Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16


By Rich Edwards, Ph.D. Professor of Communication Studies, Baylor University

Resolved: Human missions should be a significant focus of space exploration.

Though the United States and Russia remain at the forefront of human space exploration, a growing number of countries are developing their own space programs. Roger Launius, curator of the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian Institution, describes this transition in the Smithsonian Atlas of Space Exploration: In 2008 there were more than 60 spacefaring nations on Earth. Each engaged in space activities in several realms ranging from human spaceflight to Earth applications technologies to scientific missions beyond Earth (2009, p. 29). As space programs spread across the globe, a key question is the mix between programs of robotic and human space exploration. The International Public Policy Forum (IPPF) debate topic for 2011-2012 is as follows: Resolved: Human missions should be a significant focus of space exploration. The following paragraphs are intended to assist IPPF participants as they prepare briefs and oral arguments on the space exploration resolution. It is important to remember, however, that this document is merely designed to provide a starting place and to assist in brainstorming; it does not represent an official declaration of the scope or intent of the topic. In short, your ideas may well be as valuable or persuasive as those expressed here. WHAT TYPE OF QUESTION IS ASKED BY THE IPPF RESOLUTION ON SPACE EXPLORATION? Debate questions follow one of three patterns; they are resolutions of fact, value, or policy. Resolutions of fact ask debaters to decide whether something is (or is not) the case. An example of a resolution of fact for space exploration would be Resolved: Human space exploration missions have produced valuable technological spinoffs. Such a resolution would require debaters to present evidence on whether important breakthroughs in science and technology have resulted from the human exploration components of space programs. The 2011-2012 IPPF resolution is not a resolution of fact. Resolutions of policy focus on how something can be accomplished; they require that affirmative debaters present and defend a plan to implement a proposed action. An example of a resolution of policy for space exploration would be Resolved: Spacefaring nations should significantly expand their programs of human exploration of space. Such a resolution would require affirmative debaters to detail and defend a specific proposal for expanding human space exploration. Negative debaters would then oppose the plan offered by the affirmative. Notice that one of the hallmarks of a resolution of policy is the specification of an agent of action Spacefaring nations in the above example. The 2011-2012 resolution is not a resolution of policy. Resolutions of value require a discussion of why a thing is good or bad, worthy or unworthy, just or unjust. The IPPF topic for 2011-2012 is a question of value: Resolved: Human missions should be a significant focus of space exploration. This resolution does not call for the presentation of an affirmative plan of action; instead, it calls upon the affirmative to show why human space exploration is good or worthwhile. Negative teams, rather than attacking a particular affirmative plan, will be called upon to show why human exploration of space is bad or unworthy, especially as compared to the alternative of robotic exploration of space. Given the nature of the 2011-2012 resolution, debaters should focus on the why of human exploration of space, rather than the how. The resolution does not call upon affirmative debaters to defend particular space destinations such as the International Space Station, the Moon,

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 2 or Mars; rather it calls for an examination of what, if any, role human presence should play in space exploration. HOW SHOULD THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION BE DEFINED? What is meant by space exploration? Ulrike Bohlmann, a lawyer with the European Space Agency, offers the following definition of space exploration: In a narrower sense, the term is understood to mean investigation of the universe beyond the Earths atmosphere by means of manned [sic] and unmanned spacecraft (Humans in Outer Space: Interdisciplinary Odysseys, 2009, p. 184). Space exploration can be defined in the context of expanding scientific discoveries. Fabio Tronchetti, professor of law at Leiden University in the Netherlands, describes how this term was used during the preparation of the Outer Space Treaty: The term exploration did not generate any particular debate. It refers to discovery activities of the space environment for scientific reasons (The Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 2009, p. 22). Some authorities have attempted to define space exploration in such a way that it must involve human participation. Consider the following definition of exploration from the Space, Policy, and Society Research Group at Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Exploration is a human activity, undertaken by certain cultures at certain times for particular reasons. It has components of national interest, scientic research, and technical innovation, but is defined by none of them. We define exploration as an expansion of the realm of human experience, bringing people into new places, situations, and environments, expanding and redefining what it means to be human (The Future of Human Spaceflight, Dec. 2008, http://www.scribd.com/doc/59206147/MIT-Future-of-Human-SpaceFlight, p. 8). How should the phrase human missions be defined? All space programs involve human participation, regardless of whether the missions are human or robotic in nature. Michael Meltzen, an environmental scientist, formerly at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, reminds us that humans design satellites and interpret the messages sent back to Earth from robotic probes: With the advent of technology that allows humans sitting on Earth to see, hear, and nearly feel what the spacecraft does, as well as finely controlling its movements, the line between robotic and human exploration is becoming somewhat blurred. One aspect of the Galileo and the Cassini-Huygens missions was that, in a way, we were up there. The crews sat in a control room on Earth rather than in the space vessel, but they still saw and measured, and to some extent experienced, what the vessel did (NASAs First 50 Years, 2010, p. 464). However, human missions involve more than mere human participation in the design of space programs they refer to those missions where humans are actually sent into space. The term human missions is used extensively in the space science literature to refer to missions with human crews. Consider the following example from NASA physicist Paul L. McNutt, Jr. in a 2010 article entitled Human Missions Throughout the Outer Solar System: Requirements and Implementations: Human missions beyond the asteroid belt to the outer portion of the solar system are literally a monumental undertaking. This challenge can be met, but only for a substantial cost. Robotic missions, including sample returns to venues as distant as Pluto at aphelion, although less capable, appear to be more easily and cheaply accomplished than missions with human crews (Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, 2010, p. 386). What is meant by a significant focus? Notice that the resolution does not require an affirmative team to show why all space missions should involve human crews instead, it requires only a showing that significant attention should be

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 3 given to human missions. Websters Dictionary defines focus as a center of activity, attraction, or attention (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/focus). A FEW WORDS ABOUT GENDERED LANGUAGE IN THE DISCUSSION OF HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT All major style manuals suggest that scholars make use of gender-neutral language whenever possible. This advice seems to have been lost on many writers as they discuss human participation in space projects. You will commonly find evidence using the term manned spaceflight or unmanned spaceflight, implying that human astronauts are always men. Such terms are commonly used despite the fact that more than 50 women have flown in space. Debaters can avoid the use of gendered language in their own discourse by using terms such as crewed missions, uncrewed missions, human spaceflight, and robotic spaceflight. But what happens when the debater wishes to use a quotation containing terms such as manned spaceflight, or unmanned missions? Scholarly standards dictate against changing the language of a quotation, even when the intent is to make the language gender-neutral. What the debater can do, however, is to insert the term [sic] in brackets to show that the mistake has been acknowledged by the user of the quotation. An alternative is to follow a term such as manned spaceflight by a bracket insertion of a correcting expression [meaning human spaceflight]. WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF SPACE EXPLORATION? Notice that the 2011-2012 IPPF resolution presumes that nations and/or commercial enterprises will engage in space exploration. The question focuses on whether human missions should be an important part of this exploration. Therefore, one way to approach the resolution would be to determine the goals to be served by space exploration. Once these goals are discovered, we can ask whether human missions would help accomplish the goals. Deborah Stine, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service, writing in the 2008 book, Space Policy and Exploration, identifies the following reasons why the United States might explore space: knowledge and understanding, discovery, economic growth -- job creation and new markets, national prestige, and defense. Some also include the following reasons: international relations, and education and workforce development (p. 10). Florida Senator Bill Nelson offers the following defense of space exploration in the February 7, 2010 edition of Tampa Tribune: Americas exploration of space has greatly advanced the cause of science and has done much to improve life on Earth. Its the reason we have Global Positioning Systems, special firefighter equipment, satellites that track climate change and hurricanes, airbags, and health care devices such as kidney machines and heart ultrasound equipment, and Lasik surgery. The space program has created scores of companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs -jobs we need, especially in Florida. NASA also has enabled America to have the most advanced satellite technology for national security purposes. Countless young Americans have been inspired to pursue careers in science, technology and engineering, helping the United States remain a global leader in these fields. Simply put, we all have reaped a harvest of gains from space exploration (p. 1). The late Freeman Dyson, a professor of physics at Princeton University, wrote that there are three reasons why, quite apart from scientific considerations, mankind needs to travel in space. The first reason is garbage disposal; we need to transfer industrial processes into space so that the Earth may remain a green and pleasant place for our grandchildren to live in. The second reason is to escape material impoverishment: the resources of this planet are finite, and we shall not forego forever the abundance of solar energy and minerals and living space that are spread out all around us. The third reason is our spiritual need for an open frontier (quoted in Irish Times, Feb. 11, 2010, p. 17).

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 4 Cynthia Phillips, an analyst at the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, adds satisfying human curiosity as an important goal of space exploration: Perhaps the single most compelling reason for space exploration is simple human curiosity. Living beings are curious by nature. When you think about it, curiosity is a truly fundamental emotion; it spurs people to investigate and explore, learn and accomplish, observe and act. Without curiosity, you wouldnt just be boring -- you wouldnt feel a need to create or do much of anything! (Space Exploration for Dummies, 2009, p. 323). Space exploration, according to some analysts, promotes a new environmental ethic a determination to protect all life on Earth. Meghan Baker, an analyst with the National Space Society, describes this purpose in the Summer 2010 issue of Ad Astra: When most people return from space they come back with a changed perspective and reverence for our planet. They have a new appreciation for the Earth and feel an overwhelming desire to protect its fragile beauty. Gone are race, religion, and political boundaries. I think this perspective offers that chance for people to really see what is at stake (p. 14). Perhaps the most common justification for space exploration involves technological spinoffs. Dan Majors, a staff writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, summarizes the many technological benefits from space exploration: You dont have to look to the stars to see how Americas space program has touched your daily life. Look at your cell phone, your tennis shoes, your tool belt, your computer or television. Daniel Lockney, editor of Spinoff, a NASA publication since 1976, makes it his job to inform readers of the benefits of space technology, from medicine to industry to entertainment. When NASA was founded in 1958, Mr. Lockney said, Congress said, You can have this money for space exploration, but the money that goes up in space has to come back down in some practical and tangible forms. And wed like to know what they are. One of the goals of space exploration is to discover these new inventions and new technologies (July 20, 2009, p. C1). Space exploration may also promote international peace and cooperation. Joseph Pelton, director emeritus of the Space and Advances Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, describes this outcome of space exploration in the 2010 book, The Farthest st Shore: A 21 Century Guide to Space: Some of humankinds most elaborate and high profile cooperative programs have been carried in the high frontier of space. Not only has there been the International Space Station, or the Apollo-Soyuz and Shuttle-Mir joint missions, but also scores of joint or multi-lateral cooperative satellite programs have been stimulated around the world. The most successful commercial space program was the Intelsat Global Satellite System that involved over 100 countries. It is significant to note that, with the end of the so-called Cold War, many missile systems have been adapted to cooperative purposes to perform civil and commercial satellite launches (p. 389). DO HUMAN MISSIONS PROMOTE THE ESSENTIAL GOALS OF SPACE EXPLORATION? Debaters will inevitably discover that human missions promote some of the goals of space exploration, while undermining others. The key to success for affirmative debaters will be to show why human missions are vital to the most important goals of space exploration. Negative debaters will claim that the most important goals of space exploration are best served by robotic missions. The paragraphs in this section are designed to provide a brief sketch of some potential arguments and to suggest sources of support. Do Human Missions Promote Economic Growth? President Obamas decision to de-emphasize human missions was described in the October 15, 2010 issue of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: When President Barack Obama canceled the moonoriented Constellation program this year, there was grumbling in the space exploration community. A return to the moon in 2020 followed by a manned [sic] mission to Mars by the end of the next decade had been the centerpiece of President George W. Bushs vision for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. But Mr. Obama tore up his predecessors plan in favor of a program built around unmanned probes, a mission to an asteroid followed by a manned [sic] orbit of Mars, the rise

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 5 of a commercial spacecraft fleet and reliance on other nations for lifts to the International Space Station. For veterans of the astronaut corps, this redirection didnt have enough of the right stuff (p. B6). Pete Olson, a U.S. Representative from Texas, argues that supporting human spaceflight is vital to maintaining the strength of the U.S. economy: It is shortsighted to view abandoning human space flight as the means to portray fiscal discipline. In a budget that increases federal spending, particularly in the areas of science and education, why cut a program that has served as a primary resource for both? Then why would the administration turn its back on thousands of high-paying, highly skilled jobs nationwide at this time if jobs are supposed to be the number one priority of this administration? Japan, India and China have set their sights on the moon. Why are we pulling back Americas dominance in human space flight? It is deplorable that the president would willingly accept second-tier status for the U.S. on an issue of this magnitude. President Obama said he would take a scalpel to the budget instead of a sledgehammer, but even a scalpel can nick an artery. This decision is the elimination of a job creator, economic innovator and symbol of American exceptionalism (The Hill, Feb. 4, 2010, http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/79811-abandoning-humanspace-flight-is-shortsighted). But defenders of President Obamas decision argue that robotic missions are cheaper and better than human ones. Traci Watson, a staff writer for USA Today, offers the following explanation: Even some strong supporters of space exploration say the best place to send Americas astronauts would be nowhere at all. Opponents of human spaceflight say robots can do the job just as well as astronauts, pose no safety worries and work cheaply. Sending humans into space isnt worth it, they say. The cost and risks are just too high, says physicist Robert Park of the University of Maryland, who wants NASAs manned [meaning human] program to be phased out (p. 1A). Greg Easterbrook, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has been a long-time critic of NASAs human spaceflight programs: In recent decades, NASAs record has been spotty. The agencys space science program probes of the outer planets, telescopes that scan the far heavens is successful and cost-effective. But for decades manned [meaning human] space flight, which receives the bulk of NASA funds, has accomplished: um, what? More money than was spent for the Apollo moon missions has been invested in the International Space Station, whose primary function is to give the space shuttle a destination. The shuttle, in turn, exists mainly to fly to the space station. The space station has no notable scientific achievements: it is such a white elephant that already NASA is studying the best way to deorbit the whole 380-ton structure, meaning allow it to burn in the upper atmosphere. This may happen as soon as 2016 (Get Over the Moon, Apr. 15, 2010, http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/tag/nasa/). Do Human Missions Promote Basic Scientific Knowledge? Astronauts promote the success of space exploration missions in many ways. Morris Jones, author of the 2009 book, The New Moon Race, explains the many advantages of humans over robotic probes: There are also advantages of dexterity and judgment that no machine can hope to match. Human intervention has saved many space missions through repairs or the use of novel techniques, which can sometimes be as straightforward as unwinding a tangled cable. Robot space missions have routinely been compromised or lost when antennas or instrument covers failed to open. Fixing such problems are routine for a human astronaut (p. 162). The Hubble Space Telescope has produced amazing pictures from deep space, but this instrument would have been worthless had it not been for the repair missions performed by space shuttle astronauts. When Hubble was first launched, a flaw in its focusing capability produced only fuzzy images. Shuttle astronauts were able to successfully repair the telescope. The Web site of the Space Telescope Science Institute describes the importance of human missions in maintaining this instrument: The Hubble Space Telescope is both a national asset and a complex machine, so NASA astronauts have visited it regularly to keep it running smoothly and extend its life. On-orbit servicing ensures that this unique scientific resource continues to make exciting discoveries as we

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 6 explore the universe. Shuttle astronauts have visited the Hubble Space Telescope every several years. During these service calls they replaced gyroscopes, electronic boxes, and other limited-life items and installed state-of-the-art science instruments creating, essentially, a more capable observatory (2011, http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/team_hubble/servicing_missions.php). NASA has accomplished an impressive technological feat by successfully landing two rovers on the surface of Mars. Yet NASA historian, Roger Launius, says that human astronauts could have done in a single day what the rovers required three years to accomplish: After three years of surface operations, Spirit had traversed 7.1 km (4.4 miles), while Opportunity had logged 10.3 km (6.4 miles). In comparative terms, however, the two rovers took years to cover the territory typically traversed by Apollo astronauts in a single day, encouraging spaceflight advocates to press their case for even more expeditions to follow -- ones with humans as well as machines (Robots in Space, 2008, p. 20). Some experts argue that there is no substitute for human intelligence in space exploration. Joseph Pelton, director emeritus of the Space and Advances Communications Research Institute at George Washington University, describes the importance of human reasoning: People, in contrast to todays robots, are capable of integrating and analyzing diverse sensory inputs and of making connections that machines overlook. Humans respond well to new situations and adapt their strategies accordingly. They do better than automated systems in any number of situations, either by deriving a creative solution from a good first hand look at a problem or by delivering a more brainless kick in the right place to free a stuck antenna! For the next decade humans will remain st better at connecting the dots than our increasingly capable machines (The Farthest Shore: A 21 Century Guide to Space, 2010, p. 343). Other commentators doubt the importance of human missions in uncovering the mysteries of the universe. Duke University historian, Alex Roland, argues that human presence on a spacecraft undermines the potential for scientific discovery: Whenever people are put on a spacecraft, its mission changes. Instead of exploration or science or communication or weather, the mission of the spacecraft becomes life support and returning the crew alive. This limits where the spacecraft can go, how much equipment it can carry, how long it can stay, and what risks it can take in pursuit of its mission. The net impact of people on a spacecraft is to greatly limit its range and capabilities without adding any value that can begin to compensate for these drawbacks. A rough rule of thumb, first introduced by NASA Associate Administrator George Low in the Apollo program, is that putting people on a spacecraft multiplies tenfold the cost of the undertaking (quoted in Robots in Space, 2008, p. 81). Human presence aboard a spacecraft may undermine the potential for scientific discovery by increasing the risk of biological contamination. Michael Meltzen, an environmental scientist formerly at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, describes this risk in the 2010 book, NASAs First 50 Years: A logical extension of the preservation ethic is to reduce the risk of contaminating an extraterrestrial body by visiting it solely with robot spacecraft. Sending human explorers to Jupiters moon Europa would be, for some observers, more exciting. But in the view of much of the space science community, robot missions are the way to accomplish the maximum amount of scientific inquiry, since valuable fuel and shipboard power do not have to be expended transporting and operating the equipment to keep a human crew alive and healthy. And very important to preserving extraterrestrial ecosystems is that robot craft can be thoroughly sterilized, while humans cannot. Such a difference could be critical in protecting a sensitive planetary ecosystem (p. 473). Pat Duggins, author of Trailblazing Mars: NASAs Next Giant Step, discusses a similar problem with human presence in space: Human beings can get in the way of science. The presence of astronauts, scientists complain, can create heat or vibration that could interfere with the readings of sensitive astronomical equipment (2010, p. 203). Dr. James Van Allen, the University of Iowa physicist for whom the Van Allen Radiation Belt is named, has consistently questioned the scientific value of sending humans into space: My position is that it is high time for a calm debate on more fundamental questions. Does human space flight continue to serve a compelling cultural purpose and/or our national interest? Or does human space

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 7 flight simply have a life of its own, without a realistic objective that is remotely commensurate with its costs? Or, indeed, is human space flight now obsolete? . . . Risk is high, cost is enormous, science is insignificant. Does anyone have a good rationale for sending humans into space? (quoted in Robots in Space, 2008, p. 33). Do Human Missions Promote Interest in Science Education? Many nations, including the United States, are interested in promoting interest in science education. Richard Levin, president of Yale University, headed a team of academics who documented the importance of science education to economic well-being: Substantial evidence continues to indicate that over the long term the great majority of newly created jobs are the indirect or direct result of advancements in science and technology, thus making these and related disciplines assume what might be described as disproportionate importance. A variety of economic studies over the years reveals that half or more of the growth in the nations Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in recent decades has been attributable to progress in technological innovation (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited, 2010, p. 18). Numerous commentators argue that human missions promote more interest in science than do robotic missions. Pat Norris, formerly a scientist at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center, explains the importance of human missions in the promotion of science education: The electric impact of astronauts and cosmonauts is still strong. They attract crowds -- politicians, journalists, and the general public. They are particularly popular with young people, projecting an image of lofty technical superiority and bravery. Ticker-tape parades down Fifth Avenue in New York were the norm for the early astronauts, and although that level of public adoration is no longer prevalent, their aura is still strong. The first Chinese taikonaut and the first Swedish astronaut have demonstrated in the past four years the degree of national frenzy these apparent super-heroes continue to cause (Spies in the Sky: Surveillance Satellites in War and Peace, 2008, p. 34). As journalist Kim Evans explains, human missions inspire young people to get involved in space science: It is extremely expensive to send explorers into space, particularly human ones. Robotic spacecraft can accomplish more for less money, but they lack the glamour of human explorers. Machines do not give television interviews from space or get ticker tape parades when they return. Astronauts do. Human explorers inspire young people to be astronauts and encourage voters and politicians to keep funding space travel. NASA knows that machines simply do not reap the same public relations benefits as human astronauts (Space Exploration: Triumphs and Tragedies, 2009, p. 158). Human missions strike public interest because of the risks inherent in human space travel. John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, says that only human presence can generate this type of interest: Human presence, and its attendant risk, turns a spaceflight into a story that is compelling to large numbers of people. Exploration also has a moral dimension because it is in effect a cultural conversation on the nature and meaning of human life. Exploration by this definition can only be accomplished by direct human presence and may be deemed worthy of the risk (NASAs First 50 Years, 2010, p. 284). But not all experts are convinced that human missions will promote interest in science education. Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley, says that his students were motivated by factors other than astronauts or space shuttle flights: When the students I know at Berkeley put space posters on their walls, they are not posters of astronauts but images of regions where stars are being born, of exploding stars, of extremely distant and hauntingly beautiful fields of galaxies. These images were all taken with instruments that didnt need humans to get into space, and benefited from the absence of humans in order to take stable pictures (Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines, 2008, p. 226). In fact, professor Muller argues that space shuttle flights no longer capture the headlines unless there is an unfortunate accident: I have spoken to many people in NASA who believe that the future of their agency depends on continuing and extending human space flight. Without astronauts, the argument goes, the public will lose interest in space. I think this argument is wrong. Few Americans even

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 8 knew that the space shuttle Columbia was in orbit in February 2003 -- until the astronauts were killed (Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines, 2008, p. 226). Astrophysicist Graham Phillips argues that television images of a Mars landing will strike public attention regardless of whether an astronaut is aboard the spacecraft: One of the arguments for sending people is we are able to live vicariously through them. For example, when Neil Armstrong took his one small step on the moon, the rest of us, glued to the box at home, supposedly felt like we did too. I dont know about you, but it wasnt the two guys in the white suits who made me feel like Id set foot on the lunar surface: it was the live television images that were being beamed back. If NASA can get TV coverage from Mars, most people wont care if the next giant leap for mankind is made by a man, a woman -- or an automaton with antennas (Sunday Age, July 27, 2008, p. 21). Are human missions justified by the need for a new frontier? The opening line of each episode in the television series, Star Trek, was Space . . . The Final Frontier. Some advocates of space exploration argue that humans must always have a new frontier. This justification is explained by Cynthia Phillips, an analyst at the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe: Some scholars argue that humanity, as a species, needs a frontier -that without a physical place to look ahead to, to explore, and to eventually expand into, humanity will stagnate and turn inward instead of continuing to evolve and strive onward and upward. Although today some may suggest that cyberspace takes the place of that physical frontier, the idea of one day living exclusively in cyberspace is questionable. Space, on the other hand, is a physical location that can be visited -- a location that may one day be mankinds new home. Even if your generation never takes up residence in the heavens, the simple idea that theyre there for the visiting opens up worlds of possibility (Space Exploration for Dummies, 2009, p. 324). Ralph Nansen, former program manager of Boeings Solar Power Satellite Program, even suggests that opening new frontiers for exploration is essential to preventing war: As we look back in history, we find that humanity is always searching for a new frontier to explore and develop. If we do not find one, we become restless and try to take one from our neighbor, which often results in war (Energy Crisis: Solution From Space, 2009, p. 143). The notion of the frontier as a motivation for space exploration draws upon the work of historian Frederick Jackson Turner. Peter Hays, author of the 2009 book, Space and Defense Policy, explains the frontier thesis: The image of a frontier to be tamed evokes powerful images, particularly for Americans, and it is therefore not surprising that it has become one of the most popular ways to describe space. Frederick Jackson Turner first advanced his frontier thesis in 1893 as a way to describe and explain what he perceived to be distinctive characteristics of American history and American political thought. For Turner, numerous American cultural traits could all be attributed to the influence of the frontier that coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and acquisitiveness; that practical inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things . . . that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism. In short, he argued that the frontier represented the line of most rapid Americanization (p. 153). Yet Frederick Jackson Turners frontier thesis has been frequently criticized as an unworthy impulse that resulted in an American urge for domination. Environmental scientist, Michael Meltzen, argues that the frontier thesis should never be used as a justification for space exploration: One rather arrogant view that emerged during discussions of planetary exploitation was that the destiny of humanity is to occupy space, a destiny written in our genes. This is a position reminiscent of the political philosophy of manifest destiny, held by many U.S. statesmen and business leaders in the 19th century, that our country deserved to conquer the heart of North America from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and use its resources. The United States would do this no matter the price paid by indigenous people or the environment. As Democratic leader and editor John L. OSullivan insisted in 1845, our manifest destiny [is] to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty . . . . In the not too distant future, we will have to decide if we have this same right as we explore other

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 9 bodies of our solar system. What impact will we have on other worlds if we operate according to a manifest destiny ethic? (NASAs First 50 Years, 2010, pp. 475-476). John Hickman, professor of political science at Berry College, has also expressed concern that the notion of space as a human frontier actually recycles the imperialism of Frederick Jackson Turners frontier thesis: When space enthusiasts explain the value of their proposed large space projects -- whether it is constructing solar power systems to provide all of Earths electricity, constructing orbital colonies, terra-forming Mars, diverting asteroids and comets from their existing orbits to be mined, or launching interstellar generation ships -- they promise that their schemes will accomplish some combination of generating vast new wealth, supplying abundant energy and mineral raw materials without environmental damage, forcing advances in science and engineering, and opening a safety value of social opportunity for the ambitious, the poor, the eccentric and the dissenting. The latter is easily recognizable as a retelling of part of the Frederick Jackson Turners frontier thesis, the popular post-hoc historical rationalization for the creation of the United States and its geographic expansion across North America (Reopening the Space Frontier, 2010, pp. 161162). Do Human Missions Promote Technological Spinoffs? The task of preparing humans to live in space has produced numerous medical breakthroughs. Shawna Pandya, an officer in the Crew Medical Support Office of the European Space Agency, discusses some of these medical benefits in the 2009 book, Space Technologies for the Benefit of Human Society and Earth: Medical imaging techniques are constantly being refined, and this effort has been aided by various space technologies over the years. Digital image processing techniques developed at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory to allow for computer enhancement of lunar pictures from the Apollo missions have since led to improved MRI and CT imaging. Techniques in astronomy have also refined imaging. The very same infrared sensors used to remotely observe the temperature of stars and planets are now being used to help surgeons map brain tumors. ChargeCoupled Device chip technologies stemming from the Hubble Telescope have greatly furthered breast cancer detection techniques, allowing breast tissue to be imaged more clearly and efficiently, thus increasing resolution so as to be able to distinguish between malignant and benign tumors without resorting to surgical biopsy. Moreover, the procedure is ten times cheaper than a surgical biopsy, and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure and time associated with surgical biopsies. Breast cancer diagnosis has also been helped along by NASA-derived solar cell sensors that lie under X-ray film and emit a signal after the film has been adequately exposed, thereby reducing radiation exposure and doubling the number of assessments that can be done per X-ray machine. Elsewhere, NASA ultrasound technology has also been spun-off to create an Ultrasound Tissue Damage Assessor that can assess burn depth, in turn increasing the propriety of prescribed treatments and saving lives (pp. 128-129). But other experts argue that technological spinoffs are not unique to space exploration projects. Raja Menon, chair of the Task Force on National Assessment of Indias National Security Council, offered the following reaction to NASAs list of technological spinoffs from space: This list is impressive; and if it is indeed true that these developments would not have come about but for the space programme, then the case is open and shut. But there is very little proof that these developments would not have taken place anyway, without the space programme, as part of normal scientific research (Space Security and Global Cooperation, 2009, p. 77). Amitai Etzioni, University Professor at George Washington University, argues that exploring the depths of the ocean would produce more useful scientific breakthroughs as compared to space exploration: NASA claims that space exploration has led to all kinds of new technology -- for instance, it maintains that the coatings that allow space capsules to withstand the heat of reentry are used to make better pots and pans. But deep-sea expeditions are likely to yield even greater benefits. In order to freely explore the oceans deepest reaches, we must learn to construct submersibles that can handle extreme pressure, as much as 18,000 pounds per square inch. The resulting materials and techniques might help us design and construct homes that could withstand cyclones, hurricanes and earthquakes (Bring NASA Back to Earth, Mar. 20, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/bring-nasaback-to-earth_b_177328.html).

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 10

Do Human Missions Promote National Prestige? Congressional supporters of human space exploration believe that the United States will lose its position of world leadership unless there is a renewed emphasis on human missions. Ed Perlmutter, a U.S. Representative from Colorado, offers one such view: The administrations decision to kill NASAs Constellation and ORION programs isnt just the death knell for U.S. human space exploration, it is also a decision to place Americas space program in the category of second or even third in the world. Americas dominance in space has always been so much more than a race to be first. It has signaled our nations commitment to forge paths once unimaginable. Scientific and technological discoveries are born from both necessity and risk-taking. As has been said many times, it is not the destination but the journey. The journey of space exploration has taken the United States to global leadership on many fronts. Our dominance in human space coincided with our status as a superpower. That is no accident. Our commitment to be the best in national security and space exploration go hand in hand. That is why there has long been bipartisan support for NASA and human space flight (Denver Post, Apr. 5, 2010, p. A19). Former NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, argues that U.S. global leadership depends upon continued support of human spaceflight: The priorities for NASA are clear. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, our national leadership realized that human spaceflight is today one of those strategic capabilities that define a nation as a superpower. And I must ask each of you this: Is it possible to envision a future in which America is considered to be a leader in the world, if others can and do conduct exploration and research on the moon, Mars and beyond, and we cannot? (Leadership in Space, 2008, p. 137). Yet other experts argue that worrying about national prestige should not cloud our judgment about the design of future space science projects. Simon Rapo, professor of engineering at the University of Southern California, says that the United States should stop worrying about whether it can stay ahead of China and Russia: Some worry that if we allow further conquering of outer space to be by China or Russia, they will become the most respected nations in exploration initiative and heroism. But should Russia put a cosmonaut on the Moon, they merely will have caught up with where America was 40 years ago. And if China tries to send humans to Mars, it is reasonable to guess that they will be bogged down for many years, while our unmanned [sic] missions will continue to produce valuable research results (The West Australian, May 3, 2010, p. 21). Do Human Missions Ensure the Future of the Human Race? Some advocates of human missions argue that preparing to live in space is essential for longterm human survival. William Reville, professor of biochemistry at University College in Cork, Ireland, makes such an argument: The truth is that we must urgently press on with space exploration. Migration into space is the only hope that humankind has of ultimate survival, because in about five billion years time our sun will die, burning earth to a charred barren rock. Also, at any stage, a large asteroid might smash into earth, rendering it incapable of supporting human life. Or we may so pollute it that it becomes uninhabitable. And, finally, it is essential to our psychological health that we explore this final frontier (Irish Times, Feb. 11, 2010, p. 17). Cynthia Phillips, an analyst at the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, supports this argument as well: Concern is growing that a worldwide disaster may change space exploration from a nice-tohave intellectual exercise into a full-blown requirement for preserving human life. Stephen Hawking, the well-known astrophysicist, gave a speech in 2006 in which he mentioned that the possibility of nuclear war, an extreme collision of an asteroid with Earth, or a similar event could force space exploration into the drivers seat of a new frontier (Space Exploration for Dummies, 2009, p. 326). Other analysts argue that space colonization is a destructive fantasy. Rather than focusing on protecting Earths biosphere, it encourages an unhealthy fatalistic attitude. Political science professor, John Hickman, discusses this argument in his 2010 book, Reopening the Space Frontier: Efforts to reopen the space frontier will inevitably encounter the objection that it would encourage a devil take the hindmost arrogance by elites because they might be tempted to flee the effects of

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 11 their social and environmental irresponsibility on Earth into space. This is the version of the moral hazard argument that is often deployed to insist upon egalitarian burden sharing. For example, advocates of public education may oppose public spending to support private schools lest it encourage middle class families to withdraw their school age children from public schools and thereby discourage them from supporting funding for public schools, which serve the majority of school age children from less affluent families. They fear that unless everyone sails in the same leaking ship, there will be too few hands to do the bailing. If necessary, they are willing to knock holes in the bottom of the lifeboats to compel socially responsible behavior from elites (p. 31). Princeton University physicist, Gerard ONeill, popularized the notion of space colonization in his 1977 book, The High Frontier. Professor Hickman argues that what made ONeills vision of space colonization especially appealing for many young space enthusiasts in the 1970s was not the new frontier of recreation but the promise of a environmental guilt free end to economic scarcity made possible by the practically limitless resources of space in the form of solar energy and lunar minerals, the vision of communities planned to meet the specific social identities of their inhabitants, and the adventure of settling a new frontier (Reopening the Space Frontier, 2009, p. 132). Do Human Missions Promote an Environmental Ethic? Marina Benjamin, author of Rocket Dreams: How the Space Age Shaped Our Vision of a World Beyond, argues that human space exploration promotes environmental consciousness: The impact of seeing the Earth from space focused our energies on the home planet in unprecedented ways, dramatically affecting our relationship to the natural world and our appreciation of the greater community of mankind, and prompting a revolution in our understanding of the Earth as a living system (quoted in NASAs First 50 Years, 2010, p. 649). Benjamin says it is no coincidence that the first Earth Day April 20, 1970 occurred in the middle of NASAs Apollo program. Do Human Missions Promote International Peace? The International Space Station (ISS) is a collaborative effort involving the contributions of sixteen nations. The major players, however, have been the United States and Russia. Numerous commentators have noted the importance of the ISS project in promoting better understanding between the two former rivals. Philip Harris, a fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, offered the following viewpoint in the 2009 book, Space Enterprise: Living and st Working Offworld in the 21 Century: Instead of the Cold War rivalry epitomized by the early competitive race into space, Russian/American space synergy is evident in both the private and the public sectors. Now, cosmonauts and astronauts train in each countrys space facilities, and American entrepreneurs book tourist flights on Russian spacecraft to ISS (p. 94). A similar view was expressed by Scott Pace, professor of international affairs at George Washington University, in the 2009 Congressional hearing, The Case for Space: Human spaceflight is the most demanding space activity, technically, financially, and organizationally. From the beginning it has also been the most symbolic activity, both at home and abroad. In the past, it responded to the question of who we were as Americans in the cold war. Today, it is a powerful symbol of cooperation among former adversaries on the International Space Station. The deep international relationships built through the ISS are among its most impressive and perhaps most enduring achievements to date (Oct. 21, 2009, p. 15). Yet some experts question the value of the International Space Station project. Educational consultant, Ron Nash, offers the following criticism in his 2009 book, Rational Thinking: At its inception the ISS was envisaged as a great scientific cooperative venture especially with regard to friendship and co-operation between the new Russia and the West. Unfortunately, at the present time, president Putin seems bent on turning the clock back, producing renewed tension and there are even hints of a new Cold War. The ISS is in danger now of becoming an embarrassment and a very expensive one at that. If you think about it -- have you ever heard of any useful experiment or valuable research being carried out on the ISS? It seems to me that it is not much more than a very expensive Space Hotel where a few Astronauts can enjoy the view. The Russians have certainly used it as such, on a few occasions, ferrying up a few, fare paying, millionaire passengers (p. 306).

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 12

Erik Seedhouse, an aerospace scientist at the Institute for Space Medicine in Cologne, Germany, also questions the value of U.S.-Russian cooperation on the International Space Station in his 2010 book, The New Space Race: While many observers have extolled the benefits of U.S.Russian cooperation during the ISS program, in reality, the venture was a disaster. First, because Russian hardware was years late in delivery, NASAs costs spiraled out of control. Second, the situation was exacerbated by the billions of dollars wasted in redesigning integration hardware. Third, in exchange for just 5% of the financial contribution, Russia was granted 40% of the stations facilities, in addition to making billions of dollars in foreign sales of space hardware! Not surprisingly, from a financial perspective, the U.S.-Russian cooperation experience is one that the Americans will not want to repeat by collaborating with the Chinese (p. 212). Does Human Curiosity Justify Human Missions? Some analysts believe that the need to explore is innate in the human spirit. Peter Marshall, former president of the Society of Satellite Professionals, International, expresses such a view in the 2009 book, License to Orbit: The Future of Commercial Space Travel: We believe that it is part of the genetic code of Homo Sapiens to say that we cannot know enough. We are destined to explore to go where no one has gone before. We can never abandon our own sense of imagination that has defined the human experience for millions of years. The human species will never survive if it suddenly says we are now content to stay home and abandon future voyages of discovery (p. 165). Similarly, David Cummings, executive director for the Universities Space Research Association, wrote: Human exploration of space, for example, is an extension of the great exploration mythologies of the past, giving cultural guidance about the importance of courage and the spirit of adventure in our lives. The famous view of Earth from lunar orbit gave us another lesson about the importance of living harmoniously with the Earths environment, as did the exploration of Mars and st Venus (quoted in Space Enterprise: Living and Working Offworld in the 21 Century, 2009, p. 98). But other analysts question the claim that humans have an innate need to explore. Gregory Lamb, a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, explores this question: These kinds of scientific and long-range concerns havent really spurred the history of exploration here on Earth, points out Michael Robinson, a historian of science at the University of Hartford in Connecticut. Most explorers from Columbus to Lewis and Clark set forth with mercenary and pragmatic goals, such as finding a new trading route to Asia. The idea that humans have an innate urge to boldly go where no one has gone before is more myth than fact, Dr. Robinson says. Throughout most of history, humans have been moving toward a more settled lifestyle, moving from a nomadic life into towns and cities. In general, people dont want to die out in a wilderness, he says (Nov. 17, 2010). Are Human Missions Safe? Human space exploration is risky; many astronauts have died. John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, asks whether the benefits of human exploration justify the risk to human life: In addition to costs, the risks associated with human spaceflight are among the highest of any human undertaking. There have been 1,092 individual trips to space, and 18 people have died during spaceflight. This is a 1.6 percent fatality rate; of every 100 people who have flown into space, nearly 2 did not return alive. There are important ethical questions with respect to government sponsorship of such a risky (peacetime) activity, even given the fact that the astronauts themselves voluntarily accept the risk (NASAs First 50 Years, 2010, p. 278). But Steven Dick, director of NASAs history division, argues that all worthwhile endeavors involve risk: Risk and exploration have always gone hand-in-hand, and they will forever go hand in hand. Safety is a priority, but it is the number-two priority. The number-one priority is to go, to get off the launchpad. Otherwise no explorer would ever have left the ports of Palos, Lisbon, and Sanlcar de Barrameda. And no rocket would ever have left its launchpad. NASA understands this; the astronauts understand it; but the public does not. Thousands are killed each year on highways, but

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 13 no one calls for an end to automobiles. A forward-looking nation must take risks (NASAs First 50 Years, 2010, p. 662). President John F. Kennedy recognized the risks of going to space when he first announced the goal of sending astronauts to the Moon. In a speech at Rice University in September of 1962, he said the following: We choose to go to the moon, and to do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Ill say it again: not because they are easy, but because they are hard (quoted in Leadership in Space, 2008, p. 15). CONCLUDING WORDS ON STRATEGY IN APPROACHING THE 2011-2012 IPPF RESOLUTION As the foregoing paragraphs illustrate, there are many goals of space exploration. Human missions serve some of these goals better than others. Success in debating the 2011-2012 IPPF resolution will require a careful examination of the most important goals of space exploration and the role of human missions in accomplishing those goals.

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 14

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION Alleyne, Richard. (2008, Nov. 4). Manned mission to Mars boost after British breakthrough. The Telegraph. Retrieved http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/sciencenews/3394959/Mannedmission-to-Mars-boost-after-British-breakthrough.html. Atkinson, Nancy. (2008, Feb. 14). Ten reasons to love the International Space Station. Retrieved Feb. 27, 2011 from http://www.universetoday.com/12815/i-heart-the-issten-reasons-to-love-theinternational-space-station/. Atkinson, Nancy. (2008, July 16). Colonizing Venus with floating cities. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2011 from http://www.universetoday.com/15570/colonizing-venus-withfloating-cities/. Blakey, Marion. (2009, Jan.). The role of space in addressing Americas national priorities: A special report. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/report_space_0109.pdf. Choi, Charles. (2011, Feb. 10). Red planet for sale? How corporate sponsors could send humans to Mars. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/news. Chow, Denise. (2011, Jan. 13). The case against the Moon: Why we shouldnt go straight back. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/news. Clark, Stephen. (2010, Dec. 21). Congress freezes NASAs budget until March. Spaceflight Now. Retrieved Jan. 26, 2011 from http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/21nasacr/. De Selding, Peter. (2010, Mar. 11). International Space Station could fly through 2028, NASA partners say. Retrieved Feb. 27, 2011 from http://www.space.com/8034-international-spacestation-fly-2028-nasa-partners.html. Easterbrook, Greg. (2010, Apr. 15). Get over the Moon: We need NASA to save the Earth. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2011 from http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/tag/nasa/. Eckert, Paul & Hatton, Scott. (2009, Oct.). The sustainable utilization of the ISS beyond 2015. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://www.iafastro.org/docs/2009/ISS2015.pdf. Edwards, Tim. (2010, Feb. 7). Has Obama just handed the moon to China? Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59356,news-comment,news-politics,has-obama-just-handedthe-moon-to-china-conquer-military. Ehrenfreund, Pascale et al. (Eds.) (2010, June). Toward a global space exploration program: A stepping stone approach. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://cosparhq.cnes.fr/PEX_Report2010_June22a.pdf. Etzioni, Amitai. (2009, Mar. 20). Bring NASA back to Earth. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2011 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/bring-nasa-back-to-earth_b_177328.html. Foust, Jeff. (2008, Feb. 18). Review: Robots in space. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1060/1. Foust, Jeff. (2010, Sept. 13). Debating the future of human spaceflight. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1695/1. Framework for Coordination. (2007, May). Global exploration strategy. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2011 from http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/GES_Framework_final.pdf. Friedman, Lou. (2010, Nov. 22). Human spaceflight worth the cost. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1730/1. Globus, Al. (2010, July 12). Space settlement basics. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html. Handberg, Roger. (2010, Jan. 11). The future of human space exploration and the critical path. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from www.thespacereview.com/article/1543/1.

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 15 Handberg, Roger. (2010, Mar. 10). Reality bites: The future of the American spaceflight endeavor. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from www.thespacereview.com/article/1576/1/. Harwood, William. (2009, Feb. 26). Obamas NASA budget supports shuttle retirement, return to Moon. Spaceflight Now. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0902/26budget/. Harwood, William. (2011, Feb. 14). NASA 2012 budget reflects tough choices, uncertain outlook. CNET News. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20031912239.html. Headron, Eric. (2008, May 12). Why the Moon? Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1125/1. Huntress, Wes. (2009, June 29). Lessons for the future of human spaceflight. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from www.thespacereview.com/article/1406/1. Kanas, Nick. (2009, Jan.). Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/psychology.pdf. Kazan, Casey. (2009, Apr. 16). Planets experts on space colonization: Our future or fantasy? Wired Galaxy. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/04/spacecolonizat.html. Kelm, Brandon. (2008, June 9). The lost space colonies of NASA. Wired Science. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/the-lostspace/. Klotz, Irene. (2010, Feb. 1). Obama budget would cut NASA Moon plan. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/01/us-obama-budgetspaceidUSTRE6101XF20100201. Kluger, Jeffrey. (2010, Feb. 2). No liftoff: Obama plan grounds NASA. Time Magazine. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1958230,00.html. Kueter, Jeff. (2010, July). Evaluating the Obama national space policy: Continuity and new priorities. Retrieved Feb. 18, 2011 from http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/900.pdf. Martin, Kit. (2010, Nov. 15). An experiment in sustainability and spaceflight. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from www.thespacereview.com/article/1725/1. Mbitirup, Chege. (2011, Feb. 20). Sex in space is tough and procreation is unlikely. Sunday Nation. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/Sex+in+space+is+tough+and+procreation+is+unlikely+//1068/1111510/-/djne0jz/-/. McKinney, Luke. (2010, Feb. 4). Will orbiting space colonies trump planets? Retrieved Feb. 21, 2011 from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/will-orbitingspace-colonies-trumpplanets.html. ONeill, Ian. (2008, Dec. 12). What about the space exploration crisis? NASA budget could be cut to save money. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.universetoday.com/22271/what-aboutthe-space-exploration-crisis-nasa-budget-could-becut-to-save-money/. Obama, Barack. (2010, Apr. 15). Space exploration in the 21st century. Retrieved Nov. 22, 2010 from www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html. Office of the President of the United States. (2010, June 28). National space policy of the United States of America. Retrieved Feb. 19, 2011 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf. Pace, Scott & Riebaldi, Guiseppe. (2010). Future human spaceflight: The need for international cooperation. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Summit/IAA_StudyHuman_Spaceflight.pdf.

Introduction to the 2011-2012 IPPF Resolution, p. 16 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee. (2009). Seeking a human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation. Retrieved July 7, 2011 from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf. Sacks, Ethan. (2010, Feb. 1). Lost in space: President Obamas proposed budget scraps NASAs planned missions to the Moon. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/02/01/2010-0201_lost_in_space_president_obamas_proposed_budget_scraps_nasas_planned_manned_miss i.html. Shiga, David. (2008, Apr. 21). Stephen Hawking calls for Moon and Mars colonies. New Scientist. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2011 from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13748-stephen-hawkingcalls-for-moon-and-mars-colonies.html. Taylor, Jerome. (2011, Feb. 14). Why infertility will stop humans colonizing space. The Independent. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2011 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-infertility-willstop-humans-colonising-space-2213861.html. Thonsen, Harley et al. (2011, Jan. 10). Human operations beyond LEO by the end of the decade: An affordable near-term stepping stone. Space Review. Retrieved Feb. 24, 2011 from http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1756/1. U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology. (2009, July 16). Enhancing the relevance of space to address national needs. Serial No. 111-44. U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology. (2009, Nov. 19). The growth of global space capabilities: What is happening and why it matters. Serial No. 111-65. U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology. (2009, Sept. 15). Options and issues for NASAs human space flight program: Report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Serial No. 111-51. U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology. (2010, Mar. 24). Proposed changes to NASAs exploration program: Whats known, whats not and what are the issues for Congress? Serial No. 111-91. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. (2009, Oct. 21). The case for space: Examining the value. S. Hrg. 111-508. Vane, Gregg, et al. (Eds.). (2010). Future planetary robotic exploration: The need for International cooperation. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Summit/IAA_StudyPlanetary_Robotic_Exploration.pdf. Villanueva, John Carl. (2010, Mar. 30). Space colonization. Retrieved Feb. 20, 2011 from http://www.universetoday.com/61085/space-colonization/. Whittington, Mark. (2011, Feb. 27). NASAs Robert Braun: No Americans beyond low Earth orbit for a decade. Retrieved Feb. 27, 2011 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110227/us_ac/7955166_nasas_robert_braun_no_americans_bey ond_low_earth_orbit_for_a_decade. Young, Laurence et al. (Eds.). (2009). Artificial gravity research to enable human space exploration. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/Study%20Groups/SG%20Commission%202/sg22/sg 22finalreportr.pdf. Zubrin, Robert. (2010, Feb. 22). NASA needs a destination. Retrieved Feb. 17, 2011 from http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/news.