neg sps

8/7/2019 neg sps

1/35

NHSI 2008 SENIORSSPS Neg 1

SPS NEGSPS Neg............................................................................................................................................................1Notes.................................................................................................................................................................2AT: Space Militarization..................................................................................................................................3AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................4AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................5

AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................6AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................7AT: Space Weaponization................................................................................................................................8AT: Space Weaponization................................................................................................................................9AT: Space Colonization..................................................................................................................................10AT: Space Colonization..................................................................................................................................11AT: Space Colonization..................................................................................................................................12AT: Weather Control......................................................................................................................................13AT: Weather Control......................................................................................................................................14AT: Readiness/Procurement...........................................................................................................................15Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................16Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................17Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................18Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................19Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................20Extension: Slow Timeframe ..........................................................................................................................21Ext: Unfeasible- Costs ..................................................................................................................................22Extension: Interference...................................................................................................................................23Radio Astronomy Turn...................................................................................................................................24Ext: Treaties....................................................................................................................................................25Spending/PX Links.........................................................................................................................................26Space Elevator CP..........................................................................................................................................27AT: Meteoroids...............................................................................................................................................28Solves Space Industry.....................................................................................................................................29Solves SPS......................................................................................................................................................30Add-Ons Internal............................................................................................................................................31Add-Ons Internal............................................................................................................................................32Solves Warming.............................................................................................................................................33Solves Power Beaming...................................................................................................................................34Multilateral CP................................................................................................................................................35

Northwestern University Debate SocietyNational Debate Tournament Champions

2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

2/35


NOTES- Other CP options you can CP to create satellites but not allow the US to use them for


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

3/35


AT: SPACE MILITARIZATION

Space Militarization causes paranoia, killing deterrence and rationality, increasing the risk of deadly mechanical glitches.

Mitchell , 2001 Japan-U.S. Missile Defense Collaboration: Rhetorically Delicious, DeceptivelyDangerous." Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. Vol. 25

A buildup of space weaponswith capability to execute offensive missions might begin with noble intentions of "peacethrough strength" deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that ". . . the presence of spaceweapons . . . will result in the increased likelihood of their use." Military commanders desiring to harness theprecision strike capability afforded by space-based "smart" weapons might order deliberate attacks on enemy ground targets in acrisis.The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense "use or lose" pressure intostrategic calculations, with the specter of split-second laser attacks creating incentives to rigorbiting Death Stars with automated "hair trigger" devices . In theory, this automation would enhancesurvivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However , by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sowinsidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed "complexly interactive, tightlycoupled" industrial systems, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each others flawless performance.According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. Hefurther explains, "[t]he odd term 'normal accident' is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpectedinteractions of failures are inevitable." Deployment 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 tocontemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to Bowman, "even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earthwith such high velocity that it can do enormous damage -- even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!" Inthe same laser technology touted by President Reagan as the quintessential tool of peace,David Langford sees one of the most wicked offensive weapons ever conceived : "One imaginesdead cities of microwave-grilled people."Given this unique potential for destruction, it is nothard to imagine that any nation subjected to a space weapon attack would escalate byretaliating with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemicalweapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the worldinto the most destructive military conflict ever seen


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

4/35


AT: SPACE CONTROL

Non-Unique: U.S. Space hegemony is tanked-were dependent on Russia for transport andtreaties with Iran will prevent acquisition

Orlando Sentinel, 8/2 /08[Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block | Sentinel Staff Writers, Will Iran help doom $100B Space Stationhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=DGUS%2CDGUS%3A2006-25%2CDGUS%3Aen&as_q=China+Space+cooperation+possible&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=lang_en&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=m&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images]The international space station, a $100 billion symbol of global cooperation, might become acasualty of U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. A little-known law intended to prevent thesale of nuclear technology to Iran would also bar NASA from buying Russian Soyuz spacecraftafter 2011. With the space shuttle slated to retire in 2010 and its replacement not scheduled to flybefore 2015, the agency would have no way to send astronauts to the space station.Stationsupporters say that without a crew, the station could become little more than an expensive pieceof state-of-the-art space junk. At issue is legislation passed in 2000 and now called the Iran,North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act. It prohibits U.S. purchases of Russian spacetechnology -- including Soyuz spacecraft -- as long as Russia is exporting nuclear or missile technology to Iran.Congress granted NASA a waiver of the ban in 2005, and the agency has since spent more than $700 million on Russian spaceships totransport crew and cargo to the orbiting complex, now close to completion. Under the international agreements thatcreated the station, NASA is responsible for providing crew and cargo transport and keepingextra craft on the station as lifeboats in case of an emergency.But the current contract with Russiaexpires in 2011, and the Russian company that makes the Soyuz says it needs three years of leadtime to ensure there is no interruption in manufacture and supply. Adding to the pressure is thatthe station crew is scheduled to double to six next year, increasing the need for Soyuz lifeboats."Ittakes 36 months to fulfill an order," said Yevgeny Khorishko, the Russian Embassy spokesman in Washington. "Soif U.S.Congress does not grant a waiver by the end of September, it means your astronauts in 2012 willbe preparing for their missions on the ground and will not be flying."NASA told Congress in April thatpassage of the waiver was urgent. "Prompt legislative action is needed," wrote agency Administrator Mike Griffin.Congress,however, appears less than willing to grant the waiver. Election-year politics and growingconcerns about Iran mean that some members, especially those in tough races for re-election, arereluctant to risk being accused of being soft on Iran and Russia.Iran has rejected U.S. and European demandsthat it shut down its nuclear-enrichment efforts and open its nuclear program to international inspection. Russia has sold Iran a nuclear reactor -- to generate electricity, Iran says -- and is helping to construct it." The bottom line is that Congress is very wary of Russia , " said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Washington-basedthink tank . "It's going to be difficult for any government agency to get an exemption."Last week, a U.S.House committee included a provision for the NASA waiver in a bill that would allow U.S. companies to sell reactors and other nuclear material to Russia, with some restrictions.Butputting these issues together has made it harder for Congress to get the NASA exemption. The pro-Israel lobby is against nuclear trading withRussia, fearing it will strengthen Iran's ability to produce missiles and nuclear warheads. NASAis caught in the middle. The Senate has put off both issues to September as members decide how to untangle the two;Congress left for a five-week recessFriday. In the meantime, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has pushed to make the issue a prioritywith congressional leaders."If we don't get it, we'll end up with no access to space," Nelson spokesmanBryan Gulley said. Despite his support for the waiver, Nelson, like most members of Congress, does not like that America isdependent on Russia for access to space, much less that NASA will be paying Russians to build ships while cutting shuttle workers'jobs in the U.S. Lynn Cline, NASA deputy associate administrator for space operations, saidCongress must act this year.If it waits until 2009, she said, NASA likely will be unable to access the station for months, or longer, after 2011. Under NASA's current contract, the agency will spend $719 million for cargo and crew services from 2009to 2011. After 2012, as part of its agreement, the U.S. needs to pay for Soyuz capsules to act as lifeboats on the station year-round.Without these lifeboats, the station cannot support a crew. To handle its cargo-supply obligations, NASA hopes that either U.S.commercial companies or its non-Russian partners will be able to take cargo to the space station after 2010. That prospect is uncertainat best. NASA has awarded contracts to two companies


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

5/35


CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE

AT: SPACE CONTROLCONTINUES WITHOUT BREAK

SpaceX and Orbital Sciences -- to build rockets to supply the station. But neither has launched a rocket yet. The situation is worrying

NASA's international partners, especially in Europe and Japan. Though both have developed capsules that can take cargo to thestation, each is years -- and billions of dollars -- away from building spacecraft that can transport humans. In theory, they could cometo an agreement to pay the Russians to take people and cargo to the station, but withoutU.S. support, it's not likely thestation could continue. "It's deeply worrying," said one Western diplomat whose country is a keystation partner. "Without the Soyuz, we will be grounded. There is no Plan B."


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

6/35


AT: SPACE CONTROL

ASAT risk is hyped the sheer number of satellites and space debris means a benign rocketcan collide

Rediff , 3/27/08['Chinese anti-satellite test no big deal',http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/mar/27china.htm]

China launched a missile in January to kill a satellite.Reports said Beijing shot down an ageing weather satell ite with a ground-based missile, about 860 km above Earth. Nair said the Chinese test had contributed significantly to space debris."Today in the 500-1000 kmorbit, nearly 9,000 objects are there flying in their own trajectory. So the probability of hitting any satelliteis there," he said. Nair said countries are supposed to keep the space free of debris, though generation of some debris in the natural course cannot be avoided. He indicated that carrying out a test of this scale is nobig deal. "Any rocket which reaches an altitude of 500-600 km can do this job. You know that our (Indian)rockets are much more powerful than that," he said.Nair said that while space debris does not pose a veryserious problem to satellites in orbit at present, things could change if more objects are added. Theprobability of hit (debris hitting satellites) is one in six, similar to the probability of a road accident," hesaid.Asked if the Indian satellites had the ability to spy any location in the world, he said, "I will not say spy. It's observing locations. We are a peace-loving country and so, we don't get into such (spy) activities." "Any satellite, which has earth observation capability, can look at anything. You aregetting (satellite) image of a railway station or bus stand or something. As a passenger, your interest is different. As a security man, his interest isdifferent. So, you view from a different angle," he added.

No risk of Space debris impact from ASATs The U.S. destroyed a satellite without anyharm. Also disproves knee-jerk theory China and Russia did not retaliate

Daily Telegraph , 2/21/08[ US shoots down toxic satellite,http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23251796-5001028,00.html]

A MISSILE fired from a US Navy warship has hit a defunct spy satellite in space to try to preventits toxic fuel tank from crashing to Earth, the Pentagon says.The SM-3 missile was fired from the USS Lake Erie in thePacific at about 10.26 EST (2.26pm AEDT) and hit the bus-sized satellite about 133 nautical miles (247km) above the ocean, the Pentagon said."Anetwork of land, air, sea and space-based sensors confirms that the US military intercepted a nonfunctioning National Reconnaissance Office satellitewhich was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere," it said. "Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available

within 24 hours," it said. "Due to the relatively low altitude of the satellite at the time of the engagement,debris will begin to re-enter the earth's atmosphere immediately," it said. "Nearly all of the debriswill burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40days." A defence official told the Associated Press that an initial view of the missile strike indicated it probably hit the fuel tank. The Pentagon saidlast week that President George W. Bush had decided the navy should try to shoot down the satellite because its tank of hazardous hydrazine could leak if it enters the atmosphere and reaches Earth. Russia and China have expressed concern about the operation. TheRussian Defence Ministry said it could be used as cover to test a new space weapon. Washingtonhas insisted the operation is purely to prevent people being harmed by the satellite's fuel load.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

7/35


AT: SPACE CONTROL

Communication tech can survive a nuclear blast from the atmosphereGlasstone , 3/28/06[Effects of Nulcear Weapons Tests,http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html]

The next very interesting article in "Fission Fragments", Issue No. 21, April 1977, is at page 25: A. D. Perryman (Scientific Advisory Branch, HomeOffice), EMP and the Portable Transistor Radio. Perryman states:'In an attempt to answer some of these questions [about EMP effects on communications] the Scientific Advisory Branch carried out a limited programme of tests inwhich four popular brands of transistor radio were exposed in an EMP simulator to threat-level pulsesof electric field gradient about 50 kV/m. 'The receivers were purchased from the current stock of a typical retailer. They comprised: '1. a low-price pocketset of the type popular with teenagers. '2. a Japanese set in the middle-price range. '3. a domestic type portable in the upper-price range. '4. an expensiveand sophisticated portable receiver. 'All these sets worked on dry cells and had internal ferrite aerials for medium and long wave reception. In addition,sets 2, 3 and 4 had extendable whip aerials for VHF/FM reception. Set 3 also had one short wave band and set 4 two short wave bands... .'During thetests the receivers were first tuned to a well-known long-wave station and then subjected to a sequence of pulses in the EMP simulator. This test was repeated on the medium wave and VHF bands. Set 1 had noVHF facility and was therefore operated only on long and medium waves. 'The results of thisexperimentation showed that transistor radios of the type tested, when operated on long or medium waves,suffer little loss of performance.This could be attributed to the properties of the ferrite aerial and its associated circuitry (e.g. the relativelylow coupling efficiency). Set 1, in fact, survived all the several pulses applied to it, whereas sets 2, 3 and 4 all failed soon after their whip aerials wereextended for VHF reception. The cause of failure was identified as burnout of the transistors in the VHF RF [radio frequency] amplifier stage.Examination of these transistors under an electron microscope revealed deformation of their internal structure due to the passage of excessive currenttransients (estimated at up to 100 amps).'Components other than transistors (e.g. capacitors, inductors, etc.) appearedto be unaffected by the number of EM pulses applied in these tests. 'From this very limited test programme,transistor radios would appear to have a high probability of survival in a nuclear crisis when operated onlong and medium bands using the internal ferrite aerial. If VHF ranges have to be used, then probably thesafest mode of operation is with the whip aerial extended to the minimum length necessary to give justaudible reception with the volume control fully up. 'Hardening of personal transistor radios is theoreticallypossible and implies good design practice (e.g. shielding, bonding, earthing, filtering etc.) incorporated at the time of manufacture. Such receivers are not currently available on the popular market.' The effects of EMP on electronics can be amplified if the equipment isswitched on, because the amplification of an EMP signal by an operating circuit will add extra power to the current surge. Damage also occurs whencurrent passes the wrong way through transistors, overheating them (especially the transistors built into IC's since these have no effective heat sink available over the small time scale for nanosecond duration power surges).

Above atmosphere nuclear explosions wont lead to fall out impactsShatner , 1999[William, Atomic Bomb documentary, Nukes In Space (The Rainbow Bombs),http://www.vce.com/nukes.html]

"Nukes in Space" provides an interesting overview of the development of the military space program of missiles and space-based nuclear weapons testing with spectacular, never-before-seen images.Starting with theV-1 and V-2, this film takes you through missile development of ICBM's with nuclear warheads, the Cuban Missile Crisis through anti-ballistic missilesystems and what implications the they hold for the future of our nation's security. During the heart of the Cold War, the UnitedStates and the former Soviet Union launched and detonated a combined total of over 20 thermo nuclear weapons in the upper atmosphere and near space region of earth in an effort to test the effects of launchingan offense as well as countering an offense. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis! Almost unknown tothe public, much of the information on theses tests has been kept secret for over 35 years until recently,when newly declassified test footage and secret government documents obtained from both countriesreveals everything from the ICBM to outer space testing to ABM.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

8/35


AT: SPACE WEAPONIZATION

Space weaponization destroys US military readiness.

Arms Control Association.com Weapons in Space?2004

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/KreponIf Rumsfeldsplans to weaponize space are carried to fruition, Americas armed forces,economy, and diplomacy will face far greater burdens, while controls over proliferationwould be weakened further . Although everybody loses if the heavens become a shootinggallery, no nation loses more than the United States, which is the primary beneficiary of satellitesfor military and commercial purposes. If the United States leads the way in flight-testing anddeploying new anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, other states will surely follow suit because theyhave too much to lose by allowing the Pentagon sole rights to space warfare. U.S. programs willcost more and be far more sophisticated than the ASAT weapons of potential adversaries, whowill opt to kill satellites cheaply and crudely. The resulting competition would endanger U.S.troops that depend on satellites to an unprecedented degree for battlefield intelligence,communication, and targeting to win quickly and with a minimum of casualties.

Space weaponization undermines US military readiness, leads to arms race, and increasedprolif.

Arms Control Association.com Weapons in Space?2004http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon

Weaponizing space would poison relations with China and Russia, whose help is essential to stopand reverse proliferation. ASAT weapon tests and deployments would surely reinforce Russiashair-trigger nuclear posture, and China would likely feel compelled to alter its relaxed nuclear posture, which would then have negative repercussions on India and Pakistan. The Bush

administrations plans would also further alienate Americas friends and allies, which, with thepossible exception of Israel, strongly oppose the weaponization of space. The fabric of international controls over weapons of mass destruction, which is being severely challenged byIrans and North Koreas nuclear ambitions, could rip apart if the Bush administrations interestin testing space and nuclear weapons is realized. This highly destabilizing and dangerous scenariocan be avoided, as there is no pressing need to weaponize space and many compelling reasons toavoid doing so. If space becomes another realm for the flight-testing and deployment of weapons,there will be no sanctuary in space and no assurance that essential satellites will be availablewhen needed for military missions and global commerce. Acting on worst-case assumptions oftencan increase this likelihood. Crafting a space assurance[6] posture, including a hedging strategyin the event that others cheat, offers more potential benefits and lower risks than turning theheavens into a shooting gallery.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

9/35


AT: SPACE WEAPONIZATION

Space weaponization is not inevitable- the plan would cause international resentment and aperpetuation of an arms race.

ABCNews.com Shooting StarsU.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space2004

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Technology/Story?id=165290&page=3" Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already," argued thesenior defense expert, adding, "We should instead be taking the lead to make [weapons]agreements with other countries."Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space . As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space. The United Statesis a signatory to the treaty. Summarizing the differences between the United States and Europeanviews on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency, who said in arecent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of domination -- information dominationand leadership. Europe should be proposing a different model -- space as a public good."Criticism of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to Europeans. The Washington,D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a non-governmental organization founded by retiredsenior U.S. military offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both militaryand commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the line today is spaceweaponization." Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have moreinterests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefitif no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space."


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

10/35


AT: SPACE COLONIZATION

Multilateral approach leads to sustainable space cooperation and maintains U.S. techhegemony

Logan , 5/21/08[Jeffery, Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division, CRS Report for

Congress,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon]Benefits of Cooperating with China. The potential benefits of expanded cooperation and dialoguewith China include: ! Improved transparency. Regular meetings could help the two nationsunderstand each others intentions more clearly. Currently, there is mutual uncertainty andmistrust over space goals, resulting in the need for worst-case planning. ! Offsetting the need for Chinas unilateral development. Collaborating with China instead of isolating it may keepthe country dependent on U.S. technology rather than forcing it to develop technologies alone.This can give the United States leverage in other areas of the relationship. ! Cost savings. Chinanow has the economic standing to support joint space cooperation. Cost-sharing of joint projectscould help NASA achieve its challenging work load in the near future. Some have argued thatU.S. space commerce has suffered from the attempt to isolate China while doing little to keep

sensitive technology out of China. Options for Possible Cooperation. ! Information and datasharing. Confidence building measures (CBMs) such as information exchange on debrismanagement, environmental and meteorological conditions, and navigation, are widelyconsidered an effective first step in building trust in a sensitive relationship. NASA has donesome of this with CNSA in the past, but more is possible. ! Space policy dialogue. Another areaof potential exchange could begin with strategic communication,24 an attempt for each side tomore accurately understand the others views, concerns, and intentions. Dialogue on rules of theroad, a code of conduct, or even select military issues could be included. ! Joint activities.This type of cooperation is more complex and would probably require strong politicalcommitments and confidence building measures in advance. Bi- and multi-lateral partnerships onthe international space station, lunar missions, environmental observation, or solar systemexploration are potential options. A joint U.S.-Soviet space docking exercise in 1975 achieved

important technical and political breakthroughs during the Cold War.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

11/35


AT: SPACE COLONIZATION

We control Uniqueness: Space cooperation exists in the status quo the aff breaks awayfrom a multilat approach which is necessary to make space colonization sustainable

Americagov, 7/16 /08[World Space Agencies Coordinate on Future Exploration,http://www.america.gov/st/space-english/2008/July/20080716155656lcnirellep0.3303034.html]

Washington-- Representatives of 11 space agencies met in Montreal July 10-12 to discuss the best ways toshare resources and capabilities in their efforts to reach destinations in the solar system where people maysomeday live and work. This gatheringis the latest in a series of meetingsthat is moving international cooperation inspace beyond bilateral projects and multilateral partnerships , like that among the United States, Russia, Japan and severalEuropean nations to build the International Space Station. In 2006, NASA hosted a meeting of 13 other space agencies to discuss international interests inspace exploration. Together, in The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination, released in May 2007, agencyrepresentatives articulated a vision for peaceful robotic and human exploration and developed a commonset of exploration themes. The agencies were Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, the British National Space Centre,Frances Centre National dEtudes Spatiales, the China National Space Administration,the Canadian SpaceAgency, Australias Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, Germanys Deutsches Zentrum fr Luft- und Raumfahrt,the European Space Agency, the Indian Space Research Organisation, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the Republic of Korea Aerospace Research Institute, NASA, the National Space Agency of Ukraine and Russias Roscosmos. We considered [theFramework document], Neal Newman, senior international relations specialist at NASA headquarters, told America.gov, a sharedvision of the role of governments around the world to extend human and robotic presence throughout the solar system.PEACEFULPURPOSES The International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG), as the effort is formally titled, first met in Berlin inNovember 2007.The ISECG is open to space agencies which have or are developing space explorationcapabilities for peaceful purposes and which have a vested interest to participate in the strategiccoordination process for space exploration, the Framework document reads. In sum, it is not an exclusiveclub of the 14 agencies that developed the Framework document.At the meeting in Montreal, participants establishedan ISECG secretariat, to be hosted for the first two years by the European Space Agency, and discussed developing tools for sharinginformation across agencies on exploration capabilities and mission plans. STANDARDS IN SPACEIn Montreal, participantstook initial steps to identify critical space-infrastructure interfaces -- such as connections among spacecraft,lunar rovers and lunar habitats -- that, if standardized, would increase opportunities for internationalcooperation . Standards are requirements that establish uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices,and make it possible to interchangeably use electronics, drive cars and build cities or space stations. One example of an ad hocstandard today involves the docking mechanism on the International Space Station. The space shuttle uses a Russian-designed

mechanism -- the androgynous peripheral attach system -- that was designed for the Soyuz spacecraft.To build scientific basesor habitats on the moon or Mars, nations must use standardized docking systems, common atmosphericstandards, communication protocols and more. ISECGs job will be to identify all the critical interfaces thatshould be standardized. We may have a habitation module on the surface of the moon that needs to connect to a European-developed habitation module, Newman said. There may be a Japanese pressurized rover with people inside that needs to driveacross the surface and plug into the habitation module, and there may be a French-developed power station that needs to be able toprovide power to all users. Standardization also is linked to safety.If three countries have the capability to send humans to the lunar surface, he said, and only two of them can rescue one another in an emergency and a third one cant, thats not good.The nextstep, planned for early 2009, is to have space architects from the space agencies meet to determine how amultilateral outpost might look, then determine the most critical interfaces.More information on the Global ExplorationStrategy is available at the NASA Web site.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

12/35

8/7/2019 neg sps

13/35


AT: WEATHER CONTROL

Multiple nations interest in Weather control will inevitably lead to weather wars.Hoffman, 2002 (Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, American MeteorologicalStudies, Controlling the Global Weather, http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdf )

Because of the intensive coupling of the weather over different regions of the globe, nothing short of control of theglobal weather should be considered.The nation that controls its own weather will necessarily control the weather of other nations. If there are several nations, each attempting to control the weather over its territory, theneach may operate at odds with the others and weather wars are conceivable. An international weather control treaty may be prudentnow. In the future,an international agency may be required so that weather controlis used for the good of all. Perhaps for the good of all is unattainable. Any change to weather will haveboth positive andnegative effects. How can the interests of both the winners and losers be accommodated?Of course, weather always has both positive and negative effects, and there are winners and losers now.

Weather control is imprecise and ineffective over extended time periods making it uselessfor military planning.

Hoffman, 2002 (Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, American MeteorologicalStudies, Controlling the Global Weather, http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdf )

Theoretical and model studies have established that the dynamics governing the atmosphere can be extremely sensitive to small changes in initial conditions (e.g., Rabier et al.1996). Current operational practice at NWP centers illust rate this daily. Examples summarized in what follows include data assimilation, generation of ensembles, and targetedobservations. The key factor enabling control of the weather is that the atmosphere is sensitive to smallperturbations. That is, it isthe very instability of the atmospheres dynamics that makes global weather control a possibility.Chaoscauses extremesensitivity to initial conditions. Although the atmosphere, and indeed realistic models of the atmosphere, have not been proven to be chaotic, the theory of dynamical systems andchaos provide a useful background for this discussion. In a realistic NWP model, since small differences in initial conditions can grow exponentially, small but correctly chosenperturbations induce large changes in the evolution of the simulated weather. Therefore we hypothesize that as we observe and predict the atmosphere with more and moreaccuracy, we will become able to effect control of the atmosphere with sequences of smaller and smaller perturbations. Note the basic difference between predictability and controltheory: Predictability theory states that small differences grow; control theory states that a sequence of small perturbations can be used to track a desired solution. By tracking (i.e.,following) a desired solution, our control method may overcome differences between model and reality. We will expand and explain these basic ideas in the following paragraphs.The phase space description of dynamical systems. The evolution of dynamical systems is conveniently discussed using the phase space description of Poincar (Lorenz 1963). Thestate of the system is specified byn variables. For continuous systems, such as the atmosphere, we may first approximate the continuous system by discretization and therebyobtain a large number of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations. For a physically realizable system, the collection of feasible points in then-dimensional phase spacewill be bounded. For a single time, the state of the system is represented by a single point. As the system evolves, the point representing the system will in general describe acurved line. This is termed the trajectory. If the system is in a stable state, the trajectory is just the single point. Small perturbations about the point decay in time toward the stable

point. A stable point is an attractor. A stable point is also a fixed point of the system. There can be unstable fixed points. Some trajectories form closed curves these representperiodic solutions. For a realistic model of the atmosphere with fixed boundary conditions, periodic solutions probably exist but are unstable. There are many unstable periodicsolutions close to chaotic attractors. Chaotic systems are aperiodic, but given enough time, return arbitrarily close to points in the attractor. For the atmosphere, the lack of successfor analog forecast techniques suggests that this return time is very long.Chaotic systems. The strict definition of chaos describes it as a behavior of purely deterministic systemswith as few as three components for a continuous phase space flow (e.g., Lorenz 1963), or as few as a single component for an iterated mapping (e.g., Lorenz 1964). Chaoticsystems can appear to be random when sampled at timescales that are large compared to the dynamical timescale. The key characteristics associated with chaos are that the systembe bounded and possess at least one positive Lyapunov exponent (Lorenz 1965). A positive Lyapunov exponent implies average growth in the associated direction that isexponential. Typically in the phase space of such systems, a small initial sphere of radius will over a short time deform into an ellipsoid. The axes of the ellipsoid might be calledthe finite time or local Lyapunov directions, and the ratio of these axes to might be called the finite time or local Lyapunov factors. As the ellipsoid evolves it tends to flattenparallel to the attractor of the system. Chaotic attractors are also called strange attractors. A characteristic of these attractors is that perturbations perpendicular to the attractor collapse exponentially, while perturbations parallel to the attractor grow exponentially. It is for these reasons that we say the small perturbations can grow exponentially. Arandomly chosen perturbation may be decomposed into contributions from the finite time Lyapunov directions. Some, perhaps most, will decay, but the others will grow. Theperturbation may therefore first decrease in size, before growing explosively. A perturbation may also be constructed which projects only onto a particular growing mode. Such aperturbation will initially grow exponentially.The limits to predictability. Since small differences grow rapidly in chaoticsystems, chaotic systems are difficult to predict. Inevitably small errors will exist in our specification of theinitial conditions. Further, errors in model formulation induce errors in the model state at every model timestep. Although the magnitude of the error may initially decay with time, eventually small errors will beginto grow exponentially and continue to do so until they become large. It is generally accepted that useful

forecasts of the instantaneous weather beyond 23 weeks are impossible (Lorenz 1982; Simmons et al.1995). For the atmosphere, motions occur over a huge spectrum of scales. Smaller spatial scales haveshorter timescales. Errors in the smallest scales will completely contaminate those scales on thecharacteristic timescale associated with that spatial scale. These errors will then induce errors in the nextlarger scale and so on (Lorenz 1969). In fluids, advection implies that tiny errors on the large scales will inturn cause large errors on the shortest scales. These interactions lead to a finite predictability time limit.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdf

8/7/2019 neg sps

14/35


AT: WEATHER CONTROL

Weather control is impacted by too many other factors to be effective.Hoffman, 2002 (Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, American MeteorologicalStudies, Controlling the Global Weather, http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdf )

The global weather control (GWC) system we envision is a feedback control system, made complicated bya number of factors. These include the following: The number of degrees of freedom required to representthe atmosphere adequately. The nonlinear nature of the governing equations. The atmosphere is nonlinear and sometimes discontinuous. For example, clouds have sharp edges. The paucity and inaccuracy of observations of the atmosphere. Satellites provide a huge volume of information. However this informationis not always in the right place, accurate enough, or of the right type. The control must be effected atsignificant time lags to minimize the size of the perturbations, yet the system is inherently unpredictable atlong lead times. The difficulty of effecting control. The control mechanisms do not yet exist. The idealperturbations, while small in amplitude, may be large in scale. The ambiguous nature of the figure of merit. For inhabitants of New Orleans, eliminating a hurricane threat to that city may take precedence over all else. But in general attempting to satisfy multiple objectives may result in conflicts.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdfhttp://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-0477-83-2-241.pdf

8/7/2019 neg sps

15/35


AT: READINESS/PROCUREMENT

There are more important factors for hegemony and readiness in the status quo - shorterenlistments and increased soft power.

Baldor, 08 (Lolita C., February 8, War Demands Strain US Military readiness,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.htmlA classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, alongwith persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military fromimproving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned. Despite security gains in Iraq, there isstill a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to thereport.Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level _ pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.ThePentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipmentand bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time , defense officials said Friday. They spoke oncondition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and itis expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from DefenseSecretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it. The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor,Marine Gen. Peter Pace. On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmedthat the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter . "The risk has basically stayedconsistent, stayed steady,"Mullentold the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant." Hesaidthe 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, withlonger rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said. Other keynational security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of massdestruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more thansix years of war. On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in partby the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded andal-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got more stability there as an example." The annual review grades the military'sability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy _ which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potentialoutbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China. The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readinesslevel has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006. Lastyear, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is working to improve itswarfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels." Gates is expected to tell Congress thatwhile the primary goal is to continue to increase the size of the military, it is also critical to stepup efforts to work with other nations _ as well as other U.S. agencies _ to bolster fragilegovernments through economic development and other support. And it will reflect his drumbeatfor the use of more "soft power" to defeat terrorism, which includes the greater use of civilians inareas such as political development, communications and training. Pentagon leaders argue thatnontraditional conflicts _ such as the insurgents and terrorists facing coalition forces in Iraq andAfghanistan _ will be the main military battlefields for years to come. And defeating them, theysay, will require more than military hardware _ or "hard power."


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html

8/7/2019 neg sps

16/35


SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

1. SPS isnt feasible huge launch costs and sheer sizeBoswell 2004 (David Boswell, expert speaker at the 1991 International Space DevelopmentConference, Whatever happened to solar power satellites?)

A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous. Somedesigns suggest creating rectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side . If we assume that enough money could be found to build something like this and that it could be runcompetitively against other energy options, there is the very real problem of figuring out how toget it into orbit or how to build it in orbit from separate smaller pieces.The largest solar panels ever deployed in space are currently being used on the International Space Station. They cover more than 830 square meters and are 73 meters long and 11 meters wide. These large panelsmake the ISS one of the brightest objects in the night sky. Scaling up from there to somethingmuch larger would be challenging , but the good news is that we can take one thing at a time. For a proof of concept satellite it makes sense to use the stations solar panels as a baseline.By takingadvantage of improvements in solar cell technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of

the same size that generates up to 3 times as much power. The stations solar panels are 14%efficient, but recent advances with solar cells and solar concentrators could allow us to buildpanels that are up to 50% efficient . If this demonstration system validated the theory behindgenerating power in space and beaming it down to Earth, the next step would be figuring out howto put even bigger solar panels in space. It may be that with our current launch options it simplyisnt possible to launch an operational solar power system into orbit . If that were the case, theconcept would need to be put on hold until other lift options, such as a space elevator, areavailable.

2. Slow Solvency SPS will be a major energy source by 2030Canizares, 2000 (Alex Canizares, associate for Covington & Burling LLP, Space.com, Solar Satellites Will Power Earth, Scientists Say, September 8, 2000,

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.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 toreduce reliance on dwindling fuel supplies. With fuel supplies projected to fall and energycosts reaching historic highs, using satellites to transmit energy to provide electricity used toheat homes and run appliances is becoming technologically viable , scientists told the HouseScience subcommittee on space and aeronautics. Electric energy use is projected to grow 75percent worldwide by 2020, and oil production will slow due to depleting reserves after 2015,said Ralph H. Nansen, president of Solar Space Industries. "Space solar power can solve theseproblems," Nansen said. "The time is now right for their development to begin ."


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.html

8/7/2019 neg sps

17/35


SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

3. No Solvency the Technology isnt even conceived to make SPS functionalJamesBloom , BusinessGreen, 07Nov 2007 . http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-think / Is space solar power closer than we think?

Supporters of SSP argue it is particularly suited to small island nations that typically pay highprices to power their generators with imported diesel, coal and other fuels. Similarly developingnations are interested in the concept as a means of distributing power to rural communitieswithout the need to invest in massive grid infrastructure. Meyers says Space Island Group hastalked to almost every department within the Indian government about the potential of SSP, butno contracts have yet been signed.However, some observers are far less than optimistic about the technolgy's chances of short andeven medium-term success. Leopold Summerer, head of advanced concepts at theEuropean Space Agency (ESA), remains conservative about the prospects for SSP . " Space solar pops upevery ten years or so; it generates a lot of enthusiasm, then fades away," he says." Presently weare still far from a commercial proof-of-concept. I think we'll see some plants in orbit, but not

until 2050 ."

4. Interference Turn

A. SPS beaming back to earth causes radio interferenceHatsuda, Ueno, and Inoeu 2Solar power satellite interference assessmentHatsuda, T. Ueno, K. Inoue, M. Dec 2002Volume: 3, Issue: 4. Hokkaido Inst. of Technol., Sapporo

Interference assessment between the solar power satellite (SPS) system and fixed satellite service(FSS), terrestrial fixed service (FS), wireless LAN, and radio astronomy (RA) has been reviewedin this paper. We have found that interference constraints in the 2.45- and 12.25-GHz bands are relatively severe . Some strategies for the relaxation of interference have been discussed, and co- existence between FSS and SPS systems can be achieved. Interference with RA is the mostsevere potential interference problem, and further studies will be necessary, e.g., selection of harmless interference transmitter frequencies or effective interference reduction approaches. The5.8-GHz SPS transmitter frequency is hopefully an alternative frequency that will contribute tosmall antenna size, small interference potentialities to RA and FSS/FS services, etc

B. Disruption free communications key to investmentFederal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2 Southwest Economy Issue 1, January/February 2002 .http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2002/swe0201c.html

Second, the attacks did not negatively affect wireless telecom activity and probably boosted it.

Wireless sales were strong in the third quarter, while other telecom activity languished. There isstill room for growth in the industry because domestic cellular subscription rates are relativelylow.[4] When landlines in parts of New York remained a tangle of frayed wires after the attacks,many of the city's firms turned exclusively to mobile communications to conduct business.Satellite telecommunications and other systems not as susceptible to terrestrial disruptions mayattract more interest in the future.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.businessgreen.com/http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(hatsuda%20%20t.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=Hatsuda%2C+T.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(hatsuda%20%20t.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=Hatsuda%2C+T.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(%20ueno%20%20k.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=+Ueno%2C+K.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(%20ueno%20%20k.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=+Ueno%2C+K.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(%20inoue%20%20m.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=+Inoue%2C+M.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=25789&isYear=2002http://www.businessgreen.com/http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.htmlhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(hatsuda%20%20t.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=Hatsuda%2C+T.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(%20ueno%20%20k.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=+Ueno%2C+K.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?disp=cit&queryText=(%20inoue%20%20m.%3CIN%3Eau)&valnm=+Inoue%2C+M.&reqloc%20=others&history=yeshttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isnumber=25789&isYear=2002

8/7/2019 neg sps

18/35


SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

C. Telecom Key to economy

Etner and Lewin 5Roger Entner & David Lewin. September 2005. A study for CTIA-The Wireless Association. TheImpact of the US Wireless TelecomIndustry on the US Economy

After a review of the data available tous , we conclude that the economic impact of the USwireless telecom industry in 2004 included the following: 3.6 million jobs are directly andindirectly dependent on the US wireless telecommunications industry; theindustry generated$118 billion in revenues and contributed $92 billion to theUS GDP;the industry is currently slightly smaller than the computer, automobiles, publishing andagricultureindustry segments; the wireless telecom industry is expected to become a larger sector of the US economy than the agriculture and automobile sectors within 5 years, based onthe wireless industrys current 15% annual growth rate; theindustry and its employees paid $63billion to theUS Government, including federal, state and local fees and taxes; the use andavailability of wirelesstelecom services and products created a $157 billionconsumer surplus which is the difference between what end-users are willing to pay for aservice and what they are actually having to pay

Economic collapse results in total extinction

Bearden 00 - Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists and a FellowEmeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study

[T. E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly"]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economiccollapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, tothe point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some25nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea (2)launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in aspasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missilescan reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutualtreaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating itsignificantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stressconditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are thencompelled 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 never discussed. Without effectivedefense, the only chance a nation has lo survive 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 thestudies showed, escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMDarsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we knowit, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

19/35


SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

SPS polarizes countries and causes international conflict.Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment,Solar Power Satellites The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

The oil-exporting states are in a special position. An SPS would by no means eliminate oildemand and may prove beneficial by helping to reduce pressure on exporters to increaseproduction to satisfy rising export needs. Countries with large populations and relatively smallreserves, such as Nigeria, Indonesia, China and Malaysia, may view SPS as insurance against theupcoming depletion of their oil supplies and may choose to invest some of their current earningsin the hope of long-term gains. On the other hand, exporting countries, especially those withlong-term reserve potential such as Saudi Arabia, have no immediate use for an SPS and may betempted to side with other LDCs for political and cultural reasons in attempts to putpressure on the West for greater LDC control. Soviet support for such measures could cause theSPS to become a highly polarized issue in which the Soviet bloc and the nonalined states seek concessions from the West a not uncommon phenomenon in recent international affairs.

There are multiple international legal barriers to SPS development and deployment.Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment,Solar Power Satellites The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

The United States and other space-capable states are currently bound by a number of agreementsthat would affect SPS development. 25 Much of existing international law has been formulated atthe United Nations (U. N.) by the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). COPUOS has been in existence since 1959, when it began with 24members. It now has 47, with membership expanding as international interest in space mattershas increased. COPUOS decisions have been made by consensus rather than by outright

voting.26The most important and comprehensive of the currently applicable agreements, all of which have been ratified by the major space powers, is the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governingthe Activities of States in the Explorationand Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies . In 1979, COPOUS agreed on a final version of a new treaty, the so-calledMoon Treaty, which has so far not been signed by the United States or other major powers.The Moon Treaty applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies, but not to Earth orbit. Inaddition to COPUOS, important decisions on frequency allocations and orbital positioning aremade by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized U. N. agency. As anew arena of human exploration, legal norms with respect to outer space have had to be defined.This has been done through a gradual process shaped by actual usage, the extension of existinglaw, and the explicit adoption of common principles and regulations. The outstandinginternational legal issues that might affect SPS development are:1. the status of the

geosynchronous orbit, and the source of jurisdiction over the placement of satellites;2. provisions against environmental disturbances;


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDFhttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDFhttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDFhttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

8/7/2019 neg sps

20/35


SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

SPS would be blocked by legal battles over frequency regulation.Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment,Solar Power Satellites The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

Even if parts of the orbit cannot be appropriated by sovereign states, there is still the problem of allocating positions and of deciding competing claims to scarce orbital slots. The question here ispart technical and part legal: How much space is there, and what constitutes infringement? This isdependent on the state of technology, since infringement is not so much a problem of two or more objects trying to occupy the same place as of electromagnetic interference between nearbysatellites (see ch. 8). SPS satellites would not only be very large but would, especially if usingmicrowaves, radiate a great deal of energy at radio frequencies. Each SPS would have to beallocated a position and frequency to minimize interference with a rapidly growing number of satellites (see ch. 8). Many spectrum users have worried that SPS operation would disruptcommunications and sensing tasks, others that the initial SPSs would use up the availableelectromagnetic space, preventing exploitation by latecomers. Since the acceptable limits vary

with the size and type of SPS used, the size and type of future communications satellites, andadvances in transmission technology, it is impossible to say at this time how many SPSs could bebuilt without unacceptable interference. Allocation of frequencies and positions has to date beenthe province of the ITU, whose 1973 convention states that stations must be established andoperated in such manner as not to cause harmful interference of other members, or of recognizedprivate operating agencies, or other duly authorized operating agencies which carry on radioservices, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations.29Whether the ITU would have jurisdiction over noncommunications satellites such as SPSs isunclear.30 In November 1979, at the ITUs World Administrative Radio Conference, the UnitedStates raised the question of allocating a frequency position for future SPS testing;the proposal wasreferred to a specialized study group for evaluation and future decision. Allocation decisions by the ITU have been characterized bydebate over the first-come first-served tradition, whereby first users have priority in the use of frequencies and orbital slots. Newlyspace-capable states as well as LDCs and others who intend to develop such capabilities in the future have urged, since 1971, that allstates have equal rights to frequencies and positions, and the ITU has called both the radio spectrum and the geostationary orbitlimited natural resources that should be most effectively and economically used. A number of LDCs have proposed that space bereserved for their future use.Since there is no legal basis for permanent utilization or ownership of positions, the possibility of future reallocation clearly has considerable support among have-notstates. Established users such as the United States remain opposed to a priori assignment of slotsand frequencies. Again, the ITU debate is part of LDC attempts to gain leverage. SPSdevelopment could be affected by attempts of disaffected states to block development by denyingfrequency allocations, or by making consent contingent on concessions by states with the mostinterest in SPS.31


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDFhttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

8/7/2019 neg sps

21/35


EXTENSION: SLOW TIMEFRAME

The timefame would be huge your own author beleves SPS will be functional by 2017.

Bloom 7James Bloom,BusinessGreen, 07 Nov 2007. http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-

green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-think . Is space solar power closer than wethink?TheNational Security Space Office (NSSO) predicts such a service will be in operation between 2017 and 2020. The spacecraft, the report argues, would be equipped with a microwave or laser beam, which could supply energy to remote locations facing high costs to generate or importelectricity. However, despite the fact an array of solar panels in geo-stationary orbit would beexposed to roughly eight times as much sunlight as it would on the ground, the orbiting arraywould still need to measure one and a half square miles across to generate 1 gigawattcontinuously, the capacity of a traditional power station. Consequently, Lt. Col. Damphousseof the NSSO believes that the technology remains some way off large scale commercial viability."As of today we cannot close the business case," he says, but quickly adds that that could soonchange. "The price of oil is going to continue rising," he argues. "If SSP [Space Solar Power ] can

go through a scaling up process over the next few decades it could generate ten percent of USbaseload power by 2050 ."


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.businessgreen.com/http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-thinkhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-thinkhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-thinkhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-thinkhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/http://www.businessgreen.com/http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-thinkhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-thinkhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/

8/7/2019 neg sps

22/35


EXT: UNFEASIBLE- COSTS

Launch costs are huge 45$ billion for geosynchronous orbit.

Roseman 7

Paul Roseman May, 2007. Manager - Design & Development. [Barely affordable SPS usingISRU in LEO]http://crowlspace.com/?page_id=50One part of a solar power satellite is solar cells . One way to rate these cells is in kilowatts of power collected per kilogram of weight of the cell (Kw/Kg ).Current cells are 2 Kw/Kg. To launch 5 gigawatts of solar cells to low earth orbit would cost $22.5 billion at $5,000 per poundlaunch costs, and that is just for the solar cells. If you launch them to geosynchronous orbit,where they need to be, the cost doubles to $45 billon . That is why it is so expensive to do thisproject. To compare, the solar cells cost about $1 apiece or about $5 billion for 5 gigawatts of collecting capacity. The hardware that has to be delivered to geosynchronous orbit and assembledto do this project consists of the solar cells, the wiring and power management hardware, thestructural parts, and the transmitter. The total weight that goes to geosynchronous orbit comes toabout 3 times that of the solar cells, making the cost of delivering just the parts togeosynchronous orbit about $135 billion . And they still have to be bought, and assembled. Howcan we make those costs less?

Investors wont develop Huge launch costsSpace Future.com 00 Informational Website.http://www.spacefuture.com/power/sps2000.shtmlSPS 2000 is a study project started by theSPS Working Group in Japan to demonstrate energydelivery from space to Earth soon; to put it on the table as a real option for development into amajor new source of electric power for Earth. The electricity industry consider SPS as just a"paper idea", and it also suffers from the "space industry problem" that launch costs are stillunbelievably high, and so most outsiders don't understand that it's possible for them to be much,

much lower.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://crowlspace.com/?page_id=50http://spss.isas.ac.jp/http://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPS%202000http://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPS%202000http://crowlspace.com/?page_id=50http://spss.isas.ac.jp/

8/7/2019 neg sps

23/35


EXTENSION: INTERFERENCE

Interference ruins radio communications

Rako July 25, 2008Technical Editor Paul Rako looks at analog technology in power supplies, interface, the signal

path, and life in general.http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=blog&blog_id=1700000170&blog_post_id=1830030583Interference. Pumping gigawatts of RF into our atmosphere is sure to ruin a lot of radiocommunications that operate at nine orders of magnitude lower power levels or more. The URSIreport points out that radio telescopes would be unusable. In addition all you RF folks know thatthere will be side-lobes and spurs and harmonics on the 2.4 or 5.8 GHz so there will be hugeswaths of higher frequencies that will now be unusable for radio communications since thegigawatt space power stations are blasting them out of the air .


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958

8/7/2019 neg sps

24/35


RADIO ASTRONOMY TURN

A. SPS Destroys radio astronomy.

Emerson and Davis 65 (IUCAF Chair, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, and URSIIUCAF Member, SETI Institute. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A SOLAR POWER SATELLITE

SYSTEM ON RADIO ASTRONOMYhttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+power ed+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-aReceivers for radio astronomy are extremely sensitive. A failure that places less than a thousandth of the radiation of one of the 6million klystrons in orbit inside a radio astronomy band would be more than a thousand times above the detrimental limit, essentiallydestroying the use of that band for radio astronomy. The engineering requirements on reliability and limiting unwanted emissions are

therefore truly formidable . The reference system of solar power satellites permanently blocks a strip of sky, corresponding to the geostationary arc. This severely limits future radar or other observationsof solar system objects, as this strip includes much of the ecliptic plane. Several of the referencesystem radiation mechanisms include broad band components at levels above the detrimentalinterference levels given in ITU-R RA.769 in bands allocated to radio astronomy. In addition, thepower signal overloads sensitive radio astronomy receivers, requiring development and

installation of cryogenic, preferably superconducting, stopband filters. This reduces systemsensitivity and becomes particularly problematic for modern array designs with very largenumbers of antennas and receivers . It is estimated that about 2%, or 100 MW, of the power incident on the rectennas at2.45 GHz is reflected and reradiated. This plus radiation of noise and harmonics from the rectennas will place restrictions on choice of sites for the receiving antennas relative to existing observatories, and on possible new observatory sites. Radio astronomers

experience in the two decades since these original studies were carried out has confirmed that apparently small amounts of unwanted emission from a satellite system falling inside a radio astronomy band can havedevastating effects. For example, the 10.6 10.7 GHz radio astronomy allocation is now virtuallyuseless in Europe because of unwanted emission from a satellite system in a neighboring band.The intended power being transmitted is very much less than that of a solar power satellitesystem.

B. Radio Astronomy key to predict black hole ejections and avoid extinction.Latin American Times, 08 (April 26, 2008. Humanities brush with Extinction,http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/26/science/sci-briefs26

Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensivegeneticstudysuggests . The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought,according to an analysis published Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The report noted that a separatestudy estimated that the number of early humans may have fallen as low as 2,000 beforenumbers began to expandagain. A black holes ejection recorded Using powerful radiotelescopes, scientists have captured a supermassive black hole justas it was belching out a jet of supercharged particles, offering a first look at how these cosmic jets are formed, the scientific team reported Thursday in thejournal Nature. Supermassive black holes are believed to form the core of many galaxies, and astronomers have long suspected they eject jets of particlesat nearly the speed of light. A kind of supermassive black hole known as a blazar was suspected of spewing out a pair of forceful streamsof plasma 950 million light years from Earth.Using theNational Radio Astronomy Observatorys Very Long Baseline Array, the team imagedthis charged material winding in corkscrew fashion out of the supermassive black hole,behaving just as astronomers had predicted. Volcano made 1601 a cold year. The 1600 eruption of the volcano Huaynaputina in Peru caused globaldisruptions in food production, researchers from UC Davis reported in the journal Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+powered+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-ahttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+powered+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-ahttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+powered+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-ahttp://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/26/science/sci-briefs26http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+powered+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-ahttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+powered+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-ahttp://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+powered+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-ahttp://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/26/science/sci-briefs26

8/7/2019 neg sps

25/35


EXT: TREATIES

SPS would be prevented by international treaties.Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment, Solar Power Satellites The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

The 1967 treaty commits states not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction (art. IV) and in general to carry on activitiesin the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation andunderstanding (art. III).34 The 1977 Conven-tion on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Useof EnvironmentaI Modification Techniques prohibits the activities implied, with environmentalmodification techniques defined as any technique for changing the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere. (art. 11).35 These generalprinciples obviously allow for criticism of some SPSdesigns as having weather modification potential, requiring restrictions or redesign to reduce such effects. Whether an SPSs microwave or laser capabilities would class it as a weapon of mass destruction and hence make itillegal under the 1967 treaty is unclear, but it is very likely that suchcharges would be made in the event of SPS deployment.Development of an SPS might entail renegotiation of relevant treaties or special system design to minimizeits usefulness as a weapon. Military satellites for communications and remote sensing are currently used byseveral countries, and presumably use of the SPS platform for such purposes would not constitute a change

in accepted practice.


2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDFhttp://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

8/7/2019 neg sps

26/35


SPENDING/PX LINKSLinks to Politics and Spending

Boswell (David, Speaker At the 1991 International Space Development Conference)04Whatever happened to solar power satellites?

At the end of June, a conferenceabout space based solar power generation was held in Granada, Spain. The conference provided progress

reports from groups in Europe, the US, and Japan who are working on concepts and plans for building solar power plants in orbit that wouldbeam electricity down for use on Earth.It sounds like the perfect solution for our future energy needs. The Sun is constantly sending energyto the Earth and all we need to do is catch it and then use it. Unlike current energy sources, we are not going to run out of sunlight anytimesoon, it wouldnt contribute to global warming, and it is available everywhere (or to put it another way, we dont need to get most of our sunlight from a politically unstable region).The idea of generating power in space has been around for a while,but has never really gotten off the ground. Concepts for solar power satellites were beingdiscussed in the 1960s and they have received varying amounts of interest since then. If solar power satellites are such a great thing, why havent more people been more excited about them?The theory of the concept is sound, but there are a number of hurdles that are holding developmentback .Earth based solar power. Why bother putting solar panels on a satellite when you could generate electricity by putting them on theground or on rooftops here on Earth? The obvious problem is that any point on land is in the dark half of the time, so solar panels are uselessduring the night. During the day clouds can also block sunlight and stop power production. In orbit, a solar power satellite would be abovethe atmosphere and could be positioned so that it received constant direct sunlight. Some energy would be lost in the process of transmittingpower to stations on the Earth, but this would not offset the advantage that an orbiting solar power station would have over ground basedsolar collectors. There are also opportunity costs associated with both options. On Earth, land used for generating solar power is not being

used for other things. Rooftop space may not be valuable, but acres of farmland are.There is also only a limited number of available slots in geosynchronous orbit where a satellite could be placed to continuously beampower to a specific receiver. Where land is at a premium, a satellite would have an advantage over a ground-based system. For places with plenty of sun and available land, satellites couldntcompete with generating solar power locally. It would be difficult to argue for the need of anorbital system if every place had San Diegos weather and climate, but since this isnt the casethere would be demand for beaming solar power to locations that couldnt generate it otherwise.Using solar panels here on Earth though is far easier and less expensive, so much of the focus onrenewable energy solutions is not on satellite systems. High cost of launchingAnother barrier isthat launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment woul

neg sps

Documents

Transcript of neg sps