336 CO Space Based Solar Power Negative

8/7/2019 336 CO Space Based Solar Power Negative

1/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

SBSP NegativeDOD Air Force ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..2DOD Renewable Development ....................................................................................................................................................................................................3DOD A2 Generic Solvency Deficit ..............................................................................................................................................................................................4

DOD A2 Military Opposes ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................5DOD A2 CP Links to Russia DA .................................................................................................................................................................................................6................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....6

DOD Power Needs .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................7DOD Modular Innovation ............................................................................................................................................................................................................8DOD RLVs ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9Competitiveness Domination Now .............................................................................................................................................................................................10Competitiveness Turn Kills Basic Research ............................................................................................................................................................................. .11Competitiveness Alt Cause Private R&D, Foreign Workers .................................................................................................................................................. ...12Competitiveness Alt Cause Science Funding, Education, Labor ...............................................................................................................................................13Competitiveness Cant Measure .................................................................................................................................................................................................14Competitiveness Free-riding Good .............................................................................................................................................................................................15Competitiveness Tech Leaks Inevitable .....................................................................................................................................................................................16Competitiveness A2 Worker Shortage .................................................................................................................................................................................... ...17Competitiveness New Tech Not Key .................................................................................................................................................................................... .....18Competitiveness Turn Restricting Tech Bad ..............................................................................................................................................................................19

Space Colonization Alt Cause Transportation & Biosphere ......................................................................................................................................................20Space Colonization Diseases Into Space ....................................................................................................................................................................................22Space Colonization New Diseases ...................................................................................................................................................................................... .......23Solvency Launch ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .....24Solvency Timeframe ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................25Solvency Tech Fails ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................26Space Colonization Exploration Now ........................................................................................................................................................................................27Space Colonization Outer Space Treaty .....................................................................................................................................................................................28Space Colonization Plant / Human Reproduction ......................................................................................................................................................................29Space Colonization Asteroids .....................................................................................................................................................................................................30Space Colonization Cant Colonize Mars ..................................................................................................................................................................................31Space Colonization Cant Colonize Moon .............................................................................................................................................................................. ...32Space Colonization Timeframe / Alt Cause .......................................................................................................................................................................... .....33Space Colonization Radiation, Nutrients ....................................................................................................................................................................................34Space Colonization International Cooperation Key .................................................................................................................................................................. .35Solar Power Satellites International Backlash and War ..............................................................................................................................................................36Space Militarization Bad Heg, War, Terror ................................................................................................................................................................................37

Space Militarization Turns Competitiveness ..............................................................................................................................................................................38Russia DA 1NC .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................39

Russia DA Satellite Coop ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................40Russia DA Coop Now ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......41Russia DA Laser Link ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......42

NASA Tradeoff DA - Overwhelmed ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 43

1


2/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD Air Force

DoD development best Air Force can take the lead

Leonard David, Special Correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html

"There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable spacebased solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets,Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probablynot there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energyfrom space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remainuncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale ofthis project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forwardwith this," Teets said.

2


3/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD Renewable Development

DoD is leading in renewable innovation already has private support mechanisms

Eli Kintish, August 2007News of the Week SOLAR POWER: Light-Splitting Trick Squeezes More Electricity Out of Sun's Rays, Science 3 Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 583 - 584DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5838.583a, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5838/583a?rss=1

At a meeting in 2005, DARPA program manager Douglas Kirkpatrick, a physicist with experience in the lighting industry, suggested that the research team'stalented optics unit use recent advances in so-called dichroic materials, which separate light into specific wavelengths. ("Where have you been all my life?"says Kirkpatrick of the eureka moment.) The research team, which included industrial as well as academic partners, took that approach and achieved withoptics a 93% efficiency in processing and splitting the light in as-yet-unpublished tests. Independent officials with the National Renewable EnergyLaboratory in Golden, Colorado, measured the overall solar-cell efficiency under simulated conditions; a separate NREL team built several of the cells usedin the device. The device is based on well-known semiconductors tuned to respond to specific wavelengths using doping and other physical tweaks theresearchers won't reveal. New electronics allowing parallel power generation gave them additional freedom, as cells within modules connected in series

produce as much electricity as their weakest link. Each of those advances, however, although promising in the lab, could be pricey to build. Most recentcommercial solar efforts have focused on making cells cheaper to manufacture, not on increasing efficiency. Kirkpatrick says the manufactured cost goal forthe program is $2 per peak watt, 45% under the current industry standard. "That's the key to success," says solar energy manager Craig Cornelius of theDepartment of Energy, who says it can take up to 15 years for new solar-cell architectures to make it into the marketplace. But DARPA is hoping for fasterresults. With the early proof of concept in the bag, research partner DuPont has announced a 3-year commercialization effort with the Delaware team tospend up to $100 million to build prototype devices. Meanwhile, the researchers are continuing work with advanced kinds of cells, including nanotech and

bioinspired varieties, hoping later to use better performing materials in what Kirkpatrick calls a "plug and play" approach. "The building blocks are all inplace," says Delaware physicist Robert Birkmire.

3


4/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD A2 Generic Solvency Deficit

Lack of money is the only reason the DoD cant do the plan fiat solves

Leonard David, Special Correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html

Rouge said that moving out on the proposed SBSP effort would be the largest space venture yet, making the Apollo Moon landing project "look like just asmall little program." As a caveat, however, he noted that the U.S. Department of Defense is cash-strapped and is not the financial backer for such anendeavor. "But do look to us to help you develop the technologies and developing a lot of the other infrastructure," Rouge advised, seeing SBSP, forinstance, as helping to spur a significant reduction in the cost of routine access to space for the U.S. and its allies.

4


5/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD A2 Military Opposes

Military wants to take the lead

New Scientist, 10-11-07Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-power-from-space.html

A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday bythe National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generating satellites and providefinancial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gathersunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground andthen converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate atnight and during cloudy conditions. "We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel PaulDamphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US. The NSSO report (pdf) recommends that the US government spend $10

billion over the next 10 years to build a test satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth.

5


6/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD A2 CP Links to Russia DA

DoD shares the tech solves suspicions of militarization

NPR, 10-13-07Alternative Energy from Space Solar Panels, All Things Considered, NPR correspondent: Nell Greenfieldboyce, Lexis-Nexis

Lieutenant Colonel PAUL DAMPHOUSSE (National Security Space Office): The question comes up, I mean, when we start talking about beaming powerfrom space: Is this is going to be a space weapon. And that's - they are really valid questions and it's something that we're very transparent on. And theanswer is no, not at all. GREENFIELDBOYCE: He says the beam would be coming back at very low power - less than the intensity of sunlight at noon so itcouldn't incinerate things. The report says the biological effect would be similar to the heat you feel sitting some distance from a campfire. Still, the reportrecommends developing the technology openly. Lt. Col. DAMPHOUSSE: We actually want to share this technology. We want this to be not only forAmerican security and our allies but for the world.

Russia accepts military space development just not weaponization

Pavel Podvig, a research associate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, 2008Russia and Military Uses of Space, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

This does not mean that Russia opposes any military use of space. On the contrary, military and political leaders emphasize the importance of developingsystems that would support military operations from spacenavigation, communication, and reconnaissance.11Deployment of these systems wouldeventually require a means of protecting them, which could in theory bring Russia to reconsider its current opposition to space weapons.12 The possibilitythat Russia will develop its own capability to deploy weapons in space or to build an anti-satellite system seems to be even more remote. First, Russia wouldcertainly not become the first country to develop and deploy a space-related weapons system, as this would contradict its longstanding policy on theweaponization of space and its practice of following the United States in most technological developments. Besides, it is unlikely that without the UnitedStates committing itself to space-weapons development Russia would be able to make a decision to initiate any substantial effort of its own.

Russia doesnt oppose dual-use military systems

Vitaly A. Lukiantsev, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russian Federation, 2002Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs Occasional Paper No. 10 Mountbatten Centre for International Studies JamesClay Moltz, ed., Monterey Insitute, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op10/op10.pdf

Certain space-based systems in existence today are in fact of dual use. This concerns communication satellites, remote sensing equipment, space navigationsystems, and national technical means to verify arms control treaties and agreements. Having said this, it would not be entirely correct to speak of banningcompletely any military uses of space, Enhancing Global Security through Improved Space Management: A Russian Perspective 45 but rather of keepingouter space as a weaponfree zone and of preventing an arms race in outer space. In concrete terms, essentially it is a question of putting a ban on the

placement of weapon systems in space and prohibiting warfare in space and from space. Obviously, the existing legal structure is not adequate to save outerspace from weapons considering its present use for certain military purposes. But it is the prevailing view of the world community that space should not

become another sphere of military confrontation or theatre of operations. One can hardly agree with a commonplace argument that spacejust like the land,the sea, and the worlds airspacewith its gradual conquest by man should inevitably become a sphere of military activity. With the advent of weapons inouter space, the entire planet will be endangered, as will space assets in orbit.

6


7/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD Power Needs

Commercial solar designs are inadequate for the military more power is needed

Alan Boyle, Science editor, 10-12-07Power from space? Pentagon likes the idea, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

The commercial systems discussed in the past would deliver 5 to 10 gigawatts of power. In contrast, the Pentagon study calls for military systems providing5 to 50 megawatts of continuous power roughly a thousandth as much. The report's roadmap calls for ground-based technology development over thenext few years, leading up to a demonstration in low Earth orbit in the 2012-2013 time frame, and in geosynchronous orbit by 2017. However, the reportmakes no commitment for funding such a demonstration. Smith said that would be up to other agencies such as the Pentagon's own Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency, or NASA, or the proposed Advanced Research Projects Energy. Damphousse said the program could use an "incrementalapproach," starting with experiments to transmit power wirelessly between ground stations placed miles apart. "If you can do that, then you're well on yourway to proving you can do it from space," he said.

7


8/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD Modular Innovation

Modular innovation critical to space solar power NASA opposes

Linda Shiner, editor Air & Space magazine, 7-1-08Where the Sun Does Shine, Air & Space Magazine, http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html?c=y&page=1

The modular in modular systems represents tens of thousands of identical, mass-produced (and therefore cheap) parts. Each part, because of advances insolid-state electronics, could serve as both collector and transmitter. Think of an Iridium satellite, says Mankins. The Iridium network uses 66 satellites to

provide wireless communication worldwide. It has integrated into [a satellite] the size of a VW Bug power generation, intelligence, attitude control, andmicrowave phased arrays. Now imagine that satellite flattened into a tiny hexagon, one of 10,000 collecting-transmitting hexagons on a single satellite.Thats the kind of innovation Mankins wants to see funded. But to which federal agency should he apply? Neither NASA nor the Department of Energy hasever shown much interest in nurturing sunsat technology.

8


9/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

DOD RLVs

DoD is key to SBSP only the DoD can develop launch vehicles which are the prerequisite to

SBSP

TaylorDinerman, freelance space journalist, 11-19-07The chicken and the egg: RLVs and space-based solar powerhttp://thespacereview.com/article/1004/1

The report does point out, in one of its most important findings, that The SBSP Study Group universally acknowledged that a necessary pre-requisite for thetechnical and economic viability of SBSP was inexpensive and reliable access to orbit. However, participants were strongly divided on whether torecommend immediate, all-out attack on this problem or not. We are back to the old question: is the technology ready or nearly ready to allow for thedevelopment of a successful reusable launch vehicle (RLV)? For the last three or four years the answer from NASA and from the US military has beenNo. They are waiting for a breakthrough similar to the one that shifted most aircraft propulsion from piston engines to jet turbine ones. For those expertswho want to gain a good understand of where things stand, Appendix D of the SBSP study provides an interesting look at where the NSSOs experts thinkthe Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) now stand. In order to have routine access to low Earth orbit (LEO) to achieve this goal the study examines a three-

phased approach. Phase one proposes a strategy that will Develop new, fully-reusable two-stage, rocket-powered space access systems (aerospaceplanes)for passengers and cargo transport. The mission is to Transport passengers and cargo with aircraft-like safety and operability. The report claims that forsuch systems the TRL is 69 for a vehicle with a gross weight of 1400 tonnes with the capability of delivering a bit more than 11 tonnes of payload to LEO.A TRL of 6 to 9 leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Do the authors of the study think that we are closer to 6 or to 9? If we are close to 9 for the overallsystem then it would be worth it for the US government to go ahead and begin work on such a system. If the answer is closer to TRL 6, though, then a more

prudent approach would be wise. The DoD (NASA is in no position to fund such work) should conduct wide-ranging science and technology developmentwork on structural materials, new propulsion, and on ultra-efficient control systems. Investments in RLV sub-components and technology will invariably

pay off in other areas, but non-space technology research programs should be mined for useful applications in space. The Defense Department is makingmajor funds available to develop new types of lightweight armor for vehicles that will be exposed to enemy fire and to IEDs. The Air Force should nothesitate to join with the Army in working on any of these new materials that would fit into a future RLV program. This will require leaders who not only canget beyond any not invented here problems, but that can push the Air Force or DARPA to spend money on projects that would otherwise just be fundedout of the Armys R&D budget. The need for low-cost reliable access to space has not gone away. The slow pace of the Operationally Responsive Space(ORS) program is not going to change any time soon. Money is short and the Air Force is losing many of its best people due to the draw down. This is all themore reason to find ways to leverage as many interesting outside technology projects as possible. Investments in RLV sub-components and technology willinvariably pay off in other areas, but non-space technology research programs should be mined for useful applications in space. SBSP is one of the most

promising medium- and long-term concepts out there. The need for a large-scale, clean new source of electricity is evident. Therefore, the need for RLVshould also be obvious. Air Force Space Command should appoint an RLV Czar and give him or her a modest budget and the support staff to help promisingtechnology efforts both within the Air Force and in other parts of the department. Private sector RLV programs are already underway and there is a strong

possibility that they may reach orbit before any government-supported one does. The DoD should be intellectually ready for this and have a well thought-outprocedure for integrating such a system into their operational thinking.

9


10/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Domination Now

US dominates space now

The Economist, 4-10-08Space competitiveness, http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11019607

Russia may have won the initial race into space with Sputnik but half a century on, America has forged a big lead. A report by Futron , a technologyconsultancy, confirms America's dominance of space. On its space-competitiveness indexwhich comprises 40 measures, including government spending,numbers of spacecraft built, numbers of spaceports and corporate revenue from space venturesAmerica is light years ahead of its closest rivals in Europe.Russia, which still dominates the orbital-launch industry, is ranked third. China is an emerging space power with ambitious goals backed by heavygovernment investment. Its launch industry is now challenging America's. India is ranked just behind China.

The US leads in science and technology

Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National

Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf

We find that the United States continues to lead the world in science and technology. The United States grew faster in many measures of S&T capabilitythan did Japan and Europe, and developing nations such as China, India, and South Korea showed rapid growth in S&T output measures, but they arestarting from a small base. These developing nations do not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to bedominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan. The United States accounts for 40 percent of total world R&D spending and 38 percent of patented newtechnology inventions by the industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), employs 37 percent (1.3million) of OECD researchers (FTE), produces 35 percent, 49 percent, and 63 percent, respectively, of total world publications, citations, and highly cited

publications, employs 70 percent of the worlds Nobel Prize winners and 66 percent of its most-cited individuals, and is the home to 75 percent of both theworlds top 20 and top 40 universities and 58 percent of the top 100. A comparison of S&T indicators for the United States with those of othernations/regions reveals the following: Other nations/regions are not significantly outpacing the United States in R&D expenditures. China and SouthKorea, which are showing rapid growth in R&D expenditures, are starting from a small base, and the EU-15 and Japan are growing slower than the UnitedStates. Other nations/regions are not outpacing the United States in S&T employment, as growth in researchers in the EU-15 was comparable to, and that of Japan considerably lower than, that of the United States. China, however, added about the same number of researchers as the United States did andovertook Japan during the period 1995 to 2002. Other nations/regions are rapidly educating their populations in S&T, with the EU-15 and China graduating more scientists and engineers than the United States. China, India, and South Korea are starting to account for a significant portion of the

worlds S&T inputs and activities (R&D funding in dollars at purchasing power parity, research jobs, S&T education, etc.) and are showing rapid growth inoutputs and outcomes, yet they account for a very small share of patents, S&T publications, and citations.

US growth in science and technology is high outsourcing doesnt affect



On measures such as additions to the S&T workforce and patented innovations, U.S. growth in S&T was on par with, or above, world average trends.By comparison, Japan grew more slowly in additions to the S&T workforce, and both the EU-15 and Japan had slower growth in patented innovations. Highgrowth in R&D expenditures, patents, and S&E employment, combined with continuing low unemployment of S&E workers, suggest that U.S. S&E hasremained vibrant. These signs do not support the notion that jobs are being lost at substantial rates as a result of the outsourcing and offshoring of S&T. U.S.gains in S&T occur against a backdrop in which R&D expenditures, S&E employment, and patents are also increasing in the EU-15, Japan, China, Korea,and many other nations/regions. Studies of the offshoring of high-skill work suggest that it does not result in job losses in the originating country, as it isincreasingly driven by the need to access scarce talent, but rather that the overall number of jobs is increasing.

10


11/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Turn Kills Basic Research

Space R&D kills competitiveness focus on basic research is key to innovation

Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893

These strengths, however, should not obscure the existence of new threats to the long-term health of science and innovation in the United States. A record$422 billion budget deficit, for example, may undermine future government support for R&D. Recent shifts in federal spending will leave basic research -that driven by scientific curiosity rather than specific commercial applications-underfunded, depriving the economy of the building blocks of futureinnovation. Although federal expenditures on R&D are expected to reach $132 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $137.5 billion in 2009, new spending will beconcentrated in the fields of defense, homeland security, and the space program. Funding for all other R&D programs, meanwhile, will remain flat this yearand decline in real terms over the next five years.

Singular research focus kills competitiveness diverse innovation system is vital


At home, Washington should not strive to identify the next big thing. Rather, policymakers should ensure that the United States remains the most dynamicinnovation system. Funding for science and education must be maintained. Although it might be tempting to shrink the budget deficit by reducingdiscretionary funding for the sciences, this would weaken one of the pillars of the country's future economic and technological health. Money for basicresearch, especially in the physical sciences and engineering, and support for the National Science Foundation should therefore be maintained at currentlevels or increased.

11


12/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Alt Cause Private R&D, Foreign Workers

Plan cant solve competitiveness doesnt increase private R&D on basic research or solve the

labor shortage


Privately funded industrial R&D, meanwhile-which accounts for over 60 percent of the U.S. total-is also starting to slip as a result of the current economicslowdown. Private industry cut R&D spending by 1.7 percent in 2001, 4.5 percent in 2002, and 0.7 percent in 2003. This year, R&D spending is expected toincrease-but by less than one percent, which is less than the inflation rate. Furthermore, with less than 10 percent of its R&D spending dedicated to basicresearch, industry will not be able to fill in the gaps created by the government's shift of funding to defense and homeland security-related research. Thesefunding decreases may be exacerbated by a coming labor shortage. The number of Americans pursuing advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering isdeclining, and university science and engineering programs are growing more dependent on foreign-born talent. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's scientistsand engineers with doctorates were born outside the country. And of the Ph.D.'s in science and engineering awarded to foreign students in the United Statesfrom 1985 to 2000, more than half went to students from China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan. Such dependence on foreign talent could become a criticalweakness for the United States in the future, especially as foreign applications to U.S. science and engineering graduate programs decline. With boomingeconomies and improving educational opportunities in their countries, staying at home is an increasingly attractive option for Chinese and Indian scientists .In addition, visa restrictions put in place after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have created new barriers for foreign students trying to enter theUnited States. Surveys conducted by the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and other education groups have

blamed repetitive security checks, inefficient visa-renewal processes, and a lack of transparency for significant drops in applications to U.S. graduate

programs this year.

12


13/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Alt Cause Science Funding, Education, Labor

Science funding, education system, and labor markets are key to competitiveness


Of equal importance, policymakers must also reinforce the United States' entrepreneurial climate, its greatest asset. The building blocks of Americaninnovation-flexible capital and labor markets, transparent government regulation, and a business environment that rewards risk-need to be strengthened.Making the R&D tax credit permanent and expanding it to include more types of collaborative research, for example, would help provide incentives forinnovation in as many technological sectors as possible. With innovative capacity rapidly spreading across the Pacific, the United States cannot simplyassume that it will remain the epicenter of scientific research and technological innovation. Instead, it should meet the challenge from Asia head-on. TheUnited States must actively engage with new centers of innovation and prepare itself to integrate rapidly and build on new ideas emerging in China , India,and South Korea. Above all, it must not assume that future innovation will occur automatically. Only through renewed attention to science funding,educational reform, the health of labor and capital markets, and the vitality of the business environment can the United States maintain its edge-and the mostinnovative economy in the world.

13


14/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Cant Measure

Dont vote on a risk of improving competitiveness cant accurately measure


Before rushing to address these challenges, Washington should understand the limits of the data used to describe S&T trends. Predictions of labor shortagesin the sciences have been frequently wrong before, graduate school enrollment can change from year to year, and other data can counterbalance bad news.Although the number of Ph.D. students coming to the United States has dropped, for example, the proportion of those choosing to remain after their studieshas increased substantially. Moreover, a bachelor's degree may now be more relevant to innovation than before, and the number of American studentsgetting such degrees in science and engineering has increased over the last decade. Policymakers should therefore be careful not to focus too much on any

particular statistic. Dollars spent on R&D or research papers published are easy to measure, but innovation involves many other factors. The speed at whichnew technologies such as broadband are adopted and diffused, the flexibility of labor markets, and the ease with which new companies can enter and exittechnology markets all affect the ability of innovators to flourish in a particular economy-yet such factors usually fall outside the parameters of traditionalS&T policy.

14


15/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Free-riding Good

US free-riding boosts growth and increases outside investment



A future in which a significant share of new technologies is invented elsewhere will benefit the United States as long as it maintains the capability to acquireand implement technologies invented abroad. Technology is an essential factor of productivity, and the use of new technology (whether it was invented inthe United States or elsewhere) can result in greater efficiency, economic growth, and higher living standards. The impact of globalization on U.S.innovative activity is less clear. On the one hand, significant innovation and R&D elsewhere may increase foreign and domestic demand for U.S. researchand innovation if the United States keeps its comparative advantage in R&D. On the other hand, the rise of populous, low-income countries may threatenthis comparative advantage in R&D in certain areas if such countries develop the capacity and institutions necessary to apply new technologies and have awell-educated, low-wage S&T labor force. Looking only at federal expenditures on R&D a few years ago might have left the impression that the UnitedStates was underinvesting in R&D at the end of the Cold War: Total federal R&D spending grew at 2.5 percent per year from 1994 to 2004, much lower thanits long-term average of 3.5 percent per year from 1953 to 2004 (in real terms, i.e., after correction for inflation). Yet federal R&D accounted for only $86

billion of $288 billion total U.S. R&D expenditures in 2004. Industrial R&D expenditures, the largest source of R&D, grew rapidly, at an average rate of 5.4percent and 5.3 percent per year for the periods 19532004 and 19942004, respectively, and accounted for most of the growth in total R&D (4.7 percentand 4.4 percent for the periods 19532004 and 19942004, respectively). As a result, growth in total R&D was on par with the worlds average growth:Measured in dollars at purchasing power parity (PPP), U.S. R&D expenditures grew at an average rate of 5.8 percent per annum from 1993 to 2003, close to

the worlds average of 6.3 percent. Further, total basic research showed the greatest rate of increase, at an average of 6.2 percent and 5.1 percent per year(4.7 percent and 4.4 percent for total R&D) for the periods 19532004 and 19942004, respectively. Also, federally funded basic research grew by 3.4

percent per year over the period 19702003 and 4.7 percent per year over the period 19932003. As industrial and federal R&D grew, universities andcolleges managed to increase their R&D by an average of 6.6 percent and 5.1 percent per year for 19532004 and 19942004, respectively. This isreassuring, given the importance of basic and academic research to innovation.

15


16/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Tech Leaks Inevitable

Tech leaks are inevitable



In this report, we have focused primarily on U.S. competitiveness in S&T, without considering the implications for national security. Past research indicatesthat globalization of S&T complicates national security: The United States is less capable of denying other nations access to advanced technology tomaintain a wide military capability gap between itself and potential adversaries. Technological capability is more widely diffused to potential competitorsand may provide adversaries with capability to pursue nontraditional strategies and tactics on the battlefield or through insurgency and terrorism.

Nevertheless, past research concludes that attempts to regulate or limit the diffusion of some (but not all) sensitive defense technology might have harmfullong-term consequences and might not even be beneficial in the short term.

16


17/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness A2 Worker Shortage

Foreign science and tech workers fill any gaps



The United States has benefited from the inflow of foreign S&E students. Foreigners have helped to enable the fast growth in S&E employment (about 4.2percent per year since 1980) in the face of relatively slow growth in S&E degree production (about 1.5 percent per year). This also suggests that foreignershave helped to hold down S&E wage increases, thereby reducing the cost of U.S. research. Further, because many foreign students come to the United Stateswith a secondary education or a college education, the United States has not had to bear the cost of that education. Technological and scientific innovation isthe engine of U.S. economic growth, and human talent is the main input that generates this growth. Immigration of highly skilled scientists and engineersallows the United States to draw the best and 3 In contrast, the share of non-U.S. citizens in the non-S&E workforce remained constant at 5 percent forsimilar levels of education (bachelors degree and higher). brightest from a global rather than domestic pool of talent. Finally, wage data suggest that thequality of the foreign S&E workforce is as good as that of U.S. citizens, in that comparable workers are paid the same.

No shortage of technology workers



Scientists and engineers are paid substantially more (about a 25 percent wage premium) and have the same unemployment as the non- S&E workforce forsimilar levels of education. Judging by recent versus past wage and unemployment trends, there is no evidence of a current shortage of S&E workers. At anygiven time, a firm or set of firms within an industry may be unable to fill their S&E job openings, but that is true for non-S&E positions as well. More

broadly, despite the higher wages available in S&E jobs, the number of U.S.-born graduates xx U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology in S&E hasgrown slowly. Much of the growth in S&E employment has come from foreign-born S&E workers who have studied in the United States or who migrated tothe United States after completing graduate studies in their home country. The share of non-U.S. citizens in the science and engineering workforce increasedfrom 6 percent in 1994 to 12 percent in 2006.3 But alternative pathways, such as an increasing share of S&E graduates entering S&E jobs, the return ofindividuals holding S&E degrees who had earlier left for non-S&E jobs, and individuals without S&E degrees entering S&E jobs, may have alsocontributed. Given the current choice of many U.S.-born students to not study S&T, some observers are skeptical that scholarships and improved elementaryand secondary science teaching will do much to expand the number of students studying S&T. The reasoning is that students will ultimately not enter (andstay) in S&E jobs unless their pay and intangible rewards are increased relative to non-S&E jobs. With rapid growth in R&D worldwide and aging

populations, increased global competition for skilled S&E workers may result in slower growth of the workforce, more firms unable to fill their S&E jobopenings, and higher wages for S&E workers (i.e., increased cost of conducting R&D). While not apparent in the data yet, such potential trends are worthmonitoring.

17


18/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness New Tech Not Key

Developing new technology isnt key to competitiveness


The double-edged phenomenon of globalization, which can both strengthen U.S. technology companies and threaten the innovation system, makes the taskof supporting innovation through policy much more difficult . Proximity to consumers gives firms a better sense of potential new markets and allows them torapidly respond to changing customer demands. Yet a move overseas, although it might seem good for shareholders, could also destabilize the complexinteractions between firms and universities that drive technological discovery in the United States. Removing any one element from a technology cluster candiminish its ability to generate new ideas. Send manufacturing jobs to Asia and you risk exporting important components of your innovation infrastructure.The United States cannot and should not prevent the emergence of new technology clusters in Asia. Instead, it shouldprepare to develop and absorb newtechnologies as they emerge elsewhere. The ability to make good use of diverse ideas and systems remains one of the United States' most importantcomparative advantages, and U.S. companies must make sure that good ideas, no matter where they are developed, are brought to market in the UnitedStates first.

18


19/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Competitiveness Turn Restricting Tech Bad

Restricting tech fails free-riding and superior implementation are key to tech dominance


U.S. private industry may want to follow the example of the nation's armed forces. Washington's military dominance no longer depends on it denying othersaccess to critical technologies. Many of the sensors that the U.S. military now uses to detect ships or aircraft beyond visual range or to provide targetinginformation are off-the-shelf items produced by companies around the world. Unable to prevent the spread of these technologies to potential enemies, theUnited States has maintained its military superiority by making sure it is better than any other country at using such tools , integrating sensor input, andcreating sensor networks. In the commercial sphere, U.S. firms should similarly strive to maintain their advantage by adopting and integrating newtechnologies more rapidly than their competitors.

Trading tech is key to innovation


Maintaining such speed will require that U.S. companies have a presence in Asian markets to track, develop, and invest in the most promising new ideas.Washington must continue to pressure its trading partners-especially Beijing-to meet the terms of current trade agreements and allow such access. TheUnited States must also promote voluntary and open technology standards. In March 2004, the Bush administration protested regulations requiring allwireless imports to China to contain data-encryption technology produced only by Chinese companies. Beijing has since withdrawn the regulations, butgiven China's interest in developing new technology standards, the United States should watch for future attempts of a similar nature.

19


20/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Alt Cause Transportation & Biosphere

Solar power isnt key to space colonization - transportation and biosphere are the linchpin to

durable colonization

Al Globus, NASA Ames Research Center and UCSC University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), 9-22-05Space Settlement Basics, http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html

With great difficulty. Fortunately, although building space colonies will be very difficult, it's not impossible. Building cities in space will require materials,energy, transportation, communications, life support, and radiation protection. * Materials. Launching materials from Earth is very expensive, so bulkmaterials should come from the Moon or Near-Earth Objects (NEOs - asteroids and comets with orbits near Earth) where gravitational forces are much less,there is no atmosphere, and there is no biosphere to damage. Our Moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon and metals, but little hydrogen, carbon, ornitrogen. NEOs contain substantial amounts of metals, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. NEOs also contain some nitrogen, but not necessarily enough to avoidmajor supplies from Earth. * Energy. Solar energy is abundant, reliable and is commonly used to power satellites today. Massive structures will be neededto convert sunlight into large amounts of electrical power for settlement use. Energy may be an export item for space settlements, using microwave beams tosend power to Earth. * Transportation. This is the key to any space endeavor. Present launch costs are very high, $2,000 to $ 14,000 per pound from Earthto Low Earth Orbit (LEO). To settle space we need much better launch vehicles and must avoid serious damage to the atmosphere from the thousands,

perhaps millions, of launches required. One possibility is airbreathing hypersonic air/spacecraft under development by NASA and others. Transportation formilllions of tons of materials from the Moon and asteroids to settlement construction sites is also necessary. One well studied possibility is to buildelectronic catapults on the Moon to launch bulk materials to waiting settlements. * Communication. Compared to the other requirements, communication

is relatively easy. Much of the current terrestrial communications already pass through satellites. * Life support. People need air, water, food andreasonable temperatures to survive. On Earth a large complex biosphere provides these. In space settlements, a relatively small, closed system must recycleall the nutrients without "crashing." The Biosphere II project in Arizona has shown that a complex, small, enclosed, man-made biosphere can support eight

people for at least a year, although there were many problems. A year or so into the two year mission oxygen had to be replenished, which strongly suggeststhat they achieved atmospheric closure. For the first try, one major oxygen replenishment and perhaps a little stored food isin't too bad. Although BiosphereII has been correctly criticized on scientific grounds, it was a remarkable engineering achievement and provides some confidence that self sustaining

biospheres can be built for space settlements. * Radiation protection. Cosmic rays and solar flares create a lethal radiation environment in space. Toprotect life, settlements must be surrounded by sufficient mass to absorb most incoming radiation. This can be achieved with left over from processing lunarsoil and asteroids into oxygen, metals, and other useful materials.

Space solar power jumps the gun - efficient transportation is the sine qua non of space

colonization

Al Globus, NASA Ames Research Center and UCSC University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), 9-22-05Space Settlement Basics, http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html

Although we know generally how to build space colonies, we have yet to find an economic path from where we are now to construction of the first colony.One approach is to develop a series of profitable, private industries. For example: 1. Sub-orbital tourism. The key to space colonization is transportationfrom the Earth's surface to LEO. The key to inexpensive, economic transportation is the same as learning a musical instrument: practice, practice, practice.To date, there have been only a few thousand space launches and only a few hundred people have been to space. Traditional uses of space, such ascommunication, Earth resources, military, exploration and science won't require a whole lot more in the next few decades. However, hundreds of thousandsof people say they would travel to space if the price was right. Tourism is a market that may provide the necessary practice. Making a profit on spacetourism seems like a ridiculous dream, but it has already happened. Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites flew their privately developed rocket, SpaceShipOne,into space three times in 2004, winning the $10 million Ansari X-Prize in the process. Not only did they win the prize, but they sold the technology toRichard Branson's Virgin Galactic for over $20 million, becoming profitable on their first space tourism venture. Virgin Galactic has put up another $50million to develop five larger vehicles to carry tourists into space for a profit. The price is expected to be around $200,000 per flight. In a late 2004 talk,Rutan made the following predictions: * Within 5 years 3,000 tourists will have been to space. * Within 15 years sub-orbital tourism will beaffordable, and 50,000 people will have flown. * Within 15 years the first, expensive orbital tourist flights will have happened. * Within 25years orbital tourism will be affordable. Time will tell if these are accurate. 2. Orbital Tourism. SpaceShipOne went almost straight up 100km to getinto space, and then came nearly straight down again. This sub-orbital flight is much easier than orbital flight, which requires the spacecraft to go nearly30,000 km/hr horizontally to avoid crashing back to Earth. Surprisingly, the first paying orbital tourists have already flown. The Russians have taken DennisTito and Mark Shuttleworth to the International Space Station (ISS) developed by the U.S., Russia, Canada, Europe, Japan and other partners. However,even at $20 million a trip, this business only makes economic sense because the international partners spent tens of billions of dollars developing the ISS forother reasons. Nonetheless, if Rutan's prediction is correct we will see affordable orbital tourism within the lifetime of most people reading this. Successfulorbital mass tourism will mean not only people, but solar power satellites can be launched from the ground to orbit affordably. 3. Solar Power Satellites.Electrical power is a multi-hundred billion dollar per year business today. We know how to generate electricity in space using solar cells. For example, theISS provides about 80 kilowatts continuously from an acre of solar arrays. By building much larger satellites out of hundreds of solar arrys, it is possible togenerate a great deal of electrical power. This can be converted to microwaves and beamed to Earth to provide electricity with absolutely no greenhouse gasemissions or toxic waste of any kind. If transportation to orbit is inexpensive following development of the tourist industry, much of Earth's power could be

provided from space, simultaneously providing a large profitable business and dramatically reducing pollution on Earth. 4. Asteroidal Metals. John Lewisin Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from Asteroids, Comets, and Planets estimates that the current market value of the metals in 3554 Amun, one small nearbyasteroid, is about $20 Trillion. There's $8 trillion worth of iron and nickel, $6 trillion worth of cobalt, and about $6 trillion in platinum-group metals. Once

20


21/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

we can easily launch thousands of people into orbit, and build giant solar power satellites, it shouldn't be too difficult to retrieve 3554 Amun and otherasteroids to supply Earth with all the metals we will ever need.

21


22/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Diseases Into Space

Space exploration could cause the release of diseases into space threatening aliens

Satellite Events Interprise, 8-29-05Protecting Space from Earth and Protecting Earth from Space, http://www.theguardians.com/Microbiology/gm_mbc01.htm

In order to allow experts to carry out examinations in controlled laboratory conditions, the astronauts removed the video camera from Surveyor, sealed it in asterile bag and brought it back to Earth. When the camera was examined it was found to be the home of a colony of bacteria, Streptococcus mitis.However these were not space monsters, but had come from Earth. They were thought to be the result of inadequate cleaning techniques, which had failedto sterilize the camera before it was put on the spacecraft and sent to the Moon. However, there is also the possibility that the camera was accidentallycontaminated after returning to Earth. If the bacteria had indeed survived - not only the space travel, but space itself - their ordeal included the vacuum ofspace, 3 years radiation exposure, temperatures as low as 20 K (36F above absolute zero), and no nutrient, water or other energy. Something between 50and 100 organisms appear to have remained viable. (above) Surveyor 3 is examined by the crew of Apollo 12. NASA, 1970 0 Whether or not themicrobes did travel to the Moon, the lesson is clear. By not taking adequate precautions we could accidentally release microbes into space.

22


23/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization New Diseases

Space exploration exposes us to new diseases and irritants

SciPop, 6-11-08Space blog, http://popchaser.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/interesting-problem-for-moon-dwellers/

During the Apollo program, scientist discovered that the statically charged moondust proved to be quite an engineering problem, but now, researchers arestarting to realize that lunar dust may also pose a significant health risk for astronauts to come. One superficial aspect of moondust is that it extremely smalland jagged, much like tiny, little shards of glass. There is no consistent weathering process on the moon, unlike here on Earth, so rounded edges cannotdevelop on the dust particles. For Apollo astronauts, the sandpaper-like nature of moondust scratched faceplates and caused irritation to both the eyes andlungs. To combat this problem, right now, researches of the Lunar Airborne Dust Toxicity Advisory Group (or LADTAG) are exposing lab rats to moondustaerosols and studying the effects. Additionally, in the lunar, airless, environment, moondust is also super chemically reactive. On Earth, the constant

presence of highly reactive oxygen in the atmosphere quells any potentially reactive compounds on surfaces when they are exposed to air. Fortunately,scientist believe that the high reactivity of moondust will probably not be a major problem, considering that future lunar astronauts will most likely comeequip with their own supply of airhopefully. As you read, research aimed at learning more about the above mentioned nuances of lunar dust marches on;however, I believe there is one more possible moondust complication which merits scientific attention: moondust allergy. I know this may seem silly at first,

but if astronauts or lunar settlers are going to be living with moondust day in and day out and, thus, become chronically exposed to it, then there is alwaysthe possibility of a longterm sensitization allergy developing. Furthermore, some more sinister type of moondust-induced autoimmune disease may also belurking in the future for humans living on the moon. Here on Earth, there have been reported cases of humans developing a rare type of autoimmune disease

while breathing in pig-brain aerosols at meat-packing plants, so I guess that anything is possible.

23


24/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Solvency Launch

Space solar power requires massive improvements in launch efficiency

Alan Boyle, Science editor, 10-12-07Power from space? Pentagon likes the idea, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

The Solar Electric Power Association's Taylor, who advises utilities and other organizations on trends in terrestrial solar power, said the space option "is notsomething that's on the current solar industry's radar." He told msnbc.com that putting a large power-generating system in space would pose huge technicalchallenges and the potential payoff would have to be similarly huge to justify the risk and expense. "I'm not sure there'd be a great need to move intospace unless it had some exponential cost improvement," Taylor said. "It can't be just a marginal improvement." What is to be done? Smith agreed that thehurdles were high. "You put the study out, you spend a couple of weeks getting comments, you step back and take a breath, then you get busy," he said. "Wedidn't try to candy-coat this. This is going to be a hard, hard, hard, hard problem." No. 1 on his list was reducing the cost of sending payloads intogeosynchronous orbit a cost that is currently estimated at $10,000 per pound or more. "We have got to solve the reusable rocket and space plane problemsimmediately," Smith said. "It's time to stop just talking about it."

24


25/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Solvency Timeframe

Decades of development are necessary before space solar power can even be tested

International Union of Radio Science, September 2006URSI White Paper on Solar Power Satellite (SPS) System, http://ursi.ca/SPS-2006sept.pdf

This has led URSI to organise an open forum for the debate of the radio-science aspects of SPS systems and related technical and environmental issues. Thepresent white paper is intended to draw attention to these aspects of SPS systems. It is not URSIs intention to advocate solar power satellites as a solution tothe worlds increasing energy demands, or to dwell on areas outside of URSIs scientific domain, such as the whole issue of the space engineering to launch,assemble, and maintain an SPS system in space, the economic justification, and public acceptance. URSI is well aware that if a practical SPS system isfeasible, the realisation of such a system is far in the future. Many of the required technologies currently exist, but some of these must be substantiallyadvanced, and others must be created. Microwave power transmission is an important technology for SPS systems, since its overall efficiency is one of thecritical factors that determines the interest in such systems from an economic standpoint. Ideally, almost all energy transmitted from the geostationary orbitshould be collected by the rectifying antennas on the ground. In that respect, an overall dc-to-microwave-to-dc power efficiency in excess of 50% is needed(see Section 2.4), which requires the development of suitable microwave power devices. Accurate control of the antenna beam is essential, and measurementand calibration are important issues. Even if these technologies can be successfully developed, there remains the challenging task of combining the outputsof thousands or even millions of elements to form a focused beam. Proper safety measures have to be developed to be certain that the transmitted microwave

beam remains within the rectennas area. Maintenance of the space systems may be very difficult and expensive in the harsh environment of a geostationaryorbit. Ensuring the long-term stability of huge structures in space in the presence of solar radiation pressure and tidal forces is an unsolved problem.The influence and effects of electromagnetic emissions from an SPS, and, in particular, the microwave power transmission, are radio-science issues that

concern URSI. Atmospheric effects on the microwave beam, and linear and non-linear interactions of the microwave beam with the atmosphere, ionosphere,and space plasmas, are among the numerous issues that must be investigated and evaluated. Undesired emissions such as harmonics, grating lobes, andsidelobes from transmitting antennas and rectennas must be sufficiently suppressed. This is true not only to avoid wasting power, but also to avoidinterference with other radio services and applications and with remote sensing and radio astronomy, in accordance with the provisions of the RadioRegulations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The evaluation of possible effects on human health and the incorporation of appropriatesafety measures are essential for legal operation and public acceptance of this power-generation technique.

25


26/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Solvency Tech Fails

Key parts of the system are untested and will fail launch technology, maintenance, radiation

International Union of Radio Science, September 2006URSI White Paper on Solar Power Satellite (SPS) System, http://ursi.ca/SPS-2006sept.pdf

The most important key technology concerns the infrastructure to launch, assemble, transport, and maintain the SPS system. Since this topic is beyondURSIs scientific domain, it will not be dealt with here. The key elements in the dc power generation for the SPS system are the solar cells. Thin-membrane (amorphous) silicon solar cells are expected to be the most suitable type for the SPS system because of their good performance for a givenweight, and because of conservation of natural resources, although their conversion efficiency is lower than the figures for Si cells (17.3% [7]) and GaAscells (20% [7]). Mass-production feasibility is also an important aspect in choosing the most suitable solar-cell type. A sunlight concentrator would enhancethe power output. Therefore, two types of power-generation systems have been studied: (a) a massive light-concentration type [9], and (b) a super-light-weight thin-membrane type [30]. An increase of the total power-conversion efficiency is to be greatly desired. However, it should be noted that solar cells inspace deteriorate, due to accelerated solar-wind particles and solar radiation. Radiation-hardened cells are already available for long-term space missions, butat considerably higher costs than cells for terrestrial use. The thermal design and control of the SPS system will also be of importance, particularly ifsunlight concentration is applied. One method for thermal control of the generator is blockage of the infrared radiation from the sun, either by effectivereflection or by band-elimination filters for infrared radiation. The radio science and technology of an SPS system, such as the microwave powertransmission, microwave power devices, rectennas, and beam control, will be discussed in detail in Section 3. A very important detail of an SPS is the

proper orbit in space. A geostationary orbit has been proposed for most of the systems envisioned so far. However, a more-remote orbit, an L2-halo orbit[31], was also considered. It is generally assumed that the SPS is assembled at a low Earth orbit, with subsequent transportation to a geostationary orbit.

Modern SPS concepts rely on robotic assembly and maintenance systems, rather than human astronauts for the assembly task. For transportation, suitableorbit-transfer vehicles have to be developed to transport a very large structure from a lower to a higher orbit. Solar electric-propulsion orbital-transfervehicles have been suggested for this purpose. Some corresponding prototype propulsion systems, such as a magneto-plasmadynamic thruster, a Hallthruster, and a microwave-discharge ion engine, have been tested ([1, Section 2.3.1.2). It should also be noted that the selection of the final workingorbit of an SPS may have important implications for the antenna design and its characteristics (far-field or Fresnel region). Other key issues of SPStechnology are lifetime and maintenance. The limited lifetime of solar cells has already been mentioned, but a long-term radiation hazard also exists for anysolid-state device on the SPS, such as dc-to microwave converters, for instance. In addition, there is the problem of the long-term mechanical stability of thevery large structures of the solar panels and the microwave transmitting antenna. The long-term influence of tidal effects and radiation pressure have to beexamined. In principle, both effects can deform the structure as well as change its orientation. In particular, the radiation pressure exerts a force that changescontinuously in direction with respect to the line joining the satellite and the rectenna. This may pose serious problems concerning the control of the orbitand the orientation of the RF beam. The amplitude of this force is of the order of 100 N for a solar-cell area of 10 km2 (2 solar radiation power flux 10km2/velocity of light). Regarding maintenance, the present-day experiences for low Earth orbits with the Hubble space telescope and the International SpaceStation indicate that maintaining and servicing a much larger system in a much higher orbit may be very difficult and much more expensive than for lowEarth orbits. A completely new approach to space maintenance may be required to maintain assets at geostationary orbit. Currently, progressive replacementis the only viable option.

26


27/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Exploration Now

NASA space exploration now

The Washington Times, 7-28-08NASA launches new market; After 50 years, dreams turn to profitable travel, Lexis-Nexis

The next ventures are planned to build permanent manned space stations, first on the moon and then on Mars. The Constellation program that is takingshape at NASA facilities nationwide is developing multistage rockets and lunar landers that look much like the Apollo spacecraft that made one giant leap tothe lunar surface. "The laws of physics haven't changed," said Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokeswoman. The biggest difference is the mission NASAhas in mind. While the Apollo missions sent two men at a time to the lunar equator to collect rocks for a couple of days, Constellation will send crews offour to the south pole. They will start with weeklong missions, building in increments a permanent outpost designed to house crews for six months at a time."The south pole is actually a very interesting place," Ms. Schierholz said. Unlike the day and night cycles along the lunar equator, "If you go to the polarregion, there are areas that are exposed to the sun almost all the time, so you can get solar power," she said. NASA wants to learn from the outpost howhumans can adapt to the harsh environment of low gravity, no air, unfiltered solar radiation and deadly subzero temperatures - in other words, anenvironment that's a lot like the one on Mars. "It's approximately a three-day trip to the moon," Ms. Schierholz said. "Mars, on the other hand, is six months

just to get there, which is why we think it's a good idea to go to the moon first."

27


28/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Outer Space Treaty

Outer Space Treaty prevents colonization

JeffBrooks, Public Interest Advocate for the Texas Public Interest Research Group, 12-11-06The International Agency for the Development of Mars, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/763/1

Aside from reducing nationalistic rivalry as a motivating factor for manned space exploration (a mixed blessing), the Outer Space Treaty presents a majorproblem for the advocates of space colonization: it makes impossible the buying and selling land on the worlds of the Solar System. Since no country canhave legal sovereignty over moons and planets, no legal system can be in place to regulate the ownership of real estate. If nobody owns it, nobody can sell it.

28


29/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Plant / Human Reproduction

Plants cant grow in space and human reproduction would be too dangerous

Thinkquest Team, 2000Reproduction in Space, http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=habitat05

Many biological processes are affected by the weightless conditions in space, and reproduction is no exception. Gravity acts as a downward force on Earth,but in space, the lack of this downward force has a disorienting effect on living things. Not a lot of research has gone into reproduction in space. So far thereproductive abilities of organisms such as plants, fish, amphibians, insects and small animals have been studied in microgravity, but no serious effort hasgone into studying the reproduction of humans in space (that we are aware of!). A thorough understanding of how organisms reproduce in space is vital tothe success of future long-distance space missions. On a mission to Mars, for example, plants would be an integral part of a life support system. Plants willtake up the carbon dioxide exhaled by humans to use in photosynthesis and will return oxygen and food to the crew. We need to learn how to maximize thereproductive abilities and health of these plants in space. Scientific studies have demonstrated that microgravity has adverse effects on plant cell division.Experiment results have shown genetic abnormalities occur in plants during space flight. The division and development of plant cells, which are essential for

plant growth and reproduction, are hindered by the lack of gravity. Although certain plants have actually pollinated and produced seeds in microgravity, weare a long way from successfully growing plants as a food source in space. Quail incubator in space This Russian quailincubator carries fertilized quail eggs into space. Photo courtesy NASA. There are a few reasons that might explain why plants havedifficulties reproducing in space. Life in space is susceptible to a number of hazards that are not major concerns on Earth. In addition to microgravity,another hazard is the exposure to radiation. Fetal and embryo development can be deleteriously effected by radiation. Because of this, NASA prohibits

pregnant women from going into space.

29


30/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Asteroids

Asteroids dont pose a big threat can be easily moved with spacecraft or nukes if necessary

Aaron Rowe, 6-27-08Nukes Are Not the Best Way to Stop an Asteroid, Wired, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/nukes-are-not-t.html

Nuclear weapons could be used to stop earth-bound asteroids, but in most instances, they are not the best option, said Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickartduring a public lecture this Wednesday in San Francisco. The venerable scientist explained that all but the largest heavenly bodies can be redirected by rear-ending or towing them with an unmanned spacecraft. But last year, NASA issued a report stating that using nukes is the best strategy to prevent acatastrophic collision with earth. Although Schweickart has a great deal of faith in the agency, enough to risk his life piloting their lunar lander, he feels thatthey issued the misleading statement -- under immense political pressure. It was a nefarious excuse to put nuclear weapons in space. Rusty His ownorganization, the B612 Foundation, intends to use gentler tactics to alter the course of an asteroid by 2015. Right now, humans are not tracking most of theobjects that could cause serious damage to earth, but in the next century, as powerful new telescopes come online, we will begin watching many of them.When that day comes, we will know which ones stand a chance of hitting earth , and it will be time to make some tough decisions.

Asteroids wont affect us for at least fifty years and we can always move them off course

Duncan Steele, president of Spaceguard, No Date

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/duncan_steel.shtml

MR: Could we somehow blast an asteroid if it was a threat to Earth? Duncan Steel: First, let me say that it is unlikely that we will need to do this at any timewithin our lifetimes. The chances are simply that it's unlikely that we will find an asteroid on a collision course for the Earth. However, if we did find onewhich perhaps was due to hit us in ten or twenty years, it might be possible to divert it to get it to miss the Earth. Unfortunately, the only way we know ofwhich would accomplish this would involve using nuclear weapons, but it is not like in the movies. Paradoxically, we need to use a nuclear weapon in a'gentle' way - that is, we want to give it a nudge by using a stand-off nuclear explosion so that it remains intact, because actually blasting it on its surfacewould simply shatter it into pieces, thus turning a cannonball into a shotgun blast. We would still be hit by the fragments. But we think it should be possibleto give the object a sufficient shove with an explosion to get it to miss the Earth. The essential thing is we need lots of warning time, and that means manyyears. This is why a diligent search programme is necessary now. And it must be global - the Americans simply cannot see the southern sky. Wes: What doyou think about the theory of attaching sails to the asteroids and using the solar wind to nudge them off course? Duncan Steel: This has been suggested, butthe reality is that if we did find one which was threatening us we would surely use a proven technique. The solar sail idea is nice in theory but in practice wewould not be able to gamble with the chance that it might not work. Really, dealing with asteroids is like dealing with cancer. The first step is a screening

programme and it's unlikely that you will develop a particular type of cancer. But if you do, none of the solutions are pleasant. It's the same with asteroids.We wouldn't want to use nuclear weapons in space, but I believe it would be essential. Zeppelinlz130: Would an array of Hubble-like space basedtelescopes around the Earth make it easier to discover and monitor asteroids? Duncan Steel: Certainly it is impossible to see asteroids coming from the dayside of the Earth using ground-based telescopes. However, we could see them using telescopes in space.The problem is that this would be very expensive

and at the current time the money is not even available to carry out the sort of search programme which we could and should do from the ground. It is muchcheaper to use ground-based telescopes, but in some ways, space-based telescopes would be very desirable.

30


31/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Cant Colonize Mars

Colonization of Mars is impossible permafrost, bone loss

Jeffrey Bell, space scientist, 11-24-05The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html

Just look at Bob Zubrin's vision of Mars colonization. Nowhere in Zubrin's books is there the kind of detailed engineering design for Mars colonies that theO'Neillians produced for their L-5 colonies. The problems of sustaining human life on Mars are dismissed after superficial discussions devoid of any hardnumbers. And there are obvious problems with colonizing Mars. The first one is that it gets incredibly cold there - probably down to -130C on winter nights.Every robot Mars probe has used small slugs of Pu-238 to keep its batteries from freezing at night. And there is air on Mars - not enough to breathe, butenough to conduct heat. The Martian regolith will not be the perfect insulator that the Moon's is. Thermal control on Mars will not be simply a matter ofadding layers of aluminum foil to reflect the sun. Bases and rovers will need to be insulated and heated. And how do you keep a human in a spacesuit warmin this climate? And Mars has permafrost - at least in some places and those places are the ones to colonize. How do we keep the heat leaking out from ourhabitat or farm greenhouse into the ground from heating up the ice and melting or subliming it away? This is a severe problem in permafrost areas of theEarth - how bad will it be on Mars? Zubrin even proposes underground habitats. These will be in direct contact with the cold subsoil or bedrock which willsuck heat out at a rapid rate. If Gerard O'Neill was still alive and advocating Mars colonies, he would be doing some basic thermal transfer calculations tosee how bad the Martian cold problem really is. He would be figuring out how big a fission reactor to send along to keep the colony warm and how often itscore will need to be replenished by fresh U-235 from Earth. He would even have a rough number for the amount of Pu-238 everyone will have to carry intheir spacesuit backpacks. Bob Zubrin is perfectly competent to do these calculations since he has a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. But you never see thiskind of hard engineering analysis from the Mars Society. Instead, we get propaganda stunts like the Devon Island "Mars Base" which is only manned during

the peak of the Arctic summer when the climate is tropical compared with that of Mars. Another thing you never see from the Mars Society is a realisticdiscussion of what would happen to the human body in the low Martian gravity. Zubrin has discussed at length the need for artificial spin gravity on the 6month trip to Mars. But he assumes that the problem ends once the astronauts land on Mars. The problem of bone loss in a 0.38g field on Mars for ~18months is completely ignored. When I read Zubrin's book The Case For Mars, I was so intrigued by this surprising omission that I consulted a friend who isa space medic at JSC. He tells me that this issue was once discussed at a conference of medical doctors who had actually worked with the long-termresidents of Mir and ISS. NONE of these experts thought that humans could adapt permanently to Mars gravity!

31


32/43

Space Neg

DDI 08

CO

Space Colonization Cant Colonize Moon

Moon colonization is dangerous cosmic rays stunt development

Jeffrey Bell, space scientist, 11-24-05The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html

This dream palace is symbolized by one particular image that one sees far too often these days. This is an artist's concept of a future Moon base/colony witha small spacesuited child playing joyfully in the regolith like it was a gigantic sandbox. Logically, this image makes no sense. 1) Spacesuits are soexpensive and so tailored to individual measurements t

336 CO Space Based Solar Power Negative

Documents

Transcript of 336 CO Space Based Solar Power Negative