209 ko space affirmative wave ii

8/7/2019 209 KO Space Affirmative Wave II

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/209-ko-space-affirmative-wave-ii 1/96

DDI ’08 Space AFF Wave II

Anuj, Jackie, Matt 1/96

Space Satellite AFF Wave II

StatesSpace Satellite AFF Wave II.............................................................................................1

A2: States CP- 2AC Frontline...........................................................................................3

Federal government incentives key 2 SPS.......................................................................8

Space Politics Links- Bipart Opposition..........................................................................9

McCain supports..............................................................................................................10

Bipartisan Support..........................................................................................................11

Obama Loves the Plan.....................................................................................................13

Military Lobbies...............................................................................................................14

Space Lobbies Approve...................................................................................................15

Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 1 (Big Impact).............................................................16

Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 2 (Small Impact).........................................................18

INHERENCY: DISASTERS COMING NOW.............................................................20

NATURAL DISASTERS BAD.......................................................................................21

POVERTY........................................................................................................................22

STRAIGHT TURNING ECON DISADS......................................................................23

TURN OTHER IMPACTS.............................................................................................24

Disaster Relief- SBSP Solves Disaster Relief.................................................................25

Aerospace Add-On...........................................................................................................31

Aerospace Declining.........................................................................................................37

Space Mil Now..................................................................................................................40

Aerospace Key to Hege....................................................................................................45

Aerospace key to Economy.............................................................................................50

SSP key to Aero Leadership............................................................................................55

SSP Key to Space Domination........................................................................................57SSP key to Space Radar..................................................................................................59

Space power key to hegemony........................................................................................60

Space Domination Solves War........................................................................................63

UAV’s Necessary..............................................................................................................66

Nanotech- Semiconductor Add-ON................................................................................67

Defense of Grey Goo........................................................................................................70

Federal Government key to Aerospace..........................................................................73

SSP Key to reduce Launch Costs...................................................................................75

China Add-ON.................................................................................................................76

China War coming...........................................................................................................79

U.S.-SINO Space War Impacts.......................................................................................81Plan Solves China’s energy needs...................................................................................83

Surveillance Prevents Genocide and Nuke War...........................................................89

Space Research Solves Diseases......................................................................................90

A2: Debris kills Satellites.................................................................................................91

Solves Prolif......................................................................................................................93

NASA Trade-off/ Credibility Add-on............................................................................94

1





Notes- Well kiddos, here is wave 2 of the space affirmative which was put out andassigned during wave 3. Enjoy the advantages and I apologize for the slight indexing

problem (last minute indexing).

-Anuj

***Some Work for the next wave includes: Politics- the Bush Bad link turns, the Kagan07 card lol, In-depth nanotech advantages, and about 15 more add-ons.***

2





A2: States CP- 2AC Frontline

1. Perm: [insert appropriate perm]

2. Perm solves: State and federal action together result in the best possible regulations-

divisions of state and federal power should not be static

Kristin Engel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 1/07, “Harnessing the Benefits of DynamicFederalism in Environmental Law,” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37The states’ failure to restrict their regulatory authority to issues impacting only their own jurisdictions, and thefederal government’s failure to regulate only when the states’ ability to address an issue effectively is hobbled bycollective action problems, are inconsistent with the policy implications of the scholarly debate over environmentalfederalism, in which scholars have supported a particular allocation of at least primary regulatory authority betweenthe states and the federal government.9 The purpose of this Article is not to reengage in the long-running debate over whether, and when, the federal or the state governments are the more appropriate environmental regulators.10 Rather,

the purpose is to question the fundamental assumption underlying the debate: that regulatory authority to addressenvironmental ills should be allocated to one or the other level of government with minimal overlap. This Articleargues first that a static allocation of authority between the state and federal government is inconsistent with

the process of policymaking in our federal system, in which multiple levels of government interact in the

regulatory process. Absent constitutional changes that would lock in a specific allocation of authority, broad,

overlapping authority between levels of government may be essential to prompting regulatory activity at the

preferred level of government. This Article further argues that a static allocation of authority deprives citizens

of the benefits of overlapping jurisdiction, such as a built-in check upon interest group capture, greater

opportunities for regulatory innovation and refinement, and relief for the courts from the often futile andconfusing task of jurisdictional line-drawing. Part I.A of this Article critiques the scholarly adherence to a generallyrigid separation between state and federal jurisdiction, which I argue is rooted in the dominance of economic modelsin the environmental federalism debates. In Part I.B, I contrast the scholarly preoccupation with the separation of federal and state power with environmental federalism in practice, which is marked by a large degree of

jurisdictional overlap and interaction between the states and the federal government. Part II of this Article sets forthan alternative vision of environmental federalism, drawing upon recent scholarship that conceives the states

and the federal government as alternative—not mutually exclusive— sources of regulatory authority. Such a

conception views the interaction between the two levels of government as a means of improving the quality

and responsiveness of regulation.

3





3. The federal government is essential to providing 3 key incentives to allow for commercial SBSP tech to

occur.

National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf , pg. 3Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low‐cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these spaceaccess and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities thatinclude space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlementto extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated reviewfinding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyzeSBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can beaccomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space-

borne proof-of-concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class systems is included in Appendix B. The second

challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be

necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial‐commercial, government‐commercial, and government‐government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government

contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as isaccomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on‐line today.

4. Turn: Patchwork: States regulations lead to patchwork and slow solar energy development

Clean Edge, clean-tech research and publishing firm, 2002, “Solar Opportunity Assessment Report,”http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-soar.phpAmong the key challenges to growing the U.S. solar marketplace are: its small production scale, which keepsquantities low and prices high; on-again-off-again government funding of solar research and development; a dearthof financing solutions, pricing solar out of reach of most users; a patchwork of regulations related to solar,

forcing manufacturers and buyers of solar systems to meet different requirements in each state; a lack of coordination among companies, government agencies, the solar and building industries, or potential buyers of

solar systems; a lack of standardized, plug-and-play systems that would greatly reduce the complexity and cost of designing and installing a solar-energy system; and a lack of education about solar's benefits to a variety of audiences

4

http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf


http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-soar.php



http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-soar.php





5. Counterplan will be struck down –violations of multiple clauses ensure

Robert K. Huffman, Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown University Law Center, a partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown

University Law Center, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at MidAmerican Energy HoldingsCompany, Winter 08, “Climate Change and the States: Constitutional Iss ues Arising fr om State Climate ProtectionLeaders hip”, downloaded from http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/

Conclusion State governments continue to demonstrate leadership in combating climate change— from adoptingenergy efficiency standards to enacting renewable portfolio standards to developing cap-and-trade programs aimedat reducing carbon dioxide emissions, often as part of regional compacts. At the same time, the Congress is in the

process of developing national climate change legislation and agencies in the Executive Branch are defining their roles. As the federal and state governments begin regulating the same areas of the economy and theenvironment, the potential for conflicting programs arises. State programs are potentially vulnerable to a

variety of constitutional challenges, including through the Commerce, Compacts, Supremacy, and Foreign

Affairs clauses. As the federal government solidifies its approach to global climate change over the next severalyears, the likelihood for preemption of state programs will become more evident. It is apparent now, however,

that state programs are in serious jeopardy if the federal government actively seeks to restrict state authority. If the current or future President does not want states to play an active role in climate change regulation, he

or she will have several constitutional tools at their disposal to handicap the states’ abilities to create

programs that reduce GHG emissions.

6. Turn: Coordination Key:

A. State action risks patchwork regulations deterring investment

James Murray, 6/30/08 US Congress to debate German-style feed-in tariff James Murray, BusinessGreen,http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2220323/congress-debate-german-styleInslee warned that the US risked missing out on billions of dollars of cleantech investment if it does not do

more to stimulate demand for such technologies. "The cost of inaction on global warming extends well beyond

the serious ecologic and human health issues that already are taking a toll on our environment," he said. "There isalso an opportunity cost if we fail to help America's brightest entrepreneurs to quench public demand for

clean energy technologies here in the US." The bill's supporters said with more than a dozen states having alreadyenacted a feed-in tariff or considering doing so, federal legislation was also required to help avoid a "patchwork

regulatory structure" for the renewables sector.

B. States never act in coordinated manner on incentives

Dr. Arnold Leitner, Senior Consultant at RDI Consulting and PhD in Superconductor Physics, 7/02, Fuel Fromthe Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply, http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf

No two states have decided to promote renewables in exactly the same way; both the methods and the scope

by which renewables are promoted vary. The lack of precedent in applying such incentives may explain the

variety of approaches. Other states that are contemplating deregulation or that have pending legislation arecarefully observing the success of these programs.

5

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2220323/congress-debate-german-style

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf


http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2220323/congress-debate-german-style






7. Only through NASA and federal incentives will private industry begin to invest in solar tech research.

John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A FreshLook" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science,”http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.htmlChairman Rohrabacher started the questioning by asking how much SSP would cost and who should pay. Mr.Mankins responded that preliminary studies showed that the first platform of the Sun Tower model would cost between $5-7B after the technology has been developed and would produce 400 megawatts of energy, enough tosupply a small city. The Chairman then asked if SSP would have a detrimental impact on the environment,specifically the ozone layer. Gregg Maryniak answered that the Earth receives radio beams and microwaves everyday. The energy density is what matters, and the center of SSP is less dense than sunlight. Space solar power istherefore possible, he stated, without detrimental effect. It could be used to help underdeveloped countries toindustrialize while creating a new industry. Congressman Lampson asked about the 1980's Office of TechnologyAssessment report that cited economic obstacles to SSP. Mr. Mankins replied that it was the goal of the Fresh Look study to resolve those obstacles. The finding of the study was that costs have been drastically reduced since then; basic technologies have been developed. For example, at the time of the OTA report, the shuttle wasn't operating.The problem with space transportation, added Mr. Maryniak, is that there is not enough of it. Congressman Lampsonthen asked what NASA is doing in SSP now and what it needs to do. Mr. Mankins cited the Fresh Look study

completed last year, and listed ongoing R&D programs under the Office of Space Flight and the Office of SpaceScience. Congressman Weldon's questions focused on industry's interest and support of SSP and the possibility of working with the satellite industry. Other questions focused on the amount of research and cost necessary to get SSPunderway, and how much market interest and industry support there would be for SSP, considering that fossil fuelsare a finite, pollution-causing resource. Congressman Bartlett asked about how much new technology would beneeded; Mr. Mankins replied that 8-10 major areas of technology needed to be advanced technologically, althoughall were between an order of two and five improvement over current technology and would cost substantially below$10B for technology maturation. Mr. Bartlett explained that while he doesn't believe in "greenhouse gases" he'd be"willing to ride that horse" if that's what it would take to get funding for SSP. Chairman Rohrabacher stated that hehad spoken recently with the Speaker and Joint Taxation Chairman Archer about a proposal to make manufacturingin space a tax free endeavor in order to raise private sector resources, and that they expressed interest. He wants toget NASA to focus on SSP as a long term project, rather than human travel to Mars. He asked if the witnesses hadtalked with anyone at NASA about this. Mr. Mankins testified that there have been a number of discussions, but at

this time in the context of the real struggle to make the books work on the Balanced Budget Agreement, NASA isnot making SSP a priority at this time. Mr. Maryniak stated that he had had conversations with the Administrator and believed that he personally was interested in SSP. Dr. Grey suggested that the Subcommittee discuss the possibility of using some of the overlap technology between what NASA is already engaged in, such as reduced

cost of space transportation, and SSP technology requirements to begin an SSP program at NASA. Mr.Rohrabacher replied that Mission to Planet Earth might be a good place to put such a project. He said NASA may

eventually get an astronaut on Mars, and he isn't against it, but that SSP should come first because of the

benefit to mankind that could be derived from SSP. Mr. Lampson asked if anything could be accomplished nowwithout additional funding. Mr. Mankins replied that there is technology work being conducted at NASA now

that is applicable to SSP, including low cost of space transportation, which is the third goal of NASA's strategic plan. Mr. Lampson then asked if the electric companies could be expected to contribute funding to the project;

Dr. Grey said that there is some support and that the interest level of the utilities would depend on the risk of

the technology advancement, and that the reduction of this risk was a perfect role for the Federal government

to fill. The Chairman closed the hearing by expressing his agreement with the other members that "this has been afascinating hearing and I look forward to further discussion on the subject."

6





8. Coordinated national program like NASA key to solvency

National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf , pg. 2The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high-level leadershi

p and resourcing commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of

fusion energy research or International Space Station construction and operations.

9. States Fail—lack of government leadership and funding mean that the States will never solve

Mark Clayton, Staff Writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 10/6/2005, The Christian Science Monitor,“States Take On Feds Over Environment”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p01s04-uspo.htmlState efforts simply can't compensate for the steady drop in EPA enforcement efforts, even administration

critics admit. So the gap between states with strong and weak environmental enforcement is getting wider,

Mr. Schaeffer says. He notes, for instance, that while the nine-state initiative to limit carbon dioxide

emissions is a great step forward, no states currently building coal-fired power plants have signed onto thepact. "All this state activity is great," he says. "The caveat is that it can't make up for what we're missing

from the federal government." Then add money woes. At least one-third of the $15 billion states spend

annually comes from the federal government, and that amount is dropping. States lost nearly $200 millionin federal funding - about $4 million per state in the new federal budget, according to the Environmental Councilof the States in Washington. Ms. Witcher denies that EPA is shirking enforcement or failing to fund compliance,noting that 730,000 individuals and business got compliance assistance from the EPA last year. "Our strategy isworking," she says. But that's little solace to some state officials. "We certainly are using the courts to try to getthe federal government to do their job," Ms. Enck says. "It's astonishing how many cases are against federal

agencies, not polluters directly. If the feds aren't doing their job, there's not much chance of getting

compliance from polluters."

10. SBSP should be taken on by NASA

John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A FreshLook" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science,”http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.htmlChairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as anagency should be all about" - the development of opportunities in space which are uncovered during NASA'smissions. He stated that NASA's lack of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed, "cries outfor further research," may be because NASA wants to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming theglory days of Apollo." He feels that SSP is just as exciting -- or even more so -- as sending an astronaut to Mars,

and is closer to NASA's mission. He cited the Next Generation Internet project as an example where NASAfunding is enabling competition for the private sector, similar to what the SSP project could be. He wants NASA to

take the next measured step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would reap huge public

support for NASA. The space station, he said, is a tremendous engineering project with direct benefit to people on

Earth; SSP can provide great benefits as well. Ranking Minority Member Cramer discussed the fact that SSP is not anew issue, but requires a long term focus. SSP requires a radical reduction in cost of access to space, which NASAis already investing in.

7









Federal government incentives key 2 SPS

Federal Government Is Key To Incentivizing The Development Of SPS Systems

Executive Branch Of The Untied States Federal Government 2006 National Aeronatuics Research AndDevelopment Policy

In order to achieve the goal of this policy, the executive departments and agencies of the U.S. Governmentshould adhere to the following general guidelines: Role of the Federal Government in Aeronautics R&D.The Federal Government should only undertake roles in supporting aeronautics R&D that are not moreappropriately per- formed by the private sector. Specifically, the Federal Government plays a key role inthe following three aspects of aeronautics R&D. Investment in a full range of aeronautics R&D thatsupports national defense and homeland security, from basic research through advanced technologydevelopment and beyond, is a responsibility of executive departments and agencies and should remain aU.S. Government priority. The U.S. Government plays a unique role in long-term, fundamental aeronauticsresearch that provides the foundation for future technology development. Executive departments and

agencies perform this role through direct Federal investment and indirectly through policies and regulationsthat stimulate academic or private sector R&D investment and innovation. In addition, executivedepartments and agencies should provide for the widest practical and appropriate dissemination of researchresults, consistent with national security, foreign policy, and the Office of Management and Budget'sInformation Quality Guidelines. The Federal Government also has a role in more advanced civilaeronautics research. In these cases, the Federal Government's involvement in R&D must be based on well-defined goals with objective measures of efficacy. These goals must be scrutinized to ensure that thegovernment is not stepping beyond its legitimate purpose by competing with or un- fairly subsidizingcommercial ventures. In such cases, the primary areas of government involvement are: Public InterestResearch: Research that directly benefits the public by improving public safety and security, by promotingenergy efficiency, or by protecting the environment. Research and Development to Address Gaps: Incertain cases where risks or other market factors limit private sector investment in more advanced research,the Federal Government may decide investment is required. The appropriateness of Federal investment insuch research must be justified by an assessment indicating that the benefits of such R&D would occur far

in the future or the risks would be too great for non-Federal participants, and the results from the researchwould not be appropriable to a single entity. In these cases, Federal R&D investment must be the bestmeans to achieve the objectives as opposed to other means such as regulatory, policy or tax incentives.Government Internal R&D: Research in direct support of government infrastructure or services and thesetting and enforcement of regulations.

8





Space Politics Links- Bipart Opposition

Bipartisan opposition to NASA funding

Space Politics, Space Politics is a space policy blog by Jeff Foust (editor and publisher of The SpaceReview), offering news and commentary about key issues affecting civil, commercial, and military spaceefforts, April 17, 2007, “Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets”,http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ [Bapodra]

Going through my notes from last week’s address at the National Space Symposium by Rep. Ken Calvert, I picked up a theme that relates to some recent discussions in the comments of previous posts, where somewere trying to hang blame on one party or another for NASA’s FY07 funding woes. Calvert noted that oneof the House members who voted against the 2005 NASA authorization bill is the current appropriationschairman, David Obey (although Calvert didn’t mention him by name, only by title). “This is a problem as

NASA finds itself in a precarious time, trying to ramp up spending to move America beyond low Earthorbit while also meeting the demands of the agency’s diverse portfolio of missions.”Was Calvert making an attack against the Democratic leadership in the House? No. “There is a dangeroustrend of bipartisan nonsupport in funding NASA in Congress,” he said. He mentioned two amendments tothe original FY07 appropriations bill on the House floor last summer that would have either prevented NASA from spending any money on Mars exploration efforts, and another that would have transferred NASA funds to other programs. While both amendments were defeated (a moot point, as it turned out,since that appropriations bill was never enacted and replaced with a continuing resolution), “The reality isthat members of both parties supported these amendments, and by a large margin.”That doesn’t bode well for NASA during the FY2008 budget process. “You can bet that NASA will be thetarget again this year unless we prepare to defend NASA funding against grabs from other areas.”

9

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/






McCain supports

Reports indicate McCain supports funding space exploration

Space Politics, Space Politics is a space policy blog by Jeff Foust (editor and publisher of The SpaceReview), offering news and commentary about key issues affecting civil, commercial, and military spaceefforts, April 17, 2007, “Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets”,http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ [Bapodra]

Republican presidential candidate John McCain is willing to spend more money on NASA and consider human exploration of Mars, according to a report on washingtonpost.com. McCain, meeting with Floridanewspaper editors, said, “I’d be willing to spend more taxpayers dollars” on NASA. How much moremoney, he doesn’t say (or at least washingtonpost.com doesn’t report), nor how that would fit into his plansfor a discretionary spending freeze if elected.

He added that he had an interest in sending people to Mars that dates back to reading Ray Bradbury’s The

Martian Chronicles. “I’m intrigued by a man on Mars. I think it would excite the imagination of theAmerican people… Americans would be very willing to do that.” Exactly how that intrigue would translateinto policy (if it would at all), though, isn’t mentioned.

The AP account of the meeting brings up a different issue: McCain would “support continuing spaceshuttle missions” beyond 2010 and that he wants the US to have “a better set of priorities” for the space program. That last point sounds a little bit like what Barack Obama has been saying about reviewing theagency’s direction.

10







Strong Congressional bipartisanship for NASA funding

STEWART M. POWELL, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau correspondent, 6/11/2008, “WhiteHouse rejects call to boost NASA shuttle funding: Houston-area lawmakers lash out at administration”,http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830045.html[Bapodra]

The White House also took umbrage at the legislation requiring NASA to deepen international cooperationin the next generation of manned U.S. space operations, saying that the provision ordering internationaloutreach "directly infringes upon the president's authority to conduct foreign affairs."

President Bush's strong criticism of a program dear to Texas lawmakers left Lone Star State Republicans ina tough political position.Some, like Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, said they would push for additional NASA funding, with or without White House approval.Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose district includes parts of Harris County, disagreed with the WhiteHouse contention that the additional missions would jeopardize the 2010 retirement date.

"The contingency flights are necessary to make sure the space station is fully equipped entering that periodwhen the U.S. will have no spaceflights," he said.

There is strong bipartisan support for increased NASA funding in the Senate, which will act after the Housegives its funding plan final approval.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, did not directlyaddress the White House threats. But she said she considers completion of the space station an issue of "utmost importance" and will continue working "to increase NASA funding so we may close the gap incontinuous spaceflight," said spokesman Matt Mackowiak.

Congressional bipart support for space policies

Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, 7/25/08 “Speech by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin beforethe Parliamentary Group on Space”, French National Assembly,

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28704 [Bapodra]

First, U.S. civil space policy is specifically designed for the long term, designed to be implementedaffordably and systematically across many changes of Administration and Congress. In fact, those who arein favor of continuing human spaceflight, a substantial majority of U.S. policymakers, agree that we havelittle choice but to proceed on the path we are now following. While there will certainly be debate on thedetails of NASA's plans, in my view there will not be a significant change in our overall direction. There isa broad bipartisan consensus of support for today's U.S. civil space policy.

12

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830045.html

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28704


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830045.html






Obama Loves the Plan

Obama supports multiple parts of the plan

Barack Obama 2008, Official Obama Campaign website, January 10, 2008, “Barack Obama's Plan For American Leadership in Space”, Found on Spaceref.com, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html? pid=26647

Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied theadventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only inspace, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years, NASA technology has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to babyformula and automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the dailylives of all Americans.Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave theUnited States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration

Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited tothe minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designedwith technology that is already proven and available.Complete the International Space Station: The International Space Station is an example of what we canaccomplish through international cooperation. Barack Obama is committed to the completion of theInternational Space Station.Continue Unmanned Missions: Robotic missions provide a level of endurance and cost-effectiveness that isunsurpassed. The Voyager probes, launched in the 1970s, are still sending back data beyond our solar system. Closer to home, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have been exploring the surface of Mars for more than 1,300 days, 14 times longer than their intended mission length. Along with Earth-orbiting platforms like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, unmanned missions haveyielded some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Barack Obama is committed to a boldarray of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for

further manned exploration.Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change: Barack Obama has proposed bold initiatives to putAmerica on the path to stop global climate change. His administration will set standards based on rigorousscientific inquiry that, in turn, cannot take place without a capable space program. The task of researchingand understanding the forces that affect our home planet will require a constellation of climate monitoringspace platforms. As president, Obama will ensure that NASA has the funding necessary to play its part inthe fight against global climate change.Support Scientific Research: In the past, government funding for scientific research has yielded innovationsthat have improved the landscape of American life, technologies like the Internet, digital photography, bar codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and chemotherapy. Today, we face a new setof challenges, yet the United States is losing its scientific dominance. Over the last three decades, federalfunding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack Obama believes federally funded

scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom andin the lab. He will work to diversify the makeup of the scientific community and provide federal research programs a much- needed infusion of funds.Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security: Orbiting surveillance satellites provide a vital wayto ensure compliance with non-proliferation treaties and monitor emerging threats. For example, nuclear facility construction in North Korea and Iran can be closely monitored from above without the challengesfaced by weapons inspectors on the ground. Satellites can be further used in the effort to secure loosenuclear weapons and materials around the world, an effort which Barack Obama has promoted aggressivelyin the U.S. Senate.

13





Military Lobbies

Military Lobbies Love The Plan

Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, “Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power FromSpace,” October 11, 2007)

Washington, DC A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth hasgained a large supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday by the National Security SpaceOffice recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generatingsatellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space- based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennason the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudyconditions."We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corpslieutenant colonel Paul

Military Lobbies Love The Plan

Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?,” August 13, 2007)

The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, iswith space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, whoagreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.

14





Space Lobbies Approve

Space Lobbies love the plan

Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, “Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power FromSpace,” October 11, 2007)

Washington, DC At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced a newalliance to promote space solar power – the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These supportersof space-based solar power say the technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossilfuels, wind and nuclear power combined.

Space Lobbies Love The Plan Because It Coordinates Our Efforts In Space

Boyle, 2007 (Alan Boyle, MSNCB, Science Editor, “Power From Space?,” October 12, 2007)

"I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for theDefense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday. Space advocacygroups immediately seized on the idea and formed a new alliance to push the plan.

15





Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 1 (Big Impact)

A. SBSP allows for distribution of power to humanitarian and disaster relief areas

NSSO, 10/10/07, National Security and Space Office, “Space Based Solar Power as an opportunity for StrategicSecurity: Phase o Architecture feasibility Study”, http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space - based solar power would be to broadcast

power directly to energy - deprived areas and to persons performing disaster relief, nation - building, and other

humanitarian missions often associated with the United Nations and related non‐governmental organizations. oRecommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of the SBSP feasibility studyopportunities for broad international partnerships with non - state and trans - state actors should be explored. In particular, cooperation with the United Nations and related organizations to employ SBSP in support of

various humanitarian relief efforts support consistent with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed

with the help of affiliated professionals.

B. Ineffective response to natural disasters risks new diseases

World Health Organization, 06, Communicable diseases following natural disasters -- Risk assessmentand priority interventions,www.who.int/diseasecontrol_emergencies/guidelines/CD_Disasters_26_06.pdf . Natural disasters are catastrophic events with atmospheric, geologic and hydrologic origins. Theyinclude earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, tsunamis, floods and drought. Natural disasters can

have rapid or slow onset, and serious health, social and economic consequences. During the past twodecades, natural disasters have killed millions of people, adversely affecting the lives of at least one billion more people and resulting in substantial economic damage (1). Developing countries are

disproportionately affected because of their lack of resources, infrastructure and disaster

preparedness systems. The potential impact of communicable diseases is often presumed to be veryhigh in the chaos that follows natural disasters. Increases in endemic diseases and the risk of

outbreaks, however, are dependent upon many factors that must be systematically evaluated with a

comprehensive risk assessment. This allows the prioritization of interventions to reduce the impact

of communicable diseases post-disaster.

16

http://www.who.int/diseasecontrol_emergencies/guidelines/CD_Disasters_26_06.pdf







3. This leads to extinction

John D. Steinbruner, 97, Foreign Policy, Winter, Expanded Academic ASAPIt is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this

threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human bodyhas developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceedanything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: Newdiseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during

which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearlyone-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variationsof the HIV virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera - once thought to be under control - are now making acomeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for

widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of

movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate

manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has

ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a

fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.

17





Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 2 (Small Impact)

1. Natural disasters are inevitable and getting worse

Graciela Chichilnsky, UNESCO Chair of Mathematics and Economics and is a professor of statistics atColumbia University, 05 ("Catastrophic Risks: The need for new tools, financial instruments and institutions."October 20, 2005) http://privatizationofrisk.ssrc.org/Chichilnisky/

While people watch TV screens in shock and disbelief, scientists forecast a new global trend. Hurricanes thatcould impact the US are increasing in strength and frequency. Many believe that we are entering a newgeological cycle and that the increased storm volatility is caused by the warming of the seas, part of an overall

pattern of global warming. We may need to brace ourselves for several decades of more frequent and intensefloods, hurricanes and typhoons. We need to prepare for an increasingly dangerous physical environment, andwe need to do that fast.

2. DISASTER RELIEF DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS THE POOR

World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost"web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~th eSitePK:4607,00.html)

Losses from natural disasters are most devastating to the poorest people, says Margaret Arnold, actingmanager of the World Bank’s Hazard Management Unit. This is particularly true in developing countries.Extensive research shows the poor are more likely to occupy dangerous, less desirable locations, such as

flood plains, river banks, steep slopes and reclaimed land.Disasters are closely linked to poverty as they can wipe out decades of development in a matter of hours.

Because natural disasters hit poor people the hardest, implementing effective disaster recovery

programs, if they are well targeted, may be an effective means of reducing poverty, according to aforthcoming report by the ProVention Consortium – an international network of public, private, non-

governmental, and academic organizations dedicated to reducing the impact of disasters in developingcountries. Other senior disaster recovery officials share that view: “Disasters are first and foremost a major

threat to development and specifically to the development of the poorest and most marginalized people in

the world. … and ensure they stay poor.”

18





3. Poverty is the root cause of all violence-the impact outweighs genocide, nuclear exchange

and extinction. We must act to minimize the suffering of others.

Gilligan ‘96(James, professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the

Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. P.191-196)

The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited tothis country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused bysocioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had comecloses to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and thelowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in theworld. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems

against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structuralviolence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the

past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increaseddramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structuralviolence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparingthis frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused bymajor military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military

and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), theIndonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was

clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over asix-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in factaccelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor everyyear of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and

suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to eachother, as cause to effect.

19





INHERENCY: DISASTERS COMING NOW

Natural disasters are inevitable and getting worse

Graciela Chichilnsky, UNESCO Chair of Mathematics and Economics and is a professor of statistics atColumbia University, 05 ("Catastrophic Risks: The need for new tools, financial instruments and institutions."October 20, 2005) http://privatizationofrisk.ssrc.org/Chichilnisky/

While people watch TV screens in shock and disbelief, scientists forecast a new global trend. Hurricanes thatcould impact the US are increasing in strength and frequency. Many believe that we are entering a newgeological cycle and that the increased storm volatility is caused by the warming of the seas, part of an overall

pattern of global warming. We may need to brace ourselves for several decades of more frequent and intensefloods, hurricanes and typhoons. We need to prepare for an increasingly dangerous physical environment, andwe need to do that fast.

Natural disasters are coming heavier to economy and lives

Anthony Oliver-Smith, professor of anthropology at the University of Florida, 5-11-06 ("Disasters and ForcedMigration in the 21st Century" http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Oliver-Smith/)

Despite technological and scientific advances in prediction and mitigation, we have seen a serious increase in

both mortality and economic losses from disasters since 1960, particularly in the developing world.Disasters are, in fact, increasing in impact and scope through the combined effects of economic, social,

demographic, ideological and technological factors. Greater numbers of people are more vulnerable to

natural and other hazards than ever before, due in part to increases in population, but more so to their location in dangerous areas. In fact, disaster risk and losses have dramatically increased , but unevenly soaccording to region (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2003). However,

regardless of region, some form of displacement of individuals and communities frequently results from thethreat or impact of a disaster.

20





NATURAL DISASTERS BAD

Natural disasters hurt lives and economy

21





POVERTY

DISASTER RELIEF DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS THE POOR World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost"web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~th eSitePK:4607,00.html)

Losses from natural disasters are most devastating to the poorest people, says Margaret Arnold, actingmanager of the World Bank’s Hazard Management Unit. This is particularly true in developing countries.Extensive research shows the poor are more likely to occupy dangerous, less desirable locations, such as

flood plains, river banks, steep slopes and reclaimed land.Disasters are closely linked to poverty as they can wipe out decades of development in a matter of hours.

Because natural disasters hit poor people the hardest, implementing effective disaster recovery

programs, if they are well targeted, may be an effective means of reducing poverty, according to aforthcoming report by the ProVention Consortium – an international network of public, private, non-

governmental, and academic organizations dedicated to reducing the impact of disasters in developingcountries. Other senior disaster recovery officials share that view: “Disasters are first and foremost a major

threat to development and specifically to the development of the poorest and most marginalized people in

the world. … and ensure they stay poor.”

Natural disasters put disadvantaged in cycles of povertyIRIN news.com, June 05 http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/DR/default.asp)

Didier J. Cherpitel, former secretary-general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties said, in the organisation’s 2002 Disaster Report, “Disasters are first and foremost a major threat todevelopment, and specifically to the development of the poorest and most marginalised people in the world -

[disasters] ensure they stay poor.” For many development strategists, and critics of globalisation, thevulnerability of the poor in the face of natural disasters is symptomatic of the poverty cycle that forces

poorer communities (and nations) into a downward spiral of destitution. Their plight is compounded by

their inability to mitigate the impacts of the disasters they suffer.

22





STRAIGHT TURNING ECON DISADS

Natural disasters devastate GDP

World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost March 2, 2004"http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~th eSitePK:4607,00.html)

Didier J Cherpitel, former Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties said in the organization’s 2002 Disaster Report. Figures compiled by the World Bank’s MargaretArnold show that from 1990-2000, natural disasters resulted in damages constituting between 2 to 15

percent of an exposed country’s annual GDP. GDP losses for individual events can be even more

devastating: In Honduras, Hurricane Mitch caused losses equal to 41% of GDP. In terms of thegovernment’s annual tax revenue, the losses amounted to 292%.

Natural disasters cost hundreds of billions

World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost March 2, 2004"http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~th eSitePK:4607,00.html)

Natural disasters are happening more often and having an ever more dramatic impact on the world in

terms of both their human and economic cost. While the number of lives lost declined in the past 20 years— 800,000 people died from natural disasters in the 1990s compared with 2 million in the 1970s— the number

of people affected has risen. In the past decade, the number of people affected by natural disasters tripled to

2 billion. The International Red Cross, which publishes an annual World Disasters Report, says the economic

cost of natural disasters has skyrocketed. In the past two decades alone, direct economic losses from naturaldisasters multiplied five fold to US$629 billion. Annual direct losses from weather-related events increased

from an estimated $3.9 billion in the 1950s to $63 billion in the 1990s. Other recent statistics show:

23





TURN OTHER IMPACTS

DISASTERS EXACERBATE MANY OTHER IMPACTSAnthony Oliver-Smith, professor of anthropology at the University of Florida, 5-11-06 ("Disasters and Forced

Migration in the 21st Century" http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Oliver-Smith/)

The complexity of disasters today is demonstrated by the processes in which they can combine with and

compound each other. For example, in 1998 Hurricane Mitch (a natural agent) produced floods inHonduras (a socio-natural phenomenon) that inundated warehouses full of pesticides and fertilizers (a

technological hazard), producing what might be called a compound or complex disaster (Jansen 2003).Recently in the fall of 2004, Hurricane Ivan threatened New Orleans with just the same conflation of dangers.Hurricane Katrina has just fully realized the nightmare of Ivan. There is no question that environmental

changes, particularly in the form of degradation, have increased the severity of socio-natural disasters.Moreover, disasters, singly or in combination, can further be compounded by the incidence of political

upheaval, such as war, ethnic cleansing, or terrorism, or social factors such as racism, exclusion or religious persecution. And disasters can contribute to political instability that can lead to conflict with the

potential to displace people.

24





Disaster Relief- SBSP Solves Disaster Relief

SBSP essential for sustainable energy to disaster relief and nation building

NSSO, 10/10/07, National Security and Space Office, “Space Based Solar Power as an opportunity for StrategicSecurity: Phase o Architecture feasibility Study”, http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potentialto be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission

technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units and installations

across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveries.SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long-enduranceairborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. Moreroutinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a

disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activities. SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground- based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense

establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st

Century through more secure supply lines, perhapsthe greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by

providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.

25





SOLAR SATELLITES ARE KEY TO DISASTER RELIEFTerraDaily Staff Writers, 7-17-08

terradaily.com/reports/Exercise_For_Rapid_Disaster_Relief_With_Space_Based_Technologies_999.html [JWu]

The rapid access to such information is necessary because, after disasters like the earthquake in China or

the cyclone in Myanmar, rescue teams need to find out as soon as possible what type of aid is needed

where. Support is given by the new system from space: with the help of satellite images, the relief workers

receive an overview on blocked roads or destroyed buildings. By means of computer software, they then

synchronise their observations on the ground with the satellite images and feed the data to a specialisednetwork via satellite. The system is still in the prototype stage, but soon all involved organisations will be able

to access the data directly over the network and supplement them with their own information. The aim is

to speed up the investigation of disaster areas so that the exact support that is needed arrives as soon as

possible. "We want powerful satellite technology to be used quickly and effectively in case of emergency",said Michael Angermann from DLR. The prototype will be enhanced for civil protection in the coming

months. "At the end it shall be as easy to use as a laptop or a phone without costing more", the developers said."The more field teams are able to connect with each other, share their results and transfer them, the

quicker and more effectively the international community will be able to help", said Claus Hollein from theGerman Agency for Technical Relief (THW).

Space based solar satellites key for disaster relief Andrzej Zwaniecki, USInfo Staff writer, site maintained by U.S. Department of State's Bureau of InternationalInformation Programs, 8-20-07, ("Space solar energy has future, U.S. researchers say"www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820153255saikceinawz0.864773.html) [JWu]

Beam solar energy directly from space, and disaster relief expeditions could power all their equipment with

no more than a few portable antennas and converters. Campers could use such energy to cook dinners usingnothing more than a cell phone-like device. But the primary beneficiaries of such a technological feat would be the

many communities that would be able to tap into space solar energy fed into power grids. Terrestrial solar power stations already exist throughout the world. But sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in itsgeostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, whichcan penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently, ask U.S. researchers. They have proposed putting in orbit mega-

satellites -- giant, possibly inflatable structures of photovoltaic arrays and antennas -- that would do just that. Atreceiving stations on Earth, the beam could be converted into electricity (or synthetic fuels), which, in contrast to

power from terrestrial solar power stations, would flow continuously to the grid independent of the season,

weather or location.

26

http://terradaily.com/reports/Exercise_For_Rapid_Disaster_Relief_With_Space_Based_Technologies_999.html

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820153255saikceinawz0.864773.html)%5BJWu%5D

http://terradaily.com/reports/Exercise_For_Rapid_Disaster_Relief_With_Space_Based_Technologies_999.html

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820153255saikceinawz0.864773.html)%5BJWu%5D





SPACE SOLAR BEAMS ENERGY KEY TO DISASTER RELIEF

Jeremy Singer, Space.com staff wrter, 6-25-07,http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070725_techwed_pentagon_spacepower.html [JWu]

Jeff Krukin, executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation, which has been studying space-based solar power for years, said thathe has been pleased with the collaboration with the NSSO thus far, and would like to work together again on other topics in the future.

Krukin said he has welcomed the NSSO's interest in space-based solar power, as it helps add legitimacy to the concept. The SpaceFrontier Foundation believes there are energy and environmental benefits that could come from space-based solar

power — collecting solar power in space and transmitting it back to Earth — and thatconstruction of systems for this purpose could provide a major stimulus for the space industry. For

example, it could lead to the construction and launch of more satellites, he said. Krukin said the idea for collaboratingwith the NSSO came after an event in April when he asked a Pentagon official who was speaking at a luncheon aboutthe NSSO's interest in space solar power after reading about it in Space News. Smith was sitting next to Krukin, and thetwo began talking about space-based solar power, Krukin said. Both Smith and Krukin said while they are excitedabout the potential benefits that could come from space-based solar power, they do not view it as a panacea for military

or civilian energy needs, and encouraged the development of other new energy sources. With satellites that could

collect solar energy and beam it to areas all over the world, Smith said space-based solar power

could help reduce the military's need for convoys that carry fuel through dangerous areas, and couldbe used for disaster relief operations like the reconstruction of an area devastated by a

hurricane as well.

27

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070725_techwed_pentagon_spacepower.html


http://www.space.com/adastra/070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html








Space solar key to replace disaster relief electricity generators Department of Energy, April 99 "Counting on solar power for disaster relief"http://www.p2pays.org/ref/40/39847.pdf [JWu]

When disaster strikes, electric power is usually the first critically important service to be lost. And theeffects can be devastating. Lights go out. Furnaces, refrigerators, and other electric appliances don'twork. Neither do the electric pumps that deliver our drinking water and help treat sewage. Withoutelectricity for homes, hospitals, food stores, and vital municipal services, many of our most importantneeds go unmet. What's more, emergency response teams need a reliable source of electric power toeven begin to deal with the crisis. Without electricity, gasoline can't be pumped at local servicestations to transport emergency supplies, and banks can't provide emergency funds. Without electric

power, conventional communication systems won't work. Historically, townspeople and emergencyresponse teams have had only one recourse in such a crisis — they have had to use gasoline- or diesel-

powered engine generators to provide emergency power.The problem with engine generators Unfortunately, generators that run on fossil fuels like gasolineand diesel oil have problems of their own. For example, they can be dangerous in the hands of

untrained users. In the wake of a major disaster such as a flood, tornado, earthquake, hurricane, or fire,newspapers often report incidences of fires, burns, fuel explosions, and even asphyxiations caused bythe improper use of a generator. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other response groups report that generators can also have very short life spans. Many have to be written off the resource list after just one season. Noise can be a big problem, too. Local response organizationsand townspeople alike report that noisy fossil-fueled generators are annoying at best. At worst, theconstant loud noise adds to the trauma experienced by emotionally fragile, frazzled victims. But isthere a reliable alternative? The answer is yes.A solar-powered solution After several years of research and development, portable electric generator sets (gensets) are now entering the marketplace; these gensets either eliminate or reduce the severityof many of the problems caused by fossil-fuel generators. Powered by the sun, like solar cells inspace, the new gensets make use of solar electric panels known as photovoltaics (PV) to produce

electricity. The electric energy these gensets produce can be used directly or it can be stored in batteries for later use.

Space solar power key to disaster relief

Rob Mahan, 07 Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/

Worldwide disaster relief efforts are another area where space-based solar power might first be used.After Katrina, if portable rectennas could have been helicoptered in to provide temporary power tolocal grids, if they were still intact or using wireless power transmission if they weren’t operational,mobile hospital units, food banks, pumping stations and many other critical disaster relief servicescould have been up and running much sooner than they were.

Remote, isolated populations would benefit greatly from space-based solar power. Ruralelectrification technology, consisting of a low cost rectenna and electrical distribution system woulddramatically improve the quality of life almost immediately. A remote African village that suddenlyhad access to sanitation, water purification, refrigeration, lighting air conditionin and heat andcommunication would be able to provide for the health and human needs of its people.

28

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/40/39847.pdf







SBSP key to providing rapid and sustainable disaster relief energy

National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for

Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf [JWu]

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has

the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield SBSP and its enabling

wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on

demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantlyreducing dependence on vulnerable over ‐land fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirelynew force structures and capabilities such as ultra long‐endurance airborne or terrestrialsurveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely,SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to

a disaster area or to a local populatio undergoing nation‐building activities. SBSP couldalso facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate

independent of vulnerable ground‐based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition tohelping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21stCentury through more scure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is tolessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access o a strategicallysecure energy supply.

SBSP can provide energy for disaster relief and nation building

National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar

space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf [JWu]

Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space‐based

solar power would be to broadcast power directly to energy‐deprived areas and to

persons performing disaster relief, nation‐building, and other humanitarian missions oftenassociated with the United Nations and related non‐governmental organizations.

o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of

the SBSP feasibility study opportunities for broad internatinal partnerships with non‐ state and

trans‐ state actors should be explored. In particular, cooperation with the United Nations and

related organizations to employ SBSP in support of various humanitarian relief

effortssupport consistent with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed with the

help of affiliated professionals.

29





Space based solar power key to disaster relief response

National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for

Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf [JWu]

The first business case – “Scenario 1 – Urgent Need” ‐ is based on the use of SBSP toquickly provide (likely on a temporary not permanent basis) baseload power to a specificlocation. This may provide troops abroad in unfriendly or ill equipped territory with power.It may be used to help peacekeeping missions in remote or underdeveloped locations. It

could also be used to re‐establish power in disaster zones such as those affected bydevastating hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis or other natural disasters (either domestic or to

provide valuable foreign aid, if or when these occur in other parts of the world) where theexisting infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed and cannot be quickly rebuilt. Thevalue of the power provided in these circumstances is very high, some would say priceless.

Government research key to make SBSP viable for disaster relief

National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf [JWu]

Whether SBSP begins as Scenario 2 (a large scale, commercially viable system) or Scenario1 (a purely DoD/government system limited to expeditionary, disaster relief or humanitarianoperations, where competitive pricing is not the key driver), more research and development

needs to occur. Technical problems need to be resolved, retiring some of the risks and thusmaking it more attractive to private industry.The previous section on science and technology addresses many of the technologies whereresearch needs to occur. Reusable launch vehicles, satellite component fabrication and in‐

space construction, power beaming techniques, integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructureand the space hardness, mass reduction and efficiencies of solar cell materials are all areasthat need more research and development.

Government‐funded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conductsome of the research would be desirable. Sharing costs between government, academia andcorporate interests who could then commercialize results into products would be even better.Using the resources of NASA’s (former) Research Partnership Centers – which have already

done some of the research into SBSP, launch, materials and other concepts would be

valuable. DARPA also has existing relationships with universities that are likely to matchwell with the research goals resulting from his study. Not only does this provide valuablehelp and creativity to the research efforts, but it could build up the future workforce of expertise by giving students exciting and impactful work to focus on while at unversity.

30





Aerospace Add-On

The U.S. is losing space dominance because of aerospace’s decline

Kaufman, 08 (Mark, “US Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There:Dominance in Space Slips as Other Nations Step Up Efforts”, Washington Post, 7/9,http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm)

The study by Futron, which consults for public clients such as NASA and the Defense Department, as wellas the private space industry, also reported that the United States is losing its dominance in orbital launchesand satellites built. In 2007, 53 American-built satellites were launched -- about 50 percent of the total. In1998, 121 new U.S. satellites went into orbit.In two areas, the space prowess of the United States still dominates. Its private space industry earned 75 percent of the worldwide corporate space revenue, and the U.S. military has as many satellites as all other nations combined.But that, too, is changing. Russia has increased its military space spending considerably since the collapse

of the Soviet Union. In May, Japan's parliament authorized the use of outer space for defense purposes,signaling increased spending on rockets and spy satellites. And China's military is building a wide range of capabilities in space, a commander of U.S. space forces said last month. Last year, China tested its ground- based anti-satellite technology by destroying an orbiting weather satellite -- a feat that left behind a cloud of dangerous space debris and considerable ill will.Ironically, efforts to deny space technology to potential enemies have hampered American cooperationwith other nations and have limited sales of U.S.-made hardware. Concerned about Chinese use of spacetechnology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placedthem under the cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially "dual use" technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the CommerceDepartment.The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-madesatellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advancedtechnology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buyingEuropean satellites and paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. "Some of these companies moved ahead in some areas where, I'm sorry to say, we are no longer the world leaders,"Griffin said.Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security expert at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, saidthe United States has been so determined to maintain military space dominance that it is losing ground incommercial space uses and space exploration. "We're giving up our civilian space leadership, which manyof us think will have huge strategic implications," she said."Other nations are falling over each other to work together in space; they want to share the costs and therisks," she added. "Because of the dual-use issue, we really don't want to globalize."

31

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm






This loss of leadership is destroying the U.S. defense industrial base – an investment

in space solar power is necessary to revitalize aerospace research and

development, workforce, and infrastructure development

NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic

Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our “national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle.An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of thiscommission, which stated:The U nited States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies andsustained public investments in long‐term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities . Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off

the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…Government policies and investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have boldnational aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructureinvestments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs tolead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E

Infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environmentthat fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introductionof new products and services .The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achievedthrough investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and nationalinfrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector .The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐faring nation in order to be the global le

ader in the 21st Century that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore,recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology,commerce andexploration. They explicitly recommended hat theUnited States create a space imperative and that NASA

and DoD need to make the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well asIncentives to Commercial Space. The report calledon government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues froma long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term resear ch and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities.It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictionsaffecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐ public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase inthe investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce byenabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace resear

32





ch which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space .” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative .

33





the motivation of government and industry are different. This is a prime detrac-tion for wanting to formgovernment-industry partnerships. Industry prioritizes investments toward near-term, high-return, andhigh-dollar programs that make for a sound business case for them. Government, on the other hand, wantsto prioritize investment to ensure a continuing capa-bility to meet any new threat to the nation. This need iscyclical and difficult for businesses to sus-tain during periods of government inactiv-ity. Based on thecyclic nature of demand, the increasing cost/complexity of new systems, and the slow pace of defensemodernization, aerospace companies are losing market advantages and the sector is contracting. Twenty-two years ago, today’s “Big 5” in aerospace were 75 separate companies, as depicted by the historicalchart of industry con-solidation shown in Chapter 7.• Tactical combat aircraft have been a key compo-nent of America’s air forces. Today, three tacticalaircraft programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (in production), the F/A-22 (in a late stage of test andevaluation), and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (just moving into system design and development). Becauseof the recentness of these programs, there are robust design teams in existence. But all of the initial designwork on all three programs will be completed by 2008. If the nation were to con- clude, as it very wellmay, that a new manned tactical aircraft needs to be fielded in the middle of this century, where will wefind the experienced design teams required to design and build it, if the design process is in fact gappedfor 20 years or more?• More than half of the aerospace workforce is over the age of 404, and the average age of aerospacedefense workers is over 50.5Inside the Department of Defense (DoD), a large percent of all scientists andengineers will be retirement eligible by 2005. Given these demographics, there will be an exodus of

“corporate knowledge” in the next decade that will be difficult and costly to rebuild once it is lost. Therewill be a critical need for new engineers, but little new work to mature their practical skill over the nextseveral decades. Further, enrollment in aerospace engineering programs has dropped by 47 percent in the past nine years6, and the interest and national skills in mathematics and science are down. Defensespending on cutting-edge work is at best stable, and commercial aircraft programs are struggling andlaying workers off. As the DoD’s recent Space Research and Development (R&D) Industrial Base Study7concluded, “[s]ustaining a talented workforce of sufficient size and experience remains a long-term issueand is likely to get worse.” In short, the nation needs a plan to attract, train and maintain a skilled, world-class aerospace workforce, but none currently exists.• The current U.S. research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure has a legacy dating back to either World War II or the expan- sion during the Space Age in the 1960s. It is now sufferingsignificantly from a lack of resources required for modernization. In some cases, our nation’s capabilitieshave atrophied and we have lost the lead, as with our outdated wind tunnels, where European facilities are

now more modern and efficient. In the current climate, there is inad- equate funding to modernize aginggovernment infrastructure or build facilities that would support the development of new transformationalcapabil- ities, such as wind tunnels needed to design and test new hypersonic vehicles. The aerospaceindus-try must have access to appropriate, modern facilities to develop, test and evaluate new systems.Throughout this dynamic and challenging environ-ment, one message remains clear: a healthy U.S.aerospace industry is more than a hedge against an uncertain future. It is one of the primary nationalinstruments through which DoD will develop and obtain the superior technologies and capabilitiesessential to the on-going transformation of the armed forces, thus maintaining our position as the world’s preeminent military power.

35





Aerospace leadership key to prevent emergence of global powers

Snead, 07 - Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development(Mike, “How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,” Spacefaring

America Blog, 6/3, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx)

Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based onadvancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operationalcapabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power thatdoes not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively less powerful. Eventually,it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power for protection.As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadershipin this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights,the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty yearslater, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war, the U.S.found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "gamechanger" for conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to surviveand generally needed air superiority to prevail.With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengthsthrough expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or therapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S.Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already speaking of plans for developing spacefaringcapabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. Astrong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation, starting in 2009 with the new presidential

administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through prudent increases inmilitary strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is anadvantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.

36





Aerospace Declining

U.S. space leadership is collapsing

Kaufman, 08 (Mark, “US Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There:Dominance in Space Slips as Other

Nations Step Up Efforts”, Washington Post, 7/9,http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm)

China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency is building a rovingrobot to land on Mars. India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket. Space,like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploitingand commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe.Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the militarysatellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many

tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjustedterms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at alevel that would preserve that commanding lead."

In a recent in-depth study of international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesdafound that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic andcompetitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.

Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellitesand spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar systemand beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's.While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been takingthe giant steps that once defined NASA:• Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November theEuropean Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia willsoon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace,whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana.

• Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are also working on lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first toreturn astronauts to the moon.• The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians,Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival tothe U.S. space-based Global Positioning System.• South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-costsatellite launchers. South Korea and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities.

This explosion in international space capabilities is recent, largely taking place since the turn of thecentury. While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Israeli and European space efforts go back severaldecades, their capability to pull off highly technical feats -- sending humans into orbit, circling Mars andthe moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a comet -- are all newdevelopments.

37







U.S. space leadership is decliningKaufman, 08 (Mark, “US Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There:Dominance in Space Slips as Other Nations Step Up Efforts”, Washington Post, 7/9,http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm)

NASA and the U.S. space effort, meanwhile, have been in something of a slump. The space shuttle is stillthe most sophisticated space vehicle ever built, and orbiting observatories such as the Hubble spacetelescope and its in-development successor, the James Webb space telescope, remain unmatched. But thecombination of the 2003 Columbia disaster, the upcoming five-year "gap" when NASA will have noAmerican spacecraft that can reach the space station, and the widely held belief that NASA lacks thefunding to accomplish its goals, have together made the U.S. effort appear less than robust.The tone of a recent workshop of space experts brought together by the respected National ResearchCouncil was described in a subsequent report as "surprisingly sober, with frequent expressions of discouragement, disappointment, and apprehension about the future of the U.S. civil space program."Uncertainty over the fate of President Bush's ambitious "vision" of a manned moon-Mars mission,announced with great fanfare in 2004, is emblematic. The program was approved by Congress, but theadministration's refusal to significantly increase spending to build a new generation of spacecraft hasslowed development while leading to angry complaints that NASA is cannibalizing promising unmannedscience missions to pay for the moon-Mars effort.

38







Emerging countries challenge U.S. space comepetitiveness

Sat Magazine, 8 (“Insight: The Futron Space Competitiveness Index” May 2008,http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1972093877)

To address these questions, Futron Corporation has developed a Space Competitiveness Index (SCI) toexamine the underlying economic determinants of space competitiveness across 40 individual metrics.Together, these elements provide a cogent and holistic framework for assessing national spacecompetitiveness and assess national space competitiveness in three major dimensions: government, humancapital, and industry. This approach has allowed Futron Corporation to produce an in-depth comparativeanalysis of 10 leading nations in space and space-related activity.In addition to its country-level analysis, Futron’s 2008 Space Competitiveness Index also examines thecompetitive dynamics of three global industry segments of particular interest to the international spacecommunity: the military space arena; the positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) sector; and the Earthobservation (EO) market.Futron’s 2008 Space Competitiveness Index ranks the relative competitiveness of the 10 leading spacenations in each of these three segments, and also surveys the broader strategic challenges and opportunitiesthat each global industry segment presents.Why Have a SPACE Competitiveness Index? Currently, much of the vision surrounding the nextgeneration of space missions and technology is tied to the perceived “second race to the Moon” and

beyond. This civilian theme is complemented by an ongoing discussion about the military facets of spaceactivity, as well as the role of both current and emerging commercial enterprises in space access andexploration.Together, the civilian, military, and commercial space sectors focus the broader space discourse aroundquestions about the elements of space competitiveness, the relative competitive position of traditional spaceleaders, and the role of emerging space powers such as China and India. This study, and its future updates,seeks to address pivotal strategic questions about space power and competitiveness:What are the core measures of space competition? Is “space nationalism” on the rise, and if so, what arethe implications? What is the current positioning of traditional space powers like the US, Europe, andRussia? What role will emerging powers such as India and China play? Partners or competitors? What isthe competitive role for lower-tier players like Japan, Brazil, Israel, and others? What are the implicationsof a multi-polar space community? What are the economic consequences of a commercial spaceenvironment based on multiple international providers of key technologies, systems, and services?

A brief overview of key findings is provided below.2008 Space Competitiveness Index Current PositioningThe United States (US) is the current leader in space competitiveness, followed by Russia, Europe, andChinaThe US leads significantly in each of the major categories: government, human capital, and industryRussian space power is resurgent, ending its decline following the fall of the Soviet UnionEurope increasingly acts in concert via joint policy, multinational corporations, and the development of “European markets”China is emerging as a major space power with ambitious and visionary goals backed by heavy investment,centralized decision-making, and techno-nationalistic programsIndia is poised to be a major collaborative player, and is a global leader in remote sensingCanada’s space program benefits from strong European and US relations, as well as solid human capitalindicators, positioning it for advancement if space is more highly prioritized by national decision-makers

Japan has overcome recent difficulties and continues to be an important player focused on the explorationand earth observation segments South Korea has significantly ramped up its space program, but its spacesector remains small and immature Israel continues to be a leader in space technology but has limitedcommercial scale Brazil has seen its position decline relative to other leading space nations, and lacks aclear strategy and commitment to invest in space activities.

39

http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1972093877

http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1972093877





Space Mil Now

Other countries are increasing their military dominance of space – this will be used to challenge U.S.

hegemonyThe Washington Times, 8 (David. R Sands, “China, India hasten arms race in space; U.S. dominancechallenged,” 6-25-08, Lexis)

On the planet's final frontier, more and more countries are beefing up their border guards.India became the latest country to boost its defense presence in space, announcing last week plans todevelop a military space program to counter the fast-growing space defense efforts of neighboring China.India, which has an extensive civilian space satellite program, must "optimize space applications for military purposes," army Chief of Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor said at a defense conference in New Delhi."The Chinese space program is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive and defensivecontent."Last month, Japanese lawmakers passed a bill ending a decades-old ban on the use of the country's space programs for defense, although officials in Tokyo insist that the country has no plans to develop a military

program in space.French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in the first major review of France's defense and security policy in morethan a decade, has proposed nearly doubling spending for space intelligence assets, including spy satellites,to more than $1 billion annually."I don't think what you are seeing is coincidental," said Wade Boese, a researcher at the Washington-basedArms Control Association. "Countries are increasingly aware of the potential for military development inspace, and increasingly aware that other countries are moving ahead ." The issue of an arms race in spacetook on new prominence in January 2007, when China stunned Western military analysts by using a

medium-range ballistic missile to shoot down a defunct weather satellite. Pentagon planners said twoorbiting U.S. spacecraft were forced to change course to avoid being hit by the thousands of pieces of space debris caused by the surprise test. China insists the exercise was not conducted for military reasons. "We are against weaponization or an arms race in space," Zhou Wenzhong,China's ambassador to the United States, said in an interview at The Washington Times earlier

this month. "This was a scientific experiment."But in what many around the world saw as at least in part a return salvo to the Chinese action, theU.S. Navy in February shot down a wayward U.S. spy satellite over the Pacific, arguing that theaction was needed to prevent the craft from crashing to Earth and spreading potentially toxic fuel.India, which competes for influence with China even as trade relations between the two Asiangiants have blossomed, made no effort to hide its concerns about Beijing's plans for space. "Withtime we will get sucked into a military race to protect our space assets and inevitably there will bea military contest in space," Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder, one of India's most senior officers, said lastweek in comments reported by the Indian Express newspaper and confirmed by the country'sdefense ministry. "In a life-and-death scenario, space will provide the advantage," Gen. Lidder said.Although the United States holds a vast technological and spending edge in space defense programs, the

military's reliance on satellites and space -based assets exposes the U nited States more than any other country to military threats in space.

40





Weaponization of space inevitable

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, 2007, Independent Working Group, “MissileDefense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century”, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf. While in effect, the ABM Treaty served as a critical impediment to U.S. deployment of space-based missiledefense. With the Treaty’s termination in 2002, new opportunities for space-based missile defense haveemerged. However, the key obstacles to space defenses remain more political than technological in nature.For example, certain constituencies continue to voice vehement opposition to space-based missile defensesin the mistaken belief that they could result in the weaponization of space. This assumption is the result of the dubious logic that if the United States refrains from the deployment of space- based missile defense;other nations will behave in similar fashion. There is no empirical basis for expecting such internationalreciprocation, however. Whatever the United States chooses to do (or not to do), China, among other nations, seems determined to pursue space programs and, at least in the case of Beijing, to establish itself asa space superpower.

Countries’ capability of space reach makes militarization inevitable

Myers, 8 (Steven, International Herald Tribune, “Is an arms race in space a given?; U.S. not backing downfrom quest to defend orbiting interests,” 3-11-08, Lexis)

Is war in space inevitable? The idea of such a war has been around since Sputnik, but for most of the ColdWar it remained safely within the realm of science fiction and the carefully proscribed U.S.-Soviet armsrace. But a dozen countries now can reach space with satellites - and, therefore, with weapons. Chinastrutted its stuff in January 2007 by shooting down one of its own weather satellites 530 miles above the planet.''The first era of the space age was one of experimentation and discovery,'' a congressional commissionreported just before Bush took office in 2001. ''We are now on the threshold of a new era of the space age,devoted to mastering operations in space.'' One of the authors of that report was Bush's first defensesecretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the policy it recommended became a tenet of U.S. policy: The UnitedStates should develop ''new military capabilities for operation to, from, in and through space.''

Technology, too, has become an enemy of peace in space. Twenty-five years ago, President RonaldReagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was considered so fantastical by its critics that it was known as ''Star Wars.'' But the programs Reagan began were the ancestors of the weaponry that brought down theAmerican satellite.The Chinese strike, and now the Pentagon's, have given ammunition to both sides of the debate over war inorbit. Arms-control advocates say the bull's-eyes underscore the need to expand the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which the United States and 90 other countries have ratified. It bans the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on the moon. Space, in this view, should remain a place for exploration and research, not the destructive side of humanity. The grim potential of the latter was hinted at by the vast field of debris that China's test left, posing a threat to any passing satellite or spaceship. ThePentagon said its own shot, at a lower altitude, would not have the same effect - the debris would fall toearth and burn up.The risk posed by space junk was the main reason the United States and Soviet Union abandoned

antisatellite tests in the 1980s. Michael Krepon, who has written on the militarization of space, said theChinese test broke an unofficial moratorium that had lasted since then. And he expressed disappointmentthat the Pentagon's strike had damaged support for a ban, which the Chinese say they want in spite of their 2007 test.''The truth of the matter is it doesn't take too many satellite hits to create a big mess in low earth orbit,'' hesaid.The White House, on the other hand, opposes a treaty proscribing space weaponry; Bush's press secretary,Dana Perino, says it would be unenforceable, noting that even a benign object put in orbit could become aweapon if it rammed another satellite.A new American president could reverse that attitude, but he or she would have to go up against the

41





generals and admirals, contractors, lawmakers and others who strongly support the goal of keeping U.S.superiority in space.The reason they cite is that the United States depends more than any other country on space for its nationalsecurity.And so, research continues on how to protect U.S. satellites and deny the wartime use of satellites to potential enemies - including work on lasers and whiz-bang stuff like cylinders of hardened material thatcould be hurled from space to targets on the ground. ''Rods from God,'' those are called. For now, suchweapons remain untested and, by all accounts, impractical because the cost of putting a weapon in orbit ishuge. ''It is much easier to hold a target at risk from the land or sea than from space,'' said Elliot Pulham,who heads the Space Foundation, a nonprofit group in Colorado Springs.

US militarization of space is inevitable

Asia Times, 7 (Jack Smith, “The Militarization of Outer Space”, 3-10-07,http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IC10Aa03.html)

The White House is reluctant openly to acknowledge its intention to militarize space, but the USAF in particular has been quite frank. In 1996, the then head of the Space Command, General Joseph W Ashy,was quoted as saying: "We're going to fight from space, and we're going to fight into space. That's why the

US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrialtargets some day - ships, airplanes, land targets - from space." In 2004, Under Secretary of the Air ForcePeter B Teets, discussing America's intentions in space, declared bluntly, "We are paving the road of 21st-century warfare." In May 2005, the New York Times quoted General Lance Lord, another head of theSpace Command, as revealing, "Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny. Spacesuperiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future." He did not explainhow space superiority is obtained, but there is only one way - dominant military force. The USAFacknowledges that the militarization of space is a prime objective. Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1 on"Counterspace Operations", published in August 2004 (and available online), states: "US Air Forcecounter-space operations are the ways and means by which the air force achieves and maintains spacesuperiority. Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack."

42





Satellites key to the US military now and will only become more crucial in the future

Kislyakov, 8- RIA Novoski political commentator (Andrei, “Space Militarization,” 12-02-08, http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080212/99008082.html)

Recent conflicts have shown that the ideas that dominated military thinking in the 20th century have become desperately obsolete. In the wars of today, and the future, the objective is to deal surgical strikesagainst an enemy's sensitive facilities, rather than seize its territory. Massive use of ground troops andarmor is already a thing of the past. The role of strategic aviation is similarly decreasing. In strategic arms,the emphasis is shifting from the classic nuclear triad to high precision weapons of different basing modes.This kind of precision warfare has only been made possible by orbital support vehicles - satellite-basedreconnaissance, warning, forecasting and targeting systems. Much has been done in recent years for thedevelopment of "smart" weapons - guided bombs and missiles that are highly accurate over hundreds of miles. Military analysts say that by 2010 the leading military powers will have 30,000-50,000 suchweapons between them, and by 2020 some 70,000-90,000. It is hard to imagine how many satellites will berequired to support such a vast arsenal, but without them, the cruise missiles capable of hitting a mosquitoat a hundred miles will be absolutely useless. Thus, hundreds of seemingly harmless "passive" spacesystems, which themselves are not designed to attack anything, are a crucial component of high precisionweapons, the main armaments of the 21st century. But this very strength makes space systems the Achilles

heel of the modern army. Disabling its satellites would effectively cripple the US military - and they arealmost completely undefended.

No Ban on ASAT makes space inevitable

Saunders, 7- Senior Research Professor at the National Defense University’s Institute for NationalStrategic Studies(Dr. Phillip C., “China’s Future In Space: Implications for U.S. Security,” 2007,http://www.space.com/adastra/china_implications_0505.html?submit.x=94&submit.y=10&submit=submit)

Despite incentives to avoid a space race, arms control solutions face significant obstacles. China has longadvocated a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. The joint Sino-Russian U.N. working paper,tabled in May 2002, called for a ban on weapons in orbit and on any use of force against outer space

objects. The United States has been skeptical about the utility of such a treaty, believing verification would be difficult and that it might limit future missile defense options. A ban on ASAT weapons would be onemeans of protecting U.S. satellites, but a verifiable ban would be hard to negotiate. U.S. policymakers mustaddress a number of difficult questions. Is space domination an achievable, affordable and sustainableobjective? Will efforts to dissuade Beijing from developing ASAT weapons require tolerating significantimprovements in Chinese military space capabilities? Can arms control protect U.S. space assets? TheUnited States has legitimate security concerns about China's improving space capabilities, but will facetough choices in deciding on its best response.

Space weaponization is inevitable

Oppenheimer 3, (Andy, regular contributor to lane's Information Group and the Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists, “Arms race in space” Foreign Policy, Issue 138, p. 81, September- October 2003) // CCH

Predictably, these plans to expand the Monroe Doctrine above the ozone layer do not sit well with the restof the world. Closer to home, critics warn that the United States risks triggering a self-defeating arms race.Given that the United States owns 90 percent of all military satellites and 60 percent all commercial ones,arms-control advocate John Pike argues that starting a shooting match in space makes about as much senseas holding "rock-throwing contests" in a glass house The inaugural issue of Astropolitics, published by Frank Cass in

London, attempts to bring this dispute down to Earth. According to the editors, the journal was founded on the belief that "theinternational space policy community, with its attendant academic inquisitors, lacks a rigorous an scholarly forum." (Note to would-becontributors: All political views are welcome, but don't send articles on the existence of extraterrestrial life "until proven otherwise.")

43




Anuj, Jackie, Matt 44/96The lead article, "Totem and "Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weaponization Debate," by Karl P. Mueller, a political scientist atRAND, strives to inject nuance into the debate over the weaponization of space by giving a detailed political taxonomy of its key

players. U.S. proponents of space weaponization, he says, fall into three categories: "space racers," whoargue the United States must be first to develop space weapons when rival nations appear poised to do thesame; "space controllers," who see space weapons as a valuable military asset that should be built as soonas the United States deems them necessary; and "space hegemonist," who favor intense development of space weapons to safeguard U.S. political and military dominance the 21st century. These three views share

the belief that the weaponization of space is inevitable. Mueller disagrees. A "space Pearl Harbor" is possible but crippling or destroying an object whipping around the Earth at 17,000 miles per hour is a bitmore challenging than doing "comparable damage" to buildings, electrical grids, and computer networks.Moreover, adversaries can develop comparatively low-cost terrestrial options for disrupting U.S. space assets, such as ground-basedlaser and electronic jamming.

Space militarization is inevitable

Eisendrath 6, (Craig, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., is anadjunct professor of American Studies at Temple University, Philadelphia, “Waging War in the Heavens:Profit and Power Go Hand in Hand as the U.S. Gears Up to Spread Its Military Influence to Vet Another Vast Region-Outer Space” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Vol. 135, November 2006) // CCH

Moore cites the problem, often raised by critics, that space weaponization is being driven by thosecorporations, such as Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and TRW, which benefit from the , tens of billions of dollars of defense contracts. Although profit is a motive, the overwhelming driver in shaping defense policyis a conviction that space weaponization is the way to defend the U.S. and its vital interests, argues Gen.Chuck Homer, former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Space Command. "Space is becoming increasinglyimportant in combat and we must address--and deny the enemy--the use of space and ensure our access to[it]. We did it in Desert Storm by bombing satellite group sites and asking the Russians and the French not to provide overhead

imagery to the Iraqis. The idea of keeping the military out of space is a little late. The train has left the station."

44





Aerospace Key to Hege

Aerospace is key to U.S. leadership

Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace IndustryCommissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States AerospaceIndustry Commissioners, November,http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf )

Aerospace will be at the core of America’s leadership and strength in the 21st century. The role of aerospace in establishing America’s global leadership was incontrovertibly proved in the lastcentury. This industry opened up new frontiers to the world, such as freedom of flight and accessto space. It provided products that defended our nation, sustained our economic prosperity andsafeguarded the very freedoms we commonly enjoy as Americans. It has helped forge newinroads in medicine and science, and fathered the development of commercial products that haveimproved our quality of life.Given a continued commitment to pushing the edge of man’s engineering, scientific and

manufacturing expertise, there is the promise of still more innovations and new frontiers yet to bediscovered. It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains healthy to preserve the balance of our leadership today and to ensure our continued leadership tomorrow. (v)Our Urgent PurposeThe contributions of aerospace to our global leadership have been so successful that it is assumedU.S. preeminence in aerospace remains assured. Yet the evidence would indicate this to be far from the case. The U.S. aerospace industry has consolidated to a handful of players—from whatwas once over 70 suppliers in 1980 down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one U.S.commercial prime aircraft manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies are instrong business health. The U.S. airlines that rely upon aerospace products find their veryexistence is threatened. They absorbed historical losses of over $7 billion in 2001 and potentiallymore this year.

The industry is confronted with a graying workforce in science, engineering and manufacturing,with an estimated 26 percent available for retirement within the next five years. New entrants tothe industry have dropped precipitously to historical lows as the number of layoffs in the industrymount. Compounding the workforce crisis is the failure of the U.S. K-12 education system to properly equip U.S. students with the math, science, and technological skills needed to advancethe U.S. aerospace industry. (v)The Commission’s urgent purpose is to call attention to how the critical underpinnings of thisnation’s aerospace industry are showing signs of faltering— and to raise the alarm.This nation has generously reaped the benefits of prior innovations in aerospace, but we have not been attentive to its health or its future. During this year of individual and collective research, theCommission has visited and spoken with aerospace leaders in the United States, Europe, andAsia. Wenoted with interest how other countries that aspire for a great global role are directing

intense attention and resources to foster an indigenous aerospace industry. This is in contrast tothe attitude present here in the United States. We stand dangerously close to squandering theadvantage bequeathed to us by prior genera-tions of aerospace leaders. We must reverse this trendand march steadily towards rebuilding the industry.

45

http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf






A strong aerospace sector is key to hegemony

Wright, 93 - Major, USAF [Stephen, “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE NATION”,http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf ]

A more dramatic indication of military dysfunction is evident in the DoD response to Senator Sam Nunn’squestioning of the efficacy of the military having four air forces [meaning the four services}.{14} The DoDresponse came in General Colin Powell’s report on roles and missions.{15} The report argues that "theother services have aviation arms essential to their specific roles and functions but which also work jointlyto project America’s air power."{16} The debate argues that as it makes no sense to assign all radios or trucks to one service, so to it would not make sense to assign all aircraft to one service. Is this an aerospacerationale? Would we need aerospace forces to operate differently in the services’ strategies if there wereonly one air service? Would we not be better served to describe what we want U.S. forces (land, sea, andaerospace) to do and develop an integrated strategy to achieve some desired end state? For example, if thenation wants a highly mobile amphibious assault capability it needs Marines with airpower. If the nationwants sea control and power projection capabilities with minimal reliance on other nation support, it needsa Navy with airpower in the form of carrier air wings. If the U.S. wants an Army with the capability to dosustained, heavy combat with low casualties, it will need aerospace power. If the nation wants to exploit air and space forces as in it did in Desert Storm, it will need many air and space capabilities. As we found in

Chapter 4, the future service strategies depend on aerospace power. The political imperatives driving thosestrategies devolve upon aerospace capabilities. If the Defense Department is to answer Senator Nunn, itmust answer within the context of a military aerospace strategy.The ties linking the aerospace with its military counterpart were forged through two world wars, a cold war,Korea, Vietnam, and other lesser conflicts. Add to this crucible of the past the economic challenges of thefuture and one sees the desideratum of aerospace power. To achieve a position of predominance inaerospace, the U.S. requires a national aerospace strategy.Whither the Aerospace Nation? {17}If this paper serves no other purpose, it must serve as a wake-up call, a call to action for the aerospacenation. United States policy makers must view aerospace power as a national treasure. If economists likeRobert Reich, Michael Porter and Lester Thurow, are correct, the aerospace industry will be critical toAmerica’s future economic prosperity. Each argues that the future belongs to those nations with trained,skilled workers that add unique, high value to products. Each agrees that aerospace is one of those

industries. Militarily we cannot operate without control of aerospace--all military strategies rely upon it. Aerospace dominance provides the capability for U.S. forces to win within the political imperatives of thefuture, especially with reference to casualties. Aerospace power, both its economic and military elements,is under great pressure to succeed in the future. To do so requires a national aerospace strategy.

46

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf






Aerospace is vital to hegemony and the economy

Wright, 93 - Major, USAF [Stephen, “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE NATION”,http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf ]

The transition and development of the U.S. into an aerospace nation underwent many starts and stops in both its economic and military elements. What this paper showed was the absolutely essential contributionaerospace power makes to the security and well-being, economically and militarily, of the United States.There can be no doubt that America is an aerospace nation. However, many problems cloud U.S. aerospace power necessitating a national strategy that encompasses both elements of its power. The aerospaceindustry provides the jobs, skills, and products that serve to increase the U.S. standard of living. It serves asa visible symbol of the technological expertise and economic power of America. Militarily, the U.S. facesuncertainty about potential threats; however, as long as she can control and exploit aerospace at will, her future is secure from hostile intent.

47







Aerospace is vital to the U.S. economy and leadership

Aviation Week and Space Technology, 2000 (“What’s at Stake in US Aeronautics Decline” COL. 153, NO. 14, PG. 82 10-2-2000, LN) // DCM

Several huge national problems will result for the U.S. if these trends are not reversed:-- If air traffic expands to meet the expected demand, twice as many passengers will be flying 10years hence, and within 20 years there will be triple the number flying today. But that is only amarket projection. If ATC is not modernized, the system will choke in 8-10 years. Tweaking thecurrent system will not do enough. What is required is new approaches to air traffic managementand the application of new technologies.-- If aviation cannot continue to expand, growth of the ''new economy'' will be stifled. FewAmericans realize how much e-commerce depends on aviation. The Internet can handle the frontend of a transaction, but it takes airplanes to deliver the goods.-- The ''old'' economy would suffer, too. Airlines and aircraft manufacturing account for anestimated $ 436 billion in annual economic activity and a net 3% of the Gross Domestic Product.More important, aerospace is the largest net exporter in the U.S. economy -- more than $ 40

billion annually. But Boeing is losing market share to Airbus Industrie and has fewer recentlydesigned aircraft to offer. And, the U.S. does not even manufacture regional jets. Such tradesurpluses cannot last without new products and the better technology they require.-- Finally, national security could be threatened if the U.S. does not maintain leadership inaeronautics. The Defense Dept. has no strategy that does not assume U.S. air superiority. But thatcannot be assumed if R&D spending continues to flag. No one in Congress set out to gut U.S. leadership in aeronautics. It was just easy to cut. Thetrouble, as former NASA Administrator James M. Beggs points out, is that a nation can postponeinvestment in R&D without suffering any ill effects -- until a decade or so later.But the erosion must be stopped now. First, Congress should adequately fund aviation R&D inthe NASA, Defense Dept. and FAA budgets in Fiscal 2001. The Administration requests would begin to reverse the downward trend. But more needs to be done to address the nexus of problemsin U.S. aviation and aerospace. No candidate for President has indicated much recognition of the problems or what is at stake, much less articulated a vision for aviation in the nation's future.Perhaps that is too much to ask in a campaign year. But it is not too much to ask of an incomingadministration. We applaud the planned creation of a national commission on the future of theU.S. aerospace industry, and we urge the next President to become personally involved to ensureits success.Aviation and aerospace are vital to the U.S.' future. If Americans fail to support aeronautics andaviation-related research, there will be no next generation of professionals to solve the obviouslooming problems and create products the world will demand. And without that, the U.S. puts at risk a linchpin of its economy, national security and quality of life.

48





Incentives for the aerospace industry are necessary to sustain the US economy, quality of life, and

national security

Marburer, 1 -- Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; White House Sponsor for Commissionon the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (John, “the Future Belongs to the Mobile” 11-27-01,http://www.ostp.gov/cs/commission_on_the_future_of_the_united_states_aerospace_industry_the_future_belongs_to_the_mobile)

The President strongly supports your effort. The nation has depended on the aerospace industryfor decades to ensure that America leads the world in high technology, including themanufacturing of military and commercial aircraft, satellites, space launch vehicles, weaponsystems and telecommunications systems. As a result, our military is the best in the world, our economy has benefited from a positive aerospace balance of trade, and our people and shippershave benefited from having the best and safest aviation system in the world. The public has also benefited from the numerous spin-offs from the aerospace industry, including cellular telephones, precision farming, new medical devices, improved weather forecasting, and hundreds of others.The President wants to make sure that U.S. aerospace leadership continues in the 21st Century.The critically important tasks of this Commission are to help the President establish the direction

for the U.S. aerospace industry in this new century, and to support national initiatives oneducation, defense, security, and energy. This Commission is taking place at a landmark period inour history. The events of September 11 require a national response similar to that following theSoviet launch of Sputnik in 1957. The President has clearly expressed our national determinationthat all Americans, and indeed the world, will pursue their aspirations free from the threat of global terrorism. The reprehensible terrorist assault on two of our nation's most importantfacilities have turned a dramatic spotlight on weaknesses in our aerospace and air transportationsystems. Even prior to September 11th, however, the United States faced serious challenges inthese areas --our air traffic system - based on 1960's technology and management ideas - wasapproaching gridlock, needed, but ever tightening environmental requirements on noise andemissions were limiting world-wide flight operations and creating international conflict, our aerospace market leadership was being challenged as an explicit goal of foreign competitors, and

our country's investments in long-term aeronautics and space research and development wereshrinking rapidly, threatening a crisis in the industry's ability to attracting trained and talentedhuman capitol. We must ensure that the disruption of transportation and services that followed theevents of September 11 does not recur. We need to develop a 21st Century global air transportation system that provides safe, secure, efficient and affordable transportation of people,goods and information in peacetime and wartime - enabling people and goods to move freelyanywhere, anytime, on time. We need a system that: Enhances national security by strengtheninghomeland defense while enabling the military to project power anywhere in the world at anytime; Increases U.S. economic competitiveness by building a more efficient, higher capacity air transportation system; and Improves the quality of life of all Americans by enabling them to dowhat they want to do when and where they want to do it. We also need to re-invigorate aninnovative aerospace industry that, with the appropriate incentives and investments, can develop

such a system and sustain U.S. leadership in the 21st Century.

49

http://www.ostp.gov/cs/commission_on_the_future_of_the_united_states_aerospace_industry_the_future_belongs_to_the_mobile








Aerospace key to Economy

Competitiveness in the aerospace industry is key to the US economy

Augustine, 5 – retired chairmen and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., charied National Academics

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st

Century (Norman R., Aviation Week andSpace Technology, “US Science and Technology is on a Losing Path” Pg. 70 Vo. 163 No. 17 10-31-05,Lexis)

This transition to a borderless economy provides great opportunities for companies that are prepared to take advantage, as the history of the aerospace industry amply demonstrates. But inany dynamic, technology-intensive industry, leadership can be lost very quickly. Thus, manyother industries are now joining the aerospace industry in learning to compete in an uncertain andquickly changing world.Today, candidates for many jobs that currently reside in the U.S. are just a mouse click awa in yIreland, India, China, Australia and dozens of other countries. At first, manufacturing jobs were the

ones most susceptible to moving overseas. I recently traveled to Vietnam, where the hourly cost of low-skilled workers is about 25 cents, less than 1/20th of the U.S. minimum wage. But the competitive

disadvantage is not confined to so-called low-end jobs. Eleven qualified engineers can be hired in India for the cost of just one in the U.S.

At the same time, other countries are rapidly enlarging their innovation capacity. They areinvesting in science and technology and encouraging their highly trained citizens who areworking abroad to return home. Even more important, these countries are creating the well-funded schools and universities that will produce future scientists and engineers.The U.S. is not competing well in this new world. Other nations will continue to have theadvantage of lower wages, so America must take advantage of its strengths. But those strengthsare eroding even as other countries are boosting their capacities.Throughout the 20th century, one of America's greatest strengths has been its knowledge-basedresources--particularly its science and technology system. But today, that system shows manysigns of weakness. This nation's trade balance in high-technology goods swung from a positive flow of

$33 billion in 1990 to a negative flow of $24 billion in 2004. In 2003, foreign students earned 59% of theengineering doctorates awarded by U.S. universities. In 2001, U.S. industry spent more on tort litigationand related costs than on research and development.A major factor determining U.S. competitiveness is the quality of the workforce, and the public schoolsystem provides the foundation of this asset. But that system is failing specifically in the fields mostimportant to the future: science, engineering and mathematics. In a recent international test involvingmathematical understanding, U.S. students finished 27th among the participating nations. In China andJapan, 59% and 66% of undergraduates, respectively, receive their degrees in science and engineering,compared with 32% in the U.S. In the past, the U.S. economy benefited from the availability of financialcapital. But today it moves quickly to wherever a competitive advantage exists, as shown by the

willingness of companies to move factories to Mexico, Vietnam and China (see p. 18). One of America'smost powerful assets is its free enterprise system, with its inherent aggressiveness and disciplinein introducing ideas and flushing out obsolescence. But other nations have recognized these

virtues and are seeking to emulate the system. The aerospace industry is especially susceptible tothese broader economic trends. Without well-educated scientists and engineers, the industry willnot be able to compete with well-organized programs in countries with abundant engineeringtalent. In addition, security issues in the industry highlight its reliance on homegrown talent, asopposed to importing its people from abroad. Troubles in the aerospace industry also could haveimplications throughout the U.S. economy. In particular, the industry has been especiallyeffective at making use of and producing systems engineers, some of whom eventually move toother industries. If aerospace were to decline, a considerable portion of these valuable individualswould be lost.

50





51





A competitive aerospace industry is key to U.S. economic and physical security

Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and AerospaceWorkers; Director of International Policy (Owen E., “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S.Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201, 04-14-08,

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html)

Aerospace is an especially important industry for a nation's economic and physical security, and perhaps no other country has benefited more from the aerospace industry than the United States.9The Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry statesthat the industry "contributes over 15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product and supports over 15 million high quality American jobs" (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2). U.S.aerospace has been identified as a major source of "technical innovation with substantialspillovers to other industrial and commercial sectors" and "high-wage employment, whichspreads the benefits of rising productivity throughout the U.S. economy.…" The AerospaceCommission also noted the industry's contribution to the nation's "economic growth, quality of life, and scientific achievements…." (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2).Despite the importance of aerospace, the deterioration of the industry at home has continued at adramatic rate. Nearly 500,000 jobs have been lost in the U.S. aerospace industry since 1990(Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 8-12; see also AIA 2007), and several hundred thousandmore workers have lost their jobs in related industries. Sadly, the fact of these enormous joblosses comes as no surprise. More than 10 years ago, in Jobs on the Wing, authors Randy Barber and Robert Scott predicted that "up to 469,000" jobs in the aerospace and related industries"could be eliminated by 2013 because of offset policies and increased foreign competition"(Barber and Scott 1995, 2). In a later study, Scott predicted that by 2013 the industry would suffer a loss of over 25% "of the total jobs in aircraft production in 1995" (Scott 1998). These gloomy predictions are apparently reinforced by U.S. government reports. According to the Departmentof Labor, the outlook for employment in the U.S. aerospace industry is not rosy: between 2002and 2012 aerospace employment in the United States will "decrease by 18 percent" (U.S.Department of Labor 2004).The future health of the industry depends in large part on its ability to attract new workers, but thecrisis in employment and the prediction that the crisis will deepen does not bode well for attracting new workers. In its final report, the Aerospace Commission summarized this concern:The U.S. aerospace sector, once the employer of choice for the "best and brightest" technicallytrained workers, now finds it presents a negative image to potential employees. Surveys indicate afeeling of disillusionment about the aerospace industry among its personnel, whether they are production/technical workers, scientists or engineers. The majority of newly dislocated workerssay they will not return to aerospace. In a recent survey of nearly 500 U.S. aerospace engineers,managers, production workers, and technical specialists, 80 percent of respondents said theywould not recommend aerospace careers to their children. (Aerospace Industries Commission2002, 8-5).While the Aerospace Commission found that "U.S. policy toward domestic aerospaceemployment must reaffirm the goal of stabilizing and increasing the number of good and decent

jobs in the industry," this policy has yet to be embraced, let alone implemented (AerospaceIndustries Commission 2002, 8-12).?

52

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html






The aerospace industry is key to the national economy

ARTF, 8 (Aerospace Revitalization Task Force, “Report of the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force”, February 2008, www.doleta.gov/pdf/REPORT_Aerospace_2008.pdf)

The workforce of each sector reflects a wide array of talents and competencies, fromresearchers and engineers to technicians, mechanics, and skilled machinists.AIA projects industry sales in 2007 totaled $53.3 billion for civil aircraft, $54.8 billionfor military aircraft, $17.7 billion for missiles, and $605 million in space sales. Robustgrowth is anticipated again in 2008, with projections that industry sales will grow 6percent, or $12 billion, driven largely by increase deliveries of civil aircraft, engines,and related parts and components.11 The importance of the aerospace industry to theeconomy and the public is best summarized the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT) Labor Aerospace Research Agenda and Lean Aerospace Initiative: 12 It enables the global movement of people and goods; It enables the global acquisitionand dissemination of information and data; It advances national security interests;and, It provides a source of innovation by pushing the boundaries of exploration andinspiration.

53





Aerospace workforce key to competitiveness

Muellner, 7 – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (George K, “A New Year’s Resolutionfor 2008,” Aerospace America, 12-07, LN)

<For the past several years, the long-term viability of the aerospace workforce in the United States has beena major concern. An aging workforce coupled with predictions of a looming shortfall of skilled professionals threatens the vitality of the aerospace industry and makes it difficult to maintain our competitiveness and technological edge in the world. A journalist described the problem as the "Crisis inAerospace." Congress responded to these issues by passing HR 758 in October 2005. This bill created afederal inter-agency task force on Aerospace Workforce Revitalization. Recently, the challenge of developing and sustaining a world-class aeronautics workforce became a specific principle of the NationalAeronautics Research and Development Policy endorsed by Executive Order in December 2006.Revitalization of the aerospace workforce is a complex value-stream that starts with focus on Science,Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education, continues into college and graduate programs, and includes the education, training, and experience our professionals get when they enter theworkforce. Maintaining our world-class aerospace workforce is a challenge that requires integrated actionsat all steps in this process.Both inspiration and leadership are required to maintain the quality and quantity of aerospace professionals,and AIAA has a major role to play in this process. We represent today's aerospace workforce and can, andshould, assume a leadership role in insuring its vitality into the future. Events like "Education Alley" at therecent AIAA 2007 Space Conference & Exposition attracted many potential aerospace professionals, gotthem excited about what we do, and allowed many of you to dazzle them with your war stories. Your stories on connecting the world through advances in commercial aviation, providing for the NationalSecurity through military aircraft and space systems, and placing men on the moon and robots on Marsinspired another generation of aerospace professionals.

A strong aerospace industry ensures competitiveness

Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace IndustryCommissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States AerospaceIndustry Commissioners, November,

http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf )

The Commission concludes that the government must ensure that the nation has ahealthy aerospace industry today and in the future, an industry that can not onlymeet the security and economic needs of the country but also can competesuccessfully in the international market place. The government needs to exertleadership and prioritize and promote aerospace by managing its activitiesefficiently, effectively and as a sector to accomplish national objectives. It needs tocreate an environment that fosters innovation in the U.S. aerospace industry,ensuring its competitiveness into the 21st century.

54







SSP key to Aero Leadership

Developing space-based solar power is key to remain economically and

technologically competitive as a hegemonic power

The Washington Post, 6 (Marc Kaufman, “NASA Looks to the Future With Eye on the Past,” 12-04-06,LN) // DCM

<As Michael Griffin, the head of NASA, sees it, humanity is setting out on an interplanetary quest notdissimilar to what began with the Vikings. An age of space exploration has begun, but only with the sameconfused baby steps that brought Leif Eriksson briefly to Vinland and North America (or was itGreenland?). "Fifty years into it, the amount of progress that the Vikings had made would not have beenthat noticeable, and that's where we are in space flight today," Griffin said in a recent interview. "I reallythink that's the way to look at it." But Griffin and NASA have big plans for the future. The concrete proposals are contained in the Vision for Exploration that President Bush announced in 2004, a program toreturn Americans to the moon before 2020 and plan for travel onward to Mars. It's an ambitious, almost

Star Trek-like vision, one that has ardent supporters and vocal detractors. But to a degree generallyunappreciated by the public, it is the law of the land, since Congress adopted the president's moon-Mars proposal last year. And it is moving forward: NASA will publicly outline today its exploration strategy for the planned lunar missions. The bigger picture, however, is significantly more grand. As Griffin and others(including renowned British cosmologist Stephen Hawking) describe it, it is all about whether humans willincorporate the solar system "into mankind's sphere of influence.""In the long run, we know that Earth and its resources are finite," Griffin said. "There are resources in space-- solar power or particular materials or precious metals, or basic things like water or fuel which, in thecontext of a space-based economy, can be very valuable. As we learn and develop the arts and sciences of spaceflight, we will want to make use of those resources rather than bringing them up from Earth."Some intriguing possibilities include extracting oxygen from the moon's soil to help power rockets,collecting helium-3 (a non-radioactive isotope of the gas) for nuclear power back on Earth, and the mineralanorthite to make aluminum.

"This won't happen tomorrow or in our grandchildren's day," he said. "But who would have thought that itwould be profitable to make wine in Australia and ship it to the United States? In a few short decades,we've made a very significant part of the Earth's economy to be a global economy and not a patchwork of national economies."In the same way that globalization was the result of a thousand years of exploration and development,Griffin argued, a space-based economy will appear only after thousands of missions -- some successful andsome not. "You will -- if you can live long enough -- see the resources of the solar system similarlyincorporated into humanity's sphere of influence," Griffin said. "In the long run, that's what the expansionof humankind into space is all about." Whether this vision is achievable or even desirable is a subject of debate, and there is already substantial concern that NASA's exploration plans will, over time, drain fundsfrom its highly successful science programs. "It's good to have such an enthusiast like Griffin at NASA, butthat whole messianic vision is pretty far from the current state of technology," said Robert Kirshner, anastronomy professor at Harvard University and past president of the American Astronomical Society.

"Many of us worry that it will suck the juice out of other very promising projects to learn more about our universe." Griffin said that NASA intends to maintain the financial balance between manned explorationand pure science in its $17 billion yearly budget, a ratio that is now about two dollars for mannedexploration for each one spent on pure science. The billions more needed for the moon-Mars missions will be redirected from the costly shuttle and space station programs, which are due to wind down in 2010.But Wes Huntress, a former NASA associate administrator and ex-member of the NASA science advisory board, said that ever since Bush announced the space exploration vision, the administration has refused togive the agency additional funding to accomplish its mission.The result is that "Griffin has had to cannibalize the agency to get the money for the new program,"Huntress said. "Even at that, I don't think there are sufficient funds to support even the return to the moon

55





once the program gets really moving." In Griffin's big-picture view, the stakes in space are high -- whichhelps explain why he is so driven about return to manned lunar exploration and beyond. Not only are theremajor national security issues involved -- the country relies on space-based defense like no other nation -- but the NASA administrator said the United States can remain a preeminent civilization only if it continuesto explore space aggressively. If the United States pulls back, Griffin said, others will speed ahead. Russiaand China have sent astronauts into low-Earth orbit, and India, Japan and the Europeans all have thetechnical ability to do the same now -- and far more in the future.International cooperation has been ingrained into the government's thinking about space, but the UnitedStates and others remain committed to manufacturing their own rockets and space capsules and will belooking for international cooperation only once they are on the moon or Mars or some asteroids in between."I absolutely believe that America became a great power in the world, leapfrogging other great powers of the time, because of its mastery of the air," Griffin said. "In the 21st century and beyond, our society andnation, if we wish to remain in the first rank, must add to our existing capacities . . . to remain preeminentin the arts and sciences of space flight.

SSP boosts aerospace competitiveness

Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace

Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the UnitedStates Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November,http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf )

What limits the performance of most spacecraft, including the International Space Station (ISS), is theamount of power that can be generated from solar energy. Increasing available power, both on orbit and beyond orbit, could expand opportunities in military, civil, and commercial space applications.The concept of using solar power satellites to beam power to Earth has been a distant dream. But, the use of such satellites as a “refueling station,” to collect solar energy and beam it to on-orbit assets is worthexploring.Solar or nuclear power stations capable of supplying on-orbit power could also have commercial potential.Selling power as a space utility is the kind of business arrangement that the space community has longneeded. The enhanced power would prove to be a huge benefit to ISS. It could provide sufficient energy to

conduct commercial activities not now possible within the station’s limited power capabilities.In addition, others looking to commercial use of space could design their own free-flyer modules equippedwith an antenna to receive power, thus needing little more than an emergency backup capability on board.See Chapter 9 for additional information on power. The Commission believes that once there is affordable,abundant power in orbit, public and private investments in space systems and exploration will follow. (3-5)

56







SSP Key to Space Domination

SPS key to future space operations

Major Kim Ramos, 2000, USAF, “Solar Power Constellations Implications For The United States Air Force,” April 2000, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A394928&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

In addition to the terrestrial implications of solar power satellites for the Air Force, there are alsoimplications for space operations. The power required for spacecraft operations is increasing. In order tomeet this increase, engineers are looking at standardized solar cells, new gallium/aluminum solar cells and paying close attention to solar power satellite developments.17 The problems associated with increasing thesize of solar arrays on satellites to meet the increasing power demands are deterioration of structuredynamic performance, complications of orientation and stabilization, placing solar arrays under thelauncher fairing, deploying solar arrays in orbit, buffer elements for periods without sunlight anddiscrepancies between the orientation of devices and solar arrays.18 Engineers from the Ukrainerecommend solving these problems with solar power satellites using wireless power transmission or a

cable.19 The authors of New World Vistas also recommended this approach. They advocated using spacesolar power satellites to power other satellites in space and predicted that “power beaming will become amajor element of spacecraft operations.”20 Solar power satellites would provide improvements 17 in theareas of reconstitution, maneuver, force application, space-based radar, and communication satellites which produce power as well as transfer data.

57





SPS key to military space power

Major Kim Ramos, 2000, USAF, “Solar Power Constellations Implications For The United States Air Force,” April 2000, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A394928&Location=U2&doc

=GetTRDoc.pdf)

United States Space Command developed four operational concepts to guide their vision. One of thoseoperational concepts is global engagement. The USSPACECOM Long Range Plan defines globalengagement as an “integrated focused surveillance and missile defense with a potential ability to applyforce from space.”27 This application of force from space involves holding at risk earth targets with forcefrom space.28 New World Vistas identifies several force application technologies. One of the technologicalissues associated with developing these space force application technologies is that they all require largeamounts of power generation. A solar power satellite can supply the required power. Two technologies in particular would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, directed energy weapons, such aslasers, and jamming devices. 19 The space-based lasers currently under study accomplish ground movingtarget indication, and air moving target indication, which would be part of missile defense.29 The maindifficulty with the laser is designing a power plant, which can produce the required energy in space withoutthe enormous solar arrays required. By using a solar power satellite to beam power to the laser, thiseliminates the problem. Another project, which would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite,is a device, which would beam RF power to a particular geographic location to blind or disable anyunprotected ground communications, radar, optical, and infrared sensors.30As with the laser and other directed energy applications, the limiting factor right now is generating enough power in space to energizethe RF beam.

58





SSP key to Space Radar

The Space Review 7, (Taylor Dinerman, “Solar power satellites and space radar”

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm, July 16, 2007)

One of the great showstoppers for the Space Radar (SR) program, formerly known as Space Based Radar,is power. It takes a lot of energy to transmit radar beams powerful enough to track a moving target on Earthfrom space. What is called the Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) is what makes SR so much better than other space radar

systems, such as the recently-launched German SAR-Lupe or the NRO’s Lacrosse system. While many of the details areclassified, the power problem seems to be the main reason that the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has been extremely reluctant to fund this program.In order to achieve the power levels needed for an effective GMTI system using current technology, verylarge solar arrays would be needed. Even if these were to use the new Boeing solar cells that, according to the company, are

more than 30% efficient, the arrays would still be much bigger than anything on any operational satellite. Such large arrayswould make the SR spacecraft easy targets for enemy antisatellite weapons and would also produce somuch drag while in low Earth orbit (LEO) that their lifespan would be shorter—perhaps much shorter—

than current-generation reconnaissance satellites.Why, then, does such a system need to rely 100% on its own power? If solar power satellites (SPS) wereavailable in geosynchronous orbit and could beam electricity to the SR satellites in LEO, this might allowthe radar satellites to have as much power as their power control systems and heat radiators could handle.Power could be transmitted by a tightly focused laser or microwave beam to one or two receptors,integrated into the spacecraft’s bus. If the radar antenna were integrated into the skin of the satellite the wayit is on a B-2 bomber, such satellite would be difficult to detect and track.Using power from an SPS, such a satellite would be able to liberally use its ion engines to change its orbit.These engines would never be powerful enough to make the kind of quick responsive maneuvers that somespace operations commanders would like to see in future LEO-based spacecraft, but they would be a step inthe right direction.The demise of the E-10 program that had been intended to replace the Air Force’s JSTARS and AWACSsurveillance aircraft has left a hole in future US situational awareness capabilities that neither unmannedaerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Predator and Global Hawk, nor existing satellite programs can possibly

fill. Space Radar could do so, but only if the program is restructured to make it at once more ambitious interms of future capability and less ambitious in terms of near-term operations.

59

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm





Space power key to hegemony

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Independent Working Group, 2007, “Missile

Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st

Century”, 2007, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.)

For the United States, space represents an indispensable first line of defense. Almost since the beginning of the space age over forty years ago, the United States has utilized this for intelligence and defense support,including deploying sensors in space to provide early warning of a missile launch .Without space control,

the United States cannot maintain dominance on the battlefield. With the demise of the ABM Treaty,the United States can now legally develop, test, and deploy space- as well as sea-, air-, and mobile ground- based defenses. To build a missile defense with the global capability to protect its own territory and itsoverseas forces, friends, and allies as President Bush has proposed, the United States will need to includespace-based defenses. They possess a global capability because they can intercept a missile regard less of launch location, provided that the constellation is large enough to keep interceptors continually withinrange of possible launch locations. Of all basing modes space-based defenses would provide the widestarea of coverage and greatest number of shots against enemy war heads – and it would have the very

desirable feature of always being present to destroy ballistic missiles launched from anywhere in the world.

If the U.S. doesn't control space, someone else will

Waller 1, (J. Michael, “Militarizing Space” Insight on the News, Vol. 17, 3-19-01)

The Space Commission recommended that the Department of Defense reorganize its entire space-management structure, focusing more resources on space-based defenses. The report, released Jan. 11,concluded that just as air and sea were theaters of battle in the 20th century, space will be a theater of battlein the 21st. The United States, however, has not prepared itself in this respect for next-generation warfare.The Rumsfeld report says: "Having shown the world the utility of space systems, it would be pretty naiveto think that our adversaries are just going to be sitting around idly and not developing their own space- based information capabilities and the tools and techniques to counter the current U.S. space advantage."How can the United States stop maverick regimes in Iran or Iraq, or potentially hostile ones such as Russiaor China, from using their satellites to harm U.S. interests on the ground or disabling or destroying U.S.satellites in space? The simplest way is to deploy weapons to take out dangerous satellites. The KineticEnergy Anti-Satellite Weapon (KE-ASAT) is an inexpensive, quickly deployable device the United Statescould build to deny the use of space to any potential adversary. This country has spent $350 million on theKE-ASAT since 1993, but antidefense elements in the Clinton administration tried to make sure the fundsnever reached the programs Congress intended. "Without an antisatellite capability," says Smith, "today'sforeign- and commercial-surveillance satellites could easily detect our now-famous dogleg in the desert thatallowed the United States to quickly end the Desert Storm operation with very few casualties. Without KE-ASAT, this nation will not have the satellite-negation capability to deter satellite operators from sharing or selling our adversaries sensitive intelligence of the U.S. military, resulting in longer wars and more liveslost."

60





Failure to dominate space will collapse U.S. power

J. Michael Waller 2001, “Militarizing Space” Insight on the News, Vol. 17, 3-19-01

Failure to continue to dominate space, warns James Schlesinger, former CIA chief and secretary of defense,

will mean the downfall of the United States as a world power. "Our position depends upon space, spacesensors, space communications, space intelligence and, also, guiding our weapons accurately from space.All of this is a marvelous achievement, but it creates for us a potential vulnerability -- and that is if we aresomehow or other cut off, or our ability to utilize space is reduced, we are going to be engaged around theworld in ways that the U.S. public will not particularly tolerate, in that we are likely to come home withlarge numbers of bodies in bags. The consequence," says Schlesinger, "is that the public will be turned off.So our international role might come crashing down. And the moral of the story is that we have to protectthe usage of space."

61





Space Domination Solves War

Domination of space is key to prevent a world war

Andy Oppenheimer, contributor to lane's Information Group and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,October 2003, “Arms race in space” Foreign Policy, Issue 138, p. 81

Eight days before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Maj. Gen. Franklin J. Blaisdell, the U.S. Air Forcedirector of space operations and integration, offered a blunt warning: "We are so dominant in space that I pity a country that would come up against us." In the five weeks that followed, more than 5,500 JointDirect Attack Munitions pummeled Iraq, guided to within 3 meters of their targets by orbiting GlobalPositioning System satellites. High-resolution radar satellites peered through clouds and sand-storms,allowing coalition aircraft to pick off former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard. Butdespite such military prowess, the U.S. defense establishment is worried. Two years ago commissionformerly chaired U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that growing dependence oncommercial and military satellites left the United States vulnerable to a possible "space Pearl Harbor."More recently, national security agencies have been circulating proposals to develop a flotilla of military

spacecraft that would deny U.S. enemies (and possibly even U.S. allies) access to Earth's orbit without U.S. permission.

63





US domination of space is key to prevent a space arms race

Eisendrath 6, (Craig, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., is anadjunct professor of American Studies at Temple University, Philadelphia, “Waging War in the Heavens:Profit and Power Go Hand in Hand as the U.S. Gears Up to Spread Its Military Influence to Vet Another Vast Region-Outer Space” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Vol. 135, November 2006)

AS RESEARCH ON SPACE weaponization reaches into the billions of dollars, and the first deployment of national missile defense has taken place in Vanderburg Air Force Base, Calif., and Ft. Greeley, Alaska, it istime to put these issues before the public. What exists is the possibility of a worldwide arms race in outer space and the expenditure of trillions of dollars to arm space and deploy a national missile defense systemcapable of dealing not only with rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, but more substantial potentialopponents like China or even the Russian Federation. Whatever the merits of space weaponization andnational missile defense, these programs need to be discussed fully by Congress and the general public.According to Mike Moore, former editor of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and author of Space Cop,"Space warriors are part of a professional belief community whose members have certain overarching paradigms--one being that conflict in Space is probable, if not inevitable, and the United States musttherefore prepare for it by taking unilateral action that would give [it] control of space in a time of conflict."

This view is championed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who holds that the U.S. has been soderelict in not arming space that it is vulnerable to a potential "Space Pearl Harbor." A version of thisspace-control mindset appeared in the U.S. Space Command-issued document, "Vision of 2020." On thefirst page, in oversize type, it reads, "U.S. Space Command--dominating the space dimension of militaryoperations to protect U.S. interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into war-fighting capabilitiesacross the full spectrum of conflict." Citing the development of sea and air power, the report states, "Over the past several decades, space power has primarily supported land, sea, and air operations--strategicallyand operationally," as in the first Gulf War or the invasion of Iraq, when space was used to identify targetsand guide weapons. "During the early portion of the twenty-first century, space power will also evolve intoa separate and equal medium of warfare. Likewise, space forces will emerge to protect military andcommercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance."Moore wonders what would happen if China or Russia, or even Great Britain or France, had said it plannedto dominate outer space militarily within 15 or 20 years? The U.S., he maintains, would demand a change

of policy, or call upon the international community to impose sanctions. "But if such measures failed, theworld would have a new space race," he says, and that would be "outrageously expensive; it would suck intellectual resources and scarce capital into black holes of mutual suspicion; it would compromise theability of nations to meet everyday human needs. Worse, it would make fruitful international cooperationon mitigating a host of pressing global problems considerably less likely. "The United States may have the best of intentions when it speaks of achieving a space-control capability. It may have no notion of ever denying access to space to another country except in extremis. It may have no wish to vaporize thesatellites of other nations or to demolish buildings with devices launched from , orbit unless a war were in progress, but what nation could afford to rely on the everlasting good intentions of another nation, even theUnited States?"

64





The US will face a “space Pearl Harbor” if we do not pursue space control

Logsdon 1, (John, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University's Elliott Schoolof International Affairs in Washington, D.C, “Just Say Wait to Space Power” Issues in Science andTechnology, Vol. 17, Spring 2001) // CCH

With dependency comes vulnerability. The U.S. military is certainly more dependent on the use of spacethan is any potential adversary. The question is how to react to this situation. The commission notes that thesubstantial political, economic, and military value of U.S. space systems, and the combination of dependency and vulnerability associated with them, "makes them attractive targets for state and nonstateactors hostile to the United States and its interests." Indeed, it concluded, the United States is an attractivecandidate for a space Pearl Harbor: a surprise attack on U.S. space assets aimed at crippling U.S. war-fighting or other capabilities. The United States currently has only limited ability to prevent such an attack.Given this situation, the report said, enhancing and protecting U.S. national security space interests should be recognized as a top national security priority. Rumsfeld's appointment as defense secretary makes it likely that this

recommendation will at a minimum be taken seriously. Yet there is a curious lack of balanced discussion of its implications. Althoughthe increasing importance of space capabilities has received attention from those closely linked to the military and national securitycommunities, it has not yet been a focus of informed discussion and debate by the broader community of those interested ininternational affairs, foreign policy, and arms control. Of the 13 commission members, 7 were retired senior military officers, and theother members had long experience in military affairs. In preparing the commission report, only those with similar backgrounds wereconsulted. Without broader consideration of how enhancing space power might affect the multiple roles played by space systems

today, as well as the reactions of allies and adversaries to a buildup in military space capabilities, there is a possibility that the UnitedStates could follow, without challenge, a predominantly military path in its space activities. What is proposed as a means of reducing U.S. space vulnerabilities while enhancing the contribution of space assets to U.S. military power is "space control." This concept is defined by the U.S Space Command, the military organizationresponsible for operating U.S. military space systems, as "the ability to ensure uninterrupted access to spacefor U.S. forces and our allies, freedom of operation within the space medium, and an ability to deny othersthe use of space, if required." (The Space Command's Long Range Plan is available atwww.spacecom.af.mil/usspace.) In a world in which many countries are developing at least rudimentaryspace capabilities or have access to such capabilities in the commercial marketplace, achieving total U.S.space control is not likely. More probable is a future in which the United States has a significant advantagein space power capabilities but not their exclusive possession. This implies a need to be able to defend U.S.space assets, either by active defenses or by deterrent threats.

Space control prevents terrestrial war

Elhefnawy 3 (Nader, doctoral student at the University of Miami. He has previously written for severalother military journals, including Armor and Proceedings, “Four Myths about Space Power” Parameters,Volume: 33, Issue: 1, p. 124, 2003) // CCH

The satellite gap between America and every other nation in the world is universally recognized, and thesignificance of this fact is also unquestioned. America s unparalleled investment in space, in satellites, theinfrastructure that goes with them and the precision weapons that best exploit them is appreciated as havingmade possible its successful campaigns against Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. If anything, the gapseems certain to grow steadily greater in the coming years. In the three years between Yugoslavia andAfghanistan, American airpower went from being effective principally against fixed targets likeinfrastructure to routinely devastating moving formations using real-time intelligence with the help of faster satellite relays. The Army and Navy as well as the Air Force have been directed to devote increasingattention to space, specifically to "establish requirements, maintain a cadre of space-qualified officers, andresearch, develop, acquire, and deploy space systems unique to each service." (1) The United States is evenslated to begin testing space-based weapons, starting with space-based interceptor missiles in 2006. Theimplicit technical possibilities have compelled some to envision the United States going even further andseizing outright the highest ground of all (happily unoccupied by anyone else) to impose a Wilsonianinternational order on the planet. With an invincible space force keeping the peace between nations, war asit has traditionally been known theoretically becomes impossible.

65





Nanotech- Semiconductor Add-ON

SSP creates the capability to manufacture semiconductors in space – key to dominating the industry

Prado 2, - physicist, former U.S. DOD space engineer and consultant multinational engineering andconstruction companies (Mark, “Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth,” http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm) // CCH

The solar power satellite fits into an asteroidal and lunar materials utilization scenario very well -- it iscomposed of materials most abundant in asteroids near Earth and/or from the Moon, and it is made up of asmall variety of simple parts mass produced in large quantity. The industry required in space to produceSPS components is relatively modest. Some design studies claim that more than 99% of an SPS can bemade from asteroidal and/or lunar material.The silicon solar cells can be made from lunar or asteroidal silicon, as silicon is the second most abundantelement on the Moon and likewise in many kinds of asteroids. Purification of silicon is easier in thevacuum of space, and better crystals grow in zero gravity (due to no convection currents). The glass cover over the solar cells could be silica glass (silicon dioxide) -- composed of the two most abundant elements

on the Moon and likewise in many kinds of asteroids.The SPS structure could be made from asteroidal nickel-iron steel or steel-reinforced lunarcrete or astercrete using cheap glass-ceramics or fiberglass composites. The waveguides could be made of glassceramics. The vacuum tubes to generate the beam could be largely steel in terms of weight, with the smallelectrodes perhaps imported from Earth depending on the level of effort we put into processing thedifferent kinds of asteroidal materials.Given the advantages of manufacturing semiconductors in orbit, Silicon Valley could lose big business tocompetition from Silicon Orbit in the future. Computer chips are small and lightweight enough to bring back to Earth. A future generation of space-made chips may start to bring a close to many kinds of chipmanufacturing on Earth, to the benefit of consumers and Earth's environment.The first to go into business making silicon solar cells in space may well become the first to dominate that business. That may be judged by the first to experiment in orbit and get patents

67

http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm








Semiconductor technology is key to US nanotech leadership – it provides the basis for necessary

innovations

AZoNano ‘5, Online Journal of Nanotechnology[“U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotechnology Leadership,” 3/17/05, www.azonano.com/news.asp%3FnewsID%3D635]

The coming transition to nano-scale semiconductor devices means that leadership in informationtechnology is up for grabs, warned the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). At a news conference inWashington, D.C., today chief executives of U.S. semiconductor makers and a leading economist stressedthe importance of continued progress and leadership in semiconductor technology. The industry isobserving the 40th anniversary of Moore's Law -- an observation made in 1965 by industry pioneer GordonMoore that the number of components on a computer chip was doubling approximately every 12 monthswith a commensurate reduction in costs. Following the vision of Moore's Law, the U.S. semiconductor industry has led the worldwide industry, contributing key innovations that have helped drive America'seconomic growth. Speaking at the news conference were Steve Appleton, chief executive officer of Micron Technology and 2005 chairman of the SIA; Craig Barrett, chief executive officer of IntelCorporation; Dale Jorgenson, Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University; and GeorgeScalise, president of the SIA. The industry executives noted that four decades of continuous advances in

microchip technology have led to creation of entirely new industries, including personal computers, theInternet, and cellular telephones, while enabling major advances in biotechnology, medicine, andenvironmental protection. Professor Jorgenson discussed the contributions semiconductors have made toeconomic growth and productivity gains during the past decade. SIA called for stepped up support for basic research in the physical sciences to assure continued U.S. technology leadership. Experts believecurrent semiconductor technology could run up against physical, technological, and economic limits around2020. "U.S. leadership in technology is under assault," said Barrett. "The challenge we face is global innature and broader in scope than any we have faced in the past. The initial step in responding to thischallenge is that America must decide to compete. If we don't compete and win, there will be very seriousconsequences for our standard of living and national security in the future." Barrett said that industryscientists believe current CMOS scaling to support Moore's Law can remain in effect for at least another 10to 15 years. When the smallest features on a chip shrink to less than 10 nanometers -- 10 one-billionths of ameter -- current chipmaking technology will reach its ultimate limits. To keep Moore's Law alive, the

industry will have to leave Newtonian physics behind and transition to the realm of quantum physics -- theera of nanotechnology. "U.S. leadership in the nanoelectronics era is not guaranteed," noted Barrett. "Itwill take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federalgovernments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology."

68





Nanotech leadership is critical to winning humanity’s most important arms race

John Robert Marlow, 2004, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February,http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm

Marlow's 2nd Paradox As stated in the Nano novel, Marlow's Second Paradox is this: "Nanotechnologymust never be developed, because it is too dangerous a thing to exist; nanotechnology must be developed-

because it is too a dangerous a thing to exist in the hands of others." The first rationale-Bill Joy'srelinquishment option-will be ignored. The second will drive the race for nanosuperiority. The firstnanopower will, if it plays its cards right, remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future-assuming thereremains a future to foresee. This is so because it will be possible to use the technology itself to prevent allothers from deploying it, or to simply annihilate all others. In the entire history of the human race, there hasnever been such a prize for the taking, and there likely never will be again.We are embarked upon what is quite possibly Mankind's final arms race. Caution may not be a factor, because the losers in the nanorace will exist only at the whim of the winner, and many will see themselvesas having nothing to lose, and the world to gain.

Semiconductors are key to hegemony

SIA ‘6 , Semiconductor Industry Association[“Innovation Leadership and the Semiconductor Industry,” 1/25/06, http://www.sia-online.org/downloads/Competitiveness.pdf]

For more than 50 years, leadership in technology has been the foundation of American strategy for economic growth, jobs creation and national security . The rapid application of technology to create andmanufacture innovative products enables American workers to earn high wages in an increasinglycompetitive world. While innovation has driven America’s economic strength and security, U.S. leadershipis not our birthright. Leadership in technology requires a commitment to excellence in K-12 education andfunding basic research in our universities combined with immigration laws that allow the best and brightestfrom around the world to study in our universities and stay and work after graduation. In addition we musthave a business climate that encourages investment and supports risk-taking. The U.S. semiconductor industry provides the enabling technology for thousands of products and services we use every day , such asPCs, cell phones and digital cameras. Semiconductors are also essential to the defense systems that ensure

our national security. A vibrant domestic semiconductor industry is critical to U.S. economic strength andhomeland security. Basic research conducted at America’s universities and the chip industry’s significantinvestments in commercialization have made it possible for American companies to maintain worldleadership with a market share of nearly 50 percent. But, the U.S. share of leading-edge manufacturingcapacity has been eroding rapidly. Other countries are seeking to displace the U.S. as the world’stechnology leader by investing heavily in basic research, offering tax incentives and subsidies to attractinvestment, and training highly skilled scientists and engineers. To maintain our world leadership, we mustchoose to compete !

Hegemony solves nuclear war.

Zalmay Khalizhad, RAND Analyst, "Losing the Moment?”, Washington Quarterly,spring, 1995 p. ln.

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return tomultipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not

as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendousadvantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --

democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealingcooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and allthe attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to

global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

69

http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm

http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm





effective defensive instrumentalities." Freitas persuasively argues that dangerous self-

replicating nanobots could not emerge from laboratory accidents but would have to bemade on purpose using very sophisticated technologies that would take years to develop.

72





Federal Government key to Aerospace

Federal support of aerospace is vital to aerospace leadership


The federal government plays a key role in promoting the health of the U.S. aerospace industry. Maintaining global aerospace leadership to ensure America’s military preeminence, guarantee homelandsecurity, and assure economic growth and a superior quality of life for our citizens in the 21st centuryrequires government activism. Aerospace provides the fastest, safest, most flexible and often the onlymeans of travel and security. A coherent and integrated national aerospace consensus is critical to movethe country forward, drive government action, and preserve U.S. global aerospace leadership. The federal government has called on the aerospace industry in time of crisis in the past. The aerospace

industry has always responded when called. Today, the U.S. aerospace industry is in jeopardy and islooking to the federal govern-ment to respond. The Commission is not asking for the federal governmentto create industrial policy, to pick winners and losers, or to subsidize the development of commercialaerospace products and services. But, the federal government must recognize that its interactions withindustry are key to its strength and long-term survival and, ultimately, to the security and economic prosperity of America.Objective: Government—Flexible, Responsive and Oriented Towards Decision MakingThe health of the aerospace industry , today and in the future, is inextricably linked to the leadership of thefederal government. Its interaction with the U.S. aerospace industry is vast, complex, and multi-dimensional. In the rapidly changing global econ-omy, government leadership must be increasinglyflexible, responsive and oriented toward decisionmaking at macro-levels. It must prioritize and promoteaero- space both within the government and in its interaction’s with the industry in order to realize thefullest potential of aerospace to the nation.• As a leader, the government must provide the national policies and investments needed for the industry to be competitive, to be innovative and to serve the public good both in the short and long term.• As a customer and operator, the government must buy, use and provide the finest aerospace products andservices for the public good, such as for national defense, homeland security, air transportation andscience.

73







The lack of R&D funding for aerospace is crushing U.S. development – federal spending is vital


Commercial Research and Development Funding. Although we are ahead of other countries in investmentin military technology and capability, we are on the edge of dropping out of the race in the civil sector. Instead of continuing to invest, our gov-ernment has increasingly pulled back from the civil aerospacemarket and left it up to U.S. companies to compete against competitors subsidized by governments thathave “not stopped running.” The U.S. government historically has limited civil aerospace technology-related funding to basic research, creating enabling technologies and sharing the results with U.S. and non-U.S. companies. We have left it up to the compa-nies to integrate these technologies into commercial products. NASA spending for aerospace research has declined in recent years, resulting in fewer and less robust programs. NASA rotorcraft research was eliminated entirely in Fiscal Year 2002. In those projects thatremain, the U.S. government is cutting off funding at earlier stages of technologydevelopment as a cost-saving measure. FAA R&D funding has remained flat in recent years in the midst of plans to completely

overhaul our air traffic control system. These budgets are likely to decline in the near future as FAA divertsfunding from all areas to aviation security.Starved of funds, the U.S. government research and development infrastructure is deteriorating as well .Some NASA research facilities have closed, while others are saddled with an aging infrastructure anddeclining number of programs. In fact, the percentage of the budget NASA must spend on maintainingaging infrastructure has increased over the last ten years, dis- placing money intended to be spent on other aspects of the research programs .Instead of increasing private funding for basic R&D, U.S. industry spending has fallen off too. Becausecompanies contribute money and resources when they participate in government-funded R&D projects, areduction in federal funding is matched by a corresponding decrease in industry funding . Companies havelittle incentive to fund basic research on their own because capital markets and stockholders shy away fromrisky investments with indeterminate returns

74







SSP Key to reduce Launch Costs

Space based power is vital to expanding space launch services

Mankins, 8 - president of the Space Power Association, and former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies,Office of Space Flight at NASA (John, Ad Astra, “Inexhaustible Energy from Orbit” Spring 2008, pg. 20,http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf)

At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use inspace. More ambitious missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism andmanufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as they do on progress inspace transportation.

SSP will create sufficient demand to reduce launch costs

Ashworth, 08 - Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society (Stephen, The Space Review, “In defense of

the knights”, 6/23, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1)

One of the leading spaceplane companies in the UK is Reaction Engines, based in Culham in Oxfordshire.Here, there has been major progress in developing a revolutionary new combined jet-rocket engine, thanksto £5 million (US$10 million) of private investment. Alan Bond, its founder and managing director,recently told me that the British government is now more supportive of their work than it has been for decades.The Skylon orbital spaceplane that the company is promoting is a direct successor to the British AerospaceHotol project of the 1980s. It should be capable of carrying at least 10 tonnes of payload in a standardizedcontainer to the orbital altitude of the ISS. The economics of the design depend upon the production of dozens of vehicles, each with a lifetime of around 200 return flights to orbit. As well as new engines, thedesign incorporates a breakthrough in overall layout, with the engines mounted on stubby wings midwayalong the fuselage, aircraft-style, rather than the more usual spaceplane design in which they are attached atthe rear, creating huge problems of balancing the vehicle in atmospheric flight.

That fact that a vehicle such as this might not be available until the 2020s is irrelevant. The prototype SSPsystem proposed in the NSSO study’s Appendix B would be launched using a “large-lot purchase” of expendable launch vehicles (p. B-4). SSP will therefore not really be in the market to buy cheap spaceplaneflights to orbit until the 2020s in any case. A substantial demonstrator can be launched before theeconomics have been solved.Appendix C of the NSSO study analyses the business case for SSP. It notes that launch cost is the singlemost important factor in the economics of SSP, and that increased demand for launch to orbit could lead toa virtuous cycle of cost improvement. Obviously, as Day says, the present-day economic case for SSP is“abysmal”.But factor in a growing space tourism industry moving along its own cost-volume development curve, agovernment-funded SSP demonstrator to provide confidence that there will be large-scale launch activity inthe 2020s, and increasing pressure on oil, coal, and gas, and the economics could soon look very different.

75

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/







China Add-ON

A. US- Sino Space War coming- The Chinese will threaten US space power with

Sino-US war

Griffin and Lin, 8 - Research Assistant, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns HopkinsUniversity(Christopher Griffin and Joseph Lin, Armed Forces Journal, “China’s Space Ambitions” April 8, 2008,

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27772/pub_detail.asp)

The impetus behind China's drive toward developing military space capabilities lies within the Chinesemilitary's view of future warfare, with the U.S. as its most likely adversary. The Chinese military, known asthe People's Liberation Army (PLA), has been obsessed with information-age warfare ever since the U.S.leveraged its space-based C4ISR systems to eradicate Saddam Hussein's military during the 1990-1991Gulf War. One Chinese military commentator noted with awe afterward: "The United States deployed threedefense communications satellites, established 128 defense satellite communications terminals and built an

ultra-high frequency network before the assembling of allied troops."Indeed, the American advantage in the area of military satellites presents the Chinese government withwhat it recognizes as an asymmetric disadvantage. The U.S. is so dominant in this sphere of militarycompetition that it seems impossible to win a head-to-head competition. Faced with this dilemma, thePeople's Liberation Army has developed a two-pronged response that invests in both its own space assetsand in anti-satellite capabilities with which to disrupt American space dominance.Even if the PLA believes it cannot compete directly with American space power, the necessity to invest inspace assets is by no means wasted in Beijing. The Chinese military is developing aerospace networks in pursuit of the technological advantages that the U.S. has come to expect during wartime. A 2004 article printed in the People's Liberation Army Daily stated: "Information dominance cannot be separated fromspace dominance. We can say that seizing space dominance is the root for winning the informationalizedwar." Indeed, the U.S. Defense Department reports that China plans to launch some 17 satellites in 2008 inan ambitious bid to have a fully indigenous satellite fleet by 2010.

But even as China deepens its own reliance on space-based assets in support of military operations, policymakers in Beijing are fixated on the deficit they face in a conflict with the U.S. and the concomitantrequirement to challenge American space power. One PLA analyst recently argued that in modern wars,"seizing space dominance has already become a vital part of seizing information dominance, from whichone can then retain the active position in the war." In a less-subtle argument for the use of offensivecapabilities in space, another PLA officer recently proclaimed that China requires ASAT capabilities for "destroying, damaging and interfering with the enemy's observation and communications satellites."

76

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27772/pub_detail.asp






B. A Chinese attack on US satellites would devastate the satellites of all other

nations, make space unusable for thousands of years, devastate the world’s

economy, and slowdown responses to humanitarian crisis’s.

Forden, 8 —An M.I.T. research associate and a former UN weapons inspector and strategic weaponsanalyst Congressional Budget Office(Geoffrey, PhD, “How China Loses the Coming Space War”, 1-10-08,http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html#more)

But if the short term military consequences to the United States are not that bad, the long termconsequences to all space-faring nations would be devastating. The destruction of the nine satellites hitduring the first hour of the attack considered here could put over 18,900 new pieces of debris over four inches in diameter into the most populated belt of satellites in low Earth orbit. Even more debris would be put into geostationary orbit if China launched an attack against communications satellites. In theimmediate aftermath of the attack, the debris from each satellite would continue to “clump” together, muchas the debris from last year’s test. However, over the next year or so—well after the terrestrial war with

China had been resolved—the debris fields would fan out and eventually strike another satellite. Thesedebris fields could easily cause a run-away chain of collisions that renders space unusable -- for thousandsof years, and for everyone. Not only is this a quickly growing and important sector of the world’s economy(sales of GPS receivers alone reportedly exceeds $20 billion annually), but space is also used for humanitarian missions such as forecasting floods in Bangladesh or droughts in Africa. We cannot allowspace to be forever barred to our use for what turns out to be a very minor military advantage. If themilitary utility of attacks in space are so minor; if the active defense of space assets is impractical,counterproductive, and unnecessary; and if the danger resulting from the consequent debris affects allspace-faring nations for thousands of years to come, it is clear that diplomacy is in every country's interest.

C. War with China leads to Extinction

Chalmers Johnson, Chairman of the Center of Chinese Studies at UofC Berkley and President of the

Japan Policy Research Institute, May 14 2001.. “Time to Bring the Troops Home.” The Nation[Bapodra[

China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious USmilitarists know that China's nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan,whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that noone wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict thatneither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in aChinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. Since anyTaiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's

sovereignty, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

77





D. Maintaining aerospace superiority is key to prevent Sino-US war

Griffin and Lin, 8 - Research Assistant, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns HopkinsUniversity

(Christopher Griffin and Joseph Lin, Armed Forces Journal, “China’s Space Ambitions” April 8, 2008,http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27772/pub_detail.asp)

After a decade of fighting the tide, it appears that American attempts to frustrate China's growing militaryspace capabilities have reached a critical point of failure. This dilemma has no easy solution. Acombination of European arms manufacturers and aerospace firms appear to have decided to provide Chinawith arms and dual-use technology so long as they can avoid providing Beijing with the lethal tip of itsmilitary hardware. Faced with this defeat, the U.S. must retake the initiative in its dealings with both theChinese and the Europeans in this critical matter.In its relationship with China, the U.S. must recognize that the militarization of space inspires the mostrevisionist elements of Chinese strategy. Beijing appears to have made the long-term decision that it is in astruggle with the U.S. over a variety of security issues in East Asia and that preparing for potential militaryconflict will require the ability to cripple the U.S. military satellite system.There should be opportunities to engage China on military space issues, even if it has already made thisfundamental calculation. It would be worthwhile to develop a Sino-American strategic dialogue on space inwhich the U.S. could explain its self-imposed restrictions on the militarization of space, and how more provocative steps by China may result in the erosion of those restrictions. Such a dialogue would also provide the U.S. with the opportunity to present nonsensitive areas for cooperation, such as thestandardization of spacecraft docking hatches, a move that helped to decrease tensions during the ColdWar. Likewise, as China's military lawyers analyze the terms under which the PLA could conduct ASATand other space operations against the U.S., Washington should demarcate some red lines for Chinese behavior.Further, recognizing the potential for long-term competition with China over the future control of space, theU.S. must take steps to mitigate its potential losses and guarantee that it retains escalation superiority in anyfuture conflict. Investing in a hardened, robust satellite system is the obvious first step in any such effort.Developing redundancy through additional layers or C4ISR capabilities is another necessary step in thisregard. Rapid improvements in unmanned aerial vehicles promise to facilitate such an effort, and would

push the Sino-American competition to a cutting-edge field in which the U.S. retains a clear technologicallead.

78







China War coming

The Chinese will threaten US space power with Sino-US war



The impetus behind China's drive toward developing military space capabilities lies within the Chinesemilitary's view of future warfare, with the U.S. as its most likely adversary. The Chinese military, known asthe People's Liberation Army (PLA), has been obsessed with information-age warfare ever since the U.S.leveraged its space-based C4ISR systems to eradicate Saddam Hussein's military during the 1990-1991Gulf War. One Chinese military commentator noted with awe afterward: "The United States deployed threedefense communications satellites, established 128 defense satellite communications terminals and built anultra-high frequency network before the assembling of allied troops."

Indeed, the American advantage in the area of military satellites presents the Chinese government withwhat it recognizes as an asymmetric disadvantage. The U.S. is so dominant in this sphere of militarycompetition that it seems impossible to win a head-to-head competition. Faced with this dilemma, thePeople's Liberation Army has developed a two-pronged response that invests in both its own space assetsand in anti-satellite capabilities with which to disrupt American space dominance.Even if the PLA believes it cannot compete directly with American space power, the necessity to invest inspace assets is by no means wasted in Beijing. The Chinese military is developing aerospace networks in pursuit of the technological advantages that the U.S. has come to expect during wartime. A 2004 article printed in the People's Liberation Army Daily stated: "Information dominance cannot be separated fromspace dominance. We can say that seizing space dominance is the root for winning the informationalizedwar." Indeed, the U.S. Defense Department reports that China plans to launch some 17 satellites in 2008 inan ambitious bid to have a fully indigenous satellite fleet by 2010.But even as China deepens its own reliance on space-based assets in support of military operations, policymakers in Beijing are fixated on the deficit they face in a conflict with the U.S. and the concomitant

requirement to challenge American space power. One PLA analyst recently argued that in modern wars,"seizing space dominance has already become a vital part of seizing information dominance, from whichone can then retain the active position in the war." In a less-subtle argument for the use of offensivecapabilities in space, another PLA officer recently proclaimed that China requires ASAT capabilities for "destroying, damaging and interfering with the enemy's observation and communications satellites."

79







China is already challenging U.S. space dominance in the status quo

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, 2007, Independent Working Group, “MissileDefense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century”, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.

China has also begun to erode American space dominance.In the wake of its successful October 200

launch of the Shenzhou V spacecraft, Beijing is developing advanced military capabilities as part of anexoatmospheric “deterrent” force even while Beijing warns against any U.S. weaponization of space.China’s emerging space force will include both lasers and missiles capable of destroying satellites. It willincorporate- rate the PRC’s Dongfeng 31, Dongfeng 41, and Julang 2 medium- and long-range missiles.China has also developed a range of “nanosatellite” technologies for space warfare, apparently for the purpose of crippling American space assets.5 Other Chinese advances in space include the Ziyuan 1 andZiyuan 2 remote-sensing satellites and the development, through a joint venture between China’s TsinghuaUniversity and the United Kingdom’s University of Surrey, of a constellation of seven minisatellites(weighing between 101 and 500 kilograms) with 50-meter-resolution remote-sensing payloads. Notably,Beijing launched the Shenzhou VI in October 2005, marking the second successful Chinese mannedspacelight.

80





U.S.-SINO Space War Impacts

Chinese attack on US satellites leads to massive US nuclear retaliation


The United States has five satellites in geostationary orbit that detect missile launches using the heatreleased from their exhaust plumes. These satellites are primarily used to alert US nuclear forces tomassive nuclear attacks on the homeland. However, in recent years, they have played an increasing role inconventional conflicts, such as both Gulf Wars, by cueing tactical missile defenses like the Patriot missiledefense systems that gained fame in their engagements with Saddam’s SCUD missiles. Because of thisnew use, China might find it useful to attack them with ASATs. Since there are only five of them, Chinacould destroy the entire constellation but at the cost of diverting some of the few available deep-spaceASATs from other targets. Of course, China would not have to attack all five but could limit its attack to

the three that simultaneously view the Taiwan Straits area. If China did decide to destroy these earlywarning satellites, it would greatly reduce the area covered by US missile defenses in Taiwan againstSCUD and longer range missiles. This is because the area covered by a theater missile defense system ishighly dependent on the warning time it has; the greater the warning time, the more effective the missiledefense system’s radar is. Thus a Patriot battery, which might ordinarily cover the capital of Taiwan, could be reduced to just defending the military base it was stationed at. Some analysts believe that China wouldgain a tremendous propaganda coup by having a single missile make it through US defenses and thus mightconsider this use of its deep-space ASATs highly worthwhile even if it could not increase the probability of destroying military targets. On the other hand, China would run a tremendous risk of the US believing itwas under a more general nuclear attack if China did destroy these early warning satellites. Throughout thehistory of the Cold War, the US has had a policy of only launching a “retaliatory” nuclear strike if anincoming attack is detected by both early warning satellites and radars. Without the space leg of the earlywarning system, the odds of the US misinterpreting some missile launch that it detected with radar as anuclear attack would be greatly increased even if the US did not view the satellite destruction as a

sufficiently threatening attack all by themselves. Such a misinterpretation is not without precedent. In1995, Russia’s early warning radars viewed a NASA sounding rocket launch off the coast of Norway andflagged it as a possible Trident missile launch. Many analysts believe that Russia was able to not respondonly because it had a constellation of functioning early warning satellites. Any Chinese attacks on USearly warning satellites would risk both intentional and mistaken escalation of the conflict into a nuclear war without a clear military goal.

81





A Chinese attack on US satellites would devastate the satellites of all other nations, make space

unusable for thousands of years, devastate the world’s economy, and slowdown responses to

humanitarian crisis’s.


But if the short term military consequences to the United States are not that bad, the long termconsequences to all space-faring nations would be devastating. The destruction of the nine satellites hitduring the first hour of the attack considered here could put over 18,900 new pieces of debris over four inches in diameter into the most populated belt of satellites in low Earth orbit. Even more debris would be put into geostationary orbit if China launched an attack against communications satellites. In theimmediate aftermath of the attack, the debris from each satellite would continue to “clump” together, muchas the debris from last year’s test. However, over the next year or so—well after the terrestrial war withChina had been resolved—the debris fields would fan out and eventually strike another satellite. Thesedebris fields could easily cause a run-away chain of collisions that renders space unusable -- for thousandsof years, and for everyone. Not only is this a quickly growing and important sector of the world’s economy

(sales of GPS receivers alone reportedly exceeds $20 billion annually), but space is also used for humanitarian missions such as forecasting floods in Bangladesh or droughts in Africa. We cannot allowspace to be forever barred to our use for what turns out to be a very minor military advantage. If themilitary utility of attacks in space are so minor; if the active defense of space assets is impractical,counterproductive, and unnecessary; and if the danger resulting from the consequent debris affects allspace-faring nations for thousands of years to come, it is clear that diplomacy is in every country's interest.

82





Plan Solves China’s energy needs

SSP is key to meeting Chinese energy demand and preventing economic collapse and war

Dinnerman, 07 (Taylor, “China, the US, and space solar power,” 10/22,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)

Now that the National Security Space Office’s (NSSO) space solar power study has been released andshows that the technology is well within America’s grasp, a set of decisions have to be made concerninghow the US government should proceed. The idea that the government should fund a series of demonstration projects, as the study recommends, is a good place to start. Another aspect should be tostudy the impact that this technology will have on the political and economic future of the world.The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power status. Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest danger toChina’s future prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According to an InternationalEnergy Agency estimate, demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from2003 and 2025.

China is already experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and Zhijiang and contributes almost 20% of China’s GDP, faced capacity shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new power sources, including dam building and new coal-fired power plants, China’s economic growth isoutstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to keep it going.While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership iscertainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another Communist superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least notwithout strong safety measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build.Wind power and terrestrial solar power will not be able to contribute much to meeting China’s demand andcertainly not without government subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to provide.At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will bealmost certainly unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external

pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economicgrowth would stall and they would face a massive recession.Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The globalrepercussions would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope togenerate enough clean energy to satisfy China’s mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. Thecapital costs for such systems are gigantic, but when compared with both future power demands andconsidering the less-than-peaceful alternative scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain.For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the ability of private US or multinational firms tooffer China a reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive price would allow China to continue itseconomic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful world power structure. China would have to buildthe receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project.

Experiments have demonstrated, at least on a small scale, that such receivers are safe and that cows andcrops can coexist with them. However, there are persistent doubts and it would be wise to plan for a worldin which rectenna placement on land will be as politically hard as putting up a new wind farm or even anuclear power plant.China, like its neighbors Japan and Korea, has a land shortage problem. This may seem odd when onelooks at a map, but the highly productive industrial regions of China are confined to a limited coastal area.These areas also overlap with some of the nation’s most fertile agricultural lands. Conflicts caused by hardchoices between land use for factories and housing and for food production are now common.Building the rectennas at sea would help alleviate some of these disputes. China and its neighbors could

83

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1





compete to see who could build the most robust and cost-effective sea-based rectennas. They would also beable to export these large systems: a system that can survive the typhoons in the South China Sea can alsohandle the monsoons of the Bay of Bengal or the hurricanes of the Caribbean.In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be manyyears before they can realistically contemplate building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, letalone a lunar-based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to landon the Moon before the US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panelmanufacturing facility up there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated.If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spentconsiderable sums over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantagesdescribed in the NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Informationabout planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily accessible.Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of themajor spacefaring nations, including China.Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years whenChina, India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those theynow see the West enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives.Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physicsand politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these

nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative that this country be able to fulfill thatworldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is in everyone’s interest.

84





Solar power is the only way that the future can have a reliable energy source, China

especially will be dependant on this technology and the US capturing it would avoid

a catastrophic energy war.

Dinerman, 2007 (Taylor Dinerman, Author and Journalist based in NYC, October 22, 2007, “China, theUS, and Space Solar Power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)

Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get as China and other nationsattain Western lifestyles. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-

scale alternatives. In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its ownspace technology, it will be many years before they can realistically contemplate building theoff-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-based system. Even if NASAadministrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the USgets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel manufacturing facility upthere is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated. If the US were to invest in space-based

solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the

years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages described in the NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for

international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international

transparency. Information about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on theISS, should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from theEnergy and Commerce departments should brief all of the major spacefaring nations,including China. Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get,especially in about fifty years when China, India, and other rising powers find their

populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West enjoying.

Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives . Other

sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both

physics and politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to

satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative thatthis country be able to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war

over energy is in everyone’s interest.

85





Maintaining aerospace superiority is key to prevent Sino-US war



After a decade of fighting the tide, it appears that American attempts to frustrate China's growing militaryspace capabilities have reached a critical point of failure. This dilemma has no easy solution. Acombination of European arms manufacturers and aerospace firms appear to have decided to provide Chinawith arms and dual-use technology so long as they can avoid providing Beijing with the lethal tip of itsmilitary hardware. Faced with this defeat, the U.S. must retake the initiative in its dealings with both theChinese and the Europeans in this critical matter.In its relationship with China, the U.S. must recognize that the militarization of space inspires the mostrevisionist elements of Chinese strategy. Beijing appears to have made the long-term decision that it is in astruggle with the U.S. over a variety of security issues in East Asia and that preparing for potential militaryconflict will require the ability to cripple the U.S. military satellite system.There should be opportunities to engage China on military space issues, even if it has already made thisfundamental calculation. It would be worthwhile to develop a Sino-American strategic dialogue on space in

which the U.S. could explain its self-imposed restrictions on the militarization of space, and how more provocative steps by China may result in the erosion of those restrictions. Such a dialogue would also provide the U.S. with the opportunity to present nonsensitive areas for cooperation, such as thestandardization of spacecraft docking hatches, a move that helped to decrease tensions during the ColdWar. Likewise, as China's military lawyers analyze the terms under which the PLA could conduct ASATand other space operations against the U.S., Washington should demarcate some red lines for Chinese behavior.Further, recognizing the potential for long-term competition with China over the future control of space, theU.S. must take steps to mitigate its potential losses and guarantee that it retains escalation superiority in anyfuture conflict. Investing in a hardened, robust satellite system is the obvious first step in any such effort.Developing redundancy through additional layers or C4ISR capabilities is another necessary step in thisregard. Rapid improvements in unmanned aerial vehicles promise to facilitate such an effort, and would push the Sino-American competition to a cutting-edge field in which the U.S. retains a clear technological

lead.

86







If the U.S. fails to develop a more competitive aerospace industry, they will lose the space race to

China

Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and AerospaceWorkers; Director of International Policy (Owen E., “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S.Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201, 04-14-08,http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html)

China is likely to be the largest customer—and possibly an emerging competitor—of the U.S. aerospaceindustry in the future. China's aerospace manufacturing base is enormous. U.S. companies (and Europeancompanies to a lesser extent) have successfully partnered with Chinese companies that provide componentsor parts for a number of commercial aerospace programs. However, China also is seeking to become aworld-class prime commercial aerospace manufacturing industrial base, both through indigenousdevelopment programs and joint ventures with non-Chinese companies. (U.S. Department of Commerce2005b, xii)In testimony in 2001, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) singledout China for developing an effective industrial policy in an effort to create its own aerospace industry. Itnoted in its testimony that the U.S. International Trade Commission had already found with respect toChina, "…the nation's aviation sector intends to pursue a principal role in commercial aircraftmanufacturing."11

During a 1998 visit to China to tour aerospace facilities, IAM participants observed the country's enormousaerospace capacity.12 China's aviation industry "consists of more than 200 enterprises that produce andmanufacture products such as aircraft, turboprop engines, aircraft components and subsystems, helicopters,industrial gas turbines, and various electromechanical products" (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b,58). China's huge industrial capacity has been noted by other observers as well.13 For example, oneresearch group notes that in China there are six companies devoted to "airframe assembly," eight "engine"companies, 28 entities involved with "components," and 20 "research institutes."14 The two leading aircraftcompanies in China (China Aviation Industry Corporation I [AVIC I] and Aviation Industry Corporation II[AVIC II]) "and their subsidiaries have about 491,000 employees" (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b,5815). How did China develop such a huge capacity for aerospace production? While there are manydifferent and related methods China uses, a significant one is offsets.16 As globalization critic Jeff Fauxsaid in testimony to Congress, "China is one of the most aggressive countries in pursuing offsetsagreements and, with its market potential and minimal labor standards, it has substantial leverage in

negotiating these agreements" (Faux 2002). And as a business person told the Wall Street Journal, "they'reinterested in having total access to technology…."17Of particular concern to the United States is the huge involvement of Boeing in China, an involvement thecompany acknowledges. According to its Web site: "Boeing procurement from China is significantlygreater than other aviation companies" (Boeing 2007). According to company summaries: Since the 1980s,Boeing has purchased more than $1 billion in aviation hardware and services from China. Approximately4,500 Boeing airplanes with parts and assemblies built by China are flying throughout the world today.Boeing and Boeing supplier partners have active supplier contracts with China's aviation industry valued atwell over $2.5 billion (Boeing 2007). A detailed listing illustrating Boeing's extensive procurementactivities, production work, and supplier involvement in China appears in the appendix. According to anews report, "Boeing is expanding its relationship with China through plans to double its annual purchasesfrom Chinese companies over the next six years to more than $1 billion per year by 2010" (U.S.Department of Commerce 2005b, 59, citing Business Daily Update, "Boeing Seeks Higher-Level

Cooperation With Chinese Suppliers"). Boeing is, of course, just one of many aerospace companiesinvesting in China's aerospace industry; another is Boeing's chief rival, Airbus. As quoted in The Australian("Airbus Enlists China," June 14, 2004), Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard explained his company's philosophy with respect to China: "Airbus is not only selling aircraft in China but is also committed to thelong-term development of China's aviation industry." The Australian also reported that parts of the A380will be produced in China:European aircraft maker Airbus has subcontracted a state-owned Chinese manufacturer to make parts for itssuper-jumbo A380 plane, in a deal worth about $170 million. China Aviation Corp. I (AVIC I) will make panels for A380 nose-landing gear….China's Shenyang Aircraft Corp., affiliated with AVIC I, would also be subcontracted to make A330/A340 forward-cargo door projects….Five Chinese companies are now

87







making parts for Airbus.The New York Times reported that Airbus is committed "to buy at least $60 million yearly in parts fromChina by 2007, rising to $120 million yearly by 2010."18According to other news reports, China will "build wing boxes for Airbus" in a $500 million deal,19 andAirbus and China have agreed on "a $9 billion order…for 150 narrow-body A320 aircraft, and said theywould study the possibility of building a final assembly line for the aircraft in China."20 That studyapparently produced positive results; as stated in an Airbus press release ("Joint Venture Contract Signedfor the A320 Family Final Assembly Line in Tianjin," June 28, 2007): "The FAL [final assembly line] inTianjin will be based on the latest state-of-the-art Airbus single-aisle final assembly line in Hamburg,Germany. The aircraft will be assembled and delivered in China to the same standards as those assembledand delivered in Europe." The significance of such a development cannot be overstated: "the memorandumof understanding between China's National Development and Reform Commission and Airbus…meant thatChina was likely to become only the third country assembling Airbus aircraft, after France andGermany."21 Brazil's aerospace industry is also teaming up with China. "In order to supply its domesticmarket while continuing to learn how to assemble a modern, complete aircraft to Western standards, twoAVIC-II companies teamed with Embraer…in 2002 for co-production of their regional jet (ERJ-145) inHarbin" (Andersen 2008).Eurocopter, a subsidy of EADS, is also involved with China's aerospace industry. "France's Eurocopter andSingapore Technologies Aerospace have signed with Hafei Aviation, a listed arm of one of China's topmilitary contractors, to make helicopters for domestic civil use."22China's aerospace industry is apparently

not content to maintain its current level of success. According to news reports, "China is likely to startdeveloping its own large aircraft rather than rely solely on foreign giants Boeing and Airbus…."23 Thecountry recently announced that it would be entering the large civil aircraft industry in the next 20 years,24and, according to news reports, much of the success of this effort depends on the transfer of production andtechnology from other countries, presumably in the form of outsourcing and offsets from U.S. and other aerospace companies. And according to a report in Jane's Defence Weekly, "China is developing a newstealthy fighter jet aircraft and many of the design concepts and components have already beencreated….This new aircraft is the first Eastern rival to the West's F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint StrikeFighter to be put into development…."25China's aerospace industry may even be expanding to space. In an article headlined "The Next Space Race:China Heads to the Stars," the New York Times (January 22, 2004) raises the possibility of a space racewith China, noting: The Chinese plan to send more astronauts into space next year, to launch a Moon probewithin three years, and are aiming to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon by 2010…. Will the U.S.

aerospace industry remain the strongest in the world? As other countries implement industrial policies based on outsourcing and offsets, the question becomes more urgent. Moves by countries like China toimplement industrial policies targeting U.S. leadership in such essential industries as aerospace call for aresponse by U.S. policy makers. Even if China's aerospace industry remains behind that of the UnitedStates, it is poised to contribute to growing global competition. It has the capacity, skilled workforce, andthe will to make this a reality. The virtually unregulated world of offsets only exacerbates this situation.While the U.S. government continues a hands-off approach to this market-distorting scheme, other countries are giving their companies significant backing based on well-developed industrial policies

88





Surveillance Prevents Genocide and Nuke War

Surveillance through space is vital to preventing genocide and nuclear war

Schwab, 06 - security strategist at the University of Zurich (Martin, “Alternative Strategic Approaches toSpace”, http://beyondearth.org/pdfs/beyond-earth-ch-34.pdf )

* Human to human violence. Surveillance satellites, in addition to monitoring Earth's natural sub-systems

can aid human intelligence efforts around our world in preventing nuclear attack. This form of violence is

designed to spawn terror among the global civilian population, serving the interests of various parochial

political objectives. Sustained genocide and other forms of local intimidation are other recent tools of these

objectives around Earth, of which surveillance satellites are able to provide detailed evidence to a vigilant

global community, willing to take necessary action at a minute's notice.

89

http://beyondearth.org/pdfs/beyond-earth-ch-34.pdf






Space Research Solves Diseases

Space research is vital to preventing disease – extinction

Schwab, 06 - security strategist at the University of Zurich (Martin, “Alternative Strategic Approaches toSpace”, http://beyondearth.org/pdfs/beyond-earth-ch-34.pdf )

* Natural and human influenced change to the Earth system. Citizens and their representatives need to

know that we are now winning or losing the battles against multiple threats to human existence, in the

wider war for our progeny. We are now experiencing the effects of climate change around Earth. We are

now experiencing potential pandemics of disease around Earth . We are now experiencing fresh water

scarcity around Earth. We are now experiencing biodiversity decline around Earth. These global threats can

be overcome by an expanded human presence in our solar system, if for no other reason than micro-

evacuation followed by back-population of Earth, in a worst case scenario. Closer to home, continued

medical experimentation aboard the International Space Station (ISS) could potentially yield breakthrough

defenses against SARS, the Ebola virus and AIDS, each of which potentially threatens global civilization,

as we know it.

90







A2: Debris kills Satellites

NASA shields are effective at saving satellites from debris.

Crews, 2k (Jeanne L. “Enhanced shield against meteroids and orbital debris,”http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3957/is_200007/ai_n8912801/print?tag=artBody;col1)

NASA scientists, who are very concerned with the increasing hazard of impacts of orbital debris impact onspacecraft, have designed the "stuffed Whipple" shield - a lightweight, relatively inexpensive alternative tosimple aluminum meteoroid/orbital-debris (M/OD) shield. The stuffed Whipple shield features an easilyadaptable design that increases protection against hypervelocity impacts (HVIs), without significantlyaffecting previously formulated designs of spacecraft. The stuffed Whipple shield is critical to thecontinued human exploration of space, especially to the Space Station, inasmuch as the Station will beoperating in low orbit around the Earth and will need shielding against HVIs in order to survive intact andfor an appreciable amount of time and continue to safely support human habitation. Scientists project thatthe number of HVIs from detritus of artificial objects will increase from 2 to 5 percent per year - anincrease that could produce devastating results.

The design of the stuffed Whipple shield greatly reduces the risk of loss of a spacecraft crew and/or damage to the spacecraft. It also increases crew efficiency, in that by providing more efficient shielding, itreduces the frequency of both extravehicular and intravehicular activities EVAs and IVAs to effect repairsof HVI penetrations of the outer skin of the spacecraft. It is particularly amenable to introduction in thefinal or nearly-completed phase of the spacecraft-design effort. The stuffed Whipple shield can beretrofitted to any extant military or commercial spacecraft.

91





There’s no impact to space debris, empirical data proves its no big deal

The Washington Times, 7 (James Hackett, “Much Ado about Space Debris,” 04-25-07, LN)

<China's deliberate destruction of one of its own satellites in a January test of an anti-satellite (ASAT)weapon has led to much hand-wringing about the creation of space debris, reinvigorating the opponents of weapons in space. Orbiting debris is dangerous, but the danger has been greatly exaggerated and is noreason for new unenforceable arms control agreements.When the space age began 50 years ago there were no man-made objects in space. Since then, SpaceCommand has tracked more than 25,000 objects of baseball size or larger. More than 10,000 have falleninto the atmosphere and disintegrated or landed, but in 50 years not one person anywhere on Earth has beenkilled or injured by falling debris.Space debris is only slightly more likely to strike one of the 850 active spacecraft. Most are in low Earthorbit below about 800 miles. These operational spacecraft are only 6 percent of the objects tracked. The restis space junk that includes inactive satellites, spent rockets, debris from exploding rockets and just plaintrash. Space Command monitors debris to identify threats and alerts operators of satellites to move out of the way if they appear to be in danger.Some 80 percent of debris orbits between 500 and 600 miles altitude. The Chinese test, at 527 miles,created more debris right where traffic is heaviest. Air Force Space Command is tracking more than 1,000

pieces of debris from the Chinese test, plus 14,000 that were there before. So far, none has hit an activespacecraft. In fact, over the last 50 years there have been only three documented debris impacts withoperational spacecraft, and none have been destroyed.A Space Command Web site describing the Space Surveillance Network that tracks debris notes there isonly a small amount in the low orbits of the space shuttle and space station, and gives a worst-case estimateof 1 chance in 10,000 years of a piece of debris of baseball size or larger hitting either one.Even in the debris-heavy area around 500 miles altitude, Space Command says normally there are onlythree or four objects orbiting in an area equivalent to the airspace over the continental United States up toan altitude of 30,000 feet. Thus, it states, the likelihood of a collision is very small. Now there are reports U.S. intelligence agencies knew about and monitored Chinese preparations for theASAT test, but senior administration officials decided to say nothing to deter Beijing in orderto protectintelligence methods. That shows that despite the anguish about space debris the creation of more was notconsidered a serious danger.

Most debris eventually migrates down and burns up in the atmosphere. The main efforts are to avoidexisting debris, design spacecraft and rockets that will not explode in space, limit the release of debris onorbit, and at the end of their mission de-orbit satellites or move them to parking orbits where there is littletraffic

92





Solves Prolif

SSP solves nuclear proliferation by eliminating global demand for nuclear power

Preble, 06 – President of the Space Solar Power Institute (Darel, Energy Pulse, “NASA - Wrong missionfor the right stuff,” 6/19, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1285)

We must demand and meet higher environmental standards and stronger assurances of energy security andreliability. We must reforge the foundations, direction and charter of America’s energy and spacedevelopment policies toward SSP construction - the only long-term solution for these many problems.Some have suggested nuclear power is the clean safe solution:“Britain’s recent and comprehensive Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) reports that doublingtheir nuclear capacity would make little impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. Some say nuclear isa more secure source of energy than hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. Proponents say it couldgenerate large quantities of electricity while helping to stabilize carbon dioxide CO2 emissions. But theSDC report concluded that the serious risks of nuclear energy outweighed its advantages.Research by the SDC suggests that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only

provide an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010). No long-term solutions for the storage of nuclear waste are yet available, says the SDC, and storage presents clear safety issues.Cleaning up UK’s 16 nuclear plants could cost more than £70Bn ($US130Bn), according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA).If the UK brings forward a new nuclear programme, it becomes more difficult to deny other countriesaccess to nuclear energy technology.Our Cold War drill of nuclear brinksmanship has not been solved; instead the nuclear battle has infectedother nations and the energy front, notably Iran and North Korea, with China and other nations not far behind. Until we can successfully point to a better answer, which is SSP, we will fail to stop the spread of nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, nuclear health issues, escalating nuclear fuel worries, and soaring nuclear decommissioning costs, as the Brits are now struggling just to measure. Nuclear power is not the answer toour critical need for safe clean baseload energy. The real answer is that nuclear power plant 93 millionmiles away, our sun:

With Space Solar Power,Nuclear waste problemsNuclear fuel supply worriesNuclear proliferation problemsNuclear decommissioning costsEvaporate …

<Insert Utgoff 2>

93

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1285

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1285





NASA Trade-off/ Credibility Add-on

NASA’s credibility is low now because of failed shuttle attempts and misplaced goals, putting funding

for key programs at risk. a new initiative would solve.

David, 2006 (Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “Space Shuttle: NASA’s Risky, High-Stakes Gamble,”June 28, 2006)

NASA credibility and space funding "In truth, the problems that NASA continues to experience withits shuttle and the International Space Station program--really the only reason the shuttle is still flying--goes back at least to the Challenger disaster in 1986," Pelton said. Two major national spacecommissions back then--one looking into the Challenger accident, the other delving into the future of the American space program--noted that the shuttle was indeed becoming "obsolescent" and that it hadto be replaced by another vehicle within at least 15 years, or 2001, Pelton noted. "Instead of developingalternative plans for the launch of International Space Station components in smaller and more modular parts at that time," Pelton said, "NASA pushed ahead without developing a new vehicle, nor developinga back-up plan. Now, not only is NASA's credibility and space funding at risk, Pelton continued, but

also at risk are the agency's international partners that are engaged in the $100 billion station program."The now 'tar baby-like tandem' of the ISS and the space shuttle has done great harm to space programsaround the world." NASA has over-invested in both the shuttle and station initiatives, Pelton said,taking away money from programs that truly matter to the United States and indeed the world.

The credibility NASA needs to continue it’s programs is gone because of bureaucratic scandals.

Anthis, 2006 (Nick Anthis, Journalist, February 8, 2006)

NASA Science Censor Resigns For a president that paints himself as a champion of national security,the NASA incident is a major blow to Bush’s credibility. This isn’t the first time either, with GeorgeDeutsch now joining the ranks of Michael Brown, the embattled former director of FEMA, and HarrietMyers, Bush’s Supreme Court nominee who was subsequently withdrawn. Congratulations, Deutsch,

this is a pretty elite circle! The NASA censorship scandal was originally about partisan figurescompromising the science, and it still is, but now it’s also about something much deeper and muchmore troubling. I don’t know how many others there are out there like Deutsch, but it shouldn’t be hardto find out. Journalists, it’s time to make some phone calls! In the meantime, NASA needs the authorityto remove the rest of those who are interfering with the scientific process for partisan gains. Although NASA's credibility has tragically taken a big hit here due to political interference, the real victim is thescience. And, when the science suffers, we are all affected.

94





NASA faces budget cuts that threaten the earth sciences necessary to protect life on

the planet. Empirically, when budget cuts are made, programs like Aura are the

first to go.

House Science Committee 2006

"How Severe Budget Cuts May Threaten the Vitality of NASA Earth SciencePrograms" The House Science Committee initiated what may be a series of hearingsthat question NASA's plans to cancel or delay a number of Earth Science satellitemissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, NASA has proposed to spend $1.37 billion for Earth Science research, a cut n 8% from FY 2005 levels, and a 24% cut in real dollarsfrom FY 2004, according to Science Committee ranking member Bart Gordon. A day before the hearing, the National Research Council (NRC) released a report, whichfound that tight budgets at NASA and other agencies are threatening the value and preeminence of U.S. earth observing systems. Concerned with these findings,committee members called on senior U.S. scientists to offer testimony regarding NASA's role in meeting future scientific priorities. Committee Chairman SherwoodBoehlert, Representative Gordon, and other members of Congress have beenconcerned that cuts to Earth observing missions are due to NASA's strategicreorientation around the President's "Vision for Space Exploration." In his openingremarks, Chairman Boehlert challenged the apparent shift in priorities. "The planetthat has to matter most to us is the one we live on," he said. "You'd think that wouldgo without saying." Gordon added that under the proposal, Earth Science andAeronautic Programs would absorb 75% of the overall cuts that NASA must sustain tomeet tight budget demands. In comparison, exploration programs would only accountfor 10% of the overall cuts.

95





NASA’s Aura program is key to understanding and protecting earth’s atmosphere,

preventing extinction.

Ramanujan, 2004 (Krishna Ramanujan, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, 2004)

When people search for conditions that might support life on other planets, one of thefirst things they look for is water. Right now, NASA is searching for signs of water onMars as a precursor to whether life may have been possible there. But the thin sliver of gases and air that make an atmosphere around a planet is just as necessary for life toexist. The atmosphere traps air around our planet, making it possible to breathe and tohave a climate. It also regulates the temperature within a range that allows life to exist,and our ozone layer blocks life-threatening ultraviolet radiation from the sun fromreaching earth's surface. Earth's atmosphere sustains life in all these ways, and by thethinnest margins. If a person could cruise at a speed of 60 miles an hour straight up, itwould take just 6 minutes to exit the air we need to survive. Considering the relativelydelicacy of this thin protective film, understanding our atmosphere goes hand in handwith protecting life as we know it. On June 19, NASA will launch Aura, a nextgeneration Earth-observing satellite that will make global observations of the ocean of air that surrounds our planet. Aura will supply the best information yet about the health of Earth's atmosphere. Answering Key Science Questions Aura will provide an essentialcomponent for understanding changes in our climate, our air quality, and the ozone layer that protects life from harmful solar radiation. In doing so, it will help answer somefundamental questions regarding climate change. One question that researchers haveasked is: Is the stratospheric ozone layer recovering? International agreements, like theMontreal Protocol, have banned ozone destroying chemicals like Chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs), but scientists are unclear about the effectiveness of these treaties. Aura willaccurately detect global levels of CFCs, and their byproducts, chlorine and bromine,which destroy the ozone layer. Another question that researchers need more informationto: What are the processes controlling air quality? Aura will help greatly to unravel someof these mysteries by tracking the sources and processes controlling global and regionalair quality. When ozone exists in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, it acts as an air pollutant. Gasoline and diesel engines give off gases in the summer that create ozone andsmog. Aura will help scientists follow the sources of ozone and its precursors. Finally,Aura will offer insights into the question: How is the Earth's climate changing? As the

iti f E th' t h h d it bilit t b b fl t d

209 ko space affirmative wave ii

Documents