipolar balance of power system.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 14
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Colonization inevitable
( ) Colonization inevitable
The Scotsman, 07 (January 11, “British scientists shoot for the Moon”, Craig Brown, L/N, accessed on 7/14/08)
The study was prepared by Professor Sir Martin Sweeting, founder and chief executive of Surrey Satellite
Technology, a University of Surrey spin-off company with its headquarters in Guildford. He said the cost of
space exploration had fallen sufficiently to allow Britain to mount a "go-it-alone" Moon mission, paid for
jointly by the government and industry. Britain's space ventures have been carried out jointly with the
American space agency NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). "Current small missions to the Moon
cost around 500 million [GBP 335 million]," Sir Martin said. "With advances in small satellites, we could
probably cut the cost by at least a fifth." He believes going solo to the Moon would be a major boost to
British industry: "In the UK, we have tremendous expertise in this area. A UK Moon programme would
enable us to get a foothold in what could ... be an economically important area for a relatively low cost." It is
estimated that the Moonlight project alone would cost between GBP 50 million and GBP 100 million. A
British moonshot would allow UK space companies to develop support technologies for what is turning out
to be a 21st century space race, said Sir Martin. The United States hopes to start building lunar colonies
by 2020 and the European, Indian and Chinese space agencies are all planning missions to the Moon.
Andy Phipps, project manager for the two British lunar projects, said they were a natural progression for the
company, which has built 26 spacecraft for various countries, including the US. "We have been looking at
more demanding missions, in particular lunar ones for five or ten years now," he said. "This will be the first
UK mission to the Moon and that in itself is interesting. I think it is relatively ambitious; we're slowly
pushing the envelope of what we can do." He added that, while Britain was a long way from sending
people to the Moon's surface, he believed that the missions could provide vital infrastructure and
support for lunar bases, and place the UK at the forefront of lunar colonisation. Meanwhile, Dr Andy
Ball, a member of PPARC involved in considering the science behind the project, said that the
proposals were a sign of a resurgence of interest in the Moon not seen since the US Apollo space
programme in the 1960s and 70s. He said: "With this sort of project, the UK is starting to feel its way
towards what its role will be in this phase of lunar exploration." Dr Ball added that it was vital to be
involved now, as "sooner or later, people are going to living on the Moon". "I think whether it takes 15
years or another 30, it's going to happen," he said. "At the beginning of the last century, people may have
speculated as to whether anyone would end up living at the South Pole, but here we are with many dozens of
people living at Antarctica and doing science there." Dr Ball said that the Moonlight project would give
greater insight into the structure of the Moon. "We still don't know how big the core of the Moon is," he said.
"And that's something we need to help understand the formation scenario for the Earth-Moon system." He
said that there was still much else to learn generally about the Moon and that recent studies had shown it was
geologically active more recently than had been previously thought.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 15
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
AT Colonization Fails
Space colonization possible but dependent on public good will
BBC News 03 (Helen Briggs, science reporter, August 19, “Moon colony 'within 20 years,'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3161695.stm)
Humans could be living on the Moon within 20 years, says a leading lunar scientist. According to Bernard
Foing of the European Space Agency, the technology will soon exist to set up an outpost for visiting astronauts.
However, political will is needed to inspire the public to support the initiative. "We believe that
technologically it's possible," the project scientist on Europe's first Moon mission, Smart-1, told "But it will
depend in the end on the political will to go and establish a human base for preparing for colonisation of the
Moon or to be used as a refuge for the human species."
AT Colonization Fails—Tech
NASA is researching mini-ecosystems to sustain life in space
Barry, 01 (Patrick L. Barry, Master's degree in science journalism from Boston University, Environmental
science degree with a focus in journalism from the University of Florida) 4/9/01,
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09apr_1.htm
"In order to have affordable -- and even doable -- long-term exploration (of space), you need to
incorporate biology into the life support system," said Chris Brown, director of space programs at the
Kenan Institute for Engineering, Technology & Science at North Carolina State University. NASA
researchers at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Johnson Space Center (JSC) are figuring out
how to do just that. They're exploring technologies that could wed people, plants, microbes, and
machines into a miniature "ecosystem" capable of supporting space travelers indefinitely. This type of
life support system -- called "bioregenerative" -- would be fully self-contained, creating an ecologically
sound microcosm where each element supports and is supported by each of the others. "If we really
want to leave (the Earth) on a permanent basis, we need to figure out how this blue ball in space
supports all of us, and somehow replicate the parts that are necessary so that we can move on," said Jay
Garland, principal scientist for the Bioregenerative Life Support Project at Dynamac, Inc., at KSC. Humans
and plants are ideal space traveling companions. Humans consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide.
Plants return the favor by consuming carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Humans can use edible
parts of plants for nourishment, while human waste and inedible plant matter can -- after being
broken down by microbes in tanks called "bioreactors" -- provide nutrients for plant growth. Plants
and microbes can also work to purify water, possibly with help from machines. The only input needed
to keep such a system going is energy in the form of light.
AT Mars Uninhabitable
Water and oxygen on Mars make it inhabitable
Hoversten, 2000, (Paul Hoversten, Washington Bureau Chief) 6/22/00,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_futurist_000622.html
Finding water on Mars could burst open the floodgates to a new era of exploration on the planet, fueling the drive for eventual human
colonies. Futurists and far-thinkers say that if water is found to exist in sizable quantities, it someday could lead to everything from fuel
farms and filling stations for rockets to shower stalls for astronauts. [quote] "It opens up enormous potential," said Pat Dasch, executive
director of the National Space Society, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "Going to Mars is like a camping trip, so it's the
difference between having to pack everything in with you or finding gas tanks and showers when you get there. It could make
establishing a human presence on Mars a lot easier," she said. Water -- the source of life Water is about the most valuable
resource Mars has because it can sustain life. "Gold is not going to do you much good on Mars. You can't
live off that," said Wes Huntress, director of the Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of
Washington. "But you can live off water and you can use it to grow food. It makes the planet habitable."
Living off the land is crucial because it would allow humans to stay for long periods on Mars. "Once you
can live off the land you can explore the planet like we did in the [American] West 150 or 200 years ago," Huntress said. Scientists
believe trace amounts of water already exist on Mars beneath patches of permafrost at the planet's poles. But if Mars once had lakes or
rivers on its surface, as research suggests, the water retreated long ago. Until now, it seems. Human missions to the Red
Planet Researchers at last appear to have a good fix on where some of Mars' water is working its way
back to the surface. And that has far-reaching implications for both robotic and human missions to the Red Planet. Because of its
chemical components hydrogen and oxygen, water is "a significant resource for exploration at the planet," said John Niehoff, a
planetary-program planner at SAIC (Science Applications International Corp.) in Schaumburg, Illinois. Mars already has plenty
of oxygen in its carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. But hydrogen is exceedingly rare. "Hydrogen is a key resource in the
development of fuels for all kinds of purposes. You could run surface [power] systems or fuel launch vehicles or create fuel-cell storage
devices to manage your electricity," Niehoff said. "We've always been assuming we'd have to bring the hydrogen with us. But with it
there, in the form of water, we can go with the equipment and have a power supply. That is a tremendous leverage."
AT Radiation/UV
Space radiation is not fatal
BBC News, 03, Richard Black, BBC Science Correspondent) 10/9/03,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3302375.stm, date accessed 7/13/08
Instrument data show radiation around the Red Planet might cause some health problems but is unlikely
to be fatal. Mars Odyssey has sent back a wealth of information about Earth's neighbour since it went into orbit two years ago. The
new research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. Radiation risk On Earth, we
are protected from the worst cosmic radiation. The Earth's magnetic field acts like a shield, diverting radiation away. But for astronauts
on the Martian surface - or travelling between Earth and Mars - there is no such protection. Nasa scientists have been measuring
radiation around Mars with an instrument on board the Mars Odyssey orbiting probe. According to Cary Zeitlin, from the
National Space Biomedical Research Institute, it has found that astronauts on the Red Planet would be exposed to
roughly double the radiation dose they currently experience on the International Space Station. "The dose [an] astronaut would receive
on a Mars mission is large enough to be beyond what they've experienced in Earth orbit," he told BBC News Online. "Therefore it
opens some questions about the biological effects of this radiation that we haven't really fully addressed yet." Martian bunkers He
continued: "People are going to the space station for about six months. "A Mars mission would last around three years. And it's the
duration of the exposure that becomes the issue; it's also the fact that the radiation is quite exotic. "It's galactic cosmic radiation. It
comes from all over the galaxy. We call it heavy ion radiation." This radiation could perhaps lead to more cancers, more cataracts and
nervous system damage. But overall, Dr Zeitlin says, it is manageable - humans could go on Mars missions
relatively safely. They would need to use the planet itself to shield them, building their shelters in
hollows, and perhaps taking materials which would reduce radiation further.
AT No Launch Capabilities
New colonizing spaceship has the necessary launch capabilities
Popular Mechanics 07, (“Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back — and Stay This
Time” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4212906.html, July 13, 2008)
Scott Horowitz, NASA's associate administrator for Exploration Systems, defends the agency's approach.
"Sure, we'd love to have antimatter warp drive," he says. "But I suspect that would be kind of expensive.
Unfortunately, we just don't have the money for huge technological breakthroughs. We've got to do the best
we can within our constraints of performance, cost and schedule." The result, as NASA boss Michael
Griffin puts it, is "Apollo on steroids" — a new-and-improved version of what was, as even critics must
acknowledge, mankind's greatest technological feat. Recently dubbed Orion, the CEV will share
Apollo's conical form, but be one and a half times as wide (16.5 ft.) and have more than double the
habitable internal volume (361 cu. ft.), allowing it to carry six astronauts to the space station and four
to the moon. Orion also will boast a number of new tricks, such as hands-off autodocking and the
ability to autonomously loiter in lunar orbit for up to six months. Its dual-fault tolerant avionics, based
on those of the Boeing 787, will be able to sustain two computer failures and still return the vehicle to
Earth. The avionics also will have open architecture, which means they can be easily updated and
modified.
AT No Impact—Earth Resilient
Many scenarios for the Earth’s death
Britt 00 (Freeze, Fry or Dry: How Long Has the Earth Got? By Robert Roy Britt Senior ScienceWriter posted:
09:45 am ET 25 February 2000, Space,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html)
Before Earth's oceans ever have a chance to freeze or fry, they might have already dried up and
evaporated into space, said James Kasting, a Penn State professor of meteorology and geosciences. Kasting
estimates his version of the end is a mere 1 billion years away. "The sun is getting brighter with time
and that affects the Earth's climate," Kasting said. "Eventually temperatures will become high enough
so that the oceans evaporate." And, Kasting said, a cataclysmic finale may come even sooner. As Earth
becomes a global desert, carbon dioxide levels are expected to drop. At a certain level, which he and his
colleagues say might be achieved in half a billion years, there would not be enough carbon dioxide to
support photosynthesis, and most plants would die. Remaining plants would not be sufficient to
support a biosphere, Kasting contends. So while the entire planet might incinerated in a few billion
years, or cast off into a deep freeze, it's possible that life on Earth is already in the sunset years. "If we
calculated correctly, Earth has been habitable for 4.5 billion years and only has a half-billion years
left," Kasting said.
AT No Asteroids
Asteroid may hit the earth, killing millions
CNN 03 (Tuesday, September 2, 2003 Posted: 11:38 AM EDT, Giant asteroid could hit Earth in 2014,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/02/asteroid.reut/index.html, CNN)
Asteroid "2003 QQ47" will be closely monitored over the next two months. Its potential strike date is
March 21, 2014, but astronomers say that any risk of impact is likely to decrease as further data is
gathered. On impact, it could have the effect of 20 million Hiroshima atomic bombs, a spokesman for
the British government's Near Earth Object Information Centre told BBC radio.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 25
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
AT No Food in Space
( ) Space food production possible
The Irish Times, 08 (July 10, “Food for thought on mission to Mars”, Marina Murphy, L/N, accessed on
7/14/08)
Michelle Bennett is an aspiring astronaut but is also conducting research for Nasa on the use of bog
plants for food production on a mission to Mars 'BOG PLANTS! That's how I got into Nasa," says
Michelle Bennett, currently head of the Department of Applied Science at the Limerick Institute of
Technology. "It was a pure fluke. I left samples in airtight containers in my father's garage and forgot about
them. When I found them again a year later, they had changed but they were still alive. "The question then
was, what would happen if we put them in an enclosed container in space. That's when I came up with the
idea of using them in enclosed life systems used in space flight, the International Space Station and
planet colonisation models," she says. Now it looks like these humble mosses could soon be doing for astronauts
what they have long been doing for Ireland's bogs - keeping them fed and watered. Sphagnum mosses are what make a
bog a bog. Without them, there would be no bogs. They form a living skin that covers a floating mass of partially rotten
plant material that can be several metres deep. When the moss dies, it becomes part of this under layer. The living moss is
capable of absorbing up to 20 times its own weight in water. This water is used to support a world of microscopic plants
and animals, which in turn provide food for all the organisms living in the bog, from midges to frogs. Providing enough
food, water and oxygen for those humans brave enough to consider long-duration space flight, on the other hand, is not so
easy. Previously, spacecraft life-support systems were designed for short missions and relied on stored sources of water,
food, and oxygen. On longer missions, however, storing the necessaries would not be economically or logistically
feasible. Therefore, designing new technology to cultivate crops in space is vital to human exploration of
the Moon and Mars, which is where Bennett and her bog plants come in. "What I discovered that day in my
father's garage was an absolutely new, accidental discovery. Not only were the plants still alive but they had
survived in a closed system without the normal requirements for growth found on the bog." Since then,
Bennett, who hails from Clara, Co Offaly, has been working with scientists at Nasa to discover how the
unusual qualities of sphagnum mosses might be used in space. "Sphagnum mosses have really proved to
be perfect for space flight," Bennett says. They are a perfect growth medium for plants, are slightly
antimicrobial and can also be used for waste treatment. "They are natural filters. The nutrients in urine,
for example, can be filtered out to feed the plant." Tests using the mosses have been a great success.
Lettuce was grown in sphagnum according to Nasa test conditions. Four of five planting trays used
sphagnum as a growth medium. An artificial urine was used as a food source in two trays and two trays were
supplied with a standard nutrient solution. The remaining tray acted as a control using standard Nasa growth
medium and standard nutrient solution. "The results were very exciting. It was the first time lettuce has been
grown in such a system using urine to produce a healthy crop," says Bennett. And it is very likely that these
mosses will make it into space. "Research is under way for the development of a flight test for sphagnum,"
Bennett says. But she is not giving away any secrets. When asked about the species of sphagnum, she said:
"Can't say." In other work, Bennett is looking at how nutraceutical levels might be increased in crops
likely to be grown in space, like lettuce, peppers, radishes and onions. "This would enrich astronauts
diets and strengthen their immune systems," she says.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 26
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
AT Cosmic Radiation
Design can overcome radiation
Choi 08 (Charles Q., Study: Radiation Would Kill Astronauts Before They Got to Mars, April 2,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344491,00.html)
When it comes to shielding astronauts from radiation, spacecraft designers and mission planners have
to consider trading off a safe amount of protective material — say, high density plastic — with cutting
weight in order to enter space practically. Crafts that are too heavy simply can't carry enough fuel to
make flight practical. Further research could not only look into better shielding materials, but also
spacecraft designs that put electronics and machinery in the periphery between astronauts and harm's
way. "Lava tubes on the moon might also be useful as habitats from a shielding point of view,"
Schimmerling said. "I don't know how realistic the idea is, but they would have the advantage of reduced
exposure to radiation."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 27
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
__________
**Space Bad
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 28
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Colonization Fails
Space colonization too expensive to be feasible
NASA 05 (Al Globus and Bryan Yager, September 22, “Space Settlement Basics,”
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html#who)
Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and
operate. For example, the current (2004) cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20
million. To enable large scale space tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-
$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. Space tourism has launch requirements similar to space
settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing technology my be necessary to enable
space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per pound for operational
vehicles.
Colonization Fails—Oxygen
Humans cannot survive in space due to lack of oxygen
Spencer, space historian, 97 (“How Long Can a Human Live Unprotected”
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html, June 3, accessed on July 14, 2008)
How long can a human live unprotected in space? If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to
space for half a minute of so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to
damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum
trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm
-- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not
boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness. Various minor problems (sunburn,
possibly "the bends", certainly some [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue) start
after 10 seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate.
After perhaps one or two minutes you're dying. The limits are not really known.
Colonization Fails—Tech
Colonization Fails—Debris
Space Debris Poses Threat to Colonization
Peter Spinks August 12, 2007 (The Age Newspaper L/N search: Spaced Out with Junk,
Accessed July 14, 2008)
Space campers, when not engaging in rocket science, cannot resist glancing up at the sky. The atmosphere
might be polluted, they reason, but some imagine the void that lies beyond is really empty and clean.
Well, is it? Not really. Some failed spacecraft, redundant satellites and spent booster rockets end up
back on Earth. But the fragmented remains of others are collecting like interplanetary flotsam and jetsam
in the space surrounding our beautiful but defiled planet. The man-made debris poses a heightened
threat to spacecraft, as well as to future attempts to colonise the moon or Mars. Unless Russian,
American and European space pioneers - who between them launch more than 100 spacecraft every year -
find ways to stop the pollution and perhaps start a clean-up, humans may one day not be able to navigate
their way safely beyond Earth's atmosphere. As you read this edition of All About Science, thousands of
sizeable pieces of junk are hurtling around the Earth at thousands of kilometres an hour. They are
accompanied by hundreds of thousands of pieces of space shrapnel smaller than a tennis ball, some
with the potential to penetrate or even wreck a spacecraft.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 33
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Space Bad—War
Space wars inevitable
The Northern Echo, 07 (January 24, “BETRAYED AND DECEIVED”, Harry Mead, L/N, accessed on
7/14/08)
ONE day, probably not too far off now, there will be war in space. It's inevitable. We fight on land, we
fight on and under the sea. We fight in the air - a relatively new form of combat. The pioneers of flight did
not have fighting in mind. But we soon got round to it and now take it for granted. Given our manic desire
to kill each other, it is too much to expect that the conquest of space will be any different. And once
colonisation of other planets begins, we will fight there. Which is why, paradoxically, I take a little
comfort from China's destruction of a redundant satellite by a rocket. Hopefully, more of the same will
quickly fill space with so much debris that it pins us down here on earth. We are not fit to take our
destructive way of life elsewhere.
Space Bad—Militarization
Militarization causes World War III
Senator Charles S. Robb, Senate committees on armed services, foreign relations and intelligence, Washington
Quarterly, 1999 Winter
In a second, more likely scenario, the United States deploys the same capabilities, but other nations do not
simply acquiesce. Understanding the tremendous advantages of military space operations, China deploys nuclear
weapons into space that can either be detonated near U.S. satellites or delivered to the earth in just minutes.
Russia fields ground-based lasers for disabling and destroying our satellites, then deploys satellites with
kinetic-kill munitions for eradicating ground targets. It also reneges on the START treaties, knowing that, rather
than trying to replicate America's costly defensive systems, its incremental defense dollar is better spent on offensive warheads
for overwhelming American defenses. Other rogue nations, realizing that their limited missile attack capabilities are now
useless against our new defense screen, focus on commercially available cruise missiles, which they load with
chemical and biological warheads and plan to deploy from commercial ships and aircraft. Still others bring to
fruition the long-expected threat of a nuclear weapon in a suitcase. If history has taught us anything, it is that a future more
like the second scenario will prevail. It defies reason to assume that nations would sit idle while the United States invests billions of dollars in
weaponizing space, leaving them at an unprecedented disadvantage. This second scenario suggests three equally troubling consequences. The
first is that Americans would, in a relative sense, lose the most from a space-based arms race. The United States is currently the preeminent world
military power, and much of that power resides in our ability to use space for military applications. A large percentage of our military
communications now passes through space. Our troops rely on weather satellites, our targeteers on satellite photos, and virtually all of our new
generations of weapons on the Global Positioning System satellites for pin-point accuracy. By encouraging potential adversaries to deploy
weapons into space that could quickly destroy many of these systems, a space-based arms race would render many of these more vulnerable to
attack than they are today. Even if our potential adversaries were unable to build a competing force, they could still position deadly satellites
disguised as commercial assets near or in the path of our most vital military satellites. And even if we could sustain our space advantage, the costs
would be extraordinary. Why pursue this option when there is no compelling reason to do so at this time? Why make a battlefield out of an arena
upon which we depend so heavily? The second consequence would be that a space-based arms race would be essentially
irreversible -- we would face the difficulty, if not impossibility, of assessing what is being put into space. Under the START regime,
signatories currently cooperate in inspecting and monitoring each other's intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, and submarines, all of which
operate within a narrow band above and below sea level. Most space payloads, however, are built and launched with great secrecy and can
operate at any distance from the earth, even on celestial bodies such as the moon. Most satellites would operate up to geostationary orbit, or about
22,000 miles from the earth's surface, yielding a total operational volume millions of times greater than that now occupied by missiles, bombers,
and submarines. Attempting to monitor weapons in this vast volume of space would be daunting. We would no longer be counting with
reasonable confidence the number of concrete silos at missile wings or submarine missile tubes at piers or bombers on airfields. In many cases we
would have no idea what is out there. Military planners, conservative by nature, would assume the worst and try to meet enemy deployments in
space with an equal or greater capability. Of course, for about $ 400 million per launch, we could use the space shuttle to make closer inspections,
assuming that other nations would be willing to tolerate our presence near their critical space assets. Due to orbital constraints, however, the
shuttle could reach only a fraction of the total number of satellites in orbit. Another option would be to expand and improve our space monitoring
assets -- but only at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Once this genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back in. We could never
afford to bring all these systems back to earth, and destroying them would be equally unfeasible, because the billions of pieces of space debris
would jeopardize commercial satellites and manned missions. The third consequence of U.S. space weaponization would be the heightened
probability of strategic conflict. Anyone familiar with the destabilizing impact of MIRVs will understand that weapons in space will
bring a new meaning to the expression "hair trigger." Lasers can engage targets in seconds. Munitions fired
from satellites in low-earth orbit can reach the earth's surface in minutes. As in the MIRV scenario, the side to
strike first would be able to destroy much of its opponent's space weaponry before the opponent had a chance
to respond. The temptation to strike first during a crisis would be overwhelming; much of the decisionmaking
would have to be automated. Imagine that during a crisis one of our key military satellites stops functioning
and we cannot determine why. We -- or a computer controlling our weapons for us -- must then decide
whether or not to treat this as an act of war and respond accordingly. The fog of war would reach an entirely
new density, with our situational awareness of the course of battle in space limited and our decision cycles too slow
to properly command engagements. Events would occur so quickly that we could not even be sure which nation
had initiated a strike. We would be repeating history, but this time with far graver consequences. In the absence of explicit evidence that
another nation with the economic and technical means is developing weapons for space, we should forgo our advanced prototyping and testing of
space weapons. We should seek to expand the 1967 Treaty on the Exploration and Use of Outer Space to prohibit not just weapons of mass
destruction in space, but all space-based weapons capable of destroying space, ground, air, or sea targets. We should also explore a verification
regime that would allow inspection of space-bound payloads. During the Reagan years advocates of the Strategic Defense Initiative ran an
effective television spot featuring children being saved from nuclear attack by a shield represented by a rainbow. If we weaponize space,
we will face a very different image -- the image of hundreds of weapons-laden satellites orbiting directly over
our homes and our families 24 hours a day, ready to fire within seconds. If fired, they would destroy thousands
of ground, air and space targets within minutes, before there is even a chance of knowing what has happened, or why.
This would be a dark future, a future we should avoid at all costs.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 36
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Space Bad—Radiation
Radiation on moon and Mars kills cells
Choi, 08, (Charles Q. Choi, Writer, Scientific American, The New York Times, Science magazine, Newsday,
LiveScience, Popular Science, United Press International, The Scientist magazine, The San Diego Union-Tribune
and the New Scientist in London) 3/31/08, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080331-radiation-shielding.html
Dangerous levels of radiation in space could bar astronauts from a mission to Mars and limit
prolonged activity on the moon, experts now caution. However, more research could reveal ways to
handle the risks that radiation poses to space missions. The magnetic field of Earth protects humanity
from radiation in space that can damage or kill cells. Once beyond this shield, people become far more
vulnerable. Astronauts have long seen white flashes while in space due to cosmic rays, or extremely
high-energy particles, passing through their heads. A return to the moon or a mission to Mars that NASA
and other space agencies are planning would place astronauts at continued risk from cosmic rays or
dangerous bursts of solar radiation. Several reports in the past have outlined the potential risks. To further
investigate the risks that space radiation currently pose, the National Research Council assembled experts in
space and biology together. At the present time, given current knowledge, the level of radiation astronauts
would encounter "would not allow a human crew to undertake a Mars mission and might also
seriously limit long-term Moon activity," this committee notes in their new report today.
Long term exposure to solar radiation leads to blood cell obliteration and other diseases
Prokop et al 07, Chair and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Pediatric
Dermatology, Medical University of Lublin, (Jolanta Budzynska, “Influence of Solar
Radiation of Skin”, http://www.annales.umcs.lublin.pl/D/2007/20.pdf, July 13, 2008)
Frequent, long-term exposures to solar radiation makes the skin dry, scaling, yellow in colour and
thickened. Moreover, pigmentary changes and blood vessel dilatations (telangiectasia) are observed. In
the process of skin ageing due to sun exposure, the phenomenon of elastosis is observed. It consists in
the degeneration of elastic fibres and their compaction into a shapeless mass. The number of collagen
fibres decreases whereas the number of fibroblasts increases. The amount of mucopolysaccharides also
decreases. The dermoepidermal junction gets flattened. In the process of photo-ageing, the epidermis gets
thickened as opposed to the skin aging, which refers to the natural process of chronologic aging. In the
epidermis, changes in sizes and shapes of keratinocytes and melanocytes take place and the number of
Langerhans’ cells decreases. As a result of UV radiation, blood vessel obliteration also takes place.
Space Bad—Disease
Salmonella will kill people during missions to Mars
The Guardian 07 (James Randerson, Salmonella More Virulent In Space, Study Suggests, September 25, l/n)
Food poisoning bacteria become super-virulent in space, according to a study of salmonella that spent 12
days orbiting the Earth on the space shuttle Atlantis. The research raises fears that diseases boosted by
low gravity could pose unexpected medical problems on future long-haul space journeys or for
astronauts on a proposed future moon base. It is the first study to examine the effect of space flight on the
virulence of a pathogen. "Given the proposed increase in both duration and distance from Earth for
future manned space flight missions - including lunar colonisation and a mission to Mars - the risk for
in-flight infectious diseases will be increased," said Cheryl Nickerson at Arizona State University.
Space Bad—Timeframe
Humanity doesn’t have the time to get to space
Winterson 06, writing for The Evening Standard, August 4 (Lexisnexis: Jeanette, “Hawking’s
science can’t save the planet,” accessed 7-14-2008)
In a world in chaos, politically, environmentally and socially, how can the human race sustain another
100 years? This is the question Stephen Hawking has posted on the internet. He has received more
than 25,000 responses, but his own response seems dispiriting; he doesn't have an answer. His best
hope is that science can be employed to modify our warlike instincts for long enough to give us time to
colonise space and quit this troubled rock. To do that he reckons we need at least another 100 years. I
have huge respect for Hawking, and I have bought New Scientist every week for as long as I can remember,
but I am always disturbed when we look to science to solve all our problems. Hawking doesn't have an
answer because he is a scientist and the moral and ethical problems the human race must confront are not
scientific questions. Does Hawking really believe that genetic or chemical modifications are an answer
to our stupidity, selfishness and suicidal warmongering? Wouldn't it be better to encourage the evolution
of the species towards tolerance, cooperation and culture? It is feasible to create a world of Stepford Wives,
men and women alike, who will sacrifice autonomy in order to curb aggression; chemical policing of the
human brain is already big business, as the medicalisation of anger, shyness, depression, jealousy, you name
it, is set to take over any sense of personal responsibility.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 40
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
AT Asteroid Impacts
Asteroids won’t cause extinction, too minor
Gorman 2003, Discover Magazine Staff Writer (Rachael Moeller, “Discover Data: Extinction Trends: No Need
to Fear the Asteroids?” February 1, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breaknumbers, accessed on July 14,
2008)
Based on evidence that an asteroid impact helped to reduce the dinosaurs to dust 65 million years ago,
scientists have reasoned that other large impacts might produce similar extinctions—and that humans could
be next on the hit list. But John Alroy of the University of California at Santa Barbara finds that life may be
surprisingly resilient. He examined the size and ages of major craters in North America and compared
them with the mammalian fossil record over the past 65 million years. Contrary to the predictions of
one prominent extinction model, known as Raup's Kill Curve, Alroy could detect no correlation
between impact size and the rate of extinction (above). He argues that life is far more tenacious than some scientists make
it out to be. Furthermore, mass extinctions are very unusual, he says, and are rarely caused by a single
catastrophic event. They are much more likely to result from slower, less dramatic processes such as
species migration, climate change, competition, and disease.
Econ Link—Transports
Transport costs alone exceed $15 billion
Drezner 03 (Daniel W., How About Funding More HBO Miniseries About Outer Space Instead?, December 6,
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000922.html)
A rudimentary, stripped-down Moon base and supplies might weigh 200 tons. (The winged "orbiter"
part of the space shuttle weighs 90 tons unfueled, and it's cramped with food, oxygen, water, and power
sufficient only for about two weeks.) Placing 200 tons on the Moon might require 400 tons of fuel and
vehicle in low-Earth orbit, so that's 600 tons that need to be launched just for the cargo part of the
Moon base. Currently, using the space shuttle it costs about $25 million to place a ton into low-Earth
orbit. Thus means the bulk weight alone for a Moon base might cost $15 billion to launch: building the
base, staffing it, and getting the staff there and back would be extra. Fifteen billion dollars is roughly
equivalent to NASA's entire annual budget. Using existing expendable rockets might bring down the
cargo-launch price, but add the base itself, the astronauts, their transit vehicles, and thousands of support staff
on Earth and a ten-year Moon base program would easily exceed $100 billion. Wait, that's the cost of the
space station, which is considerably closer. Okay, maybe $200 billion.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 42
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
_______
**Aliens
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 43
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Yes Aliens
According to Stephen Hawking, extra-terrestrial life exists and is dangerous to humans
Derbyshire 08 (David, April 23, Daily Mail,
“Space is full of aliens, warns Hawking. But they aren't too bright,” L/N)
The universe is teeming with alien life but little of it is intelligent, according to Stephen Hawking. In a
speech to mark the 50th birthday of Nasa, the astrophysicist said the Earth was unlikely to be the only
planet where life had evolved. But he warned that an encounter with extra-terrestrials could prove deadly
for humanity. 'Watch out if you meet an alien,' he said. 'You could be infected with a disease to which
you have no resistance.' Many respected astronomers say alien life is likely, given that there are billions
of stars in the known universe. During his speech at George Washington University, Professor Hawking speculated on the
reasons why mankind has failed to detect any signs of alien life. He offered three possibilities: that life of any kind is very rare in the
universe; that simple life forms are common, but intelligent life rare; or that intelligent life tends to destroy itself quickly. 'Personally, I
favour the second possibility - that primitive life is relatively common, but that intelligent life is very rare,' he said. 'Some would say it
has yet to occur on Earth.' The 66-year-old Cambridge University scientist, who has motor neurone disease and speaks via a voice
synthesiser, called for mankind to seek out Earth-like planets around far distant stars and colonise space. Although scientists have
discovered 287 planets around distant stars, none could support life as we know it.
Life in the universe is plausible do to panspermia and the vastness of the universe
Hawking; ’08; astrophysicist; “NASA lecture series: Why we should go into space”;
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacepolicy/hawking.htm
But we don’t know how life first appeared. The probability of something as complicated as the DNA
molecule being formed by random collisions of atoms in the primeval ocean is incredibly small. However,
there might have been some simpler macromolecule which then built up the DNA or some other
macromolecule capable of reproducing itself. Still, even if the probability of life appearing on a suitable
planet is very small, since the Universe is infinite, life would have appeared somewhere. If the probability is
very low, the distance between two independent occurrences of life would be very large. However, there is a
possibility, known as panspermia, that life could spread from planet to planet, or from stellar system to stellar
system, carried on meteors. We know that Earth has been hit by meteors that came from Mars, and others
may have come from further afield. We have no evidence that any meteors carried life, but it remains a
possibility. An important feature of life spread by panspermia is that it would have the same basis, which
would be DNA for life in the neighborhood of the Earth. On the other hand, an independent occurrence of
life would be extremely unlikely to be DNA based. So watch out if you meet an alien. You could be infected
with a disease against which you have no resistance.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 44
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 45
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
No Aliens
There are no evidence on the existence of aliens
Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, 08 (“The dread planet Why
finding fossils on Mars would be extremely bad news for humanity,” p. lexis, May 25, accessed on July 13,
2008)
Why? To understand the real meaning of such a discovery is to realize just what it means that the universe
has been so silent for so long - why we have been listening for other civilizations for decades and yet have
heard nothing. Aliens may visit us in books and films and in rumors in Internet chat rooms, but it's a fact
that there has been no objective evidence for the existence of any extraterrestrial intelligent
civilization. We have not received any alien visitors, nor have our radio telescopes detected their
signals. As far as we can determine, the night sky is empty and silent.
No Aliens
Evolution need precise environment
Lewis 04 (PBS, Susan K. Lewis, Do aliens exist in the Milky Way? Life flourishes in hostile places, but not
complex life, creates science documentaries for WGBH’s "Nova" series for more than ten years, functioning as
writer, producer and director, July 2004, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/alie-flash.html)
Even if microbes are common in the galaxy, SETI skeptics stress that complex life forms -- animals and
higher plants -- are likely to be rare: "[E]volution never moves on a straight line toward an objective
('intelligence'), as happens during a chemical process or as a result of a law of physics ... evolutionary
pathways are highly complex and resemble more a tree with all of its branches and twigs. After the origin of
life, i.e., 3.8 billion years ago, life on Earth consisted for 2 billion years only of simple prokaryotes, cells
without an organized nucleus. ... Owing to an astonishing, unique event that is even today only partially
explained, 1,800 million years ago the first eukaryote originated, a creature with a well-organized nucleus
and the other characteristics of 'higher' organisms." -- Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist and professor
emeritus, Harvard University "Living things have existed here almost from the beginning, but multicellular
animal life did not appear until about 700 million years ago. For more than three billion years, Earth
was inhabited solely by single-celled microorganisms. This time lag seems to imply that the evolution of
anything more complicated than a single cell is unlikely." -- Ian Crawford, astronomer, University College
London "Although life may exist on the harshest of planets and moons, animal life -- such as that on Earth --
not only needs much more benign conditions but also must have those conditions present and stable for great
lengths of time. Animals as we know them require oxygen. Yet it took about 2 billion years for enough
oxygen to be produced to allow all animals on Earth." -- paleontologist Peter Ward and astrophysicist
Donald Brownlee, coauthors of Rare Earth
Aliens unlikely
Lewis 04 (PBS, Susan K. Lewis, Do aliens exist in the Milky Way? Intelligence is unlikely, creates science
documentaries for WGBH’s "Nova" series for more than ten years, functioning as writer, producer and director, July
2004, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/alie-flash.html)
Many prominent scientists think that the evolution of any form of higher intelligence is unlikely:
"Nothing demonstrates the improbability of the origin of high intelligence better than the ... lineages
that failed to achieve it. ...[T]here have been billions, perhaps as many as 50 billion species, since the
origin of life. Only one of these achieved the kind of intelligence needed for the establishment of a
civilization." -- Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist and professor emeritus, Harvard University
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 47
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Aliens Bad—Disease
ETs could carry deadly diseases
Daily Mail 08 (David Derbyshire, Space is full of aliens, warns Hawking. But they aren't too bright, April 23,
l/n)
THE universe is teeming with alien life but little of it is intelligent, according to Stephen Hawking. In a
speech to mark the 50th birthday of Nasa, the astrophysicist said the Earth was unlikely to be the only planet
where life had evolved. But he warned that an encounter with extra-terrestrials could prove deadly for
humanity. 'Watch out if you meet an alien,' he said. 'You could be infected with a disease to which you
have no resistance.' Many respected astronomers say alien life is likely, given that there are billions of stars
in the known universe.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 48
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Aliens Bad—War
ETs will launch aggressive attack upon contact
Daily Telegraph 07 (Scott Hillis, Be Prepared for the Alien Invasion, April 26, l/n)
''The probability is there that aliens exist and are old enough to have technology to enable them to come
here,'' Taylor said. Taylor and Boan are hardly basement-dwelling paranoiacs obsessed with tinfoil hats and
Area 51. Taylor holds advanced degrees in astronomy and physics. He and Boan have done consulting work
for the Defence Department and the US space agency NASA. Taylor acknowledges alien invasion is hardly a
mainstream concern but says it is naive to assume that any beings advanced enough to master star travel
will have evolved beyond war. ''It's a wonderful idea that has no basis in reality,'' Taylor said. Taylor and
Boan plugged in what they felt were conservative estimates, such as that aliens cannot travel faster than 10
per cent of the speed of light. After crunching the numbers, they say it is possible that our Milky Way galaxy
harbours thousands of intelligent alien species and that there is a ''high probability'' that one or two of them
visit Earth every century. But if there are so many aliens out there, why haven't we heard from them already?
That is the question famously posed by the physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950 to dismiss speculation by his
colleagues that intelligent life should be routine. Taylor and Boan are convinced Fermi got it wrong. Even if
aliens used god-like technology to jump across thousands of light years in a single day, they would still
need millions of years to explore all the star systems in the galaxy. They simply may not have stumbled
across our neck of the woods yet. Taylor and Boan started thinking about how to respond to an
aggressive extraterrestrial attack during a 2001 discussion about defending against terrorist attacks.
Failure to prepare may mean mankind will have to dig in and fight with improvised weapons and hit-
and-run tactics, much the same way Islamic extremists have battled the US military in Iraq, Taylor
says.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 49
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Aliens Good—Unity
Discovery of ETs will unite humans
South Wales Echo 06 (Kate Bodinger, We'll see aliens in the next 10 years... then there'll be peace on
Earth, August 16, l/n)
Prof Wickramasinghe believes world peace could be brought about if it was proved aliens really were out
there. 'We will discover we are not alone, so what will all this bickering on our planet mean?' he said.
'It will make us less bigoted as nations. Unity has to happen through external contact.'
AT Alien War
ETs would be unintelligent
The Scotsman 08 (Martyn McLaughlin, It's Life, Jim, But it Just Doesn’t Know it, April 23, l/n)
Speaking at an event to mark the 50th anniversary of Nasa, the space agency, Prof Hawking told of his
belief that mankind is not alone, but suggested our unidentified cohabitants might not be the intelligent,
technologically advanced beings that are the stuff of science fiction. Prof Hawking outlined several possible
views on whether extra-terrestrial life exists in the furthest corners of the cosmos. The first is that it does not.
The second, and more disconcerting option, is that far-flung worlds are home to intelligent life, but once it is
sophisticated enough to send signals into space, so too it would be capable of creating destructive nuclear
weapons and bringing about its own demise. The third theory, the one in which Prof Hawking puts his faith,
is that the odds are in favour of another kind of life existing, but that it would not be blessed with any
great wisdom. Illustrating his point before an audience at George Washington University, the 66-year-old
said if there was intelligent life on other planets, humanity would have detected it by now. Why, he
asked, had we not stumbled upon some alien broadcast beamed deep into space, like "alien quiz
shows"? He said: "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare," before adding: "Some
would say it has yet to occur on Earth."