KNDI 2011 Privatization CP
<Author Name> Sophomores
1NC Shell – NASA Prevents Development
Government-funded organizations by nature are incapable of meaningful development; privatization is the only alternative.
Garmong 05
[Robert Garmong, Ph.D in philosophy, 22 July 2005, Ayn Rand Institute, “Private Space Exploration,” http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/4327-privatize-space-exploration.html]
As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government. Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America's expensive space program: complete privatization. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.
1NC Shell – NASA Prevents Development
AND NASA is the only thing private organizations from revolutionizing the space industry as they did aviation.
McCullagh 07
[Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 3 October 2007, "Do we need NASA?," news.cnet.com/Do-we-need-NASA/2009-11397_3-6211308.html]
Compare the rapid progress in aviation with America's experience in space travel. Fifty years after Sputnik 1's launch in October 1957, mankind has set foot on precisely one other world (a moon, at that), the space shuttle has at best a 1-in-50 chance of disaster upon each launch, and a completed space station is still a few years out. Since the last moon landing 35 years ago, in fact, mankind has not ventured beyond low Earth orbit again. The difference? Critics say it's the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Aviation's youth and adolescence were marked by entrepreneurs and frenetic commercial activity: Lindbergh's trans-Atlantic prize money was put up by a New York hotel owner, and revenue from the airlines funded the development of the famous DC-3. The federal government aided aviation by paying private pilots to deliver air mail. Space, by contrast, until recently has remained the domain of NASA. Burt Rutan, the aerospace engineer famous for building a suborbital rocket plane that won the Ansari X Prize, believes NASA is crowding out private efforts. "Taxpayer-funded NASA should only fund research and not development," Rutan said during a recent panel discussion at the California Institute of Technology. "When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a manned spacecraft, you're...dumbing down a generation of new, young engineers (by saying), 'No, you can't take new approaches, you have to use this old technology.'" Rutan and his fellow pilots, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs have undertaken a formidable task: To demonstrate to the public that space travel need not be synonymous with government programs. In fact, many of them say NASA has become more of a hindrance than a help.
1NC Shell – CP Text
Thus the Counterplan:
The US Federal Government should dismantle the space program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and charge private corporations with [purpose of plan].
1NC Shell – Solvency
Counterplan solves – dismantling NASA ensures improved cost, safety, and efficiency in space development.
Villacampa 06
[Alexander Villacampa, economics at Univesity of Florida, 20 September 2006, "NASA: Exemplary of Government Waste," www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/villacampa2.html]
The solution the problem of NASA overspending and endless mishaps is, like all government programs, privatization. If the citizenry, through the market process, find it profitable to invest and consume products that are tied to space exploration, so be it. In such a scenario no individual is forced to pay for products that continuously fail to meet their expectations. In addition, private companies that take on the task of space exploration will be doing so at a profit and trying to minimize cost. This is significantly different from the wasteful practices of government and public sector programs. Whenever costs outweigh profits, precious resources have been wasted in the production of that good or service. In the private sector, entrepreneurs quite literally pay the price for having misused resources and the costs will cut into the entrepreneur’s income. If this occurs, either changes are to be made in order to cut costs or the entrepreneur will need to shut down the business. When public sector industries waste resources, often times no direct harm is done to their ability to continue the misuse of funding. Any punishment comes down from the legislature and usually comes with multi-millions of dollars in addition funding. It is a time-proven fact that when a private sector company fails, they go out of business yet if a public sector industry fails, they get additional funding. In order to save the taxpayer from having to pay the increasing costs of a hopeless space exploration program, simply disband NASA and allow the market to decide if such practices are needed in society. If the market decides that these services are in fact desired then it will take hold of these projects while trying to reduce the use of valuable resources. This is becoming evident in the success of SpaceShipOne’s flight in 2004. SpaceShipOne showed the world that the market can do marvelously what NASA has, time and time again, continuously failed to accomplish. The success of SpaceShipOne also spurred the creation of another private space exploration program, Virgin Galactic, that intends to send private individuals into space. Currently, the price of travel into space with Virgin Galactic is $200,000. That is right, $200,000. Not only is Virgin not doing this at a cost (if they were it would quickly fail) but they are allowing private individuals to take part in an experience that was only granted to government scientists. In addition, the risk of these spacecrafts will, in time, diminish as corporations feel an increasing need to secure their customers or else suffer heavy losses. Safety is a hefty concern for individuals who are risking their lives and money in order to partake in an emerging industry. Space shuttles Columbia and Challenger illustrate that even though NASA engineers might only want the best for its passengers, safety has not been such a prime concern as to prevent any of these tragic moments from occurring. In summation, in order to roll back the growing tide of government spending, the most wasteful programs must be cut first. What is needed from such public sector failures as NASA is not increased funding and wasteful behavior but full privatization. Only when this occurs will resources be used efficiently, will there be increased emphasis on consumer safety on extraterrestrial flights, and an end to the coercive sequestering of funds from taxpayers to prop up a failed program. It is time to put the industry of space exploration to the ultimate test: that of the market economy. The market, not the government, will be the true decider as to the existence of such an industry. It seems that the market is declaring that space exploration can be not only profitable but safe. If this is so, then so be it; it might be possible one day for all citizens to afford flights into the far reaches of space. What is important is to allow consumers, not bureaucrats, to decide where precious resources should go. It is time to end the government finance of wasteful public space exploration and to forevermore dismantle NASA.
1NC Shell – Solvency
AND counterplan solves for the future of space exploration.
Cleavelin 1/21
[Cade Cleavelin, 21 January 2011, “In The Private Sector, Space Will Pay For Itself”, http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2011/1/21/private-sector-space-will-pay-itself/)
Private firms, headed by savvy and capable business leaders, will be able to make space flight profitable in ways NASA cannot. Space flight will become a stable and viable industry, and therefore research and space exploration will progress faster than it would in the hands of one government entity. Granting private corporations the opportunity to continue down the path NASA has carved and pursue new opportunities of development will make space flight a more secure undertaking. Space flight and exploration will never take off like it should if the work is limited to one government entity that is ever strapped for cash. It’s not as if privatizing space flight will suddenly allow conniving rocket tycoons to monopolize scientific exploration. Some of the most brilliant people in their fields work in private industry. Companies like SpaceX employ intelligent individuals, with the same degrees as NASA engineers, who know what they’re doing in designing rockets and planning missions. One of the most optimistic outcomes of privatizing space flight is that rocket engineers will finally earn salaries befitting their education level and performance.
Link – Privatization = SQ
Already a trend towards privatization – Obama proposes to address NASA’s shortcomings and allow a new age of space exploration.
Hartman 10
[Joshua T. Hartman, CSIS Senior Associate, senior advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, director of the Space and Intelligence Office, CSIS, 22 February 2010, "NASA's Future," csis.org/publication/nasa-future]
President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget for NASA, submitted to Congress, charts a new path. It makes the bold decision to cancel Constellation and rely on the private sector for future transportation to space. This administration’s budget puts an emphasis on future capabilities: a push toward developmental and cutting-edge science and technology for human and robotic exploration, a dedication to fully leveraging the potential of the International Space Station through 2020, and a renewed focus on earth and space sciences. Some suggest the president is pushing NASA toward transformation with this budget. The success of his vision for NASA will be measured, as always, in its acceptance and implementation. The most significant move in this vision has attracted much attention. The debate over the cancellation of Constellation began even before the budget was released and has only gotten more fever pitched since. Critics maintain that cancelling Constellation will cause great job loss, force skilled workers out of the aerospace industry entirely, and put the United States years behind in pushing further into the frontier of space. On the other hand, proponents argue that turning toward commercial spaceflight will spur new growth, innovation, and a sustainable industrial base that will ensure success well into the future. The final judgment will depend greatly on NASA’s ability to manage the transition and industry’s ability to perform against NASA’s intent. Announced the day after the budget release, implementation of this vision has already begun. Using stimulus money, NASA jump-started industry with investments in future science, technology, and exploration initiatives. Specific focus has been on earth sciences, astrophysics, aeronautic research, and exploration activities designed to stimulate greater industrial base and entrepreneurial efforts in the future.
Link – NASA Prevents Development
AND NASA crowds out the inexpensive private development of space.
Hudgins 98
[Edward L. Hudgins, formerly the director of regulatory studies for the CATO Institute, 26 January 1998, Baltimore Sun, "Time to Privatize NASA," http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5960]
In 1987 and 1988, a Commerce Department-led interagency working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise of rent to any firm or consortium that could deliver a permanent manned moon base. When asked whether such a base was realistic, private-sector representatives answered yes -- but only if NASA wasn't involved. That plan was quickly scuttled. Each shuttle carries a 17-story external fuel tank 98 percent of the distance into orbit before dropping it into the ocean; NASA could easily -- and with little additional cost -- have promoted private space enterprise by putting those fuel tanks into orbit. With nearly 90 shuttle flights to date, platforms -- with a total of 27 acres of interior space -- could be in orbit today. These could be homesteaded by the private sector for hospitals to study a weightless Mr. Glenn or for any other use one could dream of. But then a $100 billion government station would be unnecessary. As long as NASA dominates civilian space efforts, little progress will be made toward inexpensive manned space travel. The lesson of Mr. Glenn's second flight is that space enthusiasts ignore economics at their peril.
Link – NASA => Fiscal Problems
NASA consistently sacrifices efficiency and financial security to ensure its monopoly on the aerospace industry.
Hudgins 98
[Edward L. Hudgins, formerly the director of regulatory studies for the CATO Institute, 26 January 1998, Baltimore Sun, "Time to Privatize NASA," http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5960]
The government has had many opportunities to turn over civilian space activities to the private sector. In the 1970s, American Rocket Co. was one of the private enterprises that wanted to sell launch services to NASA and private businesses. But NASA was moving from science to freight hauling, and planned to monopolize government payloads on the shuttle and subsidize launches of private cargo as well. The agency thus turned down American Rocket. In the late 1980s, Space Industries of Houston offered, for no more than $750 million, to launch a mission that could carry government and other payloads at least a decade before NASA's station went into operation. (NASA's station currently comes with a price tag of nearly $100 billion for development, construction and operations.) NASA, not wishing to create its own competition, declined Space Industries' offer.