SSB 06 (Space Studies Board, AN ASSESSMENT OF BALANCE IN NASA’S SCIENCE PROGRAMS, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11644&page=3)
Recommendation 3. Every effort should be made to preserve the essential ground-based and flight research that will be required to enable long-duration human spaceflight and to continue to foster a viable community that ultimately will be responsible for producing the essential knowledge required to execute the human spaceflight goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. The scale of the short-term resource allocation required to revive this effort is also modest (less than 1 percent of the total NASA budget), yet addressing that problem will provide a continuing source of knowledge and community commitment that is absolutely critical for the success of this endeavor.
Cuts to other NASA programs turn the case- we need NASA’s other programs to execute a successful colonization program.
SSB 06 (Space Studies Board, AN ASSESSMENT OF BALANCE IN NASA’S SCIENCE PROGRAMS, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11644&page=32)
NASA has rationalized these reductions based on the need to use the funds for the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which is to replace the space shuttle. In many ways, then, the reductions in life and microgravity sciences programs are the most egregious example of the unfortunate choices that NASA has had to make because the overall funding for the agency is inadequate for its many responsibilities. NASA is being compelled to accommodate near-term necessities at the expense of the future of human spaceflight. The committee has serious doubts about whether the necessary research community can be reconstituted rapidly enough later so that it can meet NASA’s needs in time to support critical exploration risk assessments, systems choices, and development.
Funding from cancelling Constellation went to support NASA’s science programs.
Science Insider 10 (Canceled Moon Shot Pays for NASA Science Boost, Feb 2, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/canceled-moon-s.html)
By canceling NASA’s moon mission, launched by former President George W. Bush in 2004, the White House pays heed to a report delivered last fall by the Norm Augustine commission, which declared that the goal of returning American astronauts to the moon by 2020 was unviable without a major boost to NASA’s budget. Instead, the White House has proposed eliminating the Constellation program, a $3.5-billion-a-year initiative aimed at building rockets, spacecraft, and other systems for the moon mission. Although the moon mission would be zeroed out under the Administration’s proposal, NASA’s overall budget would increase by $6 billion over the next 5 years. It would go from $18.7 billion in 2010 to $19 billion in 2011. NASA officials argue that Constellation’s end marks a major change in the nation’s space policy that could in fact accelerate space exploration by freeing up money for science and the funding of new technologies for future space flight, which would be led by the private sector instead of the government. NASA officials say they will leverage corporate investments and international collaborations to chart a new course in space exploration. That includes putting up money to extend the life of the international space station beyond the current end date of 2015 to at least 2020. The good news for researchers is that the Administration’s proposed funding for science would climb to $5 billion in 2011 from a current level of $4.45 billion, although details on what new programs would be supported have yet to become clear. “The number seems consistent with Obama’s stated commitment to science,” says David Leckrone, former chief scientist of the Hubble Space Telescope, who retired from NASA last fall. He says Charles Bolden, as the new administrator, deserves credit for seeing through an overall increase in the agency’s budget. “I’d have to give him good marks for coming away with a significant increase at a time of severe budgetary constraints,” Leckrone says. “It’s a coup, and I believe that Charlie had a major role in making that happen.”
NASA focusing on Aeronautics
Levine ’11 (Jay, Xpress editor, “Rising Expectations - Aeronautics a Focus at N.M. Balloon Fiesta”, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/X-Press/balloon_fiesta.html) JL
Though many people are aware of the agency's space mission, not as many are familiar with NASA's aeronautics research conducted at four centers across the nation: Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif., Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards, Calif., Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, and Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. NASA Aeronautics, which has a history of bringing key technologies to all aspects of aviation, is looking to do so again with its latest "green aviation" initiative. The program seeks to test and integrate technologies for reducing aircraft noise and emissions, maximizing fuel usage and improving air-traffic management.
NASA’s resources are finite- we cannot commit to exploration and keep doing aeronautical and other research at the same time.
Levinger 10 (Josh, Research Assistant- MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media, Should we cut NASA Funding, 4-9, http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasacp.html)
Space critics are right about one thing, NASA has been rudderless for the last few years. Though charged by the Bush administration to extend the reach of humanity back to the Moon and on to Mars, it was given no additional funding to do so. The civilian space budget has been effectively capped for the last two decades; all aeronautical, biological, and exploration related research fight for the same pool of money. Saddled with an outdated, underpowered and needlessly winged Space Shuttle, the Constellation project proposed a new launch vehicle that would return us to the glory days. However, it ended up like so many projects, behind schedule and over budget. We simply cannot develop new capability, fly the Shuttle to finish building and continue servicing the space station, and do cutting edge research without expanding the budgetary pool. Something has to go; and so, surprise, the federal government established a committee to study the problem.