Cphs Sbsp 1nc 8mincase

8/7/2019 Cphs Sbsp 1nc 8mincase

1/8

Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On Solvency (1/2)

1. There are major technical barriers to Solar Power Satellites conversion efficiency, waste heat,expensive access, and environmental damage and the technology their cards claim to use has neverbeen tested in space

Mankins 8. John C. Mankins, former manager of NASAs Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, Spring 08,Energy Free from Orbit, Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society), http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

If collecting solar power in space is such a good idea, why isnt it already being done today? The simple answer:because its hard! The platform itself offers major challenges. One challenge is to efficiently convert sunlightinto electrical power, and in turn efficiently create a n electrically (not mechanically) steered beam fortransmission to a receiver on Earth. Another closely related platform challenge is to cost- effectively removethe remaining waste heat from the platform and its electronics so that it wont overheat and fail. The platform mustmeet these challenges while being as lightweight and inexpensive as possible. There are also a range of detailedissues involving pointing and control of the platform, and of designing platform systems for assembly, maintenance, andrepair.A major barrier to all space endeavors also applies to space solar power, and that is affordable access to spaceThis barrier is one of compelling importance. The problem of space access includes both low-cost and highly-reliable Earth-to-orbit transportation, and in-space transportation . (Fortunately, one of the key ingredients inovercoming this barrier is having a market that requires many flights. Its hard to imagine how air travel betweencontinents would be affordable if the aircraft were used once or twice per year rather than once or twice per day!)Advances that drive down the cost of space operations present significant hurdles, too. These hurdlesinvolve a range of capabilities , most of which have never been demonstrated in space but all of which areentirely taken for granted here on Earth. The kinds of capabilities in question include the highly-autonomous assembly of large structures, the deployment and integration of modular electronic systems, refu eling, and repair and maintenance.(The key ingredient is to perform such operations without large numbers of operators and sustaining engineers on Earthwhich drive the high cost of contemporary space operations.)Environmental interactions pose another potential challenge. It is not yet understood how the spaceenvironment may affect the space solar power platform or how transmitting the energy may affectEarths atmosphere .

2. Satellites are vulnerable to space debris anything larger than an M&M can destroy them

Lewis 4. Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation,

July 04, What if Space Were Weaponized?, Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf

There are , however, dangers to placing such important assets in space. Satellites are inherently vulnerable. They travel in predictable, xed orbits this is the reason that some in the Air Force callintercepting a satellite scheduling. Because of the high velocities of objects in orbit, even a small object candestroy the most durable military satellite . For example, engineers cannot shield satellites against orbitaldebris larger than one centimeter in diameter anything larger than an M&M.

3. The plan has a long timeframe satellites wont even be launched until 2050Foust 7. Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst and editor/publisher of The Space Review, 8-13-07, A Renaissance for SpaceSolar Power?, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

Smith made it clear, though, that hes not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in

the near term. If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, its going to take a long time , he said.The horizon were looking at is 2050 before were able to do something significant. The first majormilestone , he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to tenyears that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO . However, he added those plans could changedepending on developments of various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go.That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.

[Smith refers to Lt. Col. Michael Smith, an officer in the US Air Force and Chief of Future Concepts of the NationalSecurity Space Office]
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdfhttp://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdfhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdfhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf


2/8


On Solvency (1/2)

4. Satellite arcing destroys satellites and solar cellsT. Kitamura et al .; Sanmaru, Y.; Kawasaki, T.; Hosoda, S.; Toyoda, K.; Mengu Cho Discharges and Electrical Insulationin Vacuum, 20 06 . ISDEIV apos;06. International Symposium on Volume 2, Issue , 25-29 Sept. 2006 Page(s):nil4 - nil4(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4193815/4194906/04194989.pdf?temp=x )

Recently, an arcing on satellite solar array due to interaction between space plasma and the array threateningsafety of spacecraft is a big issue. The arcing causes degradation of solar array at malfunction of

instruments on satellites. The discharge is caused by differential potential between satellite body and insulator surfaceslike coverglass of solar array, which are charged by ambient plasma. This single shot discharge is called "primary arc".The primary arc can evolve to so-called " sustained arc" that permanently short-circuits adjacent solar cellsor a solar cell and conductive substrate. In order to prevent arcs on the surface of solar array, it is necessary to carry outarc tests simulating discharge phenomenon on solar array. In this paper, we investigated the effect of plasmaenvironments on sustained arcs. GaAs solar cells were used for the test. Laboratory tests were carried out with an externalcircuit simulating a spacecraft power system. Solar array coupon panels simulating the hot and return ends of a stringcircuit were tested under various combinations of string voltage and string current. We revealed that the thresholdconditions for sustained arc formation were different in test plasma environment even when the string voltage and thestring current are same.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4193815/4194906/04194989.pdf?temp=xhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4193815/4194906/04194989.pdf?temp=x


3/8


On NASA

1. NASA runs extremely expensive and inefficient programs

Jim Grichar , CIA Analyst, 1/24/ 04 , Wielding the Budget Axe: Its Time to Abolish NASA,http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.html

NASA has a history of running expensive boondoggle programs , from the man on the moon program of th1960'smid-1970's ( three men lost their lives early in that program ), to the colossal, costly and deadly spaceshuttle program (13 or 14 astronauts have lost their lives and the shuttle cannot put satellites into orbitfor less than the Europeans or the Chinese ), to the wasted billions on the international space station, thesoon to be shut-down Hubble telescope, and other failed satellite mission s. In fact, NASA is essentially nothing more than a lobbying arm for the public funding of expensive science projects and subsidies tothe aerospace industry.

2. NASA would not pursue space solar power. Current priorities prove

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

There was no follow-up to this study, partly because of a lack of urgency in the era of cheap energy that existed a decadeago and also because NASA did not, and does not today, see itself as an auxiliary to the Department of Energy.

NASA does science and exploration and not much else . Along with its contractors it can develop new technologiesthat apply directly to those two missions, but outside of that it will resist being forced to spend money on projethat it does not see as falling within those two missions.Technology development in general has been cut back. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has been closed. Thereis a minimal ongoing effort to build up some technologies that may in the future be useful for reusable launch vehicledevelopment, but it is hard to see how this fits into a coherent future program. The agency has its priorities and isruthlessly sticking to them .

3. Space solar power through NASA will be blocked by other departments

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

NASA is not the US Department of Spatial Affairs: it does not have the statutory authority to control, regulate, or promotecommercial space activities such as telecommunications satellites, space tourism, space manufacturing, or space solarpower. Such powers are spread throughout the government in places like the FAAs Office of Commercial SpaceTransportation, the Department of Commerce, and elsewhere. Even if NASA were somehow to get the funds and themotivation to do space solar power , these other institutions would resist what they would recognize as anencroachment on their turf .

4. NASA has no room for space solar power programs

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

Until the shuttle is retired and NASA has a new and secure method of getting people into space, eitherwith the Orion capsule on top of the Ares 1 or perhaps another rocket, or using the SpaceX Dragoncapsule and Falcon 9 combination, there is no room for any other major programs. It will require all they can do to cope with their current programs and to deal with a new president and his or heradministration. They dont need any more distractions right now.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.htmlhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.htmlhttp://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1


4/8


On Colonization

1. Space exploration is driven by greed, environmental exploitation, and war. The consequences of expanding it are space epidemics, nuclear arms race, and global conflicts.

Gagnon 99. Bruce Gagnon. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (BruceK., "Space Exploration and Exploitation," http://www.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm )

We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Havingshown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets thatregularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-ladenspace materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have seriouecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law willcreate new global conflicts and confrontations.

2. Humanity is resilient. Extinction highly unlikely.

Bruce Tonn , Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, 20 05 , Human Extinction Scenarios,www.budapestfutures.org/downloads/abstracts/Bruce%20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf )

The human species faces numerous threats to its existence. These include global climate change, collisionswith near-earth objects, nuclear war, and pandemics . While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately they fail to describe exactly how humans could become extinct . For example, nuclear war by itself wouldmost likely fail to kill everyone on the planet , as strikes would probably be concentrated in the northernhemisphere and the Middle East, leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand somehope of survival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology could ever be produced buteven it if were, it is likely that humans could develop effective, if costly, countermeasures , such as producing thetechnologies in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear weapons. Viruses could indeed killmany people but effective quarantine of a healthy people could be accomplished to save large numbers of people. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single events.
http://www.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm/http://www.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm/http://www.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm/http://www.budapestfutures.org/downloads/abstracts/Bruce%20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdfhttp://www.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm/http://www.budapestfutures.org/downloads/abstracts/Bruce%20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf


5/8


Links to Militarization

1. Solar Power satellite research will be implemented for space weapons technology.Kim Ramos , Major, Air Force, 4/ 00 , "Solar Power Constellations Implications for the United States Air force,"http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA394928

As the world population increases and natural resources used to produce energy decrease, alternative methods to producesustainable, environmental cost effective energy are required. One proposed solution to the problem is solar powersatellites. Solar power satellites are satellites, which collect the energy of the sun, convert it onto a beam, and beam thatenergy to a receiving antenna. The receiving antenna converts the beam into electricity and feeds the electricity into apower grid. The receiving antenna may be located on another satellite, or on Earth. Presented here are several solar powersatellite proposals, architectures, incremental technology demonstrations and predictions as to when they will becomecommercially viable. Given the previous information, this paper analyzes the implications for the Air Force in relation todoctrine and future plans. The research method consisted of a search of scientific journals, published symposium papers,and research reports. The search focused on the current research on solar power satellites, and Air Forceprograms, which have power issues. Based on the research, the Air Force should plan to capitalize on theadvantages of solar power satellite constellations. Solar power satellites can assist with implementingvarious plans (i.e., long endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, space-based radar, lasers, and smallsatellites ) , complying with public law, and reducing the logistics tail associated with an expeditionary force.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA394928http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA394928


6/8


On Militarization (1/2)

1. Space weapons are prone to accidents, their deployment makes nuclear, biological, and chemicalwarfare inevitable.

Mitchell et. al. In 1. Gordon Mitchell et al, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburg,7/2001. ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense no. 6, , http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html

A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationaleglosses over the tendency that ' the presence of space weaponswill result in the increased likelihood of their use '.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes toarming the heavens, 'antiballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlockingnature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament,explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, suchinterceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through theEarth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressureinto strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbitingDeath Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human handsand endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of

accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled'industrial systems such as space weapons , which have many sophisticated components that all depend on eachother's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible toforesee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" ismeant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable , given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplatethe possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, ' even a tiny projectile reenteringfrom space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage even more thanwould be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size! '. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as aquintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons everconceived: ' One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people '.38 Given this unique potential for destruction,it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximumforce, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by acomputer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

2. Space weapons would undermine U.S. conventional strength

Michael Katz-Hyman , research associate for the Space Security Project of the Henry L. Stimson Center, and MichaelKrepon , co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, directed defense policy and programme reviews at the US ArmsControl and Disarmament Agency, April 03 , Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space, pg. 89

Given the extraordinary and growing differential in power that the United States enjoys in groundwarfare, sea power, and air power, it is hard to propound compelling arguments for seeking tosupplement these advantages by weaponizing space. The current U.S. lead in the military utilization of space has never been greater and is unchallenged. If the United States pushes to extend its pronounced

military dominance into space, others will view this through the prism of the Bush administration'snational security strategy, which places emphasis on preventive war and preemption. Foreign leaderswill not passively accept U.S. initiatives to implement a doctrine of space dominance. They will haveample, inexpensive means to take blocking action, as it is considerably easier to negate U.S. dominancein space than on the ground, at sea, and in the air. The introduction of space weaponry and ASAT testingare therefore likely introduce grave complications for the terrestrial military advantages that the UnitedStates has worked so hard, and at such expense, to secure.
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlhttp://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlhttp://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html


7/8


On Militarization (2/2)

3. Space Based Solar Power is not a reliable weapon it cant hit targets with intense light, and cheaperoptions exist

Rouge 8. Joseph D. Rouge, director of the National Security Space Office, space-based solar power study group under agovernment organization that is responsible for integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, andcommercial space activities , Spring 08, Strategic Importance, Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society),http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less- expensiveoptions . For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them todestroy large enemy targets.3. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that

reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sun- light ; a worker could safely walk in the center of thebeam. The physics of microwave trans- mission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to preventbeam focusing above a pre-determined maximum intensity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to aunique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock everbe lost or disrupted .4. SBSP would not be a preci- sion weapon. Todays militar- ies are looking for more precise and lowercollateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit isjust too wide to shoot indi- vidual targets even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm.

4. Space weapons damage military power by opening military assets to new and various threats

Deblois in 3. Bruce M. Deblois, Summer 03, The Advent of Space Weapons, Astropolitics, Vol. 1 No. 1

In this view, a space-weaponizing country creates both the powder keg of global instability (where it hasweakened its own international posture) as well as the spark of regional instability (where it has madeitself a target of preemption and escalation). Coupled with this very unstable environment, it can also bargued that the same country that weaponizes space may actually damage its own military power. Much of the impetus behind space weaponization stems from perceived military utility, to include national missiledefense applications for boost-phase intercept, time-critical targeting, and defense mechanisms for critical space systems.Ironically, the posturing of more military assets in space could actually weaken the military posture of those that seek further military advantage in that domain. Space assets are already a center of gravity (CoG), orat least a critical concentration of military force enhancement assets. To deploy more systems in space in an attempt toprotect this CoG only complicates the problem. In spite of the added defenses, the preponderance of threats willremain: denial and deception, electronic warfare (e.g. uplink and downlink jamming), ground facilitiesdisruption, micro-satellites (e.g. space mines), direct ascent interceptors or even a nuclear detonation inspace.

5. Space Weapons kill cooperation crucial to solve proliferation, climate change, and terrorism

Union For Concerned Scientists , 6/23/ 08 , http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/

Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to triggera space arms race. That would divert economic and political resources from other pressing issues, andhinder international cooperation necessary to make progress on such problems as nuclearnonproliferation, climate change, and terrorism . In addition, increasing reliance on satellites for crucialmilitary functions could cause instability in a crisis. Military war games suggest that the loss of important satellites, such as reconnaissance satellites, could spark a quick escalation in a conflict.
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/


8/8


On Asteroids

1. Asteroids wont cause extinction. Extinction level collisions happen less than every 500,000 years.Nick Bostrom , director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, 20 06 , Global Agenda,www.globalagendamagazine.com/2006/Bostrom.asp )It is sad that humanity as a whole has not invested even a few million dollars to improve its thinking about how it may bestensure its own survival. Some existential risks are difficult to study in a rigorous way but we will not know what insightswe might develop until we do the research. There are also some sub-species of existential risk that can be measured, suchas the risk of a species-destroying meteor or asteroid impact. This particular risk turns out to be very small. A

meteor or an asteroid would have to be considerably larger than 1km in diameter to pose an existentialrisk . Fortunately, such objects hit the Earth less than once in 500,000 years on average.
http://www.globalagendamagazine.com/2006/Bostrom.asphttp://www.globalagendamagazine.com/2006/Bostrom.asp

Cphs Sbsp 1nc 8mincase

Documents

Transcript of Cphs Sbsp 1nc 8mincase