Formal Debate Series I - Space Exploration

FORMAL DEBATE SERIES I - SPACE EXPLORATION

Should more money be spent by NASA on space exploration in this age of economic austerity and tight budgets? Could the money be spent better elsewhere? Space exploration in this case can refer to any NASA project, whether in space or not.

Warpus (Debating the Negative)

VS

hobbsyoyo(Debating the Positive)



Format:
The debaters, having agreed on a topic, will choose three major claims to substantiate their stance on the topic. They do not have to tell each other these claims before the debate begins.

The OP will:
State the Topic
State the Contenders and their respective side of the Topic
Will list the Format and the Rules

The Second Post will:
Contain the 3 major claims of the Alpha poster

The Third Post will:
Contain the 3 major claims of the Beta poster

After this, the Alpha poster will make a post that contains the major substantiations for their first claims. They may make as many points to back up this claim, they may not substantiate any other claims in this post.

The Beta will then pick one of the points the Alpha made to substantiate their first claim and rebut it. They may not refute any other points, though rebuttals of the claim are implicit in a rebuttal of derivative points, and are allowed. Double Rebuttals are allowed; Tangential Rebuttals are not allowed. The rules on Double and Tangential Rebuttals are global.

The Alpha may then pick one of the rebuttal points of the Beta and refute it with as many points as they wish. They may not refute points the Beta did not raise, nor may they refute a claim made by the Beta.

Example:
Alpha – I claim X, Y, Z
Beta – I claim A, B, C
Alpha – I believe X because 1,2,3
Beta - I refute X (or 1, 2 or 3, but only one of these) because &, *, %
Alpha - I refute % because !, @, #
Beta - I refute 2 and ! together Because ^.

Their will be 4 posts per debater per claim. So, the Alpha will substantiate their first claim and have 3 rebuttals (in alternating order), the Beta will make 4 rebuttals (in alternating order). After all 8 posts have been made on the Alpha's first claim, the Beta will start the cycle over with their first claim and the sequence of posts is reversed.

Debaters may refute the same claim or points if they choose within the same claim set, but must use different points to do so. This is inadvisable as it uses one of the few response posts a debater has within that claim set. Prior claims and points (either positing or rebutting) may not be revisited during subsequent claim set. For example, upon the second claim set, the Alpha may not make a rebuttal that refutes a point or a claim from the first set. The point of this structure is to force the flow of conversation to avoid obsession over tangential arguments. It also forces a debater to carefully word their arguments to withstand attack as they will not be able to defend against every rebuttal.

Rules:
Debaters may not say that they won a claim set or exchange.

Quotes are not allowed.

Sources may be referenced, (i.e. I read in Time Magazine...) but source links may not be provided. The meaning of this is that arguments are assumed to be made in good faith and are factual. These sources may be refuted, but again, this is inadvisable as it wastes a post. The Peanut Gallery is the ultimate arbiter of facts and sources, they will vote on who wins and false sources or claims are to be judged by them.

Pictures and graphs are not allowed.

The debaters and moderator will decide on the time frame for the debate and the allowed time between posts. They may decide that if a post is unanswered for a certain amount of time, the rebuttal is forfeited.

Points of order may be raised by PM with the moderator, they will not be discussed in the thread. If the moderator determines a rule has been violated, they may disqualify a post and post and explanation of the action taken. Moderators have discretion to decide violations and deal out corrective measures.

Points or claims can only be invalidated by a moderator if a rule was broken or format violated (it must be a severe and intentional format violation for a point or claim to be invalidated, rule violations will be decided case by case by the moderator). Points and claims cannot be invalidated for being false.

The Peanut Gallery will vote after the debate has ended on who has won the debate.

Debaters must post in the order provided by this format.

Spelling errors are to be judged to be inconsequential by the Peanut Gallery.

Edits are not allowed – even spelling corrections – to keep the debaters honest.

Debaters should take into account what time zone they and their opponents are in when setting up a debate!


Definitions:
Alpha – First poster in the thread (does not connote seniority or superiority)
Beta – Second poster in the thread (does not connote inferiority) [these were chosen to avoid excessive use of 1st, 2nd, etc.]
Claim - A 'major' point that substantiate the poster's stance on the topic. These are primary arguments.
Claim Set – The cycle of positing, then refuting and defending (alternatively) a single claim.
Double Rebuttal – A single point that refutes multiple (2 or more) points or points and the claim entirely.
Moderator – the person who ensure the format and rules are followed
Peanut Gallery – Observers who will comment in the debate in another thread and will vote after the debate is concluded on which debater won.
Points – These are derivative or secondary arguments used to substantiate or refute a claim.
Tangential Rebuttal – a rebuttal that refutes a claim or a point entirely, but only partially refutes a second point or claim.
Topic – The issue being debated
Do not post in this thread unless you are Warpus, hobbsyoyo or downtown. All other posts will be ignored.

Link to the Peanut Gallery Thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=476921

My 3 major claims

1. NASA is doing a really good job performing space exploration missions & doing science with their present level of funding.

2. There are major issues with the economy that need to be addressed before we start increasing budgets of non-vital projects; while space exploration is important, we need to have our priorities straight.

3. The private sector has been pushing for a more active role in space exploration and great strides have been made in this area recently; this is the perfect opportunity for private companies to step up to the plate.

I'd like to thank downtown, Warpus, the moderators and the CFC community for helping get this thing off the ground. something something something LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

My 3 Major Claims

1.NASA should recieve taxpayer funding at a higher level than today out of economic necessity.

2.NASA should recieve taxpayer funding at a higher level than today out of moral and ethical responsibility.

3.NASA should recieve taxpayer funding at a higher level than today to push the boundaries of science forward.

Substantiations for claim 1. (Yeah, I just realized that I did this backwards, but whatever, it works)

Here's my claim 1. again :

1. NASA is doing a really good job performing space exploration missions & doing science with their present level of funding.

Here's the points substantiating this claim:

A. There is a rather large & impressive list of space exploration projects underway under NASA's purview:

- The Curiosity Mars rover, the most complex rover ever to touch down on another planet
- The Cassini mission to Saturn which continues sending back valuable data on the Saturn system
- The New Horizons mission to Pluto - will be the first spacecraft to enter the Pluto system - also the most complex space probe ever launched
- The Hubble space telescope
- The Chandra x-ray observatory
- All the experiments on the ISS
- The Kepler space observatory has been busy finding extrasolar planets

NASA are doing really well with their budget as it is. I'm sure they'd love to get their hands on more money, but the list of the projects they are presently in charge of is rather impressive.

B. The long lasting nature of most NASA spacecraft and/or projects means that NASA has been able to squeeze a lot of scientific life out of projects that are well beyond their expiration dates.

- The rovers on Mars went on years after their expiration dates.. I do believe one of them is still operating!
- Spacecraft such as Voyager 1 & 2 are still sending back data, teaching us more about our solar system and what may lie beyond it

(Warpus, you didn't do anything backwards, we're on track. To the peanut gallery: I just wanted to remind everyone that we cannot refute more than one point in a rebuttal. We have to pick one and only one to refute, though if we can knock down two points simultaneously and completely, this is aloud. I'm only posting this reminder because it's the first time this format has been used AFAIK and it helps you all make judgement calls on the debate if you're familiar with the rules.)

I refute point A) on a few different grounds.

The cost of many of the programs mentioned in point A are already largely settled. The New Horizons probe, for instance, costs relatively little to track and direct compared to the R&D, design, build, testing and launching phases. The cost will pick up a bit when it begins to do science at Pluto and will stay elevated as the data is sorted. However, this cost is rather small compared to the total outlay of the program.

Probes like the Hubble Space telescope cost great sums to maintain, and in the case of the HST, repair missions were nearly scrapped due to budgetary concerns. In fact, it could have a much longer lifespan than what is currently on the table. However, budget cuts scuttled the Space Shuttle program, which means that it will see no more repair and servicing trips before it deorbits. Further, lack of funding has derailed manned programs like the Aries series of rockets - this makes it even more difficult to service or repair current probes until a replacement is constructed and shaken-down.

The ISS has done very little (compared to say, the HST) in the way of science experiments as the current budgetary climate has provided little more than what was necessary for construction, station keeping and upkeep of the ISS to date. Though science experiments are now (finally) underway, they are on a slow track and will not pick up appreciably due to the current budgetary climate. It's essentially an orbiting tourist stop - one that doesn't even generate revenue or useful science (to justify the cost) for the owners.

In the case of the Curiosity rover, the descent platform, the Skycrane system, was based on an old Soviet design. NASA is forced to do this frequently as it cuts out some of the basic R&D costs (and in some other cases, actual construction costs wrt ISS modules, etc) from the program. This is essentially a dead end as respectfully, the Russian space program hasn't innovated or built much new kit since the collapse of the USSR. There are only so many ideas that can be borrowed, so many old hardware and component pieces that can be repurposed. Further, to do so means that dollars that could go to American researchers and fabricators are going into the pockets of the Russian Federation instead.

Lastly, at the current funding levels, there may not ever be a 'flagship probes', even the James Webb Space Telescope (successor to the Hubble that operates in non-visible spectrum, infrared IIRC) is under constant threat for cancellation. There simply isn't enough money at current funding levels to operate both a burgeoning manned space flight program (if this seems an odd statement, remember it's being restarted from near-scratch) and a world class science and robotic program. Something is going to have to give at the current funding level, and when faced with these kinds of situations in the past, NASA usually loses a lot more than one or the other. Frequently they lose both. Look at the programs cancelled to make room for Aries, only to have Aries itself cancelled.

(I meant to copy the example debate style, but instead used numbers for the claims and letters for the substantiations - backwards in that sense)

None of that takes away from my initial claim that NASA is doing a good job running all these projects, several of which are more complex than anything attempted in the past.

Let me address your last point, about there not being enough money in the budget for all of the things NASA wants to do. Yes, I agree, but my point is that they are able to do amazing things with what they have. There are problems here and there, and missions could have been better and awesomer, but we truly live in an amazing age of discovery in terms of what space science & exploration is being done. Could it be better and more amazing? Yes. Is it amazing nevertheless? Yes!

The time for giant flagship projects is not now; we can return to those once we have our financial problems under control and there is more money to go around. For now NASA is doing well enough with the money they have.

To your last paragraph:
Flagship programs do all of the great things you have posted on. They are the heavy lifters and usually offer the most bang for the buck.

As I previously posted, much of the costs on the other Flagship programs you posted is already sunk. After that, pretty much all future projects are in serious doubt as the current budgetary level has not grown to accomodate both sides of NASA, the manned and unmanned programs.

You could launch smaller, less expensive probes to do the job of one large one, but this largely ignores a major problem. To get probes out into space (of any size really) you need a large and expensive booster to get the probes out there. You also have to factor in the cost of tracking and mainting each probe. It all adds up pretty fast when you are sending multiple probes to do the job of one big one.

To do anything really, NASA needs more money. We are perilously close to causing multiple program cancellations and potential layoffs (which will further hurt the already devastated Space Coast FL area) at the present funding levels. There simply isn't enough money to fund all of the awesome programs you have laid out, and carry through the other ones on the book and develop a manned program at the same time.

I do believe that all of the projects I listed have already been budgeted for, at least for the duration of their expected lifetimes.

Like you said, most of the money involved with a project is the initial planning, construction, and launch. Once that probe is up there, you'll have to pay your engineers to keep track of it, interact with it, and make sense of the data. Those day-to-day costs don't come anywhere near the initial project set-up and launch costs. All those missions that I listed that are already in progress? Maintaining them doesn't cost nearly as much as designing a new mission and getting it off the ground.

Curiosity, Chandra, New Horizons, Cassini, etc. aren't in danger of being scrapped because they're already up there, doing hard science. It's missions that are on the drawing boards that are in danger of being scrapped, and we can return to those once there is more money to go around. For now there is plenty of science & exploration being done - much of it at unprecedented levels and with unprecedented technology.

To your last paragraph:
I posit that they are all in danger of being scrapped.

1)The Hubble space telescope was nearly scrapped for lack of funding and was saved only due to massive outrage from the scientific program.

2)Probes have problems that need to be fixed and they need to be maintained and their data analyzed. All this costs money. Once these programs reach milestones or primary goals, they are in danger of getting the ax even if they still have useful science left to do. Although this may seem proposterous, remember that there was originally meant to be an Apollo 18, 19 and 20 and even loftier goals. They actually built the hardware for these missions and then scrapped them mostly and repurposed some of it. So I don't put it past NASA at all to ax a good, sound science probe if it feels it has to.

3.While the current probes are fantastic, they aren't exciting. They don't usually engender the kind of public interest needed to sustain NASA's budget. The manned program will be great for this, if it gets off the ground. But the way things are going, that may not come to pass and if it does, it could come at a severe price on the unmanned side of NASA. There isn't enough money currently to do all the things they are trying to do.

I do believe that the near scrapping of the Hubble space telescope occurred after the end of its expected lifetime.

That's the thing, once a project is launched and a lifetime is established, funds will exist in the budget to pay engineers to look after the project for that time period. I'm not worried that NASA will pull the plug on Curiosity next year. They might extend the life of the project whenever that runs out and then at some point cancel it, but it won't happen before the lifetime of the project runs to an end.

I really can't think of one example of NASA scrapping a project during that previously agreed upon and budgeted lifecycle. Cancellations generally happen during the design phase, during construction, or after the lifetime of the project has run out. We can fully expect the projects I initially listed to go through entire lifetime - and then some. Some might get scrapped after that, but that's to be expected.

I also do believe that the methods by which NASA might try to get more funding (exciting projects, etc.) would be outside of the scope of this debate, since we're meant to debate the budgets as they are, and whether they should be increased, but not by which means.

To your last paragraph,

Ah, but what I am saying is that they should be increased to fund programs that excite people, which will lead to further increases that will sustain the current and future processes.

1)I do take your point that we shouldn't discuss how it is spent or on which particular programs, and that negates what I said about manned programs.

2)But it does not negate my larger point that big missions (leaving aside what kind they are as this is not allowed) excite people, which gets more funding.

3)If NASA's budget is not increased, big missions of all kinds are in jeopardy, which will cause their budget to come under increased pressure of further reductions.

The next post will be on my substantiation of my first claim. It will take a few minutes to compose.

NASA should recieve taxpayer funding at a higher level than today out of economic necessity.

1) Our engineers and scientists are some of the most productive members of our society. Funding their research and endevours will lead to advances that will fuel our economy. Look at the explosion of miniaturized electronics, spurred on by the Space Race. There are a host of other programs that directly fed back into the economy and spun off entire new consumer products and economic sectors. Paying engineers and scientists through NASA leads to major economic gains by scientific advancements.

2)Engineers and scientists not only create new scientific advancements, but they also fund new corporations to commercialize the inventions. They know best (usually) the ways in which their products can be used and refined.

3)Even engineers and scientists who do not work for NASA directly learn from the data generated, the inventions devised, and the techniques NASA uses to solve problems. They interact with government scientists and engineers and all of the things these people create and find ways to make money and employ people with that information. If you want to grow the economy, a great way to do it is through basic R&D and through the engineering solutions brought about by NASA. This trickles down and permeates our economy - even when NASA employees are out of the direct loop of commercialization.

4)NASA serves as a beacon for young people. With a bigger and more vibrant and awesome space program, students will be drawn into the STEM fields, even if they never plan on working for NASA. This is a net gain for the economy - we have a shortage of STEM field workers.

I refute your entire claim (claim 1, not point 1 directly above) on this basis:

The reality of the situation is that there are far more pressing matters that need addressing before we start considering an increase in NASA's budget.

You speak about economic necessity. If you weigh the economic reality of the financial problems the U.S. is facing VS the potential economic payoffs of an increased NASA budget, the scale will tip heavily in favour of the economic necessity of fixing the economy.

The economy needs to improve before we can start pumping more money into NASA. There are economic benefits to NASA for sure, but the problems created by the financial downturn are of far greater importance.

We are in recession, and cutting budgets do not improve economic conditions, while deficit spending does.

1)We can borrow money at a very low rate to finance expanding an expansion of NASA. It is a small portion of the budget currently and any increases will still be small relative to with respect to the entire budget.

2)Expanding NASA will directly expand the number of people employed and indirectly grow the economy through high-tech R&D and technological spin offs that spawn new corporations. I strongly disagree that the cost of expanding NASA will not lead to greater economic payoffs that offset the cost. Expanding NASA is an excellent stimulus that employes directly, indirectly and grows the economy.

3.Expanding NASA will allow other big corporations, the Boeings and Lockheeds, and the countless smaller ones who supply them a chance at more business. More business means more people employed. Best of all, this business will generate science and new technology that will lend additional multiplicative momentum to the currently sluggish growth of the GDP.

In response to your above point 2:

The effects of something like that will take years to grow into something that can be measured in terms of an expanded economy or an economic benefit.

It's just not practical to use an increase in NASA funding as a method to help a struggling economy; the benefits to the economy will be side-effects to the main goal: space exploration.

The effects of a budget increase for NASA are immediate, intermediary and long term.

1)The people NASA employeed are skilled, highly paid professionals. Hiring them supports their families by putting money in their pockets right now. It also helps the economies of where they work at now because the employed people have money to spend.

2)In the intermediate period, NASA contracts with a lot of companies. With budget increases, they have more money to spend buying parts, ordering designs and on R&D. This will take a bit of time to kick in as the orders are not immediate, but they won't necessarily take years either. Under the current budgetary climate, there is a considerable amount of attrition going on now at NASA. Things need to be replaced and such, and these orders will soon follow a budgetary increase.

3)In the long term, R&D will lead to new technology and new corporations that will further grow the economy. In the long term, this source of growth will vastly eclipse the other two. But that does not mean however, that the first two sources of growth are insignificant.

It's really a win-win-win situation.

Your points 1. 2. and 3. outline a long-term plan to bring negligible benefits to the economy.

Even if you doubled NASA's workforce from 18,000 to 36,000, it would have a very limited impact on the overall American economy.. Same with the budget. It's just too small, relatively speaking, to bring you immediate economic benefits that will help the downturn.

The downturn has to be handled today.. In the here and the now. Long term plans such as increases to funding to NASA can be looked at after more pressing economic problems are dealt with first.

If you assume a typical NASA employee makes about $50k per year, then doubling the workforce injects about $900m directly into the economy. While this is small relative to the total economy, it provides a vital catalyst for bigger things.

It would create the exact conditions for the next silicon valley by placing large numbers of highly educated and trained workers with great pay and motivation in a few clustered areas.

How many people do Boeing or IBM employ, what is their total impact on the US economy? It's pretty large, and by increasing the budget of NASA, you are fostering the conditions for the next Boeing's and IBM's to emerge. NASA will buy parts and supplies from start ups and established companies and contract with them. Workers will flow from business to business in the competetive markets that such and investment will create, which in turn will increase demand for more workers. It's a virtues cycle, and I believe you could have something like this for the relatively small sum of $900m.

That $900m is highly hypothetical and relies on that doubling of NASA's workforce, which would never really happen. If NASA got a 10% budget increase for next year, how many jobs would be created as a result? Some, but not even close to a 10% increase.

And either way, the effects remain long-term. My plan (hold off on increasing the budget for now, while the economy improves) would not prevent budget increases in the near future.

That way you get the best of both worlds - a focus on the economy now and the economic benefits of a higher NASA budget that you seek, later. Since the former is a short term project and the latter would be a long term project, it makes sense to focus on the economy first and to increase NASA's budget later.

In the end any economic benefits that an increased NASA budget might produce would be overshadowed in the near-term by economic benefits that can be accomplished via other means.