56 ko space based solar power case neg

8/7/2019 56 KO Space Based Solar Power Case Neg

1/59

Space Based Solar Power Neg ____/____ DDI 08KO: KNOCK OUT!!!!

The Anti-Space!!!!!

Index......................................................................................1-2

A2: Solvency

1NC Shell..............................................................................3-7

Solvency Extensions

SBSP Takes a Long Time....................................................8-9

Solar Cells Inefficient..........................................................10

Satellite Arching Destroys Satellites...................................11

Micrometeoroids Kill Satellites..........................................12

Space Causes Cancer...........................................................13

SBSP Doesnt Compete With Terrestrial Power...... .... ....14-15

Incentives Fail.......................................................................16

NASA Fails Privatizing Is Key.........................................17

NASA Fails...........................................................................18The NSSO Is Useless............................................................19

Inherency

1NC Shell..............................................................................20

A2: Colonization Advantage

1NC Shell..............................................................................21-23

Space Exploration Leads To Viruses.................................24

Space Exploration Will Lead To Space Militarization.....25

Extinction Not Inevitable....................................................26

A2: Space Weapons Bad Advantage

1NC Shell..............................................................................27-29

Space Weapons Key To Protecting Space Assets..............30

Space Weapons Inevitable...................................................31

A2: Leadership Key To Hegemony

1NC Shell..............................................................................32-33

US Hegemony Inevitable.....................................................34-35

Space Weapons Hurt Hegemony........................................36

A2: Space Weapons Good Advantage1NC Shell..............................................................................37-40

Space Weapons Lead To War.............................................41

Chinas Space Program Not A Threat...............................42-43

Russian Treaty Prevents Space Weapons..........................44

Conventional Warfare Better Than Space Weapons...... .45

Space Weapons Kill Access To Space................................46

"F@#k you!...[pause]...That's a stupid argument!...[pause]...[insert dramatic middle finger]!..."-- Bill Shanahan on "How to Answer 'The Earth Is Flat' Argument"

1/59


2/59


The Anti-Space!!!!!

A2: Competitiveness Advantage

1NC Shell..............................................................................47

A2: Proliferation Impact1NC Frontline.......................................................................48

A2: Japan-China War Impact

1NC Shell..............................................................................49-50

A2: Surveillence Key To Hegemony

1NC Shell..............................................................................51

Links

Politics Plan Popular.........................................................52

Politics Plan Unpopular....................................................53Business Confidence.............................................................54

Oil DA...................................................................................55

Spending...............................................................................56-57

States CP

Solvency................................................................................58

This file is lacking in the space impact area. In order to get more cards, dig a little through the aff file or, better yet,cut your own cards! Enjoy smashing whatever space aff you might face. Good luck!!

This file was proudly constructed by Spider-Monkey.


2/59


3/59


Solvency Frontline (1/5)1NC Shell

1. There are huge barriers that stop solar power satellites for the next 40 years: all their

sources are terrible

Dwayne Day, writer for the space review, 6/9/08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1You may not have noticed, but the space activist community is all worked up about space solar power (see Arenaissance for space solar power?, The Space Review, August 13, 2007). It is now the topic of much conversationwhenever a group of space enthusiasts get together. It was recently on the cover of the National Space Societysmagazine Ad Astra. The upcoming NewSpace 2008 conference will feature a panel on it. The International SpaceDevelopment Conference in Washington, DC featured no less than threeyes, threesessions on space solarpower, or SSP, to use the shorthand term, plus a dinner speaker who addressed the same subject. With all of thisattention, one would suspect that there has been a fundamental technological breakthrough that now makesSSP possible, or a major private or government initiative to begin at least preliminary work on a

demonstration project. But there has been none of this. In fact, from a technological standpoint, we are notmuch closer to space solar power today than we were when NASA conducted a big study of it in the 1970s.The reason that SSP has gained nearly religious fervor in the activist community can be attributed to two things,

neither having to do with technical viability. The first reason is increased public and media attention onenvironmentalism and energy coupled with the high price of gasoline. When even Reeses Peanut Butter Cupsare advertised with a global warming message, its clear that the issue has reached the saturation point andeverybody wants to link their pet project to the global warming discussion. SSP, its advocates point out, is greenenergy, with no emissionsother than the hundreds, or probably thousands, of rocket launches needed to build solarpower satellites. The second reason is a 2007 study produced by the National Security Space Office (NSSO) onSSP. The space activist community has determined that the Department of Defense is the knight in shining armorthat will deliver them to their shining castles in the sky. Space activists, who are motivated by the desire topersonally live and work in space, do not care about SSP per se. Although all of them are impacted by high gasolineprices, many of them do not believe that global climate change is occurring; or if they do believe it, they doubt thathumans contribute to it. Instead, they have latched on to SSP because it is expedient. Environmental and energyissues provide the general backdrop to their new enthusiasm, and the NSSO study serves as their focal point. Manypeople now claim that the Department of Defense is interested in space solar power. But it is not true. The

NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing practicalSSP and that it is not a viable solution for even the militarys limited requirements . It states that thetechnology to implement space solar power does not currently exist and is unlikely to exist for the next

forty years. Substantial technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the reportmakes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer seems as

achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion andhope others solve it for them). The activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger.


3/59
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdfhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdfhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdfhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdfhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdfhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf


4/59


Solvency Frontline (2/5)

1NC Shell

2. Any military space program would take decades to implement

Dwayne A. Day, writer for The Space Review, 10/4/07, Space War 2057, http://www.thespacereveiw.com/article/970/1What we have learned from fifty years of military space operations is that the pace of development is slowing

down, and the space component is subject to greater constraints than the ground component. What we havealso learned is that revolutionary change now seems less and less likely compared to the past. Fifty years ofmilitary space experience can allow us to draw some general conclusions about the principles guiding thedevelopment of military space systems. We know that the most important aspect of military space programs is thatthey are developed by humans, and social, economic, political and even emotional factors will have an effect uponthe evolution of military space over the next five decades that will be just as important as the pace of technologydevelopmentitself controlled by the decisions that humans make. The first principle that we can now derive fromall of this experience is that the development of space systems takes a long time, sometimes decades. This was notalways so. Early reconnaissance satellites went from first concept to full operation in three years or less. But today itis common for big, sophisticated military spacecraft to take a decade or more to develop, and the time from first

proposal to first flight is even longer. An example is the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) missile warningsatellite. The US Air Force first began discussing developing an advanced missile warning satellite to replace itsDefense Support Program satellites in the late 1970s. After numerous false starts producing an alphabet soup ofacronyms, SBIRS was officially approved in 1996, with a plan of producing an operational satellite by 2004.But the first full-up satellite will not fly until 2008, and recent news is that it may not fly until 2009 due toproblems with a similar satellite. Thats thirteen years of development time, and nearly three decades from thefirst declaration of need to the actual fielding of the system. SBIRS is typical, and there are numerous otherexamples of satellites initially conceived a decade or even longer before they actually became operational. Forinstance, GPS was conceived in the late 1960s but not declared operational until the 1990s. Milstar was conceivedin the early 1980s but did not have its first launch until the 1990s. In some cases these long development timeswere the result of technological challenges that designers had to overcome, often because military officers

demanded more than contractors could deliver and contractors did not admit this. But often there were

other, more bureaucratic reasons for the delays. The Air Force today likes to take credit for GPS. But Air Forceofficials originally fought the programs development for years because they believed that existing navigation

systems were sufficient, and because they were wary of a navigation system that could be jammed. It was nottechnology alone that slowed down the development time of many spacecraft, it was people, making choices.

3. Many barriers to development

CNN 7/1/08 ("How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!"http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html)[JWu]But a number of obstacles still remain before solar satellites actually get off the ground, said Jeff Keuter,president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington-based research organization. "Like any activity inspace, there are enormous engineering challenges," he said.One major barrier is a lack of cheap and reliable access to space, a necessity for launching hundreds of

components to build what will be miles-long platforms. Developing robotic technology to piece the structurestogether high above Earth will also be a challenge. Then there is the issue offinding someone to foot what willbe at least a billion-dollar bill.


4/59


5/59



1NC Shell

4. Micro-meteoroids in space will kill satellites

Amateur Radio News, Nov06 http://www.arrl.org/files/qst-binaries/nt0z.pdf [JWu]If you think theres no dangeryoure wrong. Satellites have recently been killed by micrometeoroidsencountered during meteor showers far less active than those predicted for the 1997-2003 Leonids. And Mir, theHubble Space Telescope and US space shuttles have been visibly damaged by debris and micrometeoroid collisions.What might happen to the manmade satellites now in orbit during a meteor storm 10,000 times more intensethan normalwith particle impact speeds exceeding 150,000 miles an hour?What indeed! Those conditions were measured during the tremendous 1966 Leonids storm, and scientists areworried that well see a repeat performance (or one ormore showers of lesser, yet potentially destructive intensity)during November Leonids showers over the next several years.Physical collisions alone are cause for concern, but a second threat may be even more ominous. Because of the

tremendous impact velocities involved (closing with the Earth at 71 km per second, the Leonids are the fastest-colliding cometary fragments known), the highly charged plasma clouds generated by the impacts of evenextremely small Leonids particles may be powerful enough to kill satellites that would have been minimally

affected by the physical collisions.

5. Even with substantial technological leaps SPS will not be a competitive source for

terrestrial power

National Research Council, 2001, Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power: an assessment of NASAsSpace Solar Power Investment Strategy, http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309075971/html/R1.html#pagetopSuccessful development of an economically viable SSP will require substantial leaps in development ofspace solar array, PMAD, thermal control, wireless transmission, and launch technologies. However,improvements in PV solar array technologies alone will not enable SSP to be economically competitive

with terrestrial utility electricity. The theoretical maximum solar cell conversion efficiency is between 50

and 60 percent for crystalline multijunction solar cells (Kurtz et al., 1997) and between 30 and 40 percentfor amorphous and polycrystalline thin-film photovoltaics (Reinhardt, 2001a). Even for the case of 60percent efficient crystalline solar cells, the array specific power will be limited to values less than 500W/kg. Assuming that the SSP solar array must produce 3 GW of power (to result in 1.2 GW to the ground),the mass of a 500-W/kg solar array alone will be 6106 kg, approximately 241 times that of the space

shuttles maximum cargo capabilityclearly a formidable challenge. Even assuming the SERT programslaunch-to-GEO goal of $800/kg, the cost of launching the array alone would be $4.8 billion. In the case ofthin-film PV, using even 40 percent efficient arrays at 1,200 W/kg would require approximately 100launches of the current space shuttle (at maximum payload capacity) for the array to reach LEO. It is clearfrom this simple analysis that improvements in PV-based power generation technologies alone, even totheoretical efficiency limits, will not enable SSP to be economically viable for competitive baseloadterrestrial electric power, regardless of solar array cost. Even if the solar array were free, the overridingfactor is the cost of placing it in orbit.


5/59


6/59



1NC Shell

6. Satellites would be too big to get into space.

David Boswell, 8/30/04, Whatever Happened to Solar Power Satellites?,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous. Some designs suggestcreating rectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side. If we assume that enoughmoney could be found to build something like this and that it could be run competitively against other energyoptions, there is the very real problem of figuring out how to get it into orbit or how to build it in orbit fromseparate smaller pieces. The largest solar panels ever deployed in space are currently being used on theInternational Space Station. They cover more than 830 square meters and are 73 meters long and 11 meterswide. These large panels make the ISS one of the brightest objects in the night sky. Scaling up from there tosomething much larger would be challenging, but the good news is that we can take one thing at a time.

7. Launch problems prevent space satellites

Dewey Parker, Major, USAF, 4/99, ACCESS TO SPACE: ROUTINE, RESPONSIVE AND FLEXIBLEIMPLICATIONS FOR AN EXPEDITIONARY AIR FORCE,http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-154.pdf (Malek)Ifa nation wishes to conduct surprise surveillance or reconnaissance on an adversary, that nations space assetsmust eitherbe able to maneuver orbe launched rapidly in response to a tasking. Maneuvering costs fuel, which isoften in short supply on non-refueling, long-mission spacecraft placed in orbit by non-reusable launch vehicles. It issimply not economical from a launch cost perspective to increase the fraction of satellite weight represented byfuel. Unfortunately, rapidity and responsiveness are not characteristics of current US space launch systems.

8. Small scale demonstrations do not spur investment or reduce

consumption.Ralph H. Nansen, President Solar Space Industries, Inc., 2000, Statement before Subcommittee on Spaceand Aeronautics, House Committee on Science, September 7,http://www.seattlewebcrafters.com/chadlupkes/projects/ralphnansen.phpSolar power satellites are only cost effective if implemented on a large scale. Geo-synchronous orbit mustbe used in order to maximize the sun exposure and maintain continuous energy availability. The transmittersize is dictated by the distance from the earth and the frequency of the power beam. The earth basedrectenna also must be large to maximize capture of the beam energy. Given that the system must beimplemented on a large scale, the cost of space transportation and the required space based infrastructure

becomes the dominating development cost. Development cost of space transportation is driven by the needto dramatically lower the cost of space launches which can only be reduced to low enough levels by the use

of fully reusable heavy lift launch vehicles which do not exist today.


6/59
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1


7/59



1NC Shell

9. NASA runs extremely expensive and inefficient programs

Jim Grichar, CIA Analyst, 1/24/04, Wielding the Budget Axe: Its Time to Abolish NASA,http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.htmlNASA has a history of running expensive boondoggle programs, from the man on the moon program of the1960'smid-1970's (three men lost their lives early in that program), to the colossal, costly and deadly spaceshuttle program (13 or14 astronauts have lost their lives and the shuttle cannot put satellites into orbit forless than the Europeans or the Chinese), to the wasted billions on the international space station, the soon tobe shut-down Hubble telescope, and other failed satellite missions. In fact, NASA is essentially nothing morethan a lobbying arm for the public funding of expensive science projects and subsidies to the aerospace

industry.


7/59


8/59


Solvency Extensions

SBSP Takes a Long Time

Solar Power satellites cant work for a really long time

Eubanks, Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering, 08/03/08,http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/2/104028/8055Another thing to bear in mind is that geosynchronous orbit is a whole different animal than LEO (low earthorbit), where the space station and the shuttle hang out. LEO is ~200 miles up. Geosynch is 22,000 miles up.Getting from LEO to GEO isn't really that big a deal, because as Heinlein said, once you're in orbit, you're halfwayto anywhere in the solar system. But the fact is that we have no roundtrip capacity to GEO currently: we sendsatellites out there on a one-way trip, but that's about it. 99% of what we do, we do in LEO. We also have verylittle experience with on-orbit construction. Most things are assembled as far as possible on the ground, and thensent up. On-orbit work is minimized, because it's expensive and dangerous. Every EVA (spacewalk) is practicedmultiple times on the ground (in a neutral buoyancy tank) before it is performed in space. Imagine building askyscraper for which every contractor must first rehearse every single move on the ground multiple times beforeactually performing the work. Obviously, we'd need a new approach to orbital construction before we couldattempt something like this, but the process of developing that expertise would take years, and the cost can

not be credibly estimated. Then there's the cost to orbit. This is the big one, the first barrier that gets in the way ofeverything else. Shuttle rides cost about $10,000 per pound to LEO. (That was in 1998; it's probably higher now.)Russian rockets are cheaper, ~2000-3000/pound. But practical space industry, you need to get it down to around$100/pound or less. If you want to build the parts on the ground and ship them up, you need to get even cheaper.(For less than $100/pound to orbit, you're probably talking about a beanstalk, which is a whole other order ofproject). The other option is mine and refine an asteroid and fabricate the array in space. That requires less total lift,but requires building an entire industrial infrastructure in space.


8/59


9/59


Solvency Extensions

SBSP Takes a Long Time

SPS is too long term we can achieve the same result better by focusing on terrestrial

renewables

Eubanks, Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering, 08/03/08,http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/2/104028/8055But as a species, we're not ready to do that yet. It's cheaper to move our dirty industries to China instead. If wehad stayed on track after about 1970, we might now have orbital habitats and industries, and be ready to seriouslyconsider a project of this sort. But, alas, we've made no forward progress in manned space development in 40years; our capabilities to do something like this are substantially LESS than they were 40 years ago. Andwhen you're staring down the barrel of peak fossil energy is not the time to start down this path no matter howmuch money (and how many lives) you throw at it, it simply takes longer than we have. Solar power satellitesare a technology for an advanced technological civilization. To get our current, juvenile civilization through

the coming crises, we're going to have to focus on more prosaic solutions (and hopefully do some growing upalong the way).

The plan takes 50 years at the least

JeffFoust, 8/13/07, A renaissance for space solar power?, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1Smith made it clear, though, that hes not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellitesfeasible in the near term. If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, its going to take a long time, hesaid. The horizon were looking at is 2050 before were able to do something significant. The first majormilestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years thatwould demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending ondevelopments of various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. That2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.

It takes 40 years to develop just 10% of US energy

Popular Mechanics, January 08 ("Space-based solar power beams become next energy frontier."popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4230315.html?series=35)[JWu]As envisioned, massive orbiting solar arrays, situated to remain in sunlight nearly continuously, will beammultiple megawatts ofenergy to Earth via microwave beams. The energy will be transmitted to mesh receiversplaced over open farmland and in strategic remote locations, then fed into the nations electrical grid. The goal: Toprovide 10 percent of the United States base-load power supply by 2050.Ultimately, the report estimates, a single kilometer-wide array could collect enough power in one year to rival theenergy locked in the worlds oil reserves.While most of the technology required for SBSP already exists, questions such as potential environmentalimpacts will take years to work out. For some time, solar panels on Earth are going to be much cheaper,says Robert McConnell, a senior project leader at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. This is

a very long-range activity.


9/59


10/59


Solvency Extensions

Solar Cells Inefficient

Solar cells are too inefficient to be deployed

James E. Dudenhoefer and Patrick J. George, Glenn Research Center for NASA, July 2000, "Space solar powersatellite technology development at the Glenn research center: an overview",http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2000/TM-2000-210210.pdf [JWu]Solar cells of the current generation are heavy, expensive and hard to deployconsidering theenormous numbers needed for SSP. Thin film cells represent one viable option for the future [Fig 5]. Theyhold promise for low mass, low cost, and high production capability by depositing special materials in very thin(microns) layers on rolled substrates similar to newspaper printing. In addition, they are flexible, which lendsthemselves for deposition on lightweight deployable / inflatable structures needed for packaging of extremelylarge arrays in launch vehicles. Unfortunately, the materials considered forthese structures (i.e. kapton), do nothave the high temperature properties needed to allow cell growth deposition.

Status quo solar cells suck; "thin film" cells can't stand the heat

Kennedy Space Center, October02 ("Spaceport Visioning Concept Study". Involving Rainer Meinke ofAdvanced Magnet Lab; Dr. John Olds of Georgia Institute of Technology, Department of AerospaceEngineering; Dr. James Powell of Star Tram, Inc; Edgar Zapata of NASA/KSC Systems Engineering Officehttp://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Spaceport_Visioning_Final_Report.pdf)[JWu]Solar cells of the current generation are heavy, expensive and hard to deployconsidering the enormousnumbers needed for SSP. Thin film cells represent one viable option for the future [Fig 5]. They hold promisefor low mass, low cost, and high production capability by depositing special materials in very thin (microns) layerson rolled substrates similar to newspaper printing. In addition, they are flexible, which lends themselves fordeposition on lightweight deployable / inflatable structures needed for packaging of extremely large arrays in launchvehicles. Unfortunately, the materials considered forthese structures (i.e. kapton), do not have the hightemperature properties needed to allow cell growth deposition.

Solar power satellites dont achieve enough net energy gain

Eubanks, Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering, 08/03/08,http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/2/104028/8055I used to be a rocket engineer, so this is a subject pretty near to my interests and dear to my heart. So it makes mevery sad to say that the advantages of this scheme are questionable at best; worse, it's simply impossible to makeany credible estimate of the cost. First of all, the advantages are limited: You get more solar exposure time, andhigher intensities of radiation. I don't have the numbers ready to hand, but I thinkthe advantage over a terrestrial,equatorial PV array located in the desert are about a factor of five. That's not trivial, but it probably doesn'tjustify the enormous cost associated with putting the thing in orbit. And that doesn't allow for losses in the

conversion to microwaves, transmission to earth, collection, recovery or distribution. The real advantagewould likely be less than a factor of three. At that point, you'd be better off just deploying more terrestrial

panels (and investing heavily in efficiency).


10/59


11/59


Solvency Extensions

Satellite Arching Destroys Satellites

Satellite arcing destroys satellites and solar cells

T. Kitamura et al.; Sanmaru, Y.; Kawasaki, T.; Hosoda, S.; Toyoda, K.; Mengu ChoDischarges and Electrical Insulation in Vacuum, 2006. ISDEIV apos;06. International Symposium onVolume 2, Issue , 25-29 Sept. 2006 Page(s):nil4 - nil4 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4193815/4194906/04194989.pdf?temp=x)[JWu]Recently, an arcing on satellite solar array due to interaction between space plasma and the array threateningsafety of spacecraft is a big issue. The arcing causesdegradation ofsolar array at malfunction of instrumentson satellites. The discharge is caused by differential potential between satellite body and insulator surfaces likecoverglass of solar array, which are charged by ambient plasma. This single shot discharge is called "primary arc".The primary arc can evolve to so-called "sustained arc" that permanently short-circuits adjacent solar cells ora solar cell and conductive substrate. In order to prevent arcs on the surface of solar array, it is necessary to carry outarc tests simulating discharge phenomenon on solar array. In this paper, we investigated the effect of plasmaenvironments on sustained arcs. GaAs solar cells were used for the test. Laboratory tests were carried out with anexternal circuit simulating a spacecraft power system. Solar array coupon panels simulating the hot and return ends

of a string circuit were tested under various combinations of string voltage and string current. We revealed that thethreshold conditions for sustained arc formation were different in test plasma environment even when the stringvoltage and the string current are same.

High-voltaic arcs will rip apart the platform

Kennedy Space Center, October02 ("Spaceport Visioning Concept Study". Involving Rainer Meinke ofAdvanced Magnet Lab; Dr. John Olds of Georgia Institute of Technology, Department of AerospaceEngineering; Dr. James Powell of Star Tram, Inc; Edgar Zapata of NASA/KSC Systems Engineering Officehttp://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Spaceport_Visioning_Final_Report.pdf)[JWu]The current state-of-the-art voltage level for photovoltaic arrays is 160v used on the International SpaceStation. It is estimated that the arrays for a SSP platform would have to operate at 1000v or higher. At thesehigher levels it is known that self-destructive arcing occurs [Fig 6]. Design and manufacturing techniques toprevent such damage are in the process of development by Dale Ferguson of GRC [Refs 5 and 6]. In order to utilizeexisting facilities and equipment, initial development is being performed at the 300-volt level.


11/59


12/59


Solvency Extensions

Micrometeoroids Kill Satellites

A one millimeter micrometeoroid can cause holes in space satellites

Aceti et al, (R. Aceti & G. Drolshagen, European Space Research & Technology Centre, Norway; J.A.M.McDonnell, Unispace Kent, UK; T.Stevenson, Mare Crisium, UK) November94 ("0Micrometeoroids and SpaceDebris - The Eureca Post-Flight Analysis" ESA (European Space Agency) Bulletin Nr. 80,http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet80/ace80.htm)[JWu]Every spacecraft in Earth orbit is exposed to a flux ofspace debris and meteoroid particles. Currently morethan 7000 large man-made objects orbiting in near-Earth space can be tracked from the ground with radar or byoptical means. A much larger number of smaller man-made debris items and micrometeoroids that are orbitingthe Earth cannot be detected from the ground. These particles are a hazard for both long-term missions andlarge spacecraft. While the risk of collision with a large piece of debris or a large meteoroid is very small,particles less than one millimetre in size cause craters visible to the naked eye. Typical impact velocities are 10km/s for space debris and 20 km/s for meteoroids. Larger particles can penetrate the outer shielding of aspacecraft and can damage its internal equipment. As a result of this threat, designers have to consider therisk of particle impacts in the planning of every space mission. In addition, particle fluxes in space are also of

considerable scientific interest.


12/59


13/59


Solvency Extensions

Space Causes Cancer

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, SPACE CAUSES CANCER!!!!

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, 12/80, Ionizing Radiation Risks to Satellite PowerSystems (SPS) Workers in Space, for the U.S. Department of Energy (alex werner)Thus, for example, in 10,000 workers who completed ten missions with an exposure of 40 rem per mission, 320to 2,000 additional deaths, in excess of the 1640 deaths from normally occurring cancer, would be expected. Theseestimates would indicate a 20 to 120 percent increase in cancer incidenc!!!!e in the work-population.


13/59


14/59


Solvency Extensions

SBSP Doesnt Compete With Terrestrial Power

Many factors prevent SSP from competing with terrestrial electricity generation

Joel S. Greenberg, President Princeton Synergetics, Aerospace America, May, 2000; Pg. 42SSP faces several challenges in competing with terrestrial electricity generation: - The relative immaturityofthe technologies required forSSP makes it difficult to assess the validity of its cost estimates and likelycompetitiveness. As with most space development initiatives, orders-of-magnitude reduction in the cost oflaunch and deployment are necessary. In addition, the NASA studies have assumed all on-orbit operations,including construction and maintenance, to be accomplished telerobotically. - Achieving an economicallyviable SSP will require that government play a major role in developing a relevant technology base that can

be exploited by industry. It would be premature for the government to make commitments (through loanguarantees or tax incentives, for example), other than possibly pursuing a technology development anddemonstration program. - State-of-the-art conventional technologies feature numerous environmentalcontrols, eroding somewhat the environmental advantage of nonfossil fuel technologies. - Actual and/orperceived health risks associated with exposure to electric and magnetic fields generated by SSP are likelyto cause significant public concern. - National security and economic considerations may cause some

countries to require equity participation in SSP, to rely on it for only a small share of their energyportfolios, or to decline its use altogether.

Significant technological advances needed to make SPS a competitive and feasible

terrestrial power source

National Research Council, 2001, Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power: an assessment of NASAsSpace Solar Power Investment Strategy, http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309075971/html/R1.html#pagetopThe current SSP technology program is directed at technical areas that have important commercial, civil,and military applications for the nation. A dedicated NASA team, operating with a minimal budget, hasdefined a potentially valuable programone that will require significantly higher funding levels and

programmatic stability to attain the aggressive performance, mass, and cost goals that are required forterrestrial baseload power generation. Nevertheless, significant breakthroughs will be required to achievethe final goal of cost-competitive terrestrial baseload power. The ultimate success of the terrestrial power

application depends critically on dramatic reductions in the cost of transportation from Earth to GEO .Funding plans developed during SERT are reasonable, at least during the 5 years prior to the first flightdemonstration in 2006 (see Table ES-1).

Significant technological advances needed to reduce the cost of SPS energy

Resources for the Future, 2000, Satellite Solar Power Faces Considerable Economic Challenges, April 21,http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Releases/2000/Satellite-Solar-Power-Faces-Considerable-Economic-Challenges.cfmBecause the technology needed to develop SSP is still in its early stages, it is difficult to assess how much itwill ultimately cost to develop, and thus how competitive it may be compared to other forms of energy, theRFF study says. For SSP to be competitive, significant reductions would be needed in the costs oflaunching the satellites into space and other key technologies.


14/59


15/59


Solvency Extensions

SBSP Doesnt Compete With Terrestrial Power

Very difficult to make sps competitive with terrestrial power sources

Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, April 21, 2000, Space Power for an Energy-HungryEarth?, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_satellite_000421.html"But it's going to be very difficult to make it competitive with terrestrial power," she [Molly Macaualey,an economist who led the study] told SPACE.com. "It's a very hard sell." "My concern with satellite-solarpoweradvocates is that they aren't looking over their shoulders to realize that technological change andinnovation in markets is happening within conventional approaches." There have been dozens of

approaches to building power-beaming satellites. "But fundamentally, so long as it costs as much to get tospace, we've got a major problem," she said


15/59


16/59


Solvency Extensions

Incentives Fail

Incentives fail to produce renewable energy markets

Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future, 2000, Testimony before House Committee on Science,Commercializing Space, July 18, http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-CTst-00-macauley-July18.pdfSome other concerns with tax approaches include: Losses. Tax exemptions for revenue earned in spacemay not make much difference if like much new industry, many space businesses initially operate at a loss,

which they can carry forward, and thus have no tax liability for many years. Propping up the wrongbusiness model. For activities that generate taxable income, income tax exemptions under the ZeroGravity, Zero Tax bill could prop up otherwise unsuccessfully projects for the proposed twenty-five yearduration of the exemption. Loan guarantees may have the same undesirable effect. Investments might bemade solely for the tax advantages yet the investments may simply not make sense and thus not lead to aviable industry. Although the proposals have sunset provisions, some space businesses may survive onlybecause of the tax breaks rather than being robust on their own. For instance, the Omnibus Energy Act ofseveral years ago allowed tax credits for investment in renewable energy. Investments in solar, geothermal,biomass, windfarms, and other energy technologies were made on the basis of the tax breakrather than

economic soundness of the technologies. When the tax preference ended, the development of the industrieswas set back a least a decade. Subsidies as part of the business model are the wrong model. Effect on thebudget. To maintain the governments budget each year, taxpayers must make up the difference in taxrevenue when credits, exemptions, and loan guarantees (when default occurs) reduce revenue that wouldotherwise flow to the public treasury. Who bears the risk. In contrast with the risk that the private sector istaking in financing our dot.com industry, in which case the risk is borne by the investor rather than othertaxpayers, supporting space commerce through the tax code forces all taxpayers to bear the risk in thatindustry. By forcing taxpayers to take the risk of space investment, the legislative proposals imply, from apublic policy perspective, that space commerce is more desirable for the good of the country thus worthunderwriting by the public at large than other activities in medical research, tax credits for investment inmagnetic levitation (maglev) transportation development).


16/59


17/59


Solvency Extensions

NASA Fails Privatizing Is Key


17/59


18/59


Solvency Extensions

NASA Fails

NASA would not pursue space solar power. Current priorities prove

TaylorDinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, NASA and Space Solar Power,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1, MalekThere was no follow-up to this study, partly because of a lack of urgency in the era of cheap energy that existed adecade ago and also because NASA did not, and does not today, see itself as an auxiliary to the Department ofEnergy. NASA does science and exploration and not much else. Along with its contractors it can develop newtechnologies that apply directly to those two missions, but outside of that it will resist being forced to spendmoney on projects that it does not see as falling within those two missions.Technology development in general has been cut back. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has been closed.There is a minimal ongoing effort to build up some technologies that may in the future be useful for reusable launchvehicle development, but it is hard to see how this fits into a coherent future program. The agency has its prioritiesand is ruthlessly sticking to them.

Space solar power through NASA is seen as encroachment onto other departments turfs

TaylorDinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, NASA and Space Solar Power,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1, MalekNASA is not the US Department of Spatial Affairs: it does not have the statutory authority to control, regulate, orpromote commercial space activities such as telecommunications satellites, space tourism, space manufacturing, orspace solar power. Such powers are spread throughout the government in places like the FAAs Office ofCommercial Space Transportation, the Department of Commerce, and elsewhere. Even if NASA were somehow toget the funds and the motivation to do space solar power, these other institutions would resist what theywould recognize as an encroachment on their turf.

NASA has no room for space solar power programs

TaylorDinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, NASA and Space Solar Power,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1, MalekUntil the shuttle is retired and NASA has a new and secure method of getting people into space, either with theOrion capsule on top of the Ares 1 or perhaps another rocket, or using the SpaceX Dragon capsule and Falcon 9combination, there is no room for any other major programs. It will require all they can do to cope with theircurrent programs and to deal with a new president and his or her administration . They dont need any moredistractions right now.


18/59


19/59


Solvency Extensions

The NSSO Is Useless

The NSSO is a toothless organization and is not taken seriously by the government.

Dwayne Day, writer for the space review, 6/9/08, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1But in this case, the activists touting the NSSO study do not understand where the NSSO fits into the largermilitary space bureaucracy. The National Security Space Office was created in 2004 and facilitates theintegration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities. But any office thatfacilitates the activities of other organizations has limited influence, especially when those other

organizations are much bigger and have their own interests and connections to the senior leadership. The

NSSO has a minimal staff and budget and does not command any assetsit does not fly any satellites, launchany rockets, or procure any hardware, all of which are measures of power within the military space realm. Simplyput, the NSSO exists essentially as a policy shop that is readily ignored by the major military space actorssuch as Strategic Command, Air Force Space Command, and the National Reconnaissance Office whenever it

suits them. As one former NSSO staffer explained, the office consists of many smart, hardworking people whohave no discernible influence on military space at all. In fact, for several years there have been persistentrumors that the NSSO was about to be abolished as unnecessary, irrelevant, and toothless.

Add to this the way in which the NSSOs solar power satellite study was pursuedthe study itself had no budget. InWashington, studies cost money. If the Department of Defense wants advice on, say, options for space launch, theyhire an organization to conduct the study such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their existingadvisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts toperform the work. Even if the study is performed by a committee of volunteers, there are still travel, printing, staffsupport, overhead, and other expenses. Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in the many tens ofthousands of dollars and could run to a few million dollars. In contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power hadno actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and labor. This reflects the seriousness by which

the study was viewed by the Pentagon leadership.


19/59
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/


20/59


Inherency

1NC Shell

Space based solar energy inevitable

TaylorDinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, NASA and Space Solar Power,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1, Malek

At some point within the next four years the president is going to have to decide whether to go ahead with this

new and potentially unlimited source of energy or to put it back into limbo. The case for it is growing strongerevery time the price of oil goes up or, more to the point, every time we suffer from a blackout or a near-miss.For example, a couple of months ago many large electric customers in Texas were asked to shut down theiroperations because there was not enough wind to spin the numerous wind turbines that have been sprouting up allover that state.

Plan to be enacted in the near future

Space Frontier Foundation, 10/10/07, Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Meeting Humanitys Energy, National

Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needs, http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews SBSPReport10Oct07.pdf+anchor+tenant+customer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us, MalekFor this reason, the business case for Space-Based Solar Power may close in the very near future withreasonable and appropriate actions by the U.S. Government.

Reusable launch vehicle capabilities are being solved for at rapid rates with out

government incentives

Dewey Parker, Major, USAF, 4/99, ACCESS TO SPACE: ROUTINE, RESPONSIVE AND FLEXIBLEIMPLICATIONS FOR AN EXPEDITIONARY AIR FORCE,http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-154.pdf, MalekInternational and US companies are currently racing to build the worlds first commercial reusable

launch vehicle to serve the booming telecommunications satellite market. The winner of this new space race couldearn a lock onlucrative contracts to launch up to 2,000 next-generation communications satellites over the nextdecade.7 There are currently at least five US companies participating in the commercial race. Thesecompanies have articulated some pretty heady goals and plan to slash launch costs to just a third or even a fifthof todays average launch price of $5000/lb.8 Such a reduction in launch costs would continue fueling the boom insatellite operations. It is important to note that the government does not fund these companies and unlike mosthistory-making spaceplane projects, these efforts will be funded largely with private money from wealthyindividuals and companies.9 The government is funding a completely separate reusable launch vehicle effortin coordination with industry. The Government RLV Status section of this chapter details this combined effort.The combination of these two programs may yield success much earlier than either program would produce inisolation. The rapid development ofsmall and inexpensive Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers by thecommercial sector in response to commercial economic forces is an apt analogy. These commercial receivers in

turn greatly influenced the design and implementation of military receivers. The launch vehicle government andprivate industry effortmay well follow the same model. The most apparent haracteristic of this government-industry fusion in the GPS receiveranalogy was the speed at which developments occur


20/59
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews%20SBSPReport10Oct07.pdfhttp://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews%20SBSPReport10Oct07.pdfhttp://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews%20SBSPReport10Oct07.pdfhttp://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:eUrUz9kZq0QJ:www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViews%20SBSPReport10Oct07.pdf


21/59



1NC Shell

1. Turn: Space Exploration Spreads Viruses:

A. Space exploration will cause environmental exploitation, nuclear wars, and epidemics

Bruce Gagnon. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,"Space Exploration and Exploitation," http:/lwww.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm)We are now poised to take the bad seed ofgreed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Havingshown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries "and "explorers"are nowready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularlyblow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden spacematerials back to Earth,without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemicsfor us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have seriousecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international spacelaw will create new global conflicts and confrontations .

B. New virus spread risks extinction

David Franz, Chief Biological Scientist, Midwest Research Institute, 2005 MICROBEAs Nobel laureate Josh Lederberg stated, Pandemics are not acts of God, but are built into the ecologicalrelations between viruses, animal species and human species. There will be more surprises, because our fertileimagination does not begin to match all the tricks that nature can play. The survival of humanity is notpreordained. The single biggest threat to [hu]mans continued dominance is the virus.

2. Space would be very difficult to colonizeDennis Winglo, 4/22/08, Establishing the Vision for Space Exploration,http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1285

Other technologies developed at the lunar installation have equal value to us here on the Earth. As we breathe, CO2is exhaled. Here on the Earth it is thought to change our climate, on the Moon it would soon kill the

inhabitants unless it is dealt with. Therefore a means must be found to reclaim the oxygen from the CO2 anduse the carbon as an extra resource. On the Earth today pure water is becoming an increasingly valuable

resource. On the Moon it would cost over $100,000 per gallon, necessitating extreme measures to reclaim it

from the bath, clothes washing, and even from our waste. These same technologies could be fed back into theterrestrial economy, improving our water usage and lowering the cost of additional water extraction infrastructure. Apound of food delivered to the Moon is also enormously costly and therefore an early effort to grow nutritious

plants and eventually animal husbandry will be required. Learning how to do this in this extremely resourceconstrained environment could teach us much to help with the growing concerns over our food supplies here on theEarth.


21/59


22/59



1NC Shell

3. Humanity is resilient. Extinction highly unlikely.

Bruce Tonn, Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, 2005, Human Extinction Scenarios,www.budapestfutures.org/downloads/abstracts/Bruce%20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf)The human species faces numerous threats to its existence. These include global climate change, collisions withnear-earth objects, nuclear war, and pandemics. While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately they failto describe exactly how humans could become extinct. For example, nuclear war by itself would most likelyfail to kill everyone on the planet, as strikes would probably be concentrated in the northern hemisphere and theMiddle East, leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand some hope ofsurvival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology could ever be produced but even it ifwere, it is likely that humans could develop effective, if costly, countermeasures, such as producing thetechnologies in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear weapons. Viruses could indeedkill many people but effective quarantine of a healthy people could be accomplished to save large numbers ofpeople. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single events.

4. Turn: Space Weapons:

A. Space exploration and colonization sparks weaponization and global arms race.

Bruce Gagnon. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, No date given(Bruce K., "Statement of Concern," http:/lwww.space4peace.org/statement/concern.htm)But there are obstacles to U.S. space "dominance". Present international space law speaks against the notion ofU.S. space control. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by the U.S. and 90 other countries, affirms "thepeaceful purposes" of outer space and forbids "weapons of mass destruction" from being deployed in space.

This same space law also declares that all interplanetary bodies belong to the common good. As NASA lands

on the moon and Mars and explores other planets they are finding gold, cobalt, magnesium, helium 3 and otherrich resources. Plans are now underway to place mining colonies on these bodies . The U.S. is now exploringways to circumvent international space law in order to "exploit" these planetary bodies so that corporate

interests may secure the enormous financial benefits expected from this Mining the Sky as is described by NASAscientist John Lewis in his book by the same title. The Columbus mythology is often invoked to describe our"manifest destiny" as it relates to space exploration and colonization. The noble explorer theme is used to

cover the more practical notion of profits to be made in regards to space. There is big money to be madebuilding and launching rockets. There is money to be made building and launching satellites. There is money andpower to be derived by "controlling" space. And there is money to be made mining the sky. Another obstacle existsthough. If the U.S. can "control" space, so might another nation. Thus we have the early stages of an armsrace in space. How will France, Russia, China or any other nation respond as the U.S. consolidates its

"control" of space? In order to ensure that the Pentagon maintains its current space military superiority theU.S. Space Command is now developing new war fighting technologies like the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)and Anti-satellite weapons (ASATS) as well as space based laser weapons. Star Wars is alive and well. Recentefforts to move toward early deployment of the BMD system, which could easily be used for offensive purposes, isexpected to break the 1972 ABM Treaty as well as the Outer Space Treaty.


22/59


23/59



23/59


24/59



1NC Shell

B. Space weaponization makes nuclear war inevitable.

Gordon Mitchell et al, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburg, 7/2001. ISIS Briefingon Ballistic Missile Defense no. 6, ,http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html.A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but thisrationale glosses over the tendency that ' the presence of space weaponswill result in the increasedlikelihood of their use'.33 Thisdrift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby:when it comes to arming the heavens, 'antiballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dualcapability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference onDisarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to targetsomething on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missilesin mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtlingthrough the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose'pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting

Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability ofvulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands andendowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidentalconflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systemssuch as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawlessperformance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different wayssuch systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given thesystem characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of spaceweapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war

itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents '. It is chilling to contemplate thepossible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reenteringfrom space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage even more thanwould be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as aquintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensiveweapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potentialfor destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate withmaximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by

a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.


24/59
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlhttp://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlhttp://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html


25/59



Space Exploration Leads To Viruses

Space exploration will lead to the spread of pathogenic viruses through biohazardous land

samples

Bruce Gagnon. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,"Space Exploration and Exploitation," http:/lwww.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm)Potential dangers do exist though. Barry DiGregorio, author and founder of the International Committee AgainstMars Sample Return, has written that "any Martian samples returned to Earth must be treated asbiohazardous material until proven otherwise." At the present time NASA has taken no action to create a specialfacility to handle space sample returns. On March 6, 1997 a report issued by the Space Studies Board of theNational Research Council recommended that such a facility should be operational at least two years prior to

launch of a Mars Sample Return mission. Reminding us of the Spanish exploration of the Americas, and thesmallpox virus they carried that killed thousands of indigenous people, DiGregorio warns that the Mars samplescould "contain pathogenic viruses or bacteria."

Space travel causes virus epidemics

Robert Roy Britt, Senior science writer, managing editor of LiveScience, 1/21/2khttp://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/flu_in_space_000121.htmlSo say Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe of the University of Wales at Cardiff. And while there ismuch doubt by many other scientists that the flu comes from space, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are generatinga lot of interest with their idea. In a new paper, to be published in an upcoming issue of the Indian journalCurrent Science, the researchers present data that show how previous periods ofhigh sunspot activitycoincided with flu pandemics (large-scale epidemics).A roughly 11-year cycle of solar activity is increasingnow and is expected to peak soon, other scientists agree. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say we can expectanother flu pandemic to accompany the solar peak"within weeks." By that claim, perhaps debate over theirresearch will soon be settled. Injecting the flu into our atmosphere The researchers say that the virus, or a triggerthat causes it, is deposited throughout space by dust in the debris stream ofcomets, which are thought bymany researchers to harbor organic material. As Earth passes through the stream, dust (and perhaps the virus)enters our atmosphere, where it can lodge for two decades or more, until gravity pulls it down.


25/59
http://www.cf.ac.uk/http://www.cf.ac.uk/http://www.space.com/science/solarsystem/comets-ez.htmlhttp://www.space.com/science/solarsystem/comets-ez.htmlhttp://www.space.com/science/solarsystem/comets-ez.htmlhttp://www.cf.ac.uk/http://www.space.com/science/solarsystem/comets-ez.html


26/59



Space Exploration Will Lead To Space Militarization

Space exploration will inevitably lead to space militarization

Bruce Gagnon. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,"Space Exploration and Exploitation," http:/lwww.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm)The Pentagon, through the U.S. Space Command, is working hard to ensure that the space corridor will remainopen and free for private corporate interests. Weapon systems such as nuclear powered lasers and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are now being funded, researched, and tested in the U.S. It will only be a matter of

time until deployment of space based weapons will follow. In the Space Commands document, Vision for

2020, they state that "Historically, military forces have evolved to protect national interests and investments bothmilitary and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance theircommercial interests. The control of space will encompass protecting U.S. military, civil and commercialinvestments in space. Control of space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations withinthe space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required." A parallel, military highway willbe created between the Earth and the planets beyond. Documents commissioned by the U.S. Congress suggest thatU.S. military bases on the Moon will enable the U.S. to control access to and from the planet Earth. The logo of the

U.S. Space Command is "Master of Space."


26/59


27/59



Extinction Not Inevitable

Humans will not become extinct. Ingenuity, genius, and luck ensure.

Bryan Jamieson, Writer and Political Commentator, 7/9/2006, The Answer,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/My%20Town%20Essays/theanswer.htmAs a result, I doubt that we will see a planet with twenty billion people on it by 2106. I doubt we will even reach tenbillion (were currently around 6.5 billion). The problems we face are real, and we arent going to be able to solvethem through proactive means. We will wind up alleviating them by dying off in large numbers, which is whathappens to species at the top of the food chain on a regular basis. I believe humans will survive the next 100 yearsprecisely the same way theyve survived the previous 4.5 million years: theyll muddle through. There will be

flashes of genius, of greatness, of courage, that will prevent the race from sinking itself. We will die off but

enough humans will survive to keep the race going.

Asteroids wont cause extinction. Extinction level collisions happen less than every 500,000

years.

NickBostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, 2006, Global Agenda,www.globalagendamagazine.com/2006/Bostrom.asp)It is sad that humanity as a whole has not invested even a few million dollars to improve its thinking about howit may best ensure its own survival. Some existential risks are difficult to study in a rigorous way but we willnot know what insights we might develop until we do the research. There are also some sub-species ofexistential risk that can be measured, such as the risk of a species-destroying meteor or asteroid impact. Thisparticular risk turns out to be very small. A meteor or an asteroid would have to be considerably larger than

1km in diameter to pose an existential risk. Fortunately, such objects hit the Earth less than once in 500,000years on average.

Nuclear war won't cause extinction

Dr Brian Martin, physicist in stratospheric modeling, research associate in the Dept. of Mathematics, Faculty ofScience, Australian National University, and a member of Sana, Sana update, March 1984)Yet in spite of the widespread belief in nuclear extinction, there was almost no scientific support for such apossibility. The scenario of the book and movie On the Beach [2], with fallout clouds gradually enveloping theearth and wiping out all life, was and is fiction. The scientific evidence is that fallout would only kill peoplewho are immediately downwind of surface nuclear explosions and who are heavily exposed during the first

few days. Global fallout has no potential for causing massive immediate death (though it could cause up tomillions of cancers worldwide over many decades) [3]. In spite of the lack of evidence, large sections of the peacemovement have left unaddressed the question of whether nuclear war inevitably means global extinction.

Nuclear war may kill large cities but it will not cause extinction

Bryan Jamieson, Writer and Political Commentator, 7/9/2006 The Answer,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/My%20Town%20Essays/theanswer.htm)In this past century, we developed the means to destroy ourselves, through thermonuclear war. For over 40years now, weve had the ability to annihilate virtually all life on earth. Weve managed to stand at the edge

of this precipice and not fall in. Im actually reasonably confident that we will avoid a full-scale thermonuclearwar, although with weapons proliferation, it seems likely that one or more cities will die in a holocaust betweennow and 2106. But I think its unlikely to become a recurring event. Sixty years after, and the world is stillshaken by the horror of Hiroshima.


27/59


28/59



1NC Shell

1. Space weaponization inevitable

Tom Wilson, Space Commission Staff Member, 2001, Threats to United States Space Capabilities,http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.htmlThe ability to restrict or deny freedom of access to and operations in space is no longer limited to global

military powers. The reality is that there are many extant capabilities to deny, disrupt or physically destroyspace systems and the ground facilities that command and control them. Knowledge of U.S. space systems

functions, locations and physical characteristics, as well as the means to conduct counterspace operations, is

increasingly available on the international market. Nations or groups hostile to the U.S. possess or can

acquire the means to disrupt or destroy U.S. space systems by attacking the satellites in space, their

communications nodes on the ground and in space, or ground nodes that command the satellites .Offensive counterspace operation technology is spreading throughout the world. Even so, some types ofantisatellite (ASAT) weapons are obviously more complex to design, build and test than others. Kinetic andchemical interceptors, conventional guns, and low power lasers are the least sophisticated. Nuclear weapons andradio frequency weapons are more complex. High-energy lasers and particle beam weapons are the most

sophisticated. Note that this rating should not be considered by itself, as the use of a complex weapon could makeother aspects of the overall system simpler. For example, using a nuclear weapon on an interceptor makes virtuallyevery other aspect of system development less complicated since its lethal radius is large.(3)The U.S. reliance on space, coupled with the growing amount of information available about our space

systems, increases the likelihood that our adversaries will employ counterspace weapons technologies. Of

concern is the likelihood that today, the U.S. has neither the doctrine nor the means to respond to potential

counterspace threat situations.

2. No Other Nation would be Able to Challenge the U.S. in Space if it Deployed Space

Weapons

Everett C. Dolman, 9/14/2005, "US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." E-Parliament Conference on

Space SecurityAnd America would respond -- finally. But would another state? If America were to weaponize space today, it isunlikely that any other state or group of states would find it rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to

provide the infrastructure necessary is too high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years ofinvestment it would take to achieve a minimal counter-force capability -- essentially from scratch -- wouldprovide more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space , and readily counter preliminary efforts todisplace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, wouldopt not to counter US deployments in kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing,

depending on how aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race

in space should the US deploy weapons there -- at least for the next few years -- is extremely remote.


28/59
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.html#%23http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.html#%23http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.html#rft3%23rft3http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.html#rft3%23rft3http://www.spacedebate.org/author/1064http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdfhttp://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/1761/#%23http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/1761/#%23http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.html#%23http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2001/nssmo/article05.html#rft3%23rft3http://www.spacedebate.org/author/1064http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf


29/59



1NC Shell

3. The US must develop offensive space capabilities to protect our assets from attack

Everett Carl Dolman, School of Advanced Studies (SAAS), 2003, Space Power and US Hegemony: Maintaining aLiberal World Order in the 21st Century,http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdf//[E.Berggren]

4. Space weapons necessary to defend against asteroids

John C. Kunich, 97, Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival." Air Force Law Review. Vol. 41Mitigation, or response, could take several forms, depending in part on the nature and magnitude of a given threat,once it has been detected and evaluated. One possible response would be evacuation of the impact zone, to minimizeloss of life. A closely related response is preparation to minimize the resultant damage due to fires, tidal waves,earthquakes, acid rain, and other after-effects, and to provide medical care to the victims. These forms of response,though important, would be grossly inadequate when dealing with a truly massive threat such as those discussedpreviously. In the event of a massive strike from space, the resultant apocalyptic disasters would render such efforts

as fruitless as rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. The only meaningful response to a massivestrike is some form of direct intervention. Direct intervention may entail deflection or destruction of theapproaching space object to prevent or mitigate any impact with Earth. The means for achieving this fallpartially within the realm of existing military capabilities, and partially within the ambit of technologiessuperficially similar to some proposed/experimental aspects of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Dependingon the physical size and other attributes of the threatening object, a variety of countermeasures might be effective indiverting or destroying it. Earth-based nuclear devices such as Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) or theirsubmarine-launched counterparts might suffice. Non-nuclear options conceivably would work, including kineticenergy or laser systems such as were explored under SDI. Some of these may require space-basing to be effective,while others may work in an Earth-based mode.


29/59
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdfhttp://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdfhttp://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdfhttp://afls14.jag.af.mil/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-71020/part4.DOChttp://www.spacedebate.org/source/Air%20Force%20Law%20Reviewhttp://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdfhttp://afls14.jag.af.mil/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-71020/part4.DOChttp://www.spacedebate.org/source/Air%20Force%20Law%20Review


30/59



1NC Shell

5. Space weapons would revolutionize US military power

Thomas D. Bell, 1/99, Weaponization of Space: Understanding Strategic and Technological Inevitabilities..Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air UniversityForce application from space will give a new meaning to responsiveness and lethality in global attack and

precision engagement. It will revolutionize the way the United States projects military power because it will

allow the application of force against any target on the face of the earth through space. From a robust space-based laser system, or a ground-based system transiting space, the US will have the capability to conduct astrategic air campaign on the order of Desert Storm in a matter of minutes without the need for deploying

forces. By extension, the capability will also exist to conduct an interdiction campaign without the need todeploy forces.

6. Space Weapons enhance deterrence and diplomacy

StevenLambakis, 02, "Putting Military Uses of Space in Context." Future Security in Space: Commercial,Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs. Ed. James Clay Moltz. Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation StudiesThere are sound political and strategic justifications for looking to space. First, a weapon that exploits Earth'sorbit may increase the number of foreign policy and military options available to our leaders and

commanders. More options mean that a leader may not be forced to take a more destructive or weaker courseof action, that he has choices on how his country should act in a dynamic, complex, and often dangerousworld. Effective military options, in other words, can work to improve deterrence and stability and helpleaders deal more intelligently, even more diplomatically, with surprises.


30/59
http://www.spacedebate.org/author/1062http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/occppr06.htmhttp://www.spacedebate.org/author/544http://cns.miis.edu./pubs/opapers/op10/op10.pdfhttp://www.spacedebate.org/author/1062http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/occppr06.htmhttp://www.spacedebate.org/author/544http://cns.miis.edu./pubs/opapers/op10/op10.pdf


31/59



Space Weapons Key To Protecting Space Assets

Space Weapons Needed to Deter Attacks against Valuable Space Assets

Lori Scheetz, fall 2006, "Infusing Environmental Ethics into the Space Weapons Dialogue." GeorgetownInternational Environmental Law Review. Vol. 19, No. 1 (Fall 2006): 57-82Proponents of weaponizing space focus on American military dependence on space and a sense of increasing dangerof a ballistic missile attack. Supporters argue that space weapons might be able to address threats from small,enemy satellites, ground-based anti-satellite weapons, and high altitude nuclear explosions. With the growing

concern in the United States over terrorists and unfriendly nations, weaponizing space to bolster U.S.

national security is close to becoming a reality. Furthermore, the 2005 report of the Presidential Commission onthe Future of Space Exploration, ("Aldridge Commission Report"), focuses on the commercialization of space.Space weapons could be used to protect these new commercial interests, along with providing diplomatic

leverage and creating offensive potential from space.


31/59
http://www.spacedebate.org/author/2968http://www.spacedebate.org/source/Georgetown%20International%20Environmental%20Law%20Reviewhttp://www.spacedebate.org/source/Georgetown%20International%20Environmental%20Law%20Reviewhttp://www.spacedebate.org/author/2968http://www.spacedebate.org/source/Georgetown%20International%20Environmental%20Law%20Reviewhttp://www.spacedebate.org/source/Georgetown%20International%20Environmental%20Law%20Review


32/59



Space Weapons Inevitable

War in space is inevitable. Nations building weapons now.

Steven Lee Myers, staff writer for the new your times and Phd in international relations, 3/9/2008, Look OutBelow. The Arms Race in Space May Be On., L/N//E.BerggrenThe consequences of war in space are in fact so cataclysmic that arms control advocates like Mr. Kimballwould like simply to prohibit the use of weapons beyond the earth's atmosphere. But its already be too

la