Download A2 Colonization Advantage

Wyoming Debate 11
Mars Advantage Answers – 3 week
1
Index
A2 Colonization Advantage ......................................................................................................... 2
A2 Colonization Advantage ......................................................................................................... 3
A2 Colonization Advantage ......................................................................................................... 4
A2 Colonization Advantage ......................................................................................................... 5
A2 Colonization Advantage ......................................................................................................... 6
Wyoming Debate 11
Mars Advantage Answers – 3 week
2
A2 Colonization Advantage
To create a livable atmosphere on Mars could take 10,000 years
Haynes 93
[Robert Haynes, Professor at York University co-discoverer of DNA repair and a pillar of the terraforming
community, “How might mars become a home for humans?” 1993.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/haynes.htm ,/WFI-BC]
The creation of a self-sustaining ecosystem, or biosphere, on a lifeless planet is called ecopoiesis, a new word
which means ‘the making of an abode for life’. On Mars, as was the case on Earth, the earliest biosphere would
most likely have to consist of localized microbial ecosystems growing and developing under anaerobic
conditions. Obviously, this would not provide an environment in which animals or humans could survive
outdoors. All oxygen-dependent organisms transported to Mars would have to remain enclosed in life-support
modules or appropriate protective gear. The word ‘terraformation’ is used to describe the formation of
specifically Earth-like, aerobic conditions on planets. Such a salubrious environment is only one of many
possible long-term and not necessarily inevitable, outcomes of ecopoiesis. If we consider the spontaneous
development of Earth’s biosphere as a model for what might be achieved by design on Mars, terraformation
would have to be initiated subsequently to ecopoiesis. If we restrict our speculations to plausible, near-term
technologies, the time periods required to carry out ecopoiesis and terraformation on Mars are very
different. If suitable volatile inventories exist, the thick, warm atmosphere described above might be
generated in as little as 200 years. However approximately 100,000 years would be required if an oxygen
atmosphere was to be produced as efficiently as it was on Earth, that is, by microbial and green plant
photosynthesis. However, it remains possible that presently unimagined, futuristic technologies could be
developed to shorten these time estimates considerably.
Mars is unlivable
Haynes 93
[Robert Haynes, Professor at York University co-discoverer of DNA repair and a pillar of the terraforming
community, “How might mars become a home for humans?” 1993.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/haynes.htm ,/WFI-BC]
The Viking data did reveal that environmental conditions on Mars are more severe than ever had been
imagined. At the two ‘temperate zone’ landing sites, local temperatures exhibited wide daily variation
averaging 60 degrees below zero celsius. The atmospheric pressure was found to be very low, just over
six millibars, which is less than one hundredth of that at Earth’s surface. This thin atmosphere consists
of 95% carbon dioxide and 3% nitrogen, with only trace amounts of water vapour, oxygen and other
gases. There is no protective ozone layer to shield the planet from the ultraviolet radiation emitted by
the sun. Most surprising was the absence from the soil of any detectable organic molecules, the building
blocks of life. Even though such materials arrive on Mars in meteorites, they are subsequently destroyed, at
least on the surface of the planet. Thus, any organisms which might arrive there unprotected today
would be freeze-dried, chemically degraded, and soon reduced to dust. It would not be possible to ‘seed’
Mars just by sprinkling bacteria over its surface.
Wyoming Debate 11
Mars Advantage Answers – 3 week
3
A2 Colonization Advantage
We would have to pay off the debts from colonizing Mars before we could claim any profit
Hickman 99
[John Hickman, associate professor of government at Berry College, “The political economy of very large space
projects.” November 1999, http://www.jetpress.org/volume4/space.pdf ,/WFI-BC]
The price for this proposal is described as “several hundred billion dollars” (Zubrin and Wagner 1997: 265).
A “back of the envelope” calculation involving six assumptions drawn from the proposal outlined above will
illustrate the capitalization problem. Assume the “up front” capital investment needed for the project is
$200 billion and that this sum could be borrowed from private lenders at 5% interest compounded
annually for 700 years. Assume there would be no inflation and no deflation during this 700 years.
Assume the project would produce a breathable atmosphere in 700 years. Finally, assume the project
would generate all of its cash flows from the sale of Martian real estate and lenders would be willing to
wait 700 years for payment. Before any profit would be realized, real estate sales would have to
produce a staggering 1.36 x 10^15 billion dollars to pay off the debt accumulated over 700 years.
Assuming further that seas cover only 10% of the surface of Mars, the dry remaining 90% of Martian
surface area which might be sold would total 1.3 x 10^13 meters 2 (Carr 1996: 6; Fogg 1995: 310). Thus
an average square meter of Martian real estate would have to fetch 1,046 billion dollars to pay off the
creditors. While we may hope for a vast, general increase in wealth over the next 700 years, this would
still appear to make Martian real estate awfully pricey.
The sun won’t explode
Cain 08
[Fraser Cain, the publisher of Universe Today and host of Astronomy Cast podcast, “Will the Sun Explode?”
September 29, 2008. http://www.universetoday.com/18795/will-the-sun-explode/ ,/ WFI-BC]
For many stars in the Universe, their final moments come with a supernova; an explosion so powerful it can
be seen from millions of light-years away. Is this a fate that awaits the Sun? Will the Sun explode?
Nope. The single factor that decides whether or not a star is going to explode at the end of its life
is mass. If a star has enough mass, around 4 times the mass of the Sun, then it can explode. Since our Sun
has a relatively low mass, it’s not going to explode. Let’s take a look why. As you probably know, the Sun
is burning hydrogen in its core, creating helium as a byproduct. This helium is building up in the core of the
Sun, and eventually – in about 5 billion years from now – the Sun is going to run out of hydrogen fuel. At
that point, the Sun’s gravity is enough to continue fusion reactions in its core, but it’ll be turning helium into
carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. The problem is that the Sun doesn’t have enough mass, and so enough gravity,
to keep the fusion reaction going once the helium runs out.
The Sun will puff off its outer layers, leaving a carbon rich white dwarf core. This ball of carbon – essentially
a gigantic diamond – will then cool down over billions of years until it reaches the background temperature
of the Universe. At no time will it actually explode.
But when you’ve got a star with 4 times the mass of the Sun, these fusion reactions can keep going. Carbon,
oxygen and nitrogen are fused into heavier and heavier elements until they reach iron. The problem with iron
is that it’s the first fusion reaction that actually requires more energy to put in than you get out. At this
moment, the energy output of the star stops, and in a faction of a second, the outer layers of the star collapse
inward, generating a massive amount of energy. This is a supernova.
Since the Sun doesn’t have enough mass to keep fusion reactions going all the way up the periodic
table to iron, it can’t reach that explosive point. No, the Sun won’t explode.
Wyoming Debate 11
Mars Advantage Answers – 3 week
4
A2 Colonization Advantage
Too expensive and dangerous
Krauss 09
[Lawrence M. Krauss, director of the origins Initiative at Arizona State University, “A One-Way Ticket to Mars.”
8/31/2009. http://genesis1.asu.edu/01kraussa.html ,/WFI-BC]
The largest stumbling block to a consideration of one-way missions is probably political. NASA and
Congress are unlikely to do something that could be perceived as signing the death warrants of astronauts.
Nevertheless, human space travel is so expensive and so dangerous that we are going to need novel,
even extreme solutions if we really want to expand the range of human civilization beyond our own
planet. To boldly go where no one has gone before does not require coming home again.
Mars is unlivable for humans.
Coffey 08
[Jerry Coffey, contributing author to Universe Today, “Air on Mars” 6/5/2008
http://www.universetoday.com/14872/air-on-mars/ WFI-BC]
The air on Mars would kill a human quickly. The atmosphere is less than 1% of Earth’s, so it would be
hard to breath. What you would have available to your lungs would be undesirable to say the least. The air
on Mars consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and the remainder is trace amounts of
oxygen, water vapor, and other gases.
On Earth, oxygen accounts for an average of 21% of the air that we breath. Humans can survive on
lower concentrations, but not much lower. Oxygen is spread throughout our bodies by our red blood cells
and our bodies thrive. The high concentration of carbon dioxide in the Martian atmosphere would
replace oxygen in our red blood cells and the average human would die in less than 3 minutes if left
unprotected on the surface. Of course, that assumes that air quality is the only factor considered. The
cold and other factors would probably kill someone faster than the poor air quality.
We think of Mars as a dry, dead planet. That is fairly accurate, but at night the planet achieves 100%
humidity. During the day it is very dry, here is why. Humidity is the amount of water vapor in the air. It
varies daily and depends on the temperature: warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air . Humidity is
measured as a percentage of the maximum amount of water that the air can hold at a given temperature. The
greater the difference between the two temperatures, the greater the evaporation. When there is a lot of
evaporation, the air is drier and the humidity is low. On Mars, the air is saturated (100% humidity) at night,
but undersaturated during the day. This is because of the huge temperature difference between day and night.
The air on Mars was much different early in the history of the Solar System. Many scientists believe that the
planet was warm and had a thicker atmosphere. Unfortunately, the planet lacked two important
ingredients: plate tectonics and a magnetic field. Had those developed, Mars could have developed enough
oxygen to support lifeforms similar to those on Earth.
The air on Mars is a major deterrent to human exploration of the planet. Here is a link to a video
showing a Russian experiment to overcome this challenge. For now, poor air quality and nearly two years
in space will keep humans pondering manned flight to the planet, but who knows what the future will
hold.
Wyoming Debate 11
Mars Advantage Answers – 3 week
5
A2 Colonization Advantage
Too many problems to colonize
Cessna 10
[Abby Cessna, writer for Universe Today “Mars Colonization” 3/22/2010
http://www.universetoday.com/59031/mars-colonization/ WFI-BC]
If Mars was going to be turned into a colony, the planet would need to be terraformed. Another concern
regarding building a colony is the cost. Not only would materials have to be transported to the planet,
but the planet would also need to be made habitable. As an alternative to spacecraft, a space elevator
between Earth and Mars has been proposed. There is a good deal of debate regarding what could be
produced from a Mars colony. The colony may be able to produce some of the local resources it needs to
survive, although the infrastructure would likely take a while to build.
NASA lacks the knowledge needed to make programs, like the Mars Mission, possible.
Li 04
[Allen Li, leader of the U.s. General Accounting Office’s work at NASA and has a Bachelor of Science degree in
Aerospace Engineering and is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, “NASA:
Lack of Disciplined Cost-Estimating Process Hinders Effective Program Management” 5/28/2004. Online.
For more than a decade, GAO has identified the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) contract management as a
high-risk area--in part because of NASA's inability to collect, maintain, and report the full cost of its programs and projects. Lacking this
information, NASA has been challenged to manage its programs and control program costs. The scientific and technical expectations
inherent in NASA's mission create even greater challenges--especially if meeting those expectations requires NASA to reallocate
funding from existing programs to support proposed new efforts. Because cost growth has been a persistent problem in a number of
NASA programs, GAO was asked to examine NASA's cost estimating for selected programs, assess NASA's cost-estimating processes
and methodologies, and describe any barriers to improving NASA's cost-estimating processes. To conduct GAO's work, GAO
analyzed a total of 27 NASA programs--10 of which GAO reviewed in detail. Considerable change in
NASA's program cost estimates--both increases and decreases--indicates that NASA lacks a clear
understanding of how much its programs will cost and how long they will take to achieve their
objectives. For example, the development cost estimates for more than half of the 27 programs that GAO
reviewed have increased and for some programs this increase was significant--as much as 94 percent. Cost
estimates changed for each of 10 programs that GAO reviewed in detail. For 8 of the 10 programs, the
estimates increased. Although NASA cited specific reasons for the changes, such as technical problems and
funding shortages, the variability in the cost estimates indicates that the programs lacked the sufficient
knowledge needed to establish priorities, quantify risks, and make informed investment decisions, and
thus predict costs. Most notably, NASA's basic cost-estimating processes--an important tool for managing
programs--lack the discipline needed to ensure that program estimates are reasonable. Specifically,
GAO found that none of the 10 NASA programs that GAO reviewed in detail met all of GAO's costestimating criteria, which are based on criteria developed by Carnegie Mellon University's Software
Engineering Institute. Moreover, none of the 10 programs fully met certain key criteria--including clearly
defining the program's life cycle to establish program commitment and manage program costs, as required by
NASA. In addition, only three programs provided a breakdown of the work to be performed. Without
this knowledge, the programs' estimated costs could be understated and thereby subject to underfunding and
cost overruns, putting programs at risk of being reduced in scope or requiring additional funding to meet their
objectives. Finally, only two programs have a process in place for measuring cost and performance to
identify risks. NASA has limited ability to collect the program cost and schedule data needed to meet basic
cost-estimating criteria. For example, as GAO has previously reported, NASA does not have a system to
capture reliable financial and performance data--key to using effectively the cost-estimating tools that
NASA officials state that programs employ. Further, without adequate financial and nonfinancial data,
programs cannot easily track an acquisition's progress and assess whether the program can meet its
cost and schedule goals before it incurs significant cost and schedule overruns. NASA identified other
barriers, including limited cost-estimating staff. According to NASA officials, several initiatives are under
way to remove such obstacles and improve the agency's cost-estimating practices.
Wyoming Debate 11
Mars Advantage Answers – 3 week
6
A2 Colonization Advantage
We would be controlled by technology in space
Fowles 78
[Jib Fowles, Chairman of the program in Studies of the Future at the University of Houston, “The Improbability of
Space Colonies” Online. 1/27/1978 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040162578900422 WFI-BC]
The regimentation necessary to insure the health and welfare of space colonies would fulfill the worst
fears of humanist critics and antitechnologists such as Lewis Mumford. They would be likely to perceive
the settlements as the ultimate enslavement of men by machine. In fact, Mumford has stated that he
considers them to be a “pathological manifestation” of industrial culture, an “infantile phantasy” of industrial
man [Ref. 4, p. 61. Humanity has never been so domineered by technology as it would be in space.
Living in space would cause extreme mental damage—studies prove
Fowles 78
[Jib Fowles, Chairman of the program in Studies of the Future at the University of Houston, “The Improbability of
Space Colonies” Online. 1/27/1978 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040162578900422 WFI-BC]
The most relevant studies are perhaps those done on the Antarctic weather stations during the 1950s and
196Os, because the numbers are higher than in other studies (~600 men) and the terms are longer (s 1 year).
More troublesome than the relationship of man to the Antarctic environment, the studies indicate, was the
relationship of man to man [ 181. Anxiety, depression, and insomnia gave way to hostility, which was
frequently directed at the rules and regulations [Ref. 23, p. 23 11. A common complaint among the men were
severe headaches, probably due to hostility that was held in [ 181. Some men simply retreated, listening to
phonograph records for hours without moving [Ref. 14, p. 2751. After several months, about one third of the
men began to show distinct lapses of memory, and were unable to concentrate [Ref. 14, p. 2781. Similar sorts
of disturbances can be expected in a space settlement. The menace of the environment and the impositions of
a supremely industrialized regimen are likely to combine to create great stress. The encroachments sensed by
every space colonist could only lead to resentment. As with any group that is under constant pressure, stress
and animosity will manifest itself in a gossipy, norm-ridden, oppressive mode of life. It would resemble the
confining, intolerant society which contemporary life has evolved away from. It is not an enlargement of
personal freedom that space colonies can offer modem humans: it is a diminishment.
Space colonies would turn into nothingness
Fowles 78
[Jib Fowles, Chairman of the program in Studies of the Future at the University of Houston, “The Improbability of
Space Colonies” Online. 1/27/1978 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040162578900422 WFI-BC]
Moreover, the pollution that would result from the extensive manufacturing neces- sary to sustain a
space settlement will present far greater problems there than here. If the earth can tolerate certain
levels of pollution, a colony could absorb far less. Solid waste will present a grave dilemma, but so
would liquid by-products of the manufacturing, most especially excess water. Seen from earth, space
settlements may come to resemble giant dust balls.