1AC.docx

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

1/16

Lakeland District Debate {Policy 1AC} Page 1of 16

Lakeland Shah-Paradkar Space Topic

1

1AC

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

2/16



2

Inherency

Contention One is Inherency:

Lack of federal investment has undermined SPS development

Cox, 3/26[William John, retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist, The Peoples

Voice, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/26/the-race-for-space-solar-energy,

BJM]

Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely solve the worlds energy and greenhouse gas

emission problems. The technology currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites into geostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the

Suns radiant energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to safely transmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying antennas on Earth.

Following its proposal by Dr. Peter Glaser in 1968, the concept of solar power satellites was extensively studied by the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By 1981, the organizations determined that the idea was a high-

risk venture; however, they recommended further study. With increases in electricity demand and costs, NASA took a "fresh look" at the

concept between 1995 and 1997. The NASA study envisioned a trillion-dollar project to place several dozen solar-power satellites ingeostationary orbits by 2050, sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to Earth. The NASA effort successfully demonstrated

the ability to transmit electrical energy by microwaves through the atmosphere; however, the studys leader, John Mankins, no w says the

program "has fallen through the cracks because no5organizationis responsible for both space

programs and energysecurity." The project may have remained shelved except for the militarys need for sources of energy in itscampaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the cost of gasoline and diesel exceeds $400 a gallon. A report by the Department of Defenses

National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the U.S. "begin a coordinate d national program" to develop space-based solar

power. There are three basic engineering problems presented in the deployment of a space-based solar power system: the size, weight and

capacity of solar collectors to absorb energy; the ability of robots to assemble solar collectors in outer space; and the cost and reliability of

lifting collectors and robots into space. Two of these problems have been substantially solved since space-solar power was originally proposed.

New thin-film advances in the design of solar collectors have steadily improved, allowing for increases in the efficiency of energy conversion

and decreases in size and weight. At the same time, industrial robots have been greatly improved and are now used extensively in heavy

manufacturing to perform complex tasks. The remaining problem is the expense of lifting equipment and materials into space. The last few

flights of the space shuttle this year will cost $20,000 per kilogram of payload to move satellites into orbit and resupply the space station. It has

been estimated that economic viability of space solar energy would require a reduction in the payload cost to less than $200 per kilogram andthe total expense, including delivery and assembly in orbit, to less than $3,500 per kilogram. Although there are substantial costs

associated with the development of space-solar power, it makesfar more sense to invest precious

public resources in the development of an efficient and reliable power supply for the future , rather than towaste U.S. tax dollars on an ineffective missile defense system, an ego trip to Mars, or $36 billion in risky loan guarantees by the DOE to the

nuclear power industry. With funding for the space shuttle ending next year and for the space station in 2017, the United States must

decide upon a realistic policy forspace exploration, or else it will be left on the ground by other nations,

which are rapidly developingfuturistic space projects.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/26/the-race-for-space-solar-energyhttp://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/26/the-race-for-space-solar-energy

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

3/16



3

Plan

Thus the plan, The United States federal government should increase Space Based

Solar Power.

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

4/16



4

Space Mil

Contention two is Advantages-

Advantage one is Space Leadership-

Space is the 21st

Century battlefieldother spacefaring nations are winning the

race putting the US at a competitive disadvantageonly enhancing space

technology allows us to control the commons

Dowd, 2009[Alan W., senior fellow with the Fraser Institute, Stanford University Hoover Institution, Policy Review

#156, Surrendering Outer Space,http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5421,

BJM]

The next war In 1996, the Clinton administration concluded that assuring reliable and affordable access to space through U.S. space

transportation capabilities is fundamental to achieving national space policy goals. It directed the Pentagon to develop, operate and maintain

space-control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space and, if directed, to deny such freedom of action to adversaries. A decade later,

the Bush administration declared that Americas national security is critically dependent upon space

capabilities, and this dependence will grow.This statement had already been underscored by the early phases of the Global War onTerror, which Bush called the first war of the 21st century. The nations initial counterstrikes against al Qaeda were thr own by satellite-

guided cruise missiles. Since then, U.S. pilots have been using Joint-Direct Attack Munitions (jdam) to pound terrorists and their sponsors. The

jdam continually receives data from gps satellites to lock on and destroy targets in any weather and at any time of day. In May 2008, gps-guided

Tomahawk missiles, launched by Navy vessels, hit al Qaeda bases in Somalia. Raytheon, the smart missiles manufacturer, proudly notes that

more than 1,900 Tomahawks have been fired in combat, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Likewise, the Predator drone, which

transmits images and information via satellite to faraway command centers, has enabled U.S. forces to attack targets within minutes rather

than days. Retrofitted with Hellfire missiles, the Predator has struck targets in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Its next-generation

cousin, the Reaper, has weaponry grafted into its systems. Instead of just two Hellfires, the Reaper has 14 and flies higher and faster than the

Predator. Thanks to satellite links, the Reaper can be piloted by a technician 7,000 miles away. In addition, an updated version of the Reaper,

due to be deployed in 2010, will be equipped with the ominously named Gorgon Stare, which will give controllers and command ers the abilityto eye a target from 12 different angles across a four-kilometer radius. As Air Force News explains, if 12 different terrorists scatter from a

building in 12 different directions, Gorgon Stare could dedicate one angle to each. Predators and Reapers are using satelli tes to transmit

16,000 hours of video every month to troops on the ground and commanders around the world. In other words, these are anything but

glorified remote-control toys. In fact, the Predator and Reaper are so central to the battle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other militants in

Pakistans laughably misnamed federally administered tribal areas that observers have dubbed this front the drone war. The blame for our

current position rests with Congress and the White House, with Democrats and Republicans. In the second war of the 21st century, which

looms somewhere beyond the Global War on Terror, space itself could become the battlefield. We know from history thatevery medium air, land and sea has seen conflict, the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and

Organization concluded in 2001. Reality indicates that space will be no different. The commissions chairman, Donald Rumsfeld, argued,

More than any other country, the United States relies on space for its securityand well-being. Underscoring this assertion,

the United States has more satellites than the combined total of the rest of the world, as AP has reported. However, Americas

command of the ultimate high ground is increasingly precarious. The Washington Post reports that in the past decadeRussia has put more satellites into space than has the U.S. In fact, 53 U.S.-built satellites were launched in 2007, down from 121 in 1998.4

Moreover, many other nations are planting their banners in space; China is the most active newcomer. The Europeans are pooling theirresources to deploy ever more sophisticated space assets. According to the Washington Post, Japan is committed to using space assets to

buttress its national defense; India recently launched ten satellites on just one rocket; and Brazil, Israel, Singapore, and a growing list of other

nations are deploying a range of space assets. That list includes Iran, which has plans to put five satellites into orbit by 2010. To be sure, much

of this activity is civilian, but even civilian satellites can be diverted for military uses. In 1991, for instance, the U.S. military procured

commercial remote sensing imagery from a non-U.S. company during Desert Storm.5 Likewise, the Pentagon paid firms for exclusive control

over satellite imagery during the war in Afghanistan, thereby depriving the enemy of information. According to General James Cartwright, vice

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Intentional interference with space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance,

navigation and communication satellites, while not routine, now occurs with some regularity. He warned the Senate ArmedServices Committee in 2007 that Americas increasing appetite for space-based technical solutions . . . could become our Sword of Damocles.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5421http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5421http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5421

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

5/16



5

Indeed, the ability to attack U.S. space assets is no longer limited to a select club of military powers. Anti-satellite weapons, satellite-jamming

equipment, and microsatellites are inexpensive and increasingly accessible on the global market. To minimize the threat to our

space capabilities now and in the future, Cartwright has argued, we need continued support of programs

that enhance our space situational awareness, space protection capabilities, and satellite operations in order to preserve

unfettered, reliable, and secure access to space. Civilian programs must be viewed as part of this mix. It pays to recall thatmany shuttle missions have been strictly military missions, some of them highly classified. Indeed, the link between manned spaceflight,

national security, and satellites should not be brushed aside. The space shuttle, after all, is a manned satellite, performing functions, gatheringinformation and conducting operations (such as rescue, repair, and experimentation) that unmanned satellites cannot. Its hard to imagine that,

during the 5-year gap without a shuttle, the U.S. will be better served by unmanned satellites and Russian-piloted rockets than by Americans

deploying into space on American vessels. Just as the United States relies on space, much of the world relies on the United States

to ensure the unencumbered use of space. Protectingwhat Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called the 21st centurys

global commons in particular, spaceand cyberspace is Americas duty, just as protecting the sea lanes fell to America after WorldWar II. But can America defend the heavens without the capacity to deliver its own into space? We will soon find out, because other countries

will not stand still while the United States regroups.

And, The race for SSP is underway. The US needs commitment to remain competitive.

Cox 11 (William, public interest lawyer, Truthout.org, April 30, http://www.truthout.org/race-space-solar-energy/1304186557)

The failures of the General Electric nuclear reactors in Japan to safely shut down following the 9.0 Tahoka earthquake, following in the wake ofthe catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the deadly methane gas explosion in Massey's West Virginia coal mine,

now conclusively demonstrate the grave dangers current energy production methods pose to human society. The radiation plume from

melting reactor cores and the smoke of burning spent fuel rods threaten the lives of the unborn; yet, they point in the direction of the only

logical alternative to these failed policies - the generation of an inexhaustible, safe, pollution-free supply of energy from outer space. Presently,

only the top industrialized nations have the technological, industrial and economic power to compete

in the race for space-solar energy. In spite of, and perhaps because of, the current disaster, Japan occupies the inside track, as it is

the only nation that has a dedicated space-solar energy program, and which is highly motivated to change directions. China,which has

launched astronauts into an earth orbit and is rapidly become the world's leader in the production of wind and solar generation products, will

undoubtedly become a strong competitor. However, the UnitedStates, which should have every advantage in the race, is

most likely to stumble outofthe gate and waste the best chance it has to solve its economic, energy, political

and military problems.

And, SSP allows the U.S. to maintain space controlit can harden satellites, sustain

unmanned warfighters, and reconstitute lost assets rapidly

Kim Ramos, US Air Force Major, Thesis submitted for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELLAir Force Base, Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force, April

2000http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928

Space In addition to the terrestrial implications of solar power satellites for the Air Force, there are also implications for space operations. The

power required for spacecraft operations is increasing. In order to meet 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 the

size of solar arrays on satellites to meet the increasing power demands are deterioration of structure dynamic performance, complications of

orientation and stabilization, placing solar arrays under the launcher fairing, deploying solar arrays in orbit, buffer elements for periods without

sunlight and discrepancies between the orientation of devices and solar arrays.18 Engineers from the Ukraine recommend 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 powersatellites topower other satellitesin space and predicted thatpower

beaming will become a major element of spacecraft operations.20 Solar powersatellites would provide

improvements in the areas ofreconstitution, maneuver, force application, space-based radar, and

communicationsatellites which produce power as well as transfer data. Reconstitution As outlined in Air University study Spacecast2020, the rapid launch and deployment of satellites is required to comply with the United States National Military Strategy concept of

reconstitution. Reconstitution for space is the ability to launch satellites for unanticipated system failures *due to hos tile actions] and

multiple area coverage requirements, *which+ require the immediate placement of satellites into orbit.21 Solar power satellites enable

reconstitution with unmanned aerial vehicles performing the same functions as satellites, as mentioned previously, and through enabling
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

6/16



6

smaller satellites. One of the difficulties in achieving small satellites is the fact that power generation takes up about 25% of the weight of a

satellite.22 Satellites launched without onboard power generation would be smaller and receive power on orbit from a solar power satellite.

Solar power satellites enable reconstitution with unmannedaerialvehicles with unlimited loiter time for immediate deploymentfor a warfighter, and by reducing the size of satellites which facilitates rapid launches. Small Satellites Small satellites not only fulfill the

reconstitution requirement but also meet other requirements for smaller, faster, and cheaper satellites. Typically weighing less than 250 kg,

and designed for one mission, quick checkout and rapid launch, small satellites offer advantages over larger satellites, which are more

expensive, cost more to put in orbit, and take longer to build.23 Small satellites are good candidates for imagery, and some types of

communications.24 Constellations of small satellites serve another purpose. They have reduced vulnerability and increased survivabilitycompared to single satellites. Powering small satellites withenergy beamed from asolarpowersatellite furtherreducestheir

size, cost, and launch requirements.Maneuver One of the vulnerabilities of satellites is that they lack maneuverability. Orbitchanges are possible but the amount of station keeping fuel limits these maneuvers. Unscheduled orbital maneuvers for, supported

warfighters, on-orbit station keeping, or avoiding an anti-satellite weapon, reduce the life expectancy of satellites. The New World Vistas study

concluded, technologies to substantially enhance survivability are maneuvering technologiesenabled by the technologies of high

generation power in space.25 Moreover, the report stated that electrical propulsion and solar power satelliteswould enable

maneuvering for survivability, station keeping, and repositioning to meet warfighter requirements.26

Scenario one is China

That prevents an attack from China the equivalent of Space Pearl Harbor

STONE 07, Christopher: B.A. from the University of Missouri, space and missile officer*Chinese intentions and American preparedness, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/930/1+

On January 11, 2007 the Chinese launched a missile from a mobile transporter-erector launcher (TEL) armed with a kinetic kill vehicle and

destroyed the Fengyun-1C weather satellite. This satellite was orbiting the earth in a low, polar orbit. This missile was launched with no

advanced warning from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and they didnt respond to the test until much later. According to Air Force Space

Command, 700 spacecraft in low Earth orbit are now at risk due to the debris cloud created. I would say in addition to the debris cloud, all of

our satellites and manned spacecraft, within range of these weapons, are endangered and the Chinese ASAT interceptor program should be

taken seriously. While some people find the intentions of the Chinese ASAT test an enigma, I find it hard to understand wha t is so difficult for

them to understand. Finding these answers are easier than some think. Any person who takes the time to read the open source materials alone

can get a firm grasp of what Chinese military leaders and government officials are advocating through their ASAT and space weapons programs.

Concerns about this ASAT program are not new. The Department of Defense has been publicly stating since 1998 that the Chinese were

developing this capability. These assertions were unfortunately doubted by many, as is historically the case regarding threats to the security of

the United States. These weapons endangernot onlyintelligence and military satellitesthat are critical to providing

trackingandtargeting for rapid reaction of our armed forces during a conflict, butcivilian networks as well. This, as we will see later, isprecisely the reasonthey have beendeveloping and testing these weapons, to counter theUnited States military and asChinese Colonel Yuan Zelu stated, bring the opponent to its knees. According to some,the intentions and reasons for conducting this test are

elusive. These experts are in a state of denial.If anyone wanted to know what the Japanese were planning to do in the 1930s , all they had to

do was read their plans and training documents. These plans were then being executed across the Asia-Pacific region. Many in America viewed

claims about the increasing threat of the Japanese military as preposterous because they were committed to a peaceful rise. TheChinese

are claiming a peaceful rise as well, coupledwith a large increase in their armed forces and weapons. All that is needednow, as then, is to take a hard look at the policy and doctrine of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) with respect to our nations space

capabilities and armed forces and what they plan to do, which is counter our space superiority. Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of US

Pacific Command has stated, An anti-satellite weapon is not necessarily a clear indication of a desire for peaceful utilization of space its a

confusing signal shall we say for a country who desires, in Chinas words, a peaceful rise. In a recently published paper from SAICs Strategic

Assessment Center, Chinese military documents advocate the covert deployment and use of ground- and space-based ASAT weaponry. The

Chinesestate thatthey view our space systems as the lynchpin of American powerwith respect to C4ISR (Command andControl, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and, to address it one step further, key to the precision targeting of

our weapons. Chris Lay, one of the papers authors, stated, The capability to negate US space based C4ISR is very important to China if they areto deter, dissuade and /or defeat US power projection into their region. The ASAT capability probably fits with their concept of assassins

mace. My view is that they will deploy. The Assassins Mace concept is a form of space warfare devised by Colonel JiaJunming in his book

Integrated Space Campaigns and is studied at the various Chinese war colleges. It is a term used for a two-phased approach where space

combat support in space is first, followed by the covert deployment of space weapons and a limited space deterrence. Someexamples of thegoals of the Chinesein this approach, with respect to the American space systems, can be best summed up by Colonel Li Daguangs

book Space Warfare:Destroy or temporarily incapacitate all enemy satellites above our territory, [deploy]

land based and space based ASAT weapons, counter US missile defense systems, maintain our good

international image [by covert deployment+, space strike weapons concealed and launched only in time of crisis. Colonel Daguangsposition in his book is one of space control using space weaponry, equipment an d systems to achieve this control, and use space based assets

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

7/16



7

to coordinate all other subsequent military operations. Many of these recommendations and plans have been predicted by spaceofficers and

analysts for many years, yet have been dismissed by groups who are opposed to space-based weapons or defenses. I can agree with them that

in an ideal world, space should be a sanctuary from war, however it just isnt the reality of the situation. Throughout history, all areas that

have been explored or utilized by humankind(mankind){Gendered Language Modified}(land, sea, air)have eventually

seen conflict. Due to the dependency of the Western worldespecially the United Stateson space-based assets, an enemy can crushus by taking out our space-based networks. There are many questions that people are asking with regards to the reason the Chinese tested this

ASAT and what to do in response. First, do we need more military-to-military dialogue with the Chinese? While this is a good thing, note that

Chinese ASAT and some other space weapons experts of the PLA are off-limits to the United States with our current military exchange program.

They have never been a part of the program and due to the sensitive nature of the Chinese space program militarily, I cannot see why they

would allow those experts to be added if requested. Would you want to tell your enemy what your intentions were with respect to achieving

victory over them in a future conflict? I think not. That would give the enemy a chance to build countermeasures and negate the military

advantage gained by such a program. Second, was the Chinese responding to the Bush Administrations new National Space Policy? No.

According to a recent article in Defense News, the Chinese had conducted two or more tests of this weapon prior to the issuance of the new

policy. Our policy is aimed at defense and exploration, not conquest. Third, should we take this as a hint to kowtow to the Chinese ability to

threaten our space capabilities? No. President Bush is correct: capitulating to such arms agreements, such as Prevention of an Arms Race in

Outer Space (PAROS)or a space code of conduct, in a position of weakness, wouldnt change the situation. After all, the weapon test launched

by the Chinese was ground-based, not space-based, and would get around current and many proposed space treaties. Furthermore, Chinese

plans indicate a push to eventually deploy weapons in space. As Chris Lay stated, I suspect that they have plans (including development and

test plans) for more sophisticated and advanced ASAT capability that could include high-orbit and/or GEO capable systems. Even though space

warfare hasnt truly happened yet, is it really wise to dismiss the open source documents from the Chinese military colleges and doctrine

centers just because we havent seen mass attacks on our GPS constellations or other spacecraft? The experts who have put together sound

analysis of the situation dont think so and neither does this author. The advocates of engaging in arms control agreementsdue to the test are

pursuing a course of appeasement that, in the age of light-speed information and short-notice weapons, is unwise. Many people who havecommented on the test consider the weapons to be a primitive system. However, as Desmond Ball from the Australian National University

stated, it is the sort of capability available to any country with a store of MRBM/IRBM (Medium Range Ballistic Missiles/Intermediate Range

Ballistic Missiles) or satellite launch vehicles, and a long range radar system, such as Japan, India, Pakistan, Iran and even North Korea.

American satellites are lucrative targets in the Chinese strategy of asymmetric warfare. Regardless of the primitive nature of

the technology used, the fact thatthis kind of technology can be produced by the Chinese and exported tonations

such asNorth Korea, Iran, or even well-funded global terrorist groups, makes it clear thatthis is a threat that cannot

be wished awayby hopes alone. I feel that we must prepare at least a sound counterspace system, ground based at first, then spacebased to counter this threat. The system could become layered as the missile defense program will become. There are many ideas out there

political, diplomatic, and militaryto address this situation. However, one thing is certain: theera of just writing about counterspace and space

control doctrine is over.The time to act is now, before we lose crucial space situational awareness and the

functionality of our space system, military or civilian, in a surprise attack by a future space aggressor.

China perceives that the US has already militarized spaceDwayne Day, November 14, 2011, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1970/1

To the Chinese this includes hitting American space assets. Pollpeter explained that the Chinese

consider American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance satellites, and even meteorological

satellites, to be space weapons and therefore legitimate targets.

According to Pollpeter, a common theme in practically every Chinese book and magazine article about

space is that whoever controls space controls the Earth. Its almost obligatory to put this in a book

or article, Pollpeter explained. The Chinese believe that 7080% of US intelligence information is

collected by satellites. They often tend to ascribe almost mythical powers to American intelligence

satellites, assuming that the Americans can see and hear everything with their satellites.

The Chinesealso believe that space will inevitably become a battleground, no different than the

oceans or the air. Their strategy is to take down American satellitesat the outset of any conflict

And, Our inability to outpace China in space makes war inevitable: We would lash out

based on perception.

TELLIS 07, Ashley: Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Senior Adviserto the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, former Senior Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1970/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1970/1

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

8/16



8

*China's Military Space Strategy, Survival 49:3 p41-72,

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/tellis_china_space1.pdf]

Finally, the growing Chinese capability for space warfare implies that a future conflict in the Taiwan Strait would entail serious deterrence and

crisis instabilities. If such a clash were to compel Beijing to attack US space systems at the beginning of a war, the very prospect ofsucha

'space Pearl Harbor'94 could, in turn, provoke the United Statesto contemplate pre-emptive attacks or

horizontal escalation on the Chinese mainland. Such outcomes would be particularly likely in a conflict in

the next decade,before Washington has the opportunity to invest fully in redundant space

capabilities.Already, US Strategic Command officials have publicly signaled that conventionally armed Trident submarine-launched ballistic

missiles would be appropriate weapons for executing the prompt strikes that might become necessary in such a contingency.95 Such

attacks, even ifemploying only conventionalwarheads, on space launch sites, sensor nodes and command and control

installations on the Chinese mainland couldwell beperceived as aprecursor to an all-out war. It would be difficult for all sides tolimit the intensification of such a conf lict, even without the added complications of accidents and further misperception.96 *** The emergence

of potent Chinese counter-space capabilities makes US military operations in Asia more risky than ever. The threat has not arisen due to a lack

of a space arms-control regime, or because of the Bush administration's disinclination to negotiate an accord that bans the weaponization of

space. Rather, it is rooted entirely in China's requirement that it be able to defeat the United States in a regional conflict despite its

conventional inferiority. This strategic challenge has compelled Beijing to exploit every anti-access and battle-space-denial technology

potentially available. The threat posed by this Chinese effort cannot be neutralized by arms-control agreements, even though all countries

stand to profit from the absence of threats to their assets in space. There is a temptation, especially in the United States, to view China's

counter-space programs in moralistic terms. This approach is undesirable and best avoided: Beijing's desire to defeat the stronger byasymmetric means is not a reflection of its deviousness, nor provoked by mendacity on the part of the United States or the Bush

administration. It is grounded in the objective conditions that define the relationship between the two countries: competing political goals,

likely to persist whether or not the Taiwan conflict is resolved. In such circumstances, the United States should seek, as the Bush

administration's own National Space Policy declares, to protect the 'use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit

of all humanity'. Butifthis fundamental goalisthreatened by Chinese counter-space activities aimed at American space assets, the

UnitedStateshas no choice butto run an offence-defense arms race, and win.

And, U.S.-China war will go nuclear and destroy the planet.

STRAITS TIMES 2k*Regional Fallout: No one gains in war over Taiwan, June 25, 2000, LEXIS+

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. IfWashington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflicton such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear

war.Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forcesattacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser

extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate,east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic

powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted,Russia may seek to redefine Europe's

political landscape. The balance of power in theMiddle East may be similarly upsetby the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities

betweenIndia and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, couldenter a new anddangerous phase. Will a full-scaleSino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the

Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his

book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy,

Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear

weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is littlehope of winning a waragainst China50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China

possesses about 20nuclear warheads that can destroy major Americancities. Beijing alsoseems prepared to

go for thenuclear option.A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principleregarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at

the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were

strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked

dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass,we would see the destruction

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

9/16



9

of civilisation.There would be no victors in such a war. While theprospect of anuclear Armaggedonover Taiwan might seem

inconceivable, itcannot be ruled outentirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

Scenario Two is Iran

Iran is already militarizing; the satellites and their promising technology is enoughRubin 09[Uzi Rubin, anIsraeli defenseengineer and analyst. Rubin is considered one of the pre-eminent analysts

of missile systems in the Middle East.America's newspace rivals; Iran, North Korea swoop to conquer,

SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES,,March 20, 2009, newspaper.]Iran's recent breakthrough in placing its own satellite in orbit by a homemade multistage rocket

earned it the distinction of being the first radical regime that reaches space.Worse, the tepid reaction in

the United States and the West to this watershed event served as a powerful inducement

for Iran, North Korea and other potential nuclear wannabees to camouflage their

offensive missile programs in the guise of peaceful space activities.The truth must be said: Iran's

space program is no more peaceful than its nuclear program.Self-delusion will not help here. Ever since the dawn ofthe space age, ballistic missiles and space launchers existed in close symbiosis. The first two satellites in human history, the Soviet Union's

Sputnik and the U.S. Explorer 1 were lofted to Earth orbits aboard slightly modified ballistic missiles. The alarm in the United States at the

Soviet achievement did not come from the rudimentary 80 kilogram ball of metal that beeped its way in space but from the rocket that

launched it. Any rocket that can propel a satellite into Earth orbit can be easily modified and upscaled to

drop a significant bomb anywhere on Earth.

And, a strike on satellites from Iran paralyzes US ground forces, collapses global

economy, pollutes space, and increases chances of nuclear miscalc

Myers 8(Steven Lee, DC reporter for The New York Times, 3-9-08, Look Out Below. The Arms Race inSpace May Be On, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09myers.html)

IT doesnt take much imagination to realize how badly war in space could unfold. An enemy say, China in a

confrontation over Taiwan, or Iran staring down America over the Iranian nuclear program could knock outthe American satellite system in a barrage of antisatellite weapons, instantly paralyzing American

troops, planes and ships around the world. Space itself could be polluted for decades to come,

rendered unusable. The global economic system would probably collapse, along with air travel andcommunications. Your cellphone wouldnt work. Nor would yourA.T.M. and that dashboard navigational gizmo you got for Christmas. And

preventing an accidental nuclear exchange could become much more difficult. The fallout, if you will, could be tremendous, said Daryl G.

Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. The consequences of war in space are in fact so cataclysmic that

arms control advocates like Mr. Kimball would like simply to prohibit the use of weapons beyond the earths atmosphere. But i t may already be

too late for that. In the weeks since an American rocket slammed into an out-of-control satellite over the Pacific Ocean, officials and experts

have made it clear that the United States, for better or worse, is already committed to having the capacity to wage war in space. And that, it

seems likely, will prompt others to keep pace. What makes people want to ban war in space is exactly what keeps the Pentagon s war planners

busy preparing for it: The United States has become so dependent on space that it has become the countrys Achilles heel. Our adversaries

understand our dependence upon space-based capabilities, Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, commander of the United States Strategic Command, wrote

in Congressional testimony on Feb. 27, and we must be ready to detect, track, cha racterize, attribute, predict and respond to any threat to our

space infrastructure. Whatever Pentagon assurances there have been to the contrary, the destruction of a satellite more than 130 miles abovethe Pacific Ocean a week earlier, on Feb. 20, was an extraordinary display of what General Chilton had in mind a capacity that the Pentagon

under President Bush has tenaciously sought to protect and enlarge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelis

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

10/16



10

Warming

Advantage two is Warming-

Warming is real and human induceddrastic emissions reductions are key to avoid

dangerous climate disruptions

Somerville 11Professor of Oceanography @ UCSDRichard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of

Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I

for the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 3-8-2011,

CLIMATE SCIENCE AND EPA'S GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS, CQ Congressional Testimony, Lexis,

BJM

In early 2007, at the time of the publication of WG1 of AR4, the mainstream global community of climate scientists already understood from

the most recent research that the latest observations of climate change were disquieting. In the words of a research paper published at thesame time as the release of AR4 WG1, a paper for which I am a co-author, "observational data underscore the concerns about global climate

change.Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have

underestimated the change" (Rahmstorf et al. 2007). Now, in 2011, more recent research and newer observations

have demonstrated that climate change continues to occur, and in several aspects the magnitude and rapidity

of observed changes frequently exceedthe estimates of earlier projections, including those of AR4. In addition, the case for

attributing much observed recent climate change to human activities is even strongernow than at the time of AR4.Several recent examples, drawn from many aspects of climate science, but especially emphasizing atmospheric phenomena, support this

conclusion. These include temperature, atmospheric moisture content, precipitation, and other aspects of the hydrological cycle. Motivated by

the rapid progress in research, a recent scientific synthesis, The Copenhagen Diagnosis (Allison et al. 2009), has assessed recent climate

research findings, including: -- Measurements show that the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass and contributing to sea level

rise. -- Arctic sea-ice has melted far beyond the expectations of climate models. -- Global sea level rise may attain or exceed 1 meter by 2100,

with a rise of up to 2 meters considered possible. -- In2008, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels were

about 40% higher than thosein1990. -- At today's global emissions rates, if these rates were to be sustainedunchanged, after only about 20 more years, the world will no longer have a reasonable chance of limiting warmingto less than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above 19th-century pre-industrial temperature levels, This is a much- discussed goal

for a maximum allowable degree of climate change, and this aspirational target has now been formally adopted by the European Union and is

supported by many other countries, as expressed, for example, in statements by both the G-8 and G-20 groups of nations.The Copenhagen

Diagnosis also cites research supporting the position that, in order to have a reasonable likelihood of avoiding the risk

of dangerous climate disruption, defined by this 2 degree Celsius (or 3.6 degree Fahrenheit) limit, global emissions of

greenhouse gasessuch as carbon dioxide mustpeak and then start to decline rapidly within the next five to ten years, reachingnear zero well within this century.

And, All other renewable energies not comparable to SPS

Mahan,author for Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, No Date Given(Rob Mahan,http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/#01,Last Modified 06/24/2011, as)

Comparing space-basedsolarpowerto nuclear power, both provide baseload power but current nuclear

fission creates radioactive waste, of which we have already already accumulated thousands of tons which must be safely trackedand stored long into the future, perhaps as long as 10,000 years. Space-based solar power radiates heat generated during the conversion of

light to electricity back into deep space. Comparing space-based solar power to wind power, both are clean sources of

energy but wind power is intermittent, so it cant reliably provide baseload power. Wind power is well suited

to certain geographical areas whereas space-based solarpower can be delivered anywhereon the Earth. Comparing space-

based solar power to ground solar power, both are clean sources of energy but ground solar power is intermittent, so it cant reliably
http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/#01http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/#01

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

11/16



11

provide baseload power. Ground solar power is well suited to certain geographical areas. Solar energy in

space is eight times more intense than after passing through the atmosphereand again, space-based solar

power can be delivered anywhere on the Earth. Comparing space-based solar power to biofuels, biofuels(such as corn or sugar

ethanol) require tremendous amounts of agricultural production. So far, biofuels have less energy per unit

than fossil fuels. Space-basedsolarpower does not compete with food production.

And, SPS solvesits the only solution and warming is comparatively the largest risk

Hsu 10PhD in EngineeringFeng, PhD in Engineering, Former head of the NASA GSFC risk management function, and was the GSFC

lead on the NASA-MIT joint project for risk-informed decision-making support on key NASA programs,

has over 90 publications and is coauthor of two books and co-chair of several technical committees, 12-

2010, Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity's Next Giant Leap, Online Journal of Space

Communication, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/hsu.html

It has become increasingly evident that facing and solving the multiple issues concerning energy is the single most pressing problem that we

face as a species. In recent years, there has been extensive debate and media coverage about alternative energy, sustainable development and

global climate change, but what has been missing(at least in the mainstream media) isthe knowledge and point of view of scientistsand engineers. From the scientists or engineers perspective, this paper discusses the prospects for mankind's technological capability and

societal will in harnessing solar energy, and focuses on the issues of: 1) space based solar power (SBSP) development, and, 2) why it isimperative that we must harness the unparalleled power of the sun in a massive and unprecedented scale, which I believe will be humanity's

next giant leap forward. Whether terrestrially based or space based, solar energy has not yet emerged as a significant solution in

publicdiscussions of global warming. Yet, among scientists and engineers and other visionaries, it is starting to be viewed as one of the

most promising and viable ways toeventually removehuman dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly three years ago atthe Foundation For the Future (FFF) International Energy Conference, my presentation was one of the few that took a look back at energy use

in human history[1]. In this paper, I would like to offer a brief summary of the various stages mankind has passed through in our quest for

energy, and how long they lasted. To understand and fully appreciate the profound idea that humankind has and can continue to harness sun's

energy, it is imperative for us to learn from the history of our civilization and from the perspective of human evolution, especially from those

societies in crisis over energy. Previewing the history of human energy consumption and energy technologies, we can see that there were three

such eras. In the early years of human presence on this planet, we relied on wood-generated energy, based on the burning of firewood, tree

branches and the remains of agricultural harvests. Starting in the 1600s, our forefathers discovered the energy properties of coal, which taught

us how to tap stored supplies of fossil fuels. Less than two hundred years later, about the middle of the 1800s, we found petroleum and learned

to commercialize the use of oil and gas, which brought about our current industrial civilization. In the 20th century, society witnessed the dawn

of electricity generation via hydro-power and atomic energy. Today, demand for energy continues to soar, but we'rerapidly using up our supplies of easily accessible fossil fuels. What is more, a profound environmental crisis hasemerged as the result of our total reliance on energy sources based on those fuels. In the 21st century, there is great uncertainty about world

energy supplies. If you plot energy demand by year of human civilization on a terawatt scale, you will see the huge bump that occurred barely a

hundred years ago (Figure 1). Before that, in the Stone Age, basically the cultivation of fire led to the emergence of agriculture, cooking, tool

making, and all the early stages of human civilization. Now, after about 150 years of burning fossil fuels, the earth's 3 billion years' store of solar

energy has been plundered. In my view,(Hu)mankind must now embark on the next era of sustainable energy

consumptionand re-supply. The most obvious source of which is the mighty energy resource of our sun. Adequately guide and usinghuman creativity and innovation; the 21st century will become the next great leap forward in human civilization by taming solar energy,

transforming our combustion world economy into a lasting solar-electric world economy. In solving humanity's energy problems we must learn

from our ancestors. Taming the natural forces of the sun will be much like our ancestors' early efforts to harness the power of wild fire. We

must use common sense, as they did, developing the tools and technologies that address the needs of our time. The Romans used flaming oil

containers to destroy the Saracen fleet in 670. In the same century, the Japanese were digging wells to a depth approaching 900 feet with picks

and shovels in search of oil. By 1100, the Chinese had reached depths of more than 3,000 feet in search of energy. This happened centuries

before the West had sunk its first commercial well in 1859 in Titusville, Pennsylvania. With all such human creativities in the past, the searchingfor energy has been driven by our combustion world economy, which focused primarily on what's beneath the surface of our planet - the

secondary energy resources which originated from the power of our sun. Now it's time for mankind to lift their heads and start focusing our

profound creativity in harnessing the sun and making our way into the energy technology frontiers in the sky. Solar Energy - The Ultimate

Answer to Anthropogenic Climate Change The evidence of global warming is alarming. The potential for a catastrophic climate change scenario

is dire. Until recently, I worked at Goddard Space Flight Center, a NASA research center in the forefront of space and earth science research.

This Center is engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale. I received first hand scientific information and data

relating to global warming issues, including the latest dynamics of ice cap melting and changes that occurred on either pole of our planet. I had

the chance to discuss this research with my Goddard colleagues, who are world leading experts on the subject. I now have no doubt global

temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether thesetrends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: a) there is

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

12/16



12

overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in the earth's atmosphere with respect

to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and b) the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community is in

agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this

problemand do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into earth's biosphere, humanity will be at

dire risk. As a technical and technology risk assessment expert, I could show with confidence that we face orders of magnitude more risk

doing nothing to curb our fossil-based energy addictions than we will in making a fundamental shift in our energy supply. This is because the

risks ofa catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, arisk that is simply too high for us to take any chances. Of course, there will be economic consequences to all societieswhen we restrict the burning of fossil fuels in an effort to abate "global warming." What we are talking about are options and choices between

risks. All human activities involve risk taking; we cannot avoid risks but only make trade-offs, hopefully choosing wisely. In this case, there has to

be a risk-based probabilistic thought process when it comes to adopting national or international policies in dealing with global warming and

energy issues. As the measure of risk is a product of "likelihood" and "consequence," when consequence or risk of a potential human extinction

(due to catastrophic climate change) is to be compared with the potential consequence or risk of loss of jobs or slowing the growth of economy

(due to restriction of fossil-based energy consumption), I believe the choice is clear. My view is that by making a paradigm shift in the world's

energy supply over time through extensive R&D, technology innovations and increased production of renewable energy, we will create

countless new careers and jobs and end up triggering the next level of economic development, the kind of pollution free industrial revolution

mankind has never before seen. The aggravation and acceleration of a potential anthropogenic catastrophic global climate change, in my

opinion, isthe number one riskincurred from our combustion-based world economy. At the International Energy Conference in Seattle,I showed three pairs of satellite images as evidence that the earth glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate.[2] Whether this warming trend

can be reversed by human intervention is not clear, but this uncertainty in risk reduction doesn't justify the human inactions in adapting policies

and countermeasures on renewable energy development for a sustainable world economy, and for curbing the likelihood of any risk event of

anthropogenic catastrophic climate changes.What is imperative is that we start to do something in a significant

way that has a chance to make a difference. (Gendered Language Corrected)

And, not acting kills billions

Tickell 08(Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange )

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel

from the climate science adviser to Defra. Butthe idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous.

Global warming on this scale wouldbe a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably

never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind.Or perhaps the beginning of ourextinction. The collapse of

the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be

lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive

farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more

frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would

undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we

get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The

climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. Themore the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions

of tonnes of methanea greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 yearscaptured under melting permafrost is already

under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature

increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and

seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial

warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the

warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

And, CO2 absorbed by oceans causes acidification- Its basic chemistry

Scientific American 09(Carbon dioxide may be acidifying seawater faster than thought,Charles Q. Choi, February 5th)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechangehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechangehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

13/16



13

Alesser-known consequence of havinga lot of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is the acidification of water.Oceans naturally absorb the greenhouse gas; in fact, they take in roughly one third of the carbon dioxide released into the

atmosphere by human activities. When CO2 dissolves in water, it forms carbonic acid, the same substance found in

carbonated beverages. New research now suggests that seawater might be growing acidic more quickly

than climate change models have predicted.

And, Ocean acidification kills phytoplankton and causes extinction - two internallinks- loss of phytoplankton causes collapse of major fisheries and death of

billions- and loss of phytoplankton causes the loss of the single biggest absorber

of CO2.

Romm 10(Joseph J. Rommis an American author, blogger, physicist[1]and climate expert[2]whoconcentrates on methods of reducing greenhouse gasemissions and global warmingandincreasing energy securitythrough energy efficiency, green energytechnologies and green transportationtechnologies.Nature Stunner: Global warming blamed for 40% decline in the oceans phytoplankton,July 29, 2010)

Scientists may have found the most devastating impact yet of human-caused global warminga 40%decline in phytoplankton since 1950linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures. If confirmed, it may representthe single most important finding of the year in climate science. The headlines above are from an appropriately blunt article inThe

Independentabout the new study in Nature, Global phytoplankton decline over the past century (subs. reqd). Even the Wall Street

Journalwarned,Vital Marine Plants in Steep Decline. Seth Borenstein of the AP explains, plant plankton found in the

worlds oceansare crucialto much of life on Earth. They are the foundation of thebountiful marine food

web, produce half the worlds oxygen and suck up harmful carbon dioxide. Weve known for a while that we are

poisoning the oceans and that human emissions of carbon dioxide, left unchecked, wouldlikely have

devastating consequencessee 2010 Nature Geosciencestudy: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million yearsago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And weve known those impacts might last a long, long time see 2009 Nature

Geoscience study concludes ocean dead zones devoid of fish and seafood are poised to expand and remain for thousands of years. But u ntil

now, conventionalwisdom has been that big ocean impacts might not be seen until the second half of the century. This

newresearchin Naturesuggests we may have much less time to act than we thought if we want to

savemarine life and ourselves.

And, Peak oil is inevitablefocus should be on transition

Farrell and Brandt 6(A. and A., Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley, July 4,http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/1/1/014004/pdf/1748-9326_1_1_014004.pdf AQB)

Much attention has been given to one aspect of the oil transition, the date of maximum production of conventional petroleum, or peak oil. In

our view, however, multiple uncertainties suggest that while thepeak of conventional oil productionis inevitable, its exact

timing is less important than understandingthe long-term implications of the oil transition. Following Greene et al(2006), we make a distinction between conventional and unconventional petroleum resources based on density and viscosity of the oil, as well

as the presence of contaminants. In the wide spectrum of fossil fuels, petroleum resources run from light oils through a series of increasingly

lower grade and difficult-to-extract resources such as extra-heavy oil and tar sands. Unconventional oil occupies the heavier end of this

spectrum and is harder to extract and refine into products like jet fuel. Several observations support the current interest inthe date of peak conventionaloil production. First, the occurrence of conventional oil in the Earths crust is fixedandproduction can only reduce that amount. Second, the discovery of these occurrences peaked near the middle of the 20th century (the exact

year is subject to controversy) and few very large oil fields have been discovered since the mid -1970s. Third, yearly production now

exceeds the volumes found in newly discovered fields. Hubbert (1956) developed the most common method of predictingthe peak. Applied on a global scale, this approach requires an estimate of the amount of petroleum that will be produced over all time, called

estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), and fitting a curve (often a logistic or Gaussian distribution) to both past production data and the EUR

forecast (Bentley 2002, Campbell 2005).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-1http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704895004575395273977526844.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704895004575395273977526844.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704895004575395273977526844.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm#cite_note-0

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

14/16



14

Solvency

Contention Three is Solvency:

Solar Power Satellites are sustainable, cheap, and technologically feasible

Lior, Noam Lior, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied

Mechanics, Philadelphia, PA, April 2011Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis,http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931, Date accessed June 24, 2011

We have analyzed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity production in solar space power plants

using current technology. While space solar power is still way too expensive for launches from the Earth, there are several technological

possibilities to reduce this price. For a large scale application of orbital power stations both environmental impact and costs can

be significantly reduced. The first option is to build and employ reusable space vehicles for launching the satellites, instead of rockets,which is the main recommendation by NASA, and the second option is to build the satellites and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon). An old

NASA estimate shows that this would be economical for as few as 30 orbital satellites with 300 GWe of total power [17]. The costs could be

even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and then uses its produced energy to lift itself into a higher GEOorbit or even to the Moon [35]. If the satellites and rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that:-The

environmental impact of the orbital solar power plants would become significantly lower than for any

Earth-based power plant exceptperhaps nuclearfusion. Measured by CO2 emissions, it would be about 0.5 kg per W of usefulpower, and this number would even decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The production cost of the orbital solar power

plants could also become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. It is estimated as about US $1

per W of useful power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The social impact of cheap and clean energy from

space is more difficult to estimate, because space power satellites seem to be connected to a significant loss of jobs. It is however difficult to

estimate the benefits of a large amount of cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost jobs, and

we estimate that about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1 MW of installed useful power. One could therefore expect a net positive

effect of solar power satellites on sustainability. These effects seem to be the most positive, if thermal power satellites are used, which are built

in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit.The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages

over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and

cheap source of energy, however even in the best case scenario it cant become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power

concept can become operational in less than a decade and produce large amounts of energy in twodecades.It is also important that the price as well as environmental impact of solar orbital power are expected to decrease with scale. Inaddition to expected increase in employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative to other sustainable energy sources.

And, Government commitment necessary to spur SSP development and ensure

American leadership

Karen Cramer Shea, 10, Masters in Science Technology and Public Policy with Specialty in Space Policyfrom the George Washington University. Attendee of the International Space University Summer

Session, Winter 2010, (Online Journal of Space Communication, Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites,

Why Has SPS R&D Received So Little Funding? http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html)

Space solar power technology is still in its infancy because of the lack of R&D funding and the absence of

agency leadership. Since Dr. Peter E. Glaser came up with the idea for solar power satellites in 1968, this important solution to ourglobal energy crisis has received only an estimated $80 million[1] in research funding. Both NASA and the DOE have had space solar power

research programs but these have all been disbanded. How can agency interest in and funding for SSP be increased and sustained?How can

launch costs be reduced sufficiently to make space solar power self-supporting so that agency support is no longer needed? Historical

Perspective Over 40 years ago, Dr. Glaser of Arthur D. Little Company first proposed the concept of placing satellites in geosynchronous orbit to

collect energy from the Sun for the purpose of transmitting the energy back to the earth. Possible implementation of Dr. Glaser's idea was

studied by DOE and NASA during the 1970's. In 1975, the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex did experiments in wireless power

transmission. In 1999, NASA undertook further review of space solar power. In 2007, the Pentagon's National Security Space Office issued a

report on space based solar power that included a discussion of its use to power forward military bases. In 2008, the Discovery Channel aired a

television documentary featuring John Mankins and his Japanese colleagues testing wireless power transmission between two Hawaiian
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.htmlhttp://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

15/16



15

Islands, a key space solar power technology. In 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) announced an agreement to buy 2000 MW of space solar

power starting in 2016.[4] Also in 2009, the Japanese made SSP a national priority and indicated they may spend $21 billion to build a space

solar power satellite over the next 30 years.[5] The United States is estimated to have invested $80 Million (adjusted for inflation) studying SPS

since the idea was first proposed. This includes funding from DOE and NASA for 3 years during the 1970's[2] and the NASA funding in 1999 and

2000.[3] As a comparison, DOE is estimated to have invested $21 Billion in fusion energy research since the 1950s.[1] Space Solar Power has

suffered from a policy dilemma. The Department of Defense (DOD) wants to use solar power satellites (SPS) to deliver electrical power to its

forward military bases but that agency cannot build them,since SPS is clearly not in its mission. The DOD is developing lasers and microwave

beams for offensive military purposes, but taking a lead in using lasers and microwaves for the beaming of electrical power would be politically

unacceptable. The DOD is very interested in being an SSP customer because this satellite energy application would dramatically improveefficiency and reduce costs of supplying power to its troops in the field. Another consideration is in reducing costs in lives, as the generator fuel

trucks are easy targets. Space solar power has been studied by both NASA and the DOE. Unfortunately, NASA considers SSP to be an energy

issue and the DOE considers it to be a space issue. Neither is currently funding SSP research. Added to this, NASA is in crisis with the retirement

of the Space Shuttle, while trying to operate the International Space Station and return to the Moon with a launch system that is behind

schedule, over budget and losing capability. The 2009 Augustine Committee called for a $3 billion increase in the NASA budget just to keep up

with its current commitments. NASA clearly cannot take the lead in SPS research and development. In the past, DOE has been interested in

nuclear technology because of its connection to defense and DOE was interested in distributed systems for renewable energy. Now theDOE is

putting emphasis on clean coal and biofuels. DOE has not shown any renewed interest in Solar Power Satellites. The DOEthinks launch costs are too high to ever be profitable, and space solar power is unproven both in terms of commercial viability and safety. To

confirm safety and commercial viability requires funding. Many groups are working on reducing launch costs. SSP development should be

funded in anticipation of launch cost reductions. Current Situation The timing would seem ideal for securing SPS development funding in

today's world situation. Energy prices are rising at the same time that the demand for energy is increasing. Public and scientific concerns about

climate change are growing based on current levels of carbon dioxide, accelerating in the burning of fossil fuels to meet energy requirements.

Cap and Trade legislation and renewable energy mandates are being proposed. Also to be mentioned is the Japanese plan to spend $21 Billion

on space solar power development and the Solaren contract in California with the utility Pacific Gas and Electric to deliver 200 megawatts of

electrical energy from space starting in 2016. The questions now about SPS are mainly not if but specifically who, what, when, where and how

best? For example, is solar voltaic or solar thermal the most efficient approach? Which are the best types of solar collectors to use? Which

types of solar cells best balance cost, mass and durability issues? Which is the best wireless transmission method: lasers or microwaves? Where

and how do we best build the receiving stations? What manufacturing techniques are most scalable? Which frequency is best for power

beaming considering size, electronics, atmospheric and International Telecommunications Union issues? What safety precautions need to be

taken with SPS? How can we transmit the power from place to place safely, efficiently and economically? When in this century will the cost of

energy rise high enough and Moore's law reduce the cost of the technology sufficiently for space solar power to be profitable? Who will control

the SPS market? In 2050, will the U.S. be buying power from space from the Japanese or selling it to Saudi Arabia? Which U.S. agency, if any,

will take charge of this issue and invest in space solar power? Proposed Solution Since neither the DOE nor NASA considers space solar power to

be in its mandate and each refuses to fund its development, maybe it is time for Americans to consider whether there are other U.S.

government agencies that might see these developments within their mandate. The Department of Commerce is an agency that deals with

space and is concerned about the nation's energy future. The Commerce Department currently hosts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), one of the world's largest civilian space agencies. Commerce is concerned with all aspects of the U.S. economy and

energy definitely affects the US economy. The DepartmentofCommerceis the perfect agency to take the lead on

spacesolar power. From its Web site, one can see that Commerce's mission includes "promoting the Nation's economic and technologicaladvancement," "strengthening the international economic position of the United States," "improving comprehension and uses of the physical

environment," and "ensuring effective use and growth of the Nation's scientific and technical resources." Space solar power development will

be key to U.S. future economic and technological development. SPS is an excellent example of a way to help strengthen our international

economic position, to improve use of our physical environment and effectively exploit our scientific and technical resources. Space solar power

is clearly within the mandate of the Department of Commerce. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke is in a good position from which to

champion space solar power development. He was the two-time governor of the State of Washington; thus is very aware of the importance of

aerospace to the U.S. economy since Boeing is a pillar of the state's economy. He has strong leadership skills. The Commerce Department

currently hosts the Office of Space Commercialization, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institute of Standards

& Technology, National Telecommunications & Information Administration, National Technical Information Service and Economic Development

Administration. All of these can be expected to contribute to and benefit from the effort to develop a system of Solar Power Satellites. The

Office of Space Commercialization is presently the only civilian government group interested in space solar power. The Department of

Commerce has a history of cooperation with both DOE and NASA. Today, NOAA works closely with NASA on its weather satellite launches. Gary

Locke and Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of the Department of Energy, work together well, making many joint appearances. If Commerce will fund

SSP development, the issue of launch costs will still need to be addressed. Launching satellites and related materials into space has remained

extremely expensive for decades because the current market isn't big enough to justify the major investment required to develop new

technology. Given the potential size of this new energy source, it would make sense for the US government to put money into R&D. It would

also help if the government subsidized launch costs for the first four full scalesolarpowersatellites in return for apercent of the power produced for the life of the satellite. This could help to get the energy market moving in the direction of space. It may also

help to address some of the power needs of our Department of Defense. To meet the demands of launching the components of four solar

power satellites into geosynchronous orbit, the launch industry would have to rapidly up-size. Putting the power of the

government behind this effort would assure development of improved facilities and technologies. Foursatellites would allow the SSP technology to go through several generations of improvement while the market was being established. Once

their capabilities are proven, with four electricity generating satellites in orbit, the industry will have a track record on which to secure

7/27/2019 1AC.docx

16/16



16

investment capital for additional launches. It is hoped that because of the investment and new technologies applied launch costs will

have been lowered. Significance Space solar power is stuck because of two dilemmas, the difficulty of finding an agency to fund spacesolar power and high launch costs. NASA considers space solar power to be energy and the Department of Energy considers space solar power

to be space. Space solar power has such huge launch demands that present launch costs make it unaffordable. Part of the reason that launch

costs are so high is that the launch market is small. Since the market for solar energy from space is huge, the U.S. government should subsidize

the launch of the initial four solar power satellites to drive the launch industry to a new level of capability. The Department of Commerce

should be given authority to take the lead in space solar power development.Spacesolarpowerhas no serious technical issues

standing in its way,but it is facing crippling policy dilemmas. By taking a new policy approach, we may be able to get out of a decades-long quagmire. Energy and space are within the mandate of the Department of Commerce. Help with the deployment of four full scale space

solar power satellites will incentivize the launch industry to develop new technologies and more efficient techniques and facilities. The time is

now for the development of space solar power. If the U.S. government commits to it as a matter of public policy, a

new SPS industry will emerge, repaying the public investment many times over. If the U.S. does not do

so, Japan, China, India or Russia will take the leadin space solar power developmentand the U.S. will continue tosend billions of dollars a year abroad to insure that our energy needs are met.`

1AC.docx

Documents

Transcript of 1AC.docx