Reuable Launch Vehicles

8/3/2019 Reuable Launch Vehicles

1/51

Reusable Launch Vehicle Starter Aff & Neg

****AFF****1AC ......................................................................................................................................................... 2****2AC ADD ONS****

2AC Solar Power Satellites Add on......................................................................................................... 142AC World Peace/Mindsetshift Add On ................................................................................................ 15****2AC CASE XTNS****RLV solves the Economy ....................................................................................................................... 16RLVs reduce launch costs-studies ........................................................................................................... 17RLVs lead to space development-tourism ............................................................................................... 18RLVS solve Space leadership ................................................................................................................. 19RLV is possible ...................................................................................................................................... 20****DA 2AC****2AC Space weapons DA/Turn ................................................................................................................ 212AC SKFTA Good ................................................................................................................................. 241AR RLV popular .................................................................................................................................. 27

****A2 COUNTERPLANS****2AC Private Industry Counterplan .......................................................................................................... 28A2 other country counterplan .................................................................................................................. 30

****NEG********ECONOMY ADVANTAGE****Economy advantage 1NC ....................................................................................................................... 31 No Solvo-Data ........................................................................................................................................ 34No solvo-devlopment expensive ............................................................................................................. 35No solvo-A2 Creates a market to lower costs .......................................................................................... 36****SPACE HEG ADVANTAGE****Space Heg 1NC ..................................................................................................................................... 37No space weponization now.................................................................................................................... 40No solvo reconnaissance ......................................................................................................................... 41No solvo Global Strike ........................................................................................................................... 42No Solvo-space control ........................................................................................................................... 43Arms Race DA-Link XTN ...................................................................................................................... 44Space Weapons Bad Impact XTNS ......................................................................................................... 45****ADD ONS****SPS no solvo .......................................................................................................................................... 46No overview effect ................................................................................................................................. 47****DA LINKS****SLV unpopular ....................................................................................................................................... 48****COUNTERPLSN****

Privatization Counterplan 1NC ............................................................................................................... 49Solvency XTNS...................................................................................................................................... 50


2/51


3/51

1AC

The Obama administrations budget offers no funding for a NASA developed reusable launch vehicle-

absent a continued commitment to its development there is no hope any commercial space development

programs to be effective

Money 11 (Stewart, 2-21, .A. in History from Auburn University and a M.A. in Science, Technology and Public

Policy from The George Washington University ,Taking the initiative: SLI and the next generation , http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1784/1)From the moment the Obama Administration announced its decision to cancel the controversial Ares booster family and the

Constellation program for which it was intended, a vacuum formed concerning what would fulfill the perceived need

for a heavy lift space launch system. In the bitter and morbidly entertaining melee which ensued, the three primary playersNASA, the

Obama Administration, and the Congressas well as their supporters, appear to have forgotten the concept ofreusability altogether. Instead, arguments have raged about the relative benefits of a particular shuttle-derived heavy-lift rocket configuration,either in-line or sidemount; Ares V boosters; or multiple launches of expendable rockets. Yet each of these proposals, and any new program

of exploration beyond low Earth orbit for which they would be used, ignore the reality behind the painful but simple truth highlighted in

the conclusion of the Augustine Committee that no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human

exploration to continue in any meaningful way. As it now appears, with even the best-case scenario a five-year freeze at FY 2012 levels, as Jimmy Buffett would say, theres trouble right here in River City. The Department of Defense, proud owner of the EELV program, has its own problems.

Aviation Week reported on January 14th that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated the need to increase the DoD budget for 2012

launch acquisitions by $450 million over previous estimates in part to provide stability for the industrial

base. Launches under the ULA contract would increase from three to five per year starting in 2012 essentially to keep the ULA Atlas and Delta production lines in business. This is a privilege for which the taxpayer is already paying a costly annual subsidy in addition to the per launch price. Increasing the number ofDoD launches should lower the average price for all users, but how much is another question. Rising prices from suppliers are fingered as the primary culprit inescalating ULA costs, and this is no doubt an important factor, but then again, that is part of the problem with an expendable system to begin with. Ford isexperiencing rising supplier prices (and profits) as well, but that doesnt materially affect the cost of a taxi ride because each fare doesnt require a new Crown

Vic. Second Generation: the path not taken While both the Atlas and Delta launchers have compiled an outstanding success record, the rising costs are

a serious problem even for NASAs unmanned space missions, which only pay the per launch cost . Presentedwith the $187-million price tag for a bare bones Atlas V Mars launch for 2013, one official quoted in the article pondered the implications and asked

How do we get out of low Earth orbit on a regular basis? Good question. Ironically, in the first years of the new millennium, NASA was on the way to answering that question until a dizzying series of priority changes led to the current dead end. In the days before GPS, when you got lost on a diverging path, the only certain alternative was to retrace your steps tothe point of departure and start over. Such is now the case with US space launch policy. April 2011 will mark the thirtieth anniversary of Space Shuttle Columbias lift off in the first flight of the National SpaceTransportation System and our first attempt at lowering the costs of getting to orbit by reusing part of a launch system. As we all know, it came up a little short on that measure. The shuttle system was limited fromthe outset by a budget environment right ou t of todays headlines. In 1971, the Nixon administration OMB imposed a five-year freeze on NASAs budget, resulting in a design that offered lower development costsbut higher operating costs. Nevertheless, it was a failure brought about by both attempting to achieve too much in one great leap, and betting everything on the outcome of that attempt. That it failed to lower costssays far more about the flawed specific approach taken than about the ultimate viability of reusable launch hardware in general. Acknowledging that failure, as well as disappointing outcomes in subsequent X-33 and

X-34 experimental reusable programs, NASA in 2001 established the Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program as part of the Space Launch Initiative. This time, the challenge of lowering launch coststhrough reusable flight hardware would be met by undertaking several developmental programs, including the X-37 Approach and Landing Test Vehicle, as well as the RS-84 reusable engine. The end result wouldpresumably be a fully reusable two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) architecture. While TSTO lacked the cutting edge allure of the single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) approach, it also left behind the truly serious engineeringchallenges which bedeviled X-33 and left the proposed VentureStar flying in viewgraph form only. Instead, the TSTO path offered steady, linear, almost boring progress from existing technology base, with theabsence of an appropriate engine being the biggest challenge. Second Generation started with a review of over 100 possible configurations, and called for following a down select process from 15 to 3 to 2 vehicleconcepts, resulting in a development decision by 2006 and a potential operational vehicle in the 2010s. Second Generation was one component of NASAs 1999 Integrated Space Transportation Plan, which wasenvisioned as living document to ensure that NASAs goals matched its actual requirements. Unfortunately, NASA quickly concluded that, according to this framework, the must have program of the moment was a new crew transfer and return vehicle for the International Space Station, so for FY 2003, the Second Generation RLV program was diverted to the Orbital Space Plane program. For its part, OSP would initiallybe launched by a human-rated EELV while retaining a possible transition path to a reusable launcher. Following the Columbia disaster, the Orbital Space Plane project gave way to the Crew Exploration Vehicle, asresult of the Vision for Space Exploration announced on January 14, 2004. Project Constellation soon followed. Ten years after Second Generation was originally conceived, one cannot help but observe that if policymakers had stayed the course, 2011 might have found the US close to fielding a TSTO reusable system rather than occupying essentially the same position as in 2002or 1961 for that matter. Second Generationwas, of course, only one of many projects over time that started with great promise only to be subsequently abandoned or altered beyond recognition. Like much else in life, it is quite easy to consider the path nottaken through a gentler light than the harsh reality that comes with actual experience, and this may be the case with Second Generation. Any program can be mismanaged, any opportunity wasted, and one need lookno further than current programs for confirmation. Virtually every development program appears to go over budget and take longer than originally scheduled. Nevertheless, disappointment is more easily avoided by

pursuing the right goal in the first place. Now, in the twilight of the shuttle program and with Constellation cancelled as

unaffordable, the challenge the Space Launch Initiative and Second Generation RLV originally sought to

resolve still remains. Financial reality suggests it is a challenge that still must be overcome if the US expects to

witness a new era of private spaceflight, affordably launch defense payloads, or initiate a return to the Moon

or venture to points further beyond. For anyone without a financial or political stake in the status quo, theoriginal goal of the 2001 Second Generation RLV Programdevelopment of flexible, commercially

produced reusable launch vehicles remains both logical and achievable, and absolutely necessary.


4/51

1AC-ADV1-Economic leadership

Humanitys current economic condition is unsustainable-no amount of manipulating financial markets

are jumpstarting service sectors will change the reality that we need access to more resources to prevent

bigger future financial crisisis-space development is key to provide access to those resources

Hsu and Cox 09 (Feng, Ph.D. Sr. Fellow, Aerospace TechnologyWorkingGroup, Ken, Ph.D. Founder & Director

Aerospace Technology Working Group, 2-20, Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development - A UnifiedStrategic Vision , http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702)Many of us believe that mankind must solve all our crises on earth before expanding into space can be achievedsuccessfully and peacefully. In fact, humanity isn't going to solve all its problems here on earth, ever. Whileresolving some of our crises, humanity always creates more. Regardless, mankind goes into space for reasons thatour ancestors had historically gone elsewhere: for adventure with unknowns, resources, freedom, and better lives.The recent human history of industrial revolutions,along with the current collapses of the world's economyand energy and financial markets, has taught us a harsh lesson: that merely manipulating financial capital andproducing services has failed to build a sustainable global economy for mankind. Instead of fighting over

what's limited and restricting human development on this planet, we must now expand our horizons, and lookupward and outward for resources, embarking on economic and commercial development into space
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702


5/51


Developing a reusable launch vehicle is critical to revitalize space development it would jumpstart vital

economic sectors, lift the United States out of its current economic catastrophe and send a signal of

Americas economic leadership for decades

Hsu and Cox 09 (Feng, Ph.D. Sr. Fellow, Aerospace TechnologyWorkingGroup, Ken, Ph.D. Founder & Director

Aerospace Technology Working Group, 2-20, Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development - A UnifiedStrategic Vision , http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702)Technology innovations have always lifted human society out of the economic gridlocks, and have led

mankind from many of the worst economic crises to vast industrialization and enduring prosperity and growth. Thehistory of human civilization has shown that technology innovations and human ingenuity are our best hope to power humanity out of any crisis, and

especially a U.S.-lead human economic development into low earth orbit that will not only lift us out of thecurrent acute global depression,but will most certainly bring about the next economic and industrialrevolution beyond the confinement of Earth gravity. Commercial aircraft transportation and operations in the past 100 years since the Wright Brothers' firstsuccessful test flight have advanced significantly in all areas, and have contributed tremendously to the world economy and modern civilization. Nonetheless,

space access capability and associated LEO infrastructure has generally not advanced in nearly half a century. Particularly, as

elaborated in the previous sections, given the current plans under the Bush VSE forthe next generation of human space transportation

being pursued by NASA, there exists little hope of making any substantial improvements in safety, affordability, or

commercial operations of any LEO transportation infrastructure for another generation. With the impact of the upcoming

termination of Space Shuttle operations, as guided by the Bush VSE, it is very clear that the U.S. needs substantially improved crew andcargo space access capabilities, and such improved space access capabilities are largely represented by atwo-stage, fully reusable launch vehicle (RLV) system (in the short- to mid-term). An evolutionary infrastructure buildup ofsuch a RLV system that is largely based on existing heritage or capabilities should be a key element of a reliable and low-costcargo/crew space transportation development. Indeed, development and government investment in such an affordable

space transportation infrastructure in the Earth-Moon system is of paramount importance;it's all about thecrossroads the U.S. is at with the current economic crisis and how Space could be a key part of the answer. Akey component of a sound strategic space vision that was missed almost entirely by the Bush VSE is the vision for space development (VSD), or a space-based

economic and commercial expansion into low earth orbit. Such a vision should be to place the highest priority on embarking on a national and international

strategic space development goal that will ensure the technological, and with it, the economical leadership of America for the

21 century and the next few hundred years ahead. Otherwise, we riskcontinuing on the course of the Bush VSE, allowing it

to drift into the back waters of history. Investing in space infrastructure development--such as low-cost RLV

systems or fully reusable, two-stage (or ultimately single-stage) space access system developed as an extension of safe and reliable airplane operations orinvesting in SBSP (space based solar power) and space tourism infrastructures as a significant part of the national space economy and energy programs--is thechoice of a strategic space goal that certainly will re-ignite the American spirit and jump-start its high-tech manufacturing

sector. It will send a profound message to the world: that America is still a nation where great boldendeavors are the order of the day. , Or else, it will be a message that we will allow the nation to continue itsdrift into obscurity and signal that America's greatest days are in the past. Yes, there may be those who are against any space-

based economic development, such as developing a low cost RLV capability, a stepping stone that could enable a whole

host of private space industries, such as space tourism and space energy industries. Many of us may also argue that RLV or SBSP

are too expensive or too hard to be realized. However, as Americans, we must not forgot what makes a nation and its people

thrive and prosper are not based on what they do for easy or short-term gains; it's largely based on what the nation and itspeople do that most others dare not to do or cannot do!


6/51


Economic collapse causes nuclear war

Mead 9 (Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy Council on Foreign Relations, OnlyMakes You Stronger , The New Republic, 2-4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of

economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese andIndian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the

political will of the Obama administration, but the United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market

access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this

crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from theirdistress could damage U.S. foreign

policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesserpowers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranianinfluence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--hadalready improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive.The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast thatIran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the governmentto rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of supportfor allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful andWestern carrots (like trade opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the UnitedStates for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domesticspending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming

administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different,but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries.Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in internationalcompetition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while

providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies thattranslate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal

political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborateon a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacityof leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and

preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, andJapan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberallegal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either sideof the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never reallytaken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable,open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural

pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign

rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is afailure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in aprogressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behindthat of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals whowant to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritariantraditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies areoften less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developingcountries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as,inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happeningyet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powersmaintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberalcapitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the

American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad

economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and

helped bring Adolf Hitler to power . If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward

Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the

world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.


7/51


US Economic leadership is key to economic interdependence, and multilateral cooperation on all global

problems. The alternative is competitive mercantilism and fractured international cooperation-ensures

global conflictPosen 09 (deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics Adam,

Economic leadership beyond the crisis, http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)In the postwar period, US power and prestige, beyond the nations military might, have been based largely on American relative

economic size and success. These facts enabled the US to promote economic openness and buy-in to a set of

economic institutions, formal and informal,that resulted in increasing international economic integration. With the

exception of the immediate post-Bretton Woods oil-shock period (1974-85), this combination produced generally growing prosperity

at home and abroad, and underpinned the idea that there were benefits to other countries of following the

American model and playing by American rules. Initially this system was most influential and successful in those countries in tight military alliance withthe US, such as Canada, West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. With the collapse of Soviet communism in 1989, and the concomitantswitch of important emerging economies, notably Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, to increasingly free-market capitalism, global integration on American termsthrough American leadership has been increasingly dominant for the last two decades. The global financial crisis of 2008-09, however, represents a challenge to

that world order. While overt financial panic has been averted, and most economic forecasts are for recovery to begin in the US and the

major emerging markets well before end of 2009 (a belief I share), there remain significant risks for the US and its leadership. Theglobal financial system, including but not limited to US-based entities, has not yet been sustainably reformed. In fact, financial stability will come under strainagain when the current government financial guarantees and public ownership of financial firms and assets are unwound over the next couple of years. Thegrowth rate of the US economy and the ability of the US government to finance responses to future crises, both military and economic, will be meaningfullycurtailed for several years to come. Furthermore, the crisis will accelerate at least temporarily two related long-term trends eroding the viability of the currentinternational economic arrangements. First, perhaps inevitably, the economic size and importance of China, India, Brazil, and other emerging markets (includingoil-exporters like Russia) has been catching up with the US, and even more so with demographically and productivity challenged Europe and northeast Asia.Second, pressure has been building over the past fifteen years or so of these developing countries economic rise to give their governments more voice andweight in international economic decision-making. Again, this implies a transfer of relative voting share from the US, but an even greater one fromoverrepresented Western Europe. The near certainty that Brazil, China, and India, are to be less harmed in real economic terms by the current crisis than eitherthe US or most other advanced economies will only emphasise their growing strength, and their ability to claim a role in leadership. The need for capital transfersfrom China and oil-exporters to fund deficits and bank recapitalisation throughout the West, not just in the US, increases these rising countries leverage andlegitimacy in international economic discussions. One aspect of this particular crisis is that American economic policymakers, both Democratic and Republican,

became increasingly infatuated with financial services and innovation beginning in the mid-1990s. This reflected a number of factors, some ideological, someinstitutional, and some interest group driven. The key point here is that export of financial services and promotion of financial liberalisation on the US securitisedmodel abroad came to dominate the US international economic policy agenda, and thus that of the IMF, the OECD, and the G8 as well. This came to beembodied by American multinational commercial and investment banks, in perception and in practice. That particular version of the American economic modelhas been widely discredited, because of the crisis apparent origins in US lax regulation and over-consumption, as well as in excessive faith in American-style

financial markets. Thus, American global economic leadership has been eroded over the long-term by the rise of major emerging marketeconomies, disrupted in the shortterm by the nature and scope of the financial crisis, and partially discredited by the excessive reliance upon and overselling of

US-led financial capitalism. This crisis therefore presents the possibility of the US model for economic development being

displaced, not only deservedly tarnished, and the US having limited resources in the near-term to try to respond to that

challenge. Additionally, the US traditional allies and co-capitalists in Western Europe and Northeast Asia have been at least as damaged economically bythe crisis (though less damaged reputationally). Is there an alternative economic model? The preceding description would seem to confirm the rise of the Restover the West. That would be premature. The empirical record is that economic recovery from financial crises, while painful, is doable even by the poorestcountries, and in advanced countries rarely leads to significant political dislocation. Even large fiscal debt burdens can be reined in over a few years where

political will and institutions allow, and the US has historically fit in that category. A few years of slower growth will be costly, but also may put the US back ona sustainable growth path in terms of savings versus consumption. Though the relative rise of the major emerging markets will be accelerated by the crisis, thatacceleration will be insufficient to rapidly close the gap with the US in size, let alone in technology and well-being. None of those countries, except perhaps forChina, can think in terms of rivaling the US in all the aspects of national power. These would include: a large, dynamic and open economy; favorabledemographic dynamics; monetary stability and a currency with a global role; an ability to project hard power abroad; and an attractive economic model to export

for wide emulation. This last point is key. In the area of alternative economic models, one cannot beat something with

nothing communism fell not just because of its internal contradictions, or the costly military build-up, but because

capitalism presented a clearly superior alternative. The Chinese model is in part the American capitalist (albeit

not high church financial liberalisation) model, and is in part mercantilism. There has been concern that some developing or

small countries could take the lesson from China that building up lots of hard currency reserves through

undervaluation and export orientation is smart. That would erode globalisation, and lead to greater conflict

with and criticism ofthe US-led system. While in


8/51


(POSEN, CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

the abstract that is a concern, most emerging markets and notably Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea are not pursuing that extreme line.The recent victory of the incumbent Congress Party in India is one indication, and the statements about openness of Brazilian President Lula is another. Mexicoscontinued orientation towards NAFTA while seeking other investment flows (outside petroleum sector, admittedly) to and from abroad is a particularly braveexample. Germanys and Japans obvious crisis-prompted difficulties emerging from their very high export dependence, despite their being wealthy, serve ascautionary examples on the other side. So unlike in the1970s, the last time that the US economic performance and leadership were seriously compromised, we

will not see leading developing economies like Brazil and India going down the import substitution or other self-destructive and uncooperative paths. If thisassessment is correct, the policy challenge is to deal with relative US economic decline, but not outright hostility to the US model or displacement of the currentinternational economic system. That is reassuring, for it leaves us in the realm of normal economic diplomacy, perhaps to be pursued more multilaterally and lesshigh-handedly than the US has done over the past 20 years. It also suggests that adjustment of current international economic institutions is all that is required,

rather than desperately defending economic globalisation itself. For all of that reassurance, however, the need to get buy-in from the rising

new players to the current system is more pressing on the economic front than it ever has been before. Due to thecrisis, the ability of the US and the other advanced industrial democracies to put up money and markets for rewards and side-payments to those new players isalso more limited than it has been in the past, and will remain so for at least the next few years. The need for the US to avoid excessive domestic self-absorptionis a real concern as well, given the combination of foreign policy fatigue from the Bush foreign policy agenda and economic insecurity from the financial crisis.Managing the post-crisis global economy Thus, the US faces a challenging but not truly threatening global economic situation as a result of the crisis and longer-term financial trends. Failure to act affirmatively to manage the situation, however, bears two significant and related risks: first, that China and perhaps some

other rising economic powers will opportunistically divert countries in US-oriented integrated relationships to their economic sphere(s); second, that a

leadership vacuum will arise in international financial affairs and in multilateral trade efforts, which will over

timeerode support for a globally integrated economy. Both ofthese risksif realisedwould diminish US foreign policy

influence, make the economic system less resilient in response to future shocks (to every countrys detriment), reduceeconomic growth and thus the rate of reduction in global poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals

like controlling climate changeor managing migration and demographic shifts. If the US is to rise to the challenge, it should concentrate on thefollowing priority measures.


9/51

1AC ADV 2-Space Heg

US Space dominance is becoming seriously threatened rival nations are rapidly gaining control of space

Brown 09 (Trevor, is a Ph.D. candidate at Auburn University with a focus on political, economic, and militarystrategy for the medium of space. He has previously written for the Air and Space Power Journal and The SpaceReview. Author for Air and Space Power Journal, Soft Power and Space Weaponization , Ebsco)

Some people speak as if they believe that a country can choose whether to pursue national security through arms orthrough arms control.10 But Russias interest in banning space weapons is motivated by a desire to stunt thegrowth of US military space programs in order to buy time for covertly advancing its own space-weapons

program and achieving technological parity.11 Russia bases its opposition to space weaponization not on ascrupulous set of principles but on strategic objectives. Two scholars contend that to understand whether Russiacould indeed change its position on the weaponization of space, we need to go beyond official statements anddiscussion among Russian military experts. The course of the military space program in Russia will be determinedprimarily by the availability of the resources required to support the program and by the ability of the industry andthe military to manage development projects for the military use of space. 12 despite Chinas repeated calls for aban on all space weapons, historical evidence suggests that little separates Chinese and Russian motivations

for such bans. Because a broad interpretation of space weapons would rule out almost all U.S. missile defensesystems, Chinese officials who want to limit U.S. missile defense deployments would advocate a ban that used thisinterpretation. 13 interestingly, after the Clinton administration scrapped the Strategic defense initiative in 1993, China redoubled its efforts in military space and gained ground on the United States.14 By 1999 Chinas test of aspacecraft intended for manned flight demonstrated a low-thrust rocket propulsion system that could be used tomake warheads maneuver to defeat a BMD [ballistic missile defense] system.15 Perhaps there remains a beliefin the US strategic community that the deployment of U.S. space weapons is likely to make space assetsincluding commercial communications and broadcast satelliteseven more vulnerable, since no other country ispursuing, let alone deploying, space attack weapons. 16 Such notions were shattered when China conducted itsfirst successful ASAT test in January 2007, suggesting that it had spent many years developing aSaT capabilities.The United States as well as the rest of the world, for that matter should not allow itself to be duped. The recordshows that although officials in the Chinese Communist Party rail against military space as a threat to peace andstability, the Peoples Liberation Army busies itself with the acquisition of space weapons.


10/51

1AC ADV 2-Space Heg

Developing a RLV would guarantee US military leadership well into the future

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, National Security Implications of Inexpensive Space Acces , http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)

The maneuverability of RLV space ships would also make them useful for missions that are more accurately

described as denial than destruction. They could mine decisive orbits (as could ELVs), but they could also conduct mine

clearing operations, soft landing the cleared mines for storage back on Earth, something an ELV could not. These mine fields could be laid in a crisis

and cleared afterward, giving new flexibility to national policy makers. RLVs would also be able to respond to crisis situations with

all of these capabilities more quickly than the ELV due to launch preparation times that are forecast to be months shorter. The

increased mobility provided by the RLV would enable the United States to move its forces to decisive orbits in

space or overhead any trouble spot on Earth more quickly (typically 31,000 feet per second with reference to the Earths surface) thanany form of terrestrial military power. Threatened uses of force or non-lethal inspection of enemy forces (space or terrestrial) could work to achieve policyobjectives without firing a shot. As the Presidents National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement puts it, "all nations are immediately accessible

from space." It follows that when space itself becomes immediately accessible to the United States, then the United States will have immediate

access to all other nations. This access can mean the ability to observe, or it can mean the ability to influence.

We have discussed the movement of space forces to threaten on-orbit force structure, but RLV space ships would also allow the United

States to deliver destructive or non-lethal power to any point on Earth less than an hourafter launch.Although many of the missions made possible by the RLVs maneuverability discussed to this point are not captured in present space doctrine, the idea of force application from space is. Although the perceptionexists that force application from space is prevented by international treaty or US policy, it is not. Joint Pub 3-14 puts it this way, "international law. . .allows the development, testing, and deployment of forceapplication capabilities that involve non-nuclear, non-ABM weapon systems (i.e., space-to-ground kinetic energy weapons)." Because it has been d ifficult to access space, however, it has been difficult to develop

any such concept beyond the idea stage. Concepts such as Sandia National Laboratorys Winged Re-entry Vehicle Experiment, a ballistically delivered, non-nuclear, long range, precision guided kinetic energypenetrator flew three times on the front end of ICBMs before it ran out of funds. Many other studies never got past the paper stage. Studies with acronyms such as DAC, PMP, ICE, BRIM, and GPRC spent hundredsof thousands of dollars and p roduced stacks of reports without really demonstrating any technology. With reusable space ships and routine access to space, however, research payloads can be flown on operational

missions without waiting for rare ICBM test launch opportunities. Separation tests would be scheduled much as US Air Force SEEK EAGLE weapons carriage and separation tests are for air breathers today. The

RLV could also deliver non-lethal payloads such as ground based sensors, radio and television transmissions,

and humanitarian relief supplies (via sub-orbital lift into secure areas or via shielded reentry containers in denied areas) to places that

may not be accessible even to airpower (due to threat, distance, or overflight restrictions). If fuel costs for an orbital mission are $360,000 andoverall launch costs can fall to $1 million, then sub-orbital missions requiring less D v and therefore less fuel should cost even less. These missions could be costcompetitive with military aircraft. A 1991 Air Force regulation says that in FY92, the DOD would have had to charge NASA $403,132 for a 28 hour, 450 knotaverage speed, 12,500 nm nonstop C-5 mission. In the RLV era, if NASA has priority cargo to transport to its few remaining overseas tracking stations, it might

be smarter to pay the same or similar costs and cut the trip time by 27 hours. Such a capability would allow the United States to

protect its interests, on Earth or in orbit, at times and places of its choosing, without having to consider the risk of loss to

enemy action. States or other groups with nascent ballistic missile or space programs will soon have primitive ASAT capability in theform of sounding rockets carrying kinetic energy submunitions (as simple as sixpenny iron nails) launched in the path of an oncoming satellite in a predictable

orbit. These ASATs, a threat to any satellite in a predictable low Earth orbit, are of limited utility against an RLV space ship launchedon a sub-orbital or fractional orbital trajectory. There is very little possibility that non-spacefaring nations or groups could

detect launches from US sovereign territory (at present, only the United States has a publicly disclosed missile warning satellite, although the Russians have reconnaissancesatellites and are likely to have missile warning satellites left over from the Cold War as well), and if detected, these nations do not have the data processing infrastructure to predict and disseminate sub-orbitaltrajectories and impact points to space weapon defense forces (while making a case for an independent European satellite reconnaissance capability in the wake of the Gulf War, former French Foreign MinisterPierre Joxe acknowledged the "supremacy of the US space surveillance machine with its range of missile early warning, ocean surveillance, photographic and radar reconnaissance, electronics eavesdropping andweather satellites...with its massive supporting processing and communications chain". Frances and Britains $1 billion investment in military spacecraft could not match the $200 billion US military space machineduring the war, and it is not likely that many other nations on Earth could do so in the foreseeable future.
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htmhttp://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm


11/51

1AC ADV 2-Space Heg

This level of space dominance would be able to deter all conflict

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, National Security Implicationsof Inexpensive Space Acces , http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)This leads us to the important advantage of space power over other forms of military power. This advantage is the previously

cited corollary of air and

space powers elevation: higher energy states. The energy states inherent in orbital and suborbital spacecraft

canprovide an enormous amount of firepower for a relatively small investment in the size of a given vehicle or weapon. AsCollins notes, Offensive kinetic energy weapons (KEW) plummeting from space to Earth at Mach 12 or more with terrific penetration power have a markedadvantage over defensive Earth-to-space counterparts that accelerate slowly while they fight to overcome gravity. 138 Space forces will look very much like air forces to those who are at the receiving end of their effects on earth. They will also look very much like air forces at their terrestrial bases. They must, after all,traverse the atmosphere in order to get into space. In this respect, they are much like air forces, vulnerable and useless while on the ground. The compensating

factor is their range. American military RLV basesare likely to be far from the US coastline and secured against terrorist attack. This is

beyond the strategic reach of most nations on earth. They will, however, (within the limits of RLV response time and dispersability) bevulnerable to intercontinental, submarine-launched, or space-launched hypersonic strikes. If such an attack were launched, though, with or without nuclear

weapons, the United States would have larger concerns than RLV survivability. The demonstrated ability to strike any target on earth

with precision and discrimination could, in fact, be a potent deterrent to or factor in conflict. This deterrent, unlike

nuclear weapons, could be used against nonnuclear powers without the collateral damage and the negative

moral and political fallout of nuclear weapons use


12/51

1AC Solvency

Plan The United States federal government should provide all necessary support to fulfill the mandate of

the 2001 second generation reusable launch vehicle program

If the United States government where to provide the necessary financial support and it make it a top

priority the United States could posses a reusable launch vehicle within the decadeMoney 11 (Stewart, 2-21, .A. in History from Auburn University and a M.A. in Science, Technology and Public

Policy from The George Washington University ,Taking the initiative: SLI and the next generation , http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1784/1)

Ironically, in the first years of the new millennium, NASA was on the way to answering that question until a

dizzying series of priority changes led to the current dead end. In the days before GPS, when you got lost on a diverging path, the onlycertain alternative was to retrace your steps to the point of departure and start over. Such is now the case with US space launch policy. April 2011 will mark thethirtieth anniversary of Space Shuttle Columbias lift off in the first flight of the National Space Transportation System and our first attempt at lowering the costs

of getting to orbit by reusing part of a launch system. As we all know, it came up a little short on that measure. The shuttle system was limited

from the outset by a budget environment right out of todays headlines. In 1971, the Nixon administration OMB imposed a five-year freeze on

NASAs budget, resulting in a design that offered lower development costs but higher operating costs. Nevertheless, itwas a failure brought about by both attempting to achieve too much in one great leap, and betting everything on the outcome of that attempt. That it failed tolower costs says far more about the flawed specific approach taken than about the ultimate viability of reusable launch hardware in general. Acknowledging that

failure, as well as disappointing outcomes in subsequent X-33 and X-34 experimental reusable programs, NASAin 2001established the Second

Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program as part of the Space Launch Initiative. This time, the challenge of lowering launch coststhrough reusable flight hardware would be met by undertaking several developmental programs, including the X-37 Approach and Landing Test Vehicle, as wellas the RS-84 reusable engine. The end result would presumably be a fully reusable two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) architecture. While TSTO lacked the cutting edgeallure of the single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) approach, it also left behind the truly serious engineering challenges which bedeviled X-33 and left the proposedVentureStar flying in viewgraph form only. Instead, the TSTO path offered steady, linear, almost boring progress from existing technology base, with the

absence of an appropriate engine being the biggest challenge. Second Generation started with a review of over 100 possible

configurations, and called for following a down select process from 15 to 3 to 2 vehicle concepts, resulting in adevelopment decision by 2006 and a potential operational vehicle in the 2010s. Second Generation was one component of NASAs 1999 Integrated Space

Transportation Plan, which was envisioned as living document to ensure that NASAs goals matched its actual requirements. Unfortunately, NASA

quickly concluded that, according to this framework, the must have program of the moment was a new crew transfer and return vehicle for the International Space Station, so for FY 2003, the Second Generation

RLV program was diverted to the Orbital Space Plane program. For its part, OSP would initially be launched by a human-rated EELV whileretaining a possible transition path to a reusable launcher. Following the Columbia disaster, the Orbital Space Plane project gave way to the Crew Exploration

Vehicle, as result of the Vision for Space Exploration announced on January 14, 2004. Project Constellation soon followed. Ten years after SecondGeneration was originally conceived, one cannot help but observe that if policy makers had stayed the course,

2011 might have found the US close to fielding a TSTO reusable system rather than occupying essentially the

same position as in 2002or 1961 for that matter. Second Generation was, of course, only one of many projects over time

that started with great promise only to be subsequently abandoned or altered beyond recognition. Like much else inlife, it is quite easy to consider the path not taken through a gentler light than the harsh reality that comes with actual experience, and this may be the case withSecond Generation. Any program can be mismanaged, any opportunity wasted, and one need look no further than current programs for confirmation. Virtually

every development program appears to go over budget and take longer than originally scheduled. Nevertheless, disappointment is more easily

avoided by pursuing the right goal in the first place. Now, in the twilight of the shuttle program and with Constellation cancelled as

unaffordable, the challenge the Space Launch Initiative and Second Generation RLV originally sought to resolve still remains. Financial reality

suggests it is a challenge that still must be overcome if the US expects to witness a new era of private

spaceflight, affordably launch defense payloads, or initiate a return to the Moon or venture to points further

beyond. For anyone without a financial or political stake in the status quo, the original goal of the 2001 Second Generation RLV

Programdevelopment of flexible, commercially produced reusable launch vehicles remains both logical and achievable, and absolutely necessary.


13/51

1AC Solvency

Fulfilling the mandate to build a RLV would provide all the necessary military and commercial needs to

solve the advantages and set the stage for future improvements to allow for efficient space development

and exploration

Henry 03 (Gary N., February, Lt Col, USAF, THE DECISION MAKERS GUIDE TO ROBUST, RELIABLE

AND INEXPENSIVE ACCESS TO SPACE, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927)A two-stage-to-orbit space launch system using a first stage waverider design leveraging combined cycle engine

technology is the best and fastest route to R2ISA. First, it provides a flexible space transportation solution forDoD, NASA, and commercial customers. Second, the core first stage has significant military(reconnaissance/strike) and commercial (package delivery/passenger) potential. Third, the core first stage vehiclecan experience the high flight rates necessary for R2 ISA. . Fourth, a horizontal takeoff and land system with fly-back capability provides a wide array of basing/landing options. The use of hydrocarbon fuels keeps vehicle size anddry-weight low (relative to rockets and hydrogen fueled reusables) enabling a vehicle to approach aircraft-likeoperations. Finally, supporting X-vehicle program can validate combined cycle engine concepts that merit use onthe objective system while a sub-scale Y-prototype first stage could be built today using existing propulsiontechnology (either a rockets, advanced turbine, pulse detonation) until a turbine combined cycle engine was ready.

This vehicle would provide the system experience necessary to build a highly maintainable and operationallyefficient objective system, possess residual space launch capability, and act as a test bed for sorely needed

hypersonic research. The two-stage-to-orbit objective system would deliver up to 20,000 pounds to low earthorbit(100 nm, 28.5 deg inclination) using a Mach 4-6 horizontal take-off / horizontal land waverider powered byhydrocarbon fueled Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator derived turbinecombined-cycle-engine with the capacity toreturn to its launch site. The second stage would ideally be an airbreathing waverider using hydrogen rocket-based-combined cycle engine but could implement a simpler wing/fuselage rocket design as an alternative if sufficientsecond stage performance can be demonstrated. Separate DoD and NASA upper-stages could be developed andtailored to accommodate their unique mission requirements. The DoD could develop any combination of a separateSpace Maneuver Vehicle for space control and earth/space reconnaissance, a Modular Insertion Stage for affordablespace access, or a Common Aero Vehicle to enable prompt global strike. Additional military first stage utility canbe explored through tests as a strategic reconnaissance and global strike platform capable of reaching any

point on the earth within three hours and returning to its launch location. A commercial first stage variantwill enable inexpensive low-earth-orbit satellite insertion, demonstrate global two to three hour package

delivery, and serve as a test bed for a potential future passenger vehicle. NASA requirements will likely focus ona second stage maximizing payload delivery to the International Space Station. As rocket and hypersonic propulsiontechnology continues to mature, one will likely prove superior for incorporation into third generation single-stage-to-orbit launch systems. The knowledge and experience gained through the approach outlined above would proveintegral to its future success
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927


14/51

1AC Solvency

It critical for the government to demonstrate the feasibility of a reusable launch vehicle before the private

sector will get on board-only a certain sustained government investment can produce a working RLV

Henry 03 (Gary N., February, Lt Col, USAF, THE DECISION MAKERS GUIDE TO ROBUST, RELIABLEAND INEXPENSIVE ACCESS TO SPACE, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?

Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927)Chapter 3 articulated the technical and economic nature of the barriers to R2 ISA. An understanding of the fundamental metrics

commonly used within the space launch arena provides a powerful tool to compare expendable versus

reusable launch vehicles as well as to quantify the impact of technological progress. Four main technology areas - to include propulsion,

advanced materials, vehicle integration, and thermal protection - represent the major requisite technologies for R2 ISA . These topics inturn explain the challenges with single-stage to-orbit and why it cannot currently deliver as well as explaining why two-sage-to-orbit vehicles can. This

difference can be summed up on a single concept design margin twostage-to orbit designs have it, single-stage-to-orbit designs currently do not. The

economic side of the equation is dominated by a market failure in space transportation, making it clear that it

is unreasonable for the government to expect or demand a large commercial cash commitment until ISAR2 is

demonstrated. The swiftest and most certain solution demands a disciplined and wellconceived government

policy backed up by decisive action.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927


15/51

2AC Solar Power Satellites Add on

Creating a reusable launch vehicle is key to make solar power satellites economically viable

Collins and Taniguchi 97 (Patrick, Azabu university professor, H, Writer for Space Future,The Promise of Reusable LaunchVehicles for SPS , http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_promise_of_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_sps.shtml.)

The majority of the SPS research performed to date has concerned the technology required for the large-scalesatellites that are to be used to collect solar energy in space and transmit microwave energy to users on Earth. As aresult of this work there is now fairly good understanding of the technological requirements of such systems - at leastat the scale of pilot plants of several MW output. However, the main reason why the world electricity industrycontinues to give little support to SPS research is that the probability of SPSbecoming competitive with other

sources of energy is considered to be low, because all space activities are very costly. In addition, although theelectricity industry is one of the largest industries in the world, it is quite separate from space engineering, and it isunderstandable that electrical engineers shouldnot understand the great potential for reducing the cost of spaceactivities. The main reason why space activities are so costly today is because launchcosts are very high - morethan $10,000 to place 1kg in low Earth orbit. At such launch costs the construction and operation of SPS unitswith masses of thousands of tons would cost tens of $billions, which is much too expensive to be able tocompete with other electricity generation systems. However, with the end of the Cold War, taxpayers' willingnessto pay for the activities of government space agencies has been declining, and their budgets are being cut. This hasled space agencies to acknowledge that launch costs are too high: Mr Goldin, the administrator ofNASA, even statedthat the US space industry should "...hang their heads in shame" because they have not developed a new rocketengine for 25 years (1). This revival of interest in developing re-usable launch vehicles with much lower launchcosts has created a growing body of opinion that, with appropriate technology development, reusable launch

vehicles (RLVs) could be developed with operating costs of 10% of today's costs or less. Some of the moreimportant projects under way are described briefly in the following section.

SPS can prevent all energy wars-avoids great power conflict

Rouge 07(Joseph D., Oct. 9, Acting Director of National Security Space Office,2K7 , Space-Based Solar Power

as an Opportunity for Strategic Security, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long term route to alleviate the security challenges of energyscarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuel production of peakssometime this century as the Department of Energys own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first ordereffect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on line fast enough, then prices andresource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some

nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states,particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great powerconflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers analternative in the third dimension to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
http://www.spacefuture.com/http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_promise_of_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_sps.shtmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/http://www.spacefuture.com/http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_promise_of_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_sps.shtmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/


16/51

2AC World Peace/Mindsetshift Add On

Space development will fundamentally alter human psychology and society-the overview effect will unite

us-creating the conditions for world peace

Hsu and Cox 09 (Feng, Ph.D. Sr. Fellow, Aerospace TechnologyWorkingGroup, Ken, Ph.D. Founder & DirectorAerospace Technology Working Group, 2-20, Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development - A Unified

Strategic Vision , http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702)Mankind, in the current stages of our single-planet civilization, may feel compelled or threatened to fight overresources and living spaceon the surface of the earth. However, such an inherent condition and competitivehuman psychology (deep in our consciousness) will most likely change by expanding the human horizonoutward into space. As evidenced by human experience as astronauts, the "overview effect" will be the mostprofound nature bond for humanity to cherish one another, when we first looked back at our obscure blue homeplanet from the deep space. We must not underestimate the paramount importance of expanding human habitatsoutside the earth confinement as a critical benefit contributing to the acceleration of human conscious evolution,and hence bringing about transformed geopolitical governance, and ultimately leading to sustainable andpeaceful human development back on earth. Much like a political vacuum existed in the New World some fivecenturies ago, which allowed early American settlers to experiment with more efficient and just forms ofgovernment, there is little doubt that humanity's expansion into space will help us develop healthier and morepeaceful societies on earth.


17/51

RLV solves the Economy

Developing a RLV would be a bigger boom for the US economy than the IT revolution

Moore 98 (ROSCOE M., winter, The author is an Astronautical Engineer who received his degree from the U.S. AirForce Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He left the U.S. Air Force as a Captain after working as a NuclearMissile Treaty Inspector in Votkinsk, Russia. He is a candidate to receive hisJ.D. from the Georgetown Uni versity

Law Center in 1999, RISK ANALYSIS AND THE REGULATION OF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES , 64 J. Air L. & Com. 245)RLVs hold the potential to reduce space launch costs from over $10,000 per pound to orbit to under $1000 perpound to orbit. This reduction in launch costs would allow the United States space launch industry to dominatethe global multi-billion dollar satellite launch services market. At present, the Euro pean Arianespace consortiumdominates the geostationary earth orbit (GEO) portion of this market.4 Cheaper access to space through RLVs hasthe potential to give the space and satellite industry the same exponential growth that the microprocessor has

given the personal com puter and software industries. Tens of thousands of new high paying jobs in the spaceindustry could be created when new companies take advantage of the ability to launch payloads into orbit formillions of dollars per launch instead of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per launch. Advances in technologythat have encouraged RLV development would allow the United States to lead the economic revolution in

space just as it has led the economic revolution in information technology.


18/51

RLVs reduce launch costs-studies

Studies suggest that an RLV would reduce launch costs 100 times

Ward 00 (John E., May, Lt Colonel, USAF, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Space Operations , http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf.)The foreign firms are also interested in RLVs. The European Space Agency, with Great Britain in the lead, initiated

the Skylon program in the 1980s. This program investigated the viability of developing cheap and easy access tospace without the need for the traditional infrastructure or large ground crews. The program centered on a 270-footlong space plane that was capable of carrying 20,000 pounds into low Earth orbit.61 A number of European statescontinue to have interest in RLVs. Recent study effortsof the European Space Agency included the Ascenderproject, which is a sub-orbital airplane that is suitable for carrying passengers. It takes off from an ordinary airfieldusing a turbofan engine, which at 26,000 feet starts a rocket engine and climbs vertically at Mach 2.8 to reach amaximum altitude of over 325,000 feet. Ascender plans to carry two crew and two passengers, making it a possibleEuropean entrant for the X-Prize. Follow-on plans include a fully orbital spaceplane that is suitable for small satellitedelivery to orbit, which is called the Spacecab, and is designed to be 100 times less expensive than the SpaceShuttle. An even larger design, called the Spacebus, is designed to carry 50 people to and from orbit or flypassengers from Europe to Australia in 75 minutes. 62
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdfhttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf


19/51

RLVs lead to space development-tourism

RLVS will enable space tourism to take off-which will increase there demand and raise public support

for future space development projects

Ward 00 (John E., May, Lt Colonel, USAF, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Space Operations , http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf.)

Commercial Space Tourism. The broad objective of space tourism is to provide access to space for less than $20,000per round trip. Some market surveys have indicated that this price will open space tourism to enough of the market toassure success.177 The essential capability for RLVs that are used for space tourism includes the ability tooperate on a scheduled status, a large payload capability with passenger comforts, and rated to carrypassengers. The primary challenges for space tourism are to develop a market for reliable, safe, and affordable spaceflight. Before people will be interested in touring space, safety must exceed that of current levels Launch failuresmight be tolerated if these resulted in aborted takeoffs that were followed by safe landings. One reasonable target forreliability might be the standard that applies to commercial airliners, which is clearly higher than that which existsfor expendable launches today. With respect to cost, large numbers of flights are essential to amortize thedevelopment and production costs rapidly, and as this occurs the dominant factor in cost effectiveness will be therecurring operational costs. If space tourism is to succeed, the reusable system must have an operationalefficiency that is 200 times greater than that of the Space Shuttle.178 If space tourism is successful, it mightencourage or support other space programs, such as the exploration of Mars. It is conceivable that an industry

devoted to commercial space might help to amortize the costs that are associated with the development of

RLVs, including the costs for vehicles, operating bases, and on-orbit support, and raise the publics supportfor space travel.179 Space tourism will only succeed if the cost of space access can be sufficiently reduced. Analternative to space tourism is that of space travel, which includes sub-orbital and even orbital flights


20/51

RLVS solve Space leadership

4 reasons an RLV would solve for US heg in space

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, National Security Implicationsof Inexpensive Space Acces , http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)RLV will play in this military geography of earth orbital space in four ways. First and foremost, it gives the

United States routine access to these orbits for peaceful purposes, for political signaling and other nonlethalpropaganda purposes, as well as for military purposes. One of these purposes will be to take unimpededadvantage of one of the corollaries of space powers elevation, superior view. A space-faring powers awarenessof what is going on on earth is far superior to that of nonspace-faring nations. A nation with routine access to spacewill multiply that advantage with the ability to access any orbit at will. Second, as noted above, the RLV will be ableto occupy these orbits to prevent others from using them. Third, it will allow the United States to engage adversaryspace forces at times and places of its choosing from a position of energy advantage. Fourth, it will allow the UnitedStates to engage adversary ground, air, and sea forces and political entities at times and places of its choosing from aposition of energy advantage. As mentioned above, one of the corollaries to the elevation of air and space power isthe energy advantage of superior altitude (what fighter pilots call Gods G ). This discussion naturally leads to a concept which may be most useful in understanding the importance of this energy advantage to space doctrine in theRLV era


21/51

RLV is possible

New technologies make it possible to develop an economically efficient RLV

Moore 98 (ROSCOE M., winter, The author is an Astronautical Engineer who received his degree from the U.S. AirForce Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He left the U.S. Air Force as a Captain after working as a NuclearMissile Treaty Inspector in Votkinsk, Russia. He is a candidate to receive hisJ.D. from the Georgetown Uni versity

Law Center in 1999, RISK ANALYSIS AND THE REGULATION OF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES , 64 J. Air L. & Com. 245)The new technologies that enable the development of RLVs are lighter thermal protection systems (TPS),lighter than alumi num composite building materials, higher efficiency liquid rocket engines, and guidance

and control (G&C) systems utiliz ing satellite navigation updates. New TPSs will allow RLVs to survive the hightemperatures of re-entry that result from fric tion between the atmosphere and the rocket body. Lighter compositebuilding materials will yield lighter weight cryogenic 14 Most companies developing RLVs desire to capture the lowearth orbit (LEO) launch market. Lockheed Martin, with its Venture Star RLV design, in tends to compete withArianspace in the heavy lift GEO launch services market. fuel tanks and lighter rocket bodies, allowing rocketdesigners to reduce or eliminate the separating stages that make ELVs so complex and expensive. Higher efficiencyrocket engines allow RLVs to decrease their fueled weight and increase their payload capacity. New and cheaperguidance systems based on the Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS) allow RLV designers to accurately trackand steer their vehicles while the rocket is out of sight or is reentering the atmosphere.

The US could create an RLV in less than a decade if it significantly invested in one

Ward 00 (John E., May, Lt Colonel, USAF, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Space Operations , http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf.)For the purposes of this study, RLVs are defined as vehicles that are capable of carrying at least 20,000 pounds intolow Earth orbit, returning to Earth for servicing, and then performing another mission within days. A number ofconcepts for RLVs have been proposed, including single-stage to orbit, two-stage to orbit, and Trans-atmosphericvehicles, all of which seek routine access to space at greatly reduced cost. While none of the concepts for RLVs havereached this elusive goal, it is possible for the United States to produce a reusable launch vehicle within the nextten years if it makes a significant investment in technology. This study does not focus on the performance ofRLVs, but examines the more significant military missions and commercial applications for RLVs and their strategicimplications.9


22/51

2AC Space weapons DA/Turn

1) We control Uniqueness-extend our Brown 09 ev-it answers your characterization of Chinas space

program as passive they have specifically developed space crafts for the purpose of blowing past current

US missile defense efforts and has tested military anti satellite technology-they clearly arent sitting back

on securing space dominance-prefer our ev it speaks to the nature of Chinese internal politics

2) Other Nations will inevitably challenge US space dominance-The US must maintain leadership or risk

being preemptively attacked-the anarchic nature of the international arena demands that

Kueter 07 (Jeff, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit think tank dedicated to science and

technology in public policy, New Atlantis, China's Space Ambitions -- And Ours, Spring, lexis)On January 11, 2007, a missile was launched from Chinese territory. It arced upwards into space to an altitude ofabout 537 miles, where it slammed directly into its target, an obsolete Chinese weathersatellite. The target wasdestroyed, reportedly producing some 900 trackable pieces of space debris in orbits from 125 miles to about 2,300miles and resulting in an increase of 10 percent in the total amount of manmade debris in orbit. This demonstrationof an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) wasjust the latest in a series of tests of China's space weapons program, andwas a warning sign the United States should take very seriously. In the decades after the Soviet Union and theUnited States first designed and deployed so-called space weapons, some observers came to hope it would be

possible to turn back history's pages and preserve space as a sanctuary, a pristine place of peace and internationalcooperation, where terrestrial disputes could be left behind. Ifthese hopes were ever given credence, they havesurely been dispelled by China's recent actions in space: vivid demonstrations that the country could threatenessential satellitesboth directly, by physically destroying them, and indirectly, employing lasers and otherjamming techniques to make them unusable. China is now a military space power and space is once again an

undeniably contested arena. There are severalpolicy courses the United States could take in responding to thisnew reality. It could assume that China is not a significant threat to American space assets and determine thatinaction is preferable to overreaction. But such a do-nothing approach would expose the United States to thedangers of what has been called a "space Pearl Harbor," a surprise attack on U.S. space capabilities withimmediate consequences for the American military and for American interests the world over. Alternatively,American policymakers could conclude that negotiation and diplomacy offer the best path forward. Following thisapproach, the U.S. would embrace efforts to ban the introduction of weapons into space and negotiate codes of

conduct to regulate the behavior of nation-states. But while some good could undoubtedly come from the emergenceofinternational norms and rules, it is unlikely they would be sufficient to preserve security. Instead, the UnitedStates should adopt an active defensive posture, invigorating the research and technical base needed to defendor replenish space assets. This posture can complement diplomatic effortsby providing important verificationand enforcement capabilities. Such an approach will be expensive and will need to overcome bureaucratic inertia aswell as domestic and international opposition--but it is the only option that can ensure the security of Americanspace assets.


23/51


3) Turn

Securing space dominance now would prevents a worse space arms race in the future-and will quickly

secure international stability

Dolman 10 (September, Dr. Everett Carl, Associate, Assoc. Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air

Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies The Case for Weapons in Space: A Geopolitical Assessment ) Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuingAmerican hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the majority of states seem to regard it as atleast tolerable. A continuation of the status quo is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working toward its demise. As long as the United States does notemploy its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. Mirror-imaging does not apply here. An attempt byChina to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order. Such anaction would challenge the status quo, rather than seek to perpetuate it. This would be disconcerting to nations that accept, no matter how grudgingly, the current

international orderincluding the venerable institutions of trade, finance, and law that operate within itand intolerable to the United States . As leader of

the current system, the United States could do no less than engage in a perhaps ruinous space arms race, save

graciously decide to step aside and accept a diminished world status. Seizing the initiative and securing low-

Earth orbit now, while the United States is dominant in space infrastructure, would do much to stabilize the

international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another

nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity

would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a stateexpend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravitywell? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence asneeded to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote. Moreover, if the United States were willing to deploy

and use a military space force that maintained effective control of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non-arbitrary, and efficient , such an

action would serve to discourage competing states from fielding opposing systems. It could also set the stage

for a new space regime, one that encourages space commerce and development. Should the United States use its advantage topolice the heavens and allow unhindered peaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time its control of LEOcould be viewed as a global public good. In much the same way the British maintained control of the high seas in the nineteenth century, enforcing internationalnorms of innocent passage and property rights, and against slavery, the US could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burst of economic expansion.

4) There evidence doesnt take into account how big of an advantage an RLV will give us in control of

space. Theyll give the United States the ability to have unparallel mobility in space allowing is to clear

enemy defenses and maintain the high ground in any conflict. Moreover it will give the United States

unparallel intelligence gathering capabilities. The 1AC Bruner evidence says that the combination ofthese capabilities would make current anti space weapons like ASATS completely ineffective and

discourage other nations from trying to counter the US


24/51


5) RLVS are way to badass for any country to engage in meaningful countermeasures against

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies, National Security Implicationsof Inexpensive Space Acces , http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)Such a capability would allow the United States to protect its interests, on earth or in orbit, at times and places of its choosing, without having to consider the riskof loss to enemy action. States or other groups with nascent ballistic missile or space programs will soon have primitive ASAT capability in the form of sounding

rockets carrying kinetic energy submunitions (as simple as sixpenny iron nails) launched in the path of an oncoming satellite in a predictable orbit.120 TheseASATs, a threat to any satellite in a predictable LEO, are of limited utility against an RLV space ship launched on a suborbital or

fractional orbital trajectory. There is very little possibility that nonspace-faring nations or groups could detect launches

from US sovereign territory. At present, only the United States has a publicly disclosed missile warning satellite, although the Russians have

reconnaissance satellites and are likely to have missile warning satellites left over from the cold war as well. If these nations detect launchers, they do not

have the dataprocessing infrastructure to predict and disseminate suborbital trajectories and impact points to

space weapon defense forces. While making a case for an independent European satellite reconnaissance capability in the wake of the Gulf War,former French foreign minister Pierre Joxe acknowledged the supremacy of the US space surveillance machine with its range of missile early warning, oceansurveillance, photographic and radar reconnaissance, electronics eavesdropping and weather satellites . . . with its massive supporting processing and

communications chain. 121 Fr ances and Britains $1 billion investment in military spacecraft could not match the

$200 billion US m

Reuable Launch Vehicles

Documents

Transcript of Reuable Launch Vehicles