2 CM SPS Affirmative

8/7/2019 2 CM SPS Affirmative

1/84

SPS AFFDDI 2008 Clark/Martin LabAlex, Dustin, Gabrielle, Kylah

Index

Index........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 10

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 131AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 14

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 15

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 16

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 17

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 18

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 20

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 21

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 22

1AC........................................................................................................................................................................ 23

**INHERENCY**............................................................................................................................................... 24

Need SPS Now...................................................................................................................................................... 25

Need SPS Now...................................................................................................................................................... 26

Need Alternative Energy Now............................................................................................................................ 27

Nobody Doing Plan Now..................................................................................................................................... 28

**COMPETITIVENESS**................................................................................................................................. 29

Heg Good Impact Extensions.............................................................................................................................. 30

Economy Impact Module.................................................................................................................................... 31

Other Countries Ahead Now............................................................................................................................... 32

Other Countries Ahead Now............................................................................................................................... 33

SPS Solves Intellectual Competitiveness......................................................................................................... 34

SPS Solves Heg.................................................................................................................................................. 35

1


2/84


**SPACE COLONIZATION**......................................................................................................................... 36

Not Happening Now............................................................................................................................................. 37

SpaceCol Solves Extinction................................................................................................................................. 38

SPS Solves............................................................................................................................................................. 39

SPS Solves Beaming Energy............................................................................................................................ 40

Its Possible Mars.............................................................................................................................................. 41

**SOLVENCY**................................................................................................................................................. 42

SPS Provides Energy........................................................................................................................................... 43

SPS Solves Private Sector Key To Tech.......................................................................................................... 44

AT: Tech Fails...................................................................................................................................................... 45

NASA Key............................................................................................................................................................. 46

NASA Key............................................................................................................................................................. 47

NASA Key............................................................................................................................................................. 48

DoD Key................................................................................................................................................................ 49

DoD Key................................................................................................................................................................ 50

US Key Global Impact...................................................................................................................................... 51

US Key Effective Development........................................................................................................................ 52

**ADD-ONS**..................................................................................................................................................... 53

Failed States Impact Module.............................................................................................................................. 54Failed States Impact Module.............................................................................................................................. 55

Fossil Fuels Impact Module................................................................................................................................ 56

SPS Solves Energy Crisis..................................................................................................................................... 57

SPS Solves CO2.................................................................................................................................................... 58

Military Readiness Impact Module Global War............................................................................................ 59

Military Readiness Impact Module Hegemony.............................................................................................. 60

SPS Solves Not Beaming Energy..................................................................................................................... 61



SPS Solves Saves Soldiers Lives..................................................................................................................... 64

NASA Key Military Tech................................................................................................................................. 65

Peak Oil Impact Module..................................................................................................................................... 66

Internal Link Prolif........................................................................................................................................... 67

2


3/84


Internal Link Weather Alteration................................................................................................................... 68

Internal Link Laundry List............................................................................................................................. 69



**ANSWERS TO OTHER ARGUMENTS**................................................................................................... 72

AT: Economically Unfeasible.............................................................................................................................. 73

AT: Economically Unfeasible.............................................................................................................................. 74

AT: Interference................................................................................................................................................... 75

AT: Ground Power Tradeoff.............................................................................................................................. 76

AT: Ground Solar Power CP.............................................................................................................................. 77

AT: International CP........................................................................................................................................... 78

AT: Other Topical Counterplans....................................................................................................................... 79

AT: Private Sector CP......................................................................................................................................... 80

AT: States CP (maybe)........................................................................................................................................ 81

AT: Other Agency CPs........................................................................................................................................ 82

AT: Solar Power Market Arguments................................................................................................................. 83

Politics Plan Popular......................................................................................................................................... 84

3


4/84

SPS 1ACDDI 2008 CM LabAlex, Dustin, Kylah, Gabrielle

1AC

Contention 1: Inherency

The U.S. needs alternatives to relying on unstable, polluting energy sources incompetition with the developing world space-powered satellites are the bestalternativeNational Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of

U.S. energy, 10-10-07, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Since the Fresh Look Study much has changed. The events of9/11 dramatically altered the worldstrategic security environment. Major energy producing areas ofthe world are perceived as beingunstable, and the risks ofdependence on unstable areas ofthe world for energy supplies are

increasingly less acceptable to both citizens and policymakers. The rising demand ofthe developingworldin particular the burgeoning economies of China and Indiaare increasing energy competition .

Growing concern over long term climate change has become a mainstream issue . Globalization, begunat the end of the last century has created an extremely rapid and accelerating pace of change in thetechnological, informational, and business sectors. These changes are being driven by the aggregatedecisions of billions of people, millions of companies, thousands of governments, and hugeinternational markets that cross the borders of over a hundred countries. The ability to stop, or evenslow, this change is beyond the ability ofany single nation, company, or organization . The DoD, as thenations largest institutional consumer of technology and energy, has determined that long term energysecurity is now a forefront issue. The early developments ofthe 21st Century have created conditions

that merit that this nation takes a relookofSBSP .

4


5/84


1AC

Thus, the plan:

The United States federal government should provide incentives to theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration for research, development, andimplementation of space-based solar power satellites. Well clarify.

5


6/84

SPS 1ACDDI 2008 CM Lab

Alex, Dustin, Kylah, Gabrielle

1AC

Contention 2: Competitiveness

Other countries are surpassing US space tech. Governmentincentives are necessary to bridge the gap and spur new tech.Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, US Commission Calls for Space Program Overhaul, November

18, 2002

Japan, China, Russia, India, and France, to name a few, see space as a strategic and economicfrontier that should be pursued aggressively. "So should we," the Commission report comments.For example, in the booster-for-hire business, the French company, Arianespace, captured 50percent of the commercial world market in 2001. The United States and Russia each has 19 percent,the report warns. "The U.S. commercial space industry continues to lose access to markets asdemand decreases and international competition increases. Government regulations and

incentives are necessary to bolster this important market until there is a turn-around in

demand." U.S. market share is on the decline due to foreign government intervention andprotectionist policies, the report says, adding that there is need for fair and open competition . Inthis arena, the success or failure of America's future efforts in space exploration is linked to ourability to work effectively with partners on projects "such as the International Space Station andplanetary defense." A Commission recommendation is for a new business model geared to the U.S.aerospace industry, making use of innovative government and industry policies. The hope is toestablish a strong and healthy U.S. aerospace industry that is attractive to investors One photoused by the Commission points to a candidate space investment prospect. "Mining the Moon for oreand isotopes might make sound commercial business opportunities in the future."

6


7/84



1AC

Continued lack of US technological dominance collapses the

economy and decreases heg. Status quo funding by Asiancountries and lack of US action ensure this.Adam Segal04 Is America Losing Its Edge? From Foreign Affairs , November/Decemberhttp://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893

Summary: For 50 years, the United States has maintained its economic edge by being betterand faster than any other country at inventing and exploiting new technologies. Today,

however, its dominance is starting to slip, as Asian countries pour resources into R&D and

challenge America's traditional role in the global economy. Adam Segal is Maurice R.Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author ofDigital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China. The United States' global primacydepends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster thananyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological

entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It wasAmericans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and theInternet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technologicaledge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming fromAsia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D),and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments areimproving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. Thepercentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China,Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managingdatabase and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eatenaway at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software.And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology,

and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing.Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of R&D is

exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is

learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological

innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals

from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate

faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world,

the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

7


8/84



1AC

Economic collapse leads to nuclear war

T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association of DistinguishedAmerican Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

(AIAS)June 24, 2000 (http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)

As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160developing nations as the developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. InternationalStrategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior tothe final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number

of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals ofweapons of mass destruction (WMD) nowpossessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose astarving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S.forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long-rangenuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States attacks Taiwan.In addition to immediate

responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations intothe conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that,

under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and

potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's

adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost neverdiscussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launchimmediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and

massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs.Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site withinthe United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as weknow it, and perhaps most ofthe biosphere, at least for many decades.

8


9/84



1AC

And, sustained US hegemony solves multiple scenarios for

global nuclear warRobert Kagan, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, End of Dreams, Return

of History, July 19, 2007,http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html)

The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is asecond defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its formsis back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, andstatus. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as wellas its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions

where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great andlesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but oftenthroughconfrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness.One novel

aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons.That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing ameasure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States isthe dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even intheir home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be theguarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and rawmaterials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role asguardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nationswould compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond.

Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed

embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows ina way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill

of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power.

9


10/84



1AC

Collapse of US hegemony would signal a new dark age

regional nuclear conflict terrorism and death would dominatethe earthNiall Ferguson, professor at NYU and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution, 2000, When EmpiresWane, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005244)

Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities.

These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might find itself

reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous onethan the one of the ninth century. For the world is roughly 25 times more populous, so that frictionbetween the world's "tribes" is bound to be greater. Technology has transformed production; nowsocieties depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of mineral oil that areknown to be finite. Technology has changed destruction, too: Now it is possible not just to sack acity, but to obliterate it.

For more than two decades, globalization has been raising living standards, except where countrieshave shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. Deglobalization--which iswhat a new Dark Age would amount to--would lead to economic depression. As the U.S. soughtto protect itself after a second 9/11 devastated Houston, say, it would inevitably become a lessopen society. And as Europe's Muslim enclaves grow, infiltration of the EU by Islamist extremistscould become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to breaking point.Meanwhile, an economic crisis in China could plunge the Communist system into crisis,unleashing the centrifugal forces that have undermined previous Chinese empires. Westerninvestors would lose out, and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks ofdefault abroad.

The worst effects of the Dark Age would be felt on the margins of the waning great powers .With ease, the terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers and cruiseliners while we concentrate our efforts on making airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars

could devastate numerous regions, beginning in Korea and Kashmir; perhaps endingcatastrophically in the Middle East.The prospect of an apolar world should frighten us a great deal more than it frightened the heirsof Charlemagne. If the U.S. is to retreat from the role of global hegemon--its fragile self-beliefdented by minor reversals--its critics must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era ofmultipolar harmony. The alternative to unpolarity may not be multipolarity at all. It may be a

global vacuum of power. Be careful what you wish for.

Your heg bad arguments dont apply, plan ensures positivespace leadership.National Security Space Office, Report compiled by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal,

and business experts around the world, 10/10/07, Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for StrategicSecurity, Report to the director, interim assessment (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release -01.pdf)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers significant opportunities for positiveinternational leadership and partnership, at once providing a positive agenda for energy,development, climate, and space.

Ifthe United States is interested in energy, sustainable development, climate change, and the

10
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release%20-01.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release%20-01.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release%20-01.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release%20-01.pdf


11/84



peaceful use ofspace, the international community is even hungrier for solutions to theseissues.

11


12/84



1AC

Additionally, tech breakthroughs resolve nuclear war, famine,

disease, poverty and economic collapse.Mike Treder, Executive Director of CRN, 02/18/2006, From Heaven to Doomsday: Seven FutureScenarios ,http://ieet.org/index.php/ieet/articles/treder20060218

Research scientists, technology entrepreneurs, open-minded academics and political

progressives are persecuted and stymied in most countries, including the U.S.; they are

systematically silenced, jailed, or exterminated in other places. Advancements in artificialintelligence, genetic engineering, space exploration, robotics, and nanotechnology come to a

halt.Moores Lawis finally overturned.

Famine, pestilence, disease, and starvation at levels never seen before devastate much of the

world. As millions suffer horrible wasting deaths, billions more are born into inescapable

poverty and squalor. Chronic worldwide economic crises result in massive political instabilitythat leads to civil wars, regional wars, and ultimately nuclear wars.

At the close of the 21st century, world conditions have returned to a state more like the 19th

century. It is the second Dark Ages .

Plan solves SPS is key to sustain the scientific lead of theU.S.Joseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security SpaceOffice; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both

the Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and

helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed

it was deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical

to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are

gathering strengt h. SBSP would require a substantial technicalworkforce of highpaying jobs. It would require expandedtechnical education opportunities, and directly support theunderlying aims of the American Competitiveness Initiative.

12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law


13/84


1AC

Contention 3: Space Colonization

Extinction is inevitable now we need to get off the rock. Space colonizationis key to save the human race.William E. Burrows and Professor Robert Shapiro - Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, Burrows is thedirector and founder of the Science and Environmental Reporting Program. A former reporter for The New York Times, The

Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, New York University; October1999; Ad Astra 11 An Alliance To RescueCivilization http://www.robertshapiro.org/work3.htm

We who live on Earth are menaced by an array of potential catastrophes that go far beyond what is usually taken to be merely

dangerous. And they require a truly radical strategy to prevent our collective civilization all of culture itself from essentially

vanishing....We therefore believe that it is urgent to hedge against such calamities by preparing a copy of our civilization and

moving it out of harm's way. Even if the Earth were turned into a vast field of devastation, humanity and its achievements

would survive. Think of it as backing up the planet's hard drive and keeping the "disk," constantly updated, in a secure location.Many of the possible disasters would affect our entire planet, so the logical location for such a haven would be off of it, in a

base on another world. The Moon would appear to be the most likely candidate , and we will use it in our discussion, but we donot rule out the possibility that it could be elsewhere, for example on Mars. We hope that the project would be international, andpropose to call it the Alliance to Rescue Civilization, or ARC.

Every second we delay space colonization one hundred trillion people dieNickBostron, professor of philosophy at Yale University, 04, Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of DelayedTechnological Development, http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html

As a rough approximation, let us say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate ofthe computing powerextractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecularnanotechnology[2], is 10^42 operations per second.[3] A typical estimate ofthe human brains processing power isroughly 10^17 operations per second or less.[4] Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of theenvironment in sufficient detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical currenthuman experiences.[5] Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lostevery century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human livesper second.

While this estimate is conservative in that it assumes only computational mechanisms whose implementation has been at leastoutlined in the literature, it is useful to have an even more conservative estimate that does not assume a non-biologicalinstantiation of the potential persons. Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be sustained around an average star.Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to about10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization.

What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the most

conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillionpotential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our supercluster

13


14/84


1AC

Space colonization solves war, hunger, poverty, disease, and pollution, butnow is key theres only a narrow window of time when we have the ability

AND the resourcesSylvia Engdahl, computer science teacher and space advocate, 11-3-03, Space and Human Survival: My Views on the Importanceof Colonizing Space, www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm

Myths showing these things are indeed part of the response to a new perception of our environment: the perception that as faras Earth is concerned, it is limited. [A basic premise of my course was that all myth is a response of a culture to theenvironment in which it perceives itself to exist.] But at the rational level, people do not want to face them. They tellthemselves that if we do our best to conserve resources and give up a lot of the modern conveniences that enable us to spendtime expanding our minds, we can avoid such a fateas indeed we can, for a while. But notforever. And most significantly,not for long enough to establish space settlements, if we dont start soon enough. Space humanization is not something thatcan be achieved overnight.

I have called this stage in our evolution the Critical Stage. Paul Levinson [the Director of Connected Education] uses

different terminology for the same concept. He says that we have only a narrow window to get into space, a relatively shorttime during which we have the capability, but have not yet run out of the resources to do it . I agree with him completelyabout this. Expansion into space demands high technology and full utilization of our worlds material resources (although notdestructive utilization). It also demands financial resources that we will not have if we deplete the material resources of Earth.And it demands human resources, which we will lose if we are reduced to global war or widespread starvation. Finally, itdemands spiritual resources, which we are not likely to retain under the sort of dictatorship that would be necessary to maintaina sustainable global civilization.

Because the window is narrow, then, we not only have to worry about immediate perils. The ultimate, unavoidable dangerfor our planet, the transformation of our sun, is distantbut if we dont expand into space now, we can never do it .Even if Im wrong and we survive stagnation, it will be too late to escape from this solar system, much less to explore for thesake of exploring.

I realize that what Ive been saying here doesnt sound like my usual optimism. But the reason it doesnt, I think, is that mostpeople dont understand whats meant by space humanization. Some of you are probably thinking that space travel isntgoing to be a big help with these problems, as indeed, the form of it shown in todays mythology would not. Almost certainly,youre thinking that it wont solve the other problems of Earth, and I fear you may be thinking that the other problems shouldbe solved first.

One big reason why they should not is the narrow window concept. The other is that they could not. I have explained why Ibelieve the problem of war cant be solved without expansion. The problem of hunger is , or ultimately will be, the directresult of our planets limited resources; though it could be solved for the near-term by political reforms, we are not likely tosee such reforms while nations are playing a zero-sum game with what resources Earth still has. Widespread poverty,when not politically based, is caused by insufficient access to high technology and by the fact that there arent enoughresources to go around (if you doubt this, compare the amount of poverty here with the amount in the Third World, and theamount on the Western frontier with the amount in our modern cities). Non-contagious disease, such as cancer, is at least

partially the result of stress; and while expansion wont eliminate stress, overcrowding certainly increases it. The problemof atmospheric pollution is the result of trying to contain the industry necessary to maintain our technology within thebiosphere instead of moving it into orbit where it belongs.

14


15/84


1AC

We have an obligation to the human race to sustain life and get off the rockJames Pinkerton - A graduate of Stanford University, he served on the White House staff under both Ronald Reagan and George

H.W. Bush; 6-27-06; The Ultimate Lifeboat TCS Daily a publication of tech central station, http://research.lifeboat.com/tcs.htm

But there's one huge problem: No matter how far we go, virtually, we haven't actually gone anywhere, physically. Ourcorporeal selves are still here on earth, still vulnerable to whatever fate befalls the earth. All those cyber-savvy yuppiesin the World Trade Center had their cell phones and Blackberries with them on 9-11 , and those machines worked fine,even unto the end. But the vaunted products of the Digital Revolution couldn't save those poor high-techsters from thegrim-reaping reality of the massed kinetics of fiery fuel.

And that's the point about the earth, too. If it goes, we go. And so we should go elsewhere, so that when the earth goes, we

have another place to go. And while we're at it, we should take our pets and plants, too. We wouldn't want to be without them,just as they wouldn't want to be without us -- even if they don't know it. It's our job to know things, and to act accordingly. Andif we fail at that mission, then we really will have failed in upholding our end of the Burkean bargain -- that is, partneringnot only with the living and the dead, but with those who are yet to be born.

15


16/84


1AC

SPS is the key catalyst for space colonization

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

The SBSP Study Group found that the SBSP development would have a transformational,even revolutionary, effect on space access for the nation(s) that develop(s) it.SBSP cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to

space and ubiquitous in space operations . The sheer volume and number of flights into space,and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is gamechanging. By lowering the cost toorbit so substantially, and by providing safe and routine access, entirely new industries and

possibilities open up.

SBSP and low cost, reliable space access are co dependent , and advances in either will catalyzedevelopment in the other.

And, research stimulated by the plan is key to space colonizationJoseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low cost spaceaccess and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space . Solving these spacesp access and operationschallenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism,

manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because

DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does viatraditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplishthree major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks.This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space

borne proof of concept demonstration in the next decade . A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuouspilot plant en route to gigawattsclass systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policyregulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships(commercialcommercial, governmentcommercial, and governmentgovernment) needed for this concept to succeed. Thefinal Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as

is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on line today. /

16


17/84


1AC

Contention 5 Solvency

SPS provides enough clean energy alone for humans to live comfortably forbillions of yearsNational Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of

U.S. energy, 10-10-07, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic reservoirofrenewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy security and assurance .

The reservoir ofSpace Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with room for growthfar past the foreseeable needs ofthe entire human civilization for the next century and beyond.

In the vicinity of Earth, each and every hour there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energycontinuously pouring through every square kilometer of space. If one were to stretch thataround the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1 kmwide ring receives over 210terawattyears of power annually. The amount ofenergy coursing through that one thin bandofspace in just one year is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known

recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds theprojected 30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy output ofthe fusion poweredSun is billions oftimes beyond that, and it will last for billions of years orders of magnitudebeyond all other known sources combined. Space Based Solar Power taps directly into thelargest known energy resource in the solar system . This is not to minimize the difficulties andpracticalities of economically developing and utilizing this resource or the tremendous time andeffort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that there is a tremendousreservoir of energyclean, renewable energyavailable to the human civilization if it candevelop the means to effectively capture it.

That clean energy spills over into the private sector companies use newtechnologiesGary Arlen Staff Writer 2/8/05 Post-Newsweek Business Information: Newsbytes "For Tech's Sake: lightweight Solar Power forMobile Users" Lexis [ev]

Nonetheless, the opportunity is immense, especially as government users not just military field personnel increasingly rely ontransportable power supplies. Developers envision that their thin-film polymers will be wrapped onto building materials ,such as cubicle walls allowing windows and ceiling lights to feed power to new devices, especially in temporary locations andvenues where traditional electrical wall sockets are scarce. Nanotech energy developers are fond of statistics about the vastopportunities they face. Of the worldwide energy production (about four terawatts), barely 1 percent comes from renewablesources, and solar power represents less than 1 percent of that segment, McGahn says. As portable devices demand more

power and as the devices themselves become more multi-functional (further increasing power needs), the value ofphotovoltaic supplies becomes more apparent. That is one reason for the young companies to dream that their flexibleproducts will move beyond the coatings of devices. Invisible rooftop and tent-top solar collectors and even clothing coatedwith photovoltaic material are the next steps in this power play. For IT developers especially the growing cadre tasked withimplementing efficient, long-lasting mobile applications the availability of so many photovoltaic options is becoming ashining ray of light.

17


18/84


1AC

With continued research, new solar technology can be ready by 2010.Space Daily 7/25/07 "Consortium Achieves Record-High Solar Cell Efficiency" Lexis [ev]

The consortium's goal is to create solar cells that operate at 50 percent in production, Barnett said. With the fresh funding andcooperative efforts of the DuPont-UD consortium, he said it is expected new high efficiency solar cells could be inproduction by 2010. The highly efficient VHESC solar cell uses a novel lateral optical concentrating system that splitssolar light into three different energy bins of high, medium and low, and directs them onto cells of various light sensitivematerials to cover the solar spectrum. The system delivers variable concentrations to the different solar cell elements. Theconcentrator is stationary with a wide acceptance angle optical system that captures large amounts of light and eliminates theneed for complicated tracking devices. The VHESC would have immediate application in the high-technology military ,which increasingly relies upon a variety of electronics for individual soldiers and the equipment that supports them. As well, itis hoped the solar cells will have a large number of commercial applications.

Dont buy their indicts embracing technology now is key to effective future

deployment.Dr. Keith Aliberti, research physicist in the Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate at the Army Research Laboratory and Thomas

L. Bruen logistics management specialist at the Army Logistics Innovation Agency at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 2007 Army LogisticianVol 39 No 1 "Energy on Demand" Lexis [ev]

Research is underway in all energy-related areas as the Nation seeks to eliminate its dependence on foreign oil. Severaltechnical advances have occurred in the use of organic feedstock to produce electricity. Commercial large-scale waste-to-energy converters have been marketed, and it may be possible to reduce them in size so they can be used on the battlefield.Photovoltaics is a heavily commercialized area that enjoys significant developmental funding outside of the Department ofDefense. Advances in solar power are occurring with breakthroughs in more efficient materials and designs. Multijunction,thin-film nanoscale solar cells are in development, promising up to 50-percent energy conversion. Recently, a major scientificbreakthrough occurred in the stabilization and storage of anti-matter, a first step toward unlocking the door to the most

powerful energy source currently known to man. In the coming age of directed-energy weapons, the implications for rearmingand refueling are enormous. Logisticians must demonstrate a willingness to investigate innovative concepts andtechnologies leading to onsite usable energy and power systems at the point of effect in the battlespace. We should

develop a basic understanding of the scientific and technological underpinnings of these capabilities in orderto influencepolicies and procedures that deal with the generation, storage, distribution, utilization, and standardization ofnew energytechnologies.

Even if the tech doesnt exist now, the plan spurs private sector developmentJoseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by the US Government is likely tocatalyze substantially more investment by the private sector.

This opinion was expressed many times over from energy and aerospace companies alike. Indeed, there is anecdotalevidence that even the activity of this interim study has already provoked significant activity by at least threemajor aerospace companies. Should the United States put some dollars in for a study or demonstration, it islikely to catalyze significant amounts of internal research and development. Study leaders likewise heard thatthe DoD could have a catalytic role by sponsoring prizes or signaling its willingness to become the anchorcustomer for the product.

18


19/84


19


20/84


1AC

Federal funding is a prerequisite to private sector development the privatesector will get on board but only after the government demonstrates viability

Brian Berger, Space News Staff Writer, 10-12-07

Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to showthat space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs.Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power downfrom space could also enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far flung, hostile regions such as Iraq without relyingon vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators needed to keep the lights on. As the report puts it,"beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on thebattlefield. [Space-based solar power] and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremelyflexible 'energy on demand' for combat units and installations across and entire theater, while significantly reducingdependence on over-land fuel deliveries." Although the U.S. military wouldreap tremendous benefits from space-based solarpower, Damphousse said the Pentagon is unlikely to fund development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said,

would be more appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy, both of which have studied space-based solar power in thepast. The Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new technology, Damphousse said, and provide apotentially robust market for firms trying to build a business around space-based solar power. "While challenges doremain and the business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based solar power is closerthan ever," he said. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this." Damphousse, however, cautioned that theprivate sector will not invest in space-based solar power until the United States buys down some of the risk through a

technology development and demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusionresearch and perhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space station. "Demonstrations arekey here," he said. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the SpaceFrontier Foundation'sdirectors, agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground. Millertold reporters here that the space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House andCongress embrace the report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kindof incentives it offers the nuclear power industry.

20
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071012-pentagon-space-solarpower.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071012-pentagon-space-solarpower.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071012-pentagon-space-solarpower.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.html


21/84


1AC

NASA has the infrastructure and the technological ability to do the plan bestJohn C. Mankins, former manager of NASAs Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, 97, A fresh look at space solar

power: New architectures, concepts and technologies, Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1N-3TDH483-V&_user=4257664&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=25671813feddd13175814cc6a164b28c

Another important change has occurred at the US national policy level. US National Space Policy now calls for NASA to make

significant investments in technology (not a particular vehicle) to drive the costs of ET0 transportation down dramatically. This is,of course, an absolute requirement of space solar power. This policy is, of course, independent of any SSP-related considerationsand thus need not be charged against the cost of developing SSP technology. Also, a variety of other key technical advances havebeen made involving many key technological areas and diverse new systems concepts. Although systems-level validation of keytechnologies, such as power conversion and large-scale wireless power transmission (WP R have not occurred, component-levelprogress has been great.

Only the federal government can do the plan acquiescence of all parties iskey to effective policyHoward Gruenspecht, Deputy Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, January 02, EMERGING ENERGYSECURITY ISSUES:RELIABILITY AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:MUkHfBsaphEJ:www.rff.org/rff/Events/AST28/upload/6468_1.pdf+%22Emerging+energy+security+issues:+reliability+and+critical+infrastructure+protection.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari)

Reliability cannot be handled exclusively by private markets or state policies.

Reliability has aspects of a public good access to reliable power depends on

the behavior of all parties throughout the interconnected grid.

Some scope for private acquisition of extra reliability.System transcends state boundaries.Action is needed at the federal level to promote the establishment of mandatory reliability rules.

Government approval and oversight of an industry-based reliability system withmandatory participation is the preferred approach, since government itself lacksthe expertise to directly regulate reliability.Large regional transmission organizations are a natural focus/locus for

reliability management activities, but they are not yet formed.

21


22/84


1AC

SPS is better than all other forms of alternative energy

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

The SBSP Study Group found that while the United States requires a suite ofenergy options,and while many potential options exist, none offers the unique range of ancillary benefits andtransformational capabilities as SBSP .

It is possible that the worlds energy problems may be solved without resort to SBSP byrevolutionary breakthroughs in other areas, but none ofthe alternative options will alsosimultaneously create transformational national security capabilities, open up the space

frontier for commerce, greatly enable space transportation, enhance high paying, high techjobs, and turn America into an exporter ofenergy and hope for the coming centuries.

22


23/84


1AC

The US government must lead the way in SSP its the only energy source thatcan supply global energy while aiding development and providing future

colonies in space

Peter E. Glaser, member of National Space Society Board of Governors, former Vice President for Advanced Technology at ArthurD. Little, Inc., fellow of the American Association of the Advancement of Science and the American Institute for Aeronautics and

Astronautics, inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame, 2-23-2K, The World Needs Energy from Space,http://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/opinions/glaser_000223.html

Humanity faces a new energy crisis. A growing population and rising per-capita energyconsumption require a move awayfrom the polluting, finite energy supplies now in use. Moreover, renewable energy sources such as conventional solar andwind power can only meet a portion of projected needs.

Space holds the key to an inexhaustible, non-polluting energy supply. That key is space solar power (SSP) -- usingspace-based systems to collect the sun's energy and turn it into usable power for Earth.

SSP would employ satellites in Earth orbit or systems on the moon's surface equipped with solar cells that convert the sun's

energy into electricity. The electricity is fed to transmitting antennas and beamed to receiving antennas on Earth, located onland or offshore.This is not some futuristic dream. The key SSP technologies -- solar cells and wireless power transmission (WPT) -- are basedon the work of 19th century innovators such as Henri Becquerel and Nikola Tesla.During the past three decades, SSP has been studied extensively by space agencies, universities and industry groupsworldwide. International meetings have been held on the subject since 1970. There now exists a large and growing literature onthe technical, economic and societal issues associated with SSP.NASA and the Energy Department conducted a joint-evaluation program of solar power satellites in the 1970s, but interestamong policymakers declined after that decade's energy crisis faded away. Recently, U.S. political interest in SSP has begun torevive -- sparked in part by the specter of global warming -- though other nations, including Japan and Russia, have conductedserious SSP research throughout.But much greater attention and effort are needed. SSP should become a top priority of the U.S. space program, and morebroadly of government and industry in the U.S. and around the world.

Consider the energy situation now confronting the world. Industrialization and urbanization will mean sharply increased energyuse. Reliance on fossil fuels could produce unprecedented environmental damage. Moreover, such finite sources may soon bepast their peak availability, if they aren't already.The solution to this problem is to utilize terrestrial renewable energy resources to the maximum extent possible, while at thesame time developing SSP as a global, 24-hour-a-day energy supply.The conversion of solar energy in space to usable power on Earth is the most plausible global alternative to nuclearpower plants, with their attendant safety, decommissioning and plutonium proliferation issues.SSP can also be an integral part of global development. It can help boost economic growth and improve living

standards. It is the only means toward increased energy supplies compatible with the environment.

Space solar power is a challenging, long-term opportunity to tap space's unlimited resources rather than relying only onEarth's limited ones. It will help sustain human life on Earth and, at a future time, in space.

23


24/84


**INHERENCY**

24


25/84


Need SPS Now

Solar Powered Satellites are needed now to deal with the looming energycrisis

Joseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant

consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) firstinvented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very largesolar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electricalenergy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload powervia direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or aslowintensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer wide band of geosynchronousearth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy containe within

all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there

is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship,

advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct andpossess a SBSP capability.

25


26/84


Need SPS Now

Development of SPS must begin now to solve future energy demandsAlex Canizares is an associate in the firms litigation and international practice groups in Washington; 9-08-00;

http://www.space.com/opinionscolumns/opinions/glaser_000223.html

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (States News Service) Solar-powered satellites will become a major energy source by 2030,scientists testified at a congressional hearing Thursday, helping to reduce reliance on dwindling fuel supplies.With fuel supplies projected to fall and energy costs reaching historic highs, using satellites to transmit energy to

provide electricity used to heat homes and run appliances is becoming technologically viable , scientists told the HouseScience subcommittee on space and aeronautics.Electric energy use is projected to grow 75 percent worldwide by 2020, and oil production will slow due to depleting

reserves after 2015, said Ralph H. Nansen, president of Solar Space Industries.Scientists say satellites powered by solar power will become a major energy source.

"Space solar power can solve these problems," Nansen said. "Thetime is now right for their development to begin."A roadmap

John C. Mankins, manager of Advanced Concepts Studies at NASA, said the space agency is laying out a "roadmap" to

develop satellite-powered energy using several technologies in the works.High-voltage solar panels that could handle sunlight during 99 percent of a 24-hour day, wireless transmitters that can beamlarge amounts of microwave energy, and an "inflatable radiator" to absorb heat in space, are all under development, Mankinssaid.

Relaying power from ground stations to satellites and back to ground stations at another location is another, perhaps morereadily available, application, Mankins said. A complete solar power satellite system to produce enough energy to beeconomically viable may not emerge until 2025 to 2035, he said.

The idea of transmitting solar energy from space to earth first emerged in the 1960s, but research efforts failed to gainground until 1995, when NASA and other scientists began studying the idea more carefully using better technology. NASAspends $22 million annually on the research.The next step, Nansen said, is building a ground test program to integrate various technologies, including 20 to 50 kilowattsolar arrays, antennas to transmit energy, and distribution grids, that would essentially transmit energy across a 1 to 5 kilometerrange on the ground.However, the scientists said, the costs of launching satellites and hardware into space represent a "significant challenge"to making solar space energy viable.Mankins said there is no evidence yet that energy transmission from space using microwaves or lasers would damage theenvironment. In fact, the use ofsolar-derived energy may benefit the environment by reducing reliance on fossil fuels, hesaid.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and the subcommittee chair, said he supported looking for "new sources of energy that areclean" so that energy costs are reduced and "so we wont have blackouts in California."Rohrabacher, who has introduced legislation aimed at reducing launch costs, said space solar poweris "one reason why I ama strong advocate for cheap access to space."

26


27/84


Need Alternative Energy Now

The U.S. needs alternatives to relying on unstable, polluting energy sources incompetition with the developing world we must look to SPS

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

Since the Fresh Look Study much has changed. The events of9/11 dramatically altered the worldstrategic security environment. Major energy producing areas ofthe world are perceived as beingunstable, and the risks ofdependence on unstable areas ofthe world for energy supplies are

increasingly less acceptable to both citizens and policymakers. The rising demand ofthe developingworldin particular the burgeoning economies of China and Indiaare increasing energy competition .Growing concern over long term climate change has become a mainstream issue . Globalization, begunat the end of the last century has created an extremely rapid and accelerating pace of change in thetechnological, informational, and business sectors. These changes are being driven by the aggregatedecisions of billions of people, millions of companies, thousands of governments, and huge

international markets that cross the borders of over a hundred countries. The ability to stop, or evenslow, this change is beyond the ability ofany single nation, company, or organization . The DoD, as thenations largest institutional consumer of technology and energy, has determined that long term energysecurity is now a forefront issue. The early developments ofthe 21st Century have created conditions

that merit that this nation takes a relookofSBSP .

Energy demands have changed - a new solution is needed to deal with risingoil pricesJoseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this

concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuouslypursuing nuclear fusion). The first major effort occurred in the 1970s where scientific feasibility of the conceptwas established and a reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970s architecture and technologylevels could not support an economic case for development relative to other lowercost energy alternatives on themarket. In 1995 1997 NASA initiated a Fresh Look Study to re examine the concept relative to moderntechnological capabilities . The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technologyvectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus

areas , but for various reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers electednot to pursue a development effort.

The post 9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably . Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now$80/barrel in less than a decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, Americanand allied energy source security is now under threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global

energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by emerging global economies . Our NationalSecurity Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil , often imported from unstableportions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologies toenhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth

through free markets and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be

delivered in a relevant period of time.

27
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf


28/84


Nobody Doing Plan Now

No government agency is mandated to do the plan nowJoseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no existing U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate to investin the development of Space Based Solar Power . Lacking a specific mandate and clear responsibility, no U.S. federal agency has an existing or planned program ofresearch, technology investment, or development related to SpaceBased Solar Power. Instead, the responsibilitiesfor various aspects of SBSP are distributed among various federal agencies.

o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the US Government should form a SBSP

Partnership Council that consists of all federal agncies with responsibilities relevant to successfully developing

SBSP. The SBSP Partnership Council must be chaired and led by an existing or newly created singlepurpose

civilian federal agency.

o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the US Government should task one or more

federal agencies for investing in key technoloies needed for SBSP.

28


29/84


30/84


Heg Good Impact Extensions

Collapse of U.S. heg leads to world chaosPeterBrookes a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation; 7-4-06; Why they need us: Imagine a world

without America The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed070406a.cfm

For all the worldwide whining and bellyaching about the United States, today - America's 230th birthday - provides anopportune time for them to consider for just a moment what the world might be like without good ol' Uncle Sam.The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and

unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim , indeed. Set aside the differences Americamade last century - just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's "cop on

the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods.Without the U.S. "Globo-cop," rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia

- undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . . .In Afghanistan, al Qaeda would still be an honored guest, scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain to

Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq; instead, Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and nail from

Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia."In Asia, China would be the "Middle Kingdom," gobbling up democratic Taiwan and compelling pacifist Japan

(reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club. The Koreas might fight another horrific war, resulting in millions ofdeaths.

A resurgent Russia, meanwhile, would be breathing down the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors. Forget the democraticrevolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, Comrade! In Europe, they'd be taking orders from Paris or Berlin - if those rivals weren'tat each other's throats again.In Africa, Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway, and Sudan would have no peace agreement.

And what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce, including the shipment of oil and gas

- all free of charge?Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. North Korea would be brandishing a solid nuclear arsenal. Libya

would not have given up its weapons, and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q. Khan, would still be going door todoor, hawking his nuclear wares.

Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" - starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half theoperations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries.Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries - and 31percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across theglobe.In 2005, Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan),contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries. Moreover,President Bush's five-year$15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Reliefis the largest commitmentby a single nation toward an international health initiative - ever - working in over 100 (mostly African) countries. The UnitedStates is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget

on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine.

30


31/84


Economy Impact Module

US Competitiveness in space solar power is key to economy

ArthurSmith, the President of Long Island Space Society, Space Daily 8-11-03http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html

Energy policy is in the news again, with debates in Congress, statements from presidential candidates, consternation over ourdependence on the Middle East for oil, and a California recall election traceable in part to energy supplyproblems for thatstate. Use of energy, whether fuel for transportation, electrical energy running the internet, or the destructive energyreleased in weapons, is central to our economy and security.It is with good reason that the technical term for energy use per unit time, "power", suggests control in the human world aswell. Three actions taken now - working to reserve radio spectrum for power transmission, focusing on reductions in costs forspace launch, and investing in space solar power system research - hold the promise of opening up vast new sources ofpower within the next 10-15 years.Space is big - there is an awful lot of energy out there, and the crumbs we fight about here on Earth are laughably tiny

in comparison. Zettawatts from the Sun pass just through the region between Earth and Moon - that's enough energy foreach man, woman and child in the US to sustainably power an entire US economy all to themselves. Even our terrestrialenergy choices, fossil or renewable, fission or wind, almost all derive from the energy profligacy of our Sun and other starsbefore it.

Economic collapse leads to nuke war

T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc., Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS),

Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)June 24, 2000 (http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm)

As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed

nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders. International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations takedesperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of

their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals ofweapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, arealmost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan andSouth Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long-rangenuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States attacks Taiwan.In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treatiesinvolved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studieshave shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential

adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MADconcept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has tosurvive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and

massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMDarsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will

destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most ofthe biosphere, at least for many decades.

31
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html


32/84


Other Countries Ahead Now

Japan is taking the lead on SPS nowAmerican Institute of Physics -- February 25, 2008 -- Volume 987, pp. 11-16

WATER DYNAMICS: 5th International Workshop on Water Dynamics; DOI:10.1063/1.2896956

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has been conducting studies on Space Solar Power Systems (SSPS) usingmicrowave and laser beams for years since FY1998 organizing a special committee and working groups.Current SSPS studyundertaken by JAXA consists of three main subjects, SSPS concepts and architectures study, technology demonstrationplan-making andelemental technology development. In SSPS concepts and architectures study, systemconcepts andarchitectures of commercial type of microwave based SSPS(M-SSPS) and laser based SSPS (L-SSPS) has been studied foryears. In this study, a major focus is on identifying system concepts, architectures and key technologies that mayultimately produce a practical and economical energy source. In the study oftechnology demonstration plan-making,system design of tens of kW classTechnology Demonstration Satellite and Ground Energy Transmission Experiment areconducted.In elemental technology development study, several key technologies which areneeded to be developed in

appropriate R&D roadmap are investigated.

This paper presents the results of these study effort of

JAXA and the mostpromising SSPS concepts, including their keytechnologies.

Other countries are developing SPS technology because of high demand.Taylor Dinerman, Author and Journalist based in NYC, October 22, 2007, China, the US, and Space Solar Power,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)

If the US were to invest in SBSP they would not be alone . The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the years onthis technology and other nations will seek the same advantages described in the NSSO study. Americas space policymakers should, at this stage, not be looking for international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of internationaltransparency. Information about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easilyaccessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of the major

spacefaring nations, including China.

Our worlds civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when China, India, and

other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West enjoying. Cleansolar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solarwill be useful, but they are limited by both physics and politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enoughto satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative that this country be able to fulfill thatworldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war overenergy is in everyones interest.

32
http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=987http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000987000001000011000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yeshttp://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000987000001000011000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yeshttp://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=987http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000987000001000011000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yeshttp://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000987000001000011000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes


33/84


Other Countries Ahead Now

Japan is conducting studies on SPS in the status quoJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2-15-06http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1N-

4KBDWC1-1&_user=4257664&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4257664&md5=e976305ccaf0a4f3765c5b49dc5c142c

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has been conducting research ofspace solar power systems (SSPSs) incooperation with universities and industry. SSPSs have the potential to provide abundant quantities of electric power for use on theEarth. However, there are a lot of hurdles to them, and one of the major hurdles is the transportation of SSPSs to the operational orbit,which presumes to be geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) as in most of other SSPS concepts. In this research, two options of SSPS areunder study [1]. One is microwave-based , and assumed to generate electric power using photovoltaic solar arrays and to transfer thegenerated power to the ground in the form of microwaves. The other is laser-based, and assumed to transform the solar energy intolaser power, and to send it onto the ground. The microwave-based system was examined in this study because its research phase ismore advanced. The basic scenario is the same for the laser-based, though it also has options utilizing laser propulsion. The objectivesof this study are to examine the transportation of the SSPSs from the ground to GEO, to give a refere

2 CM SPS Affirmative

Documents

Transcript of 2 CM SPS Affirmative