Russia Adv – 1ac

a2 Not S All NEOs

Traveling to even one NEO creates unimaginably high returns

Landis et al, 08 (*Rob R., AIAA member and NASA Johnson Space Center, Mission Operations Directorate, **David J. Korsmeyer, AIAA member and NASA Ames Research Center, Intelligent Systems Division, ***Paul A. Abell, Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona and NASA Johnson Space Center, Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science,****Daniel R. Adamo, AIAA member and Trajectory Consultant, *****Thomas D. Jones, AIAA member and Association of Space Explorers, “A Piloted Orion Flight to a Near-Earth Object: A Feasibility Study”, http://pdf.aiaa.org/...PV2008_3550.pdf) AFL
Due to the impact threat they pose, in 1998 NASA accepted the mandate to detect and catalogue 90% of NEOs larger than 1 km. To date [as of 9 August 2007], 4754 NEOs have been discovered. The NASA Authorization Act (2005) directs NASA to detect and characterize NEOs down to 140 meters in size. The number of such smaller asteroids is vastly greater than the number of larger asteroids (Figure 1). This means that the discovery rate will increase greatly over the next ten years, even if only two new search telescopes begin operations; namely, PanSTARRS (Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System) and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), but especially if NASA is provided funds to perform the greater than 140 meter survey to 90% completeness by 2020. By the middle of the next decade we expect that there will be hundreds – if not thousands – of possible new candidate NEOs accessible for a CEV mission.This could present a target-rich opportunity for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD), and Science Mission Directorate (SMD), to cooperate and mount a piloted CEV test flight to a NEO. So little is understood about the sheer numbers, origin, and characteristics of NEOs, that a manned mission to even one of these with sample return will expand humanity’s deep space experience base for future missions to the Moon and Mars as well as harvest an unimaginable scientific return for the benefit of all mankind. To date, robotic spacecraft have visited only a handful of asteroids (see Figures 2 and 3); only two of which have explored NEOs (see the science section beginning on Page 10). Prior to launching a piloted expedition to a NEO, it will be prudent execute a set of robotic precursor missions to NEOs that would potentially be explored by a human crew. Perhaps a new paradigm, ala Clementine, could be invoked to do this more cheaply than current so-called Discovery-class planetary science missions (currently cost-capped at $425 million life-cycle cost).

a2 Robots CP

Manned crew solves best- adapting to conditions and collecting vital samples

Landis et al, 08 (*Rob R., AIAA member and NASA Johnson Space Center, Mission Operations Directorate, **David J. Korsmeyer, AIAA member and NASA Ames Research Center, Intelligent Systems Division, ***Paul A. Abell, Research Scientist, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona and NASA Johnson Space Center, Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science,****Daniel R. Adamo, AIAA member and Trajectory Consultant, *****Thomas D. Jones, AIAA member and Association of Space Explorers, “A Piloted Orion Flight to a Near-Earth Object: A Feasibility Study”, http://pdf.aiaa.org/...PV2008_3550.pdf) AFL
A CEV-type mission will have a much greater capability for science and exploration of NEOs than robotic spacecraft. The main advantage of having piloted missions to a NEO is the flexibility of the crew to perform tasks and to adapt to situations in real time. As discussed above, a robotic spacecraft has only limited capability for scientific exploration, and may not be able to adapt to certain conditions encountered at a particular NEO. The Hayabusa spacecraft encountered certain situations which were a challenge for both it and its ground controllers during close proximity operations at Itokawa. A human crew is able to perform tasks and react much more quickly in a micro-gravity environment, even with a delay of just several light seconds, than any robotic spacecraft can manage. In addition, a crewed vehicle is able to test several different sample collections techniques, deploy and redeploy any scientific surface payloads, and able to target specific areas of interest via extra-vehicular activities (EVAs) much more easily than a robotic spacecraft. Such capabilities greatly enhance any scientific return from these types of missions to NEOs. Such capabilities greatly enhance any scientific return from these types of missions to NEOs. Scientific operations in the vicinity of and at the surface of the asteroid will resemble microgravity operations than lunar surface operations due to the extremely low surface gravity of the NEO.

IL – K2 SMD

Nuclear propulsion is diverted to military weapons, the aff increases space weaponization

The Planetary Society 5

(March 2005, Nuclear Propulsion in Space, http://planetary.org/action/opinions/nuclear_propulsion_0505.html)

Environmental concerns: Nuclear power has a unique handicap: It is categorically opposed by some. Their position is that nuclear material, in any form and in any place, is a danger to the population of the Earth and that no benefits are worth the risks that it imposes on mankind. They are particularly alarmed by employment of nuclear energy in space where, in principle, it might be diverted to weapons or other military systems, and where deadly radioactive material might be accidentally spread over large areas.Their position has been loudly articulated and lent some credence by the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. NASA and the Department of Energy acknowledge that nuclear technology involves risks and therefore takes stringent steps to manage those risks, but those steps have been seen as inadequate by the critics ideologically opposed to nuclear power.