SPS Case Neg

8/3/2019 SPS Case Neg

1/40

Solar Sails Case Neg

SPS Neg

Contents

SPS Neg.........................................................................................................................................................1Contents........................................................................................................................................................1***ASPEC WORK***........................................................................................................................................2

No Solvency...................................................................................................................................................3Turns Aerospace Leadership..........................................................................................................................4Cox Card........................................................................................................................................................4AT: DoE/NASA Coop.......................................................................................................................................5AT: Mission Creep........................................................................................................................................5***Advantage Frontlines***............................................................................................................................61NC Hegemony Frontline...............................................................................................................................71NC Oil Dependence Frontline ....................................................................................................................10***Solvency Answers***...............................................................................................................................17SQ Solves*...................................................................................................................................................18Long Timeframe ..........................................................................................................................................20

Tech Barriers...............................................................................................................................................22Not Cost Competitive...................................................................................................................................25AT: Intl Spillover..........................................................................................................................................26AT: Experts/Scientists..................................................................................................................................27***Impact Defense Economy.....................................................................................................................281NC Econ Impact Defense............................................................................................................................292NC AT Mead/WWII .....................................................................................................................................302NC AT Bearden/Resource Wars..................................................................................................................32***Ozone DA................................................................................................................................................341NC Link......................................................................................................................................................35Links............................................................................................................................................................36***General Neg***.......................................................................................................................................39Politics LinkSpending................................................................................................................................40

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

1


2/40


***ASPEC WORK***

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

2


3/40


No SolvencyNo solvency without specific directionShubert '10 Ph.D., P.E. Packer Engineering Inc (Peter J., Winter 2010, "Solar Power SatellitesCosts, Organization, and Roadmapfor SSP," http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html, RG)

At present, neither NASA, nor the US Department of Energy (DOE) conduct any appreciable research on SSP. The

Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) does not presently have any budget for SSP. Although each of thesethree agencies would have a significant role to play in SSP development, deployment, and security, none is currently doingso. In the case of NASA and DOE, this is largely a political issue. They cannot take on such an initiative without directionfrom Congress. Another consequence of the unpredictable miracle is that the US Congress must have a champion orcoalition to support SSP.

Delays solvency

NSS 11 (http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdfJT)

A similar problem exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small launch markets with the government as a primarycustomer and advocate, and do not have a developed business model or speak in a common language with the energy companies. Theenergy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the aerospace sector. One requires ademonstrated market, while the other requires a demonstrated technical capability. Without a trusted agent to mediate thecollaboration and serve as an advocate for supportive policy, progress is likely to be slow.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

3
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf


4/40


Turns Aerospace LeadershipAn agency should be chosen to avoid confusion

Change '8 referencing Obama supporters reccomendations on solar power (12/6/08, "Obama-Biden Transition Project: SpaceSolar Power (SSP) -- A Solution for Energy Independence & Climate Change," http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30044, RG)

We urge the next President of the United States to include SSP as a new start in a balanced federal strategy for energyindependence and environmental stewardship, and to assign lead responsibility to a U.S. federal agency.SSP Falls through the Cracks as Nobody is Responsible: No U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate or clearresponsibility to pursue SSP. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says SSP is a space project, and thus NASA's job.NASA says SSP is an energy project, and thus DOE's job. The NSSO-report found that SSP "'falls through the cracks' offederal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government."

Agency confusion kills aerospace leadership

Walker et al '2 Chair of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners (Robert, 11/02,Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners,http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf, RG)

The government is not organized to define national aerospace priorities, develop federal aerospace sector plans andbudgets, manage programs that cross multiple departments and agencies, or foster a healthy aerospace sector in a globaleconomy. As described earlier, no single federal organization is responsible for identifying the appropriate role ofaerospace in the context of the nations transportation system and other national needs, including homeland andinternational security, air transportation, and space exploitation and exploration. No organization is responsible for definingnational aerospace priorities or addressing all of the factors that will influence national aerospace policy across allstakeholders and all dimensionsinternational, national and governmental.The federal government is organized vertically while national aerospace challenges are becoming more horizontal in nature.Legacy structures and processes, which were effective in the past, are fundamentally incapable of addressing the system-of-systems level challenges facing the nation today. These structures and processes simply must be modified and/or replacedby integrated, crosscutting structures to achieve our goals.The ability of the United States to compete both militarily and economically requires a government that speaks coherently,can focus its collective capabilities on national issues, such as terrorism and air transportation, and can respond quickly andflexibly to rapidly changing global trends. It requires a government that is structured and has the appropriate incentives to

provide system-of-systems solutions to problems that transcend all levels of government, industry, labor and academia andnational and international boundaries.

Cox CardTheir author agrees SPS needs an organizational structure

Cox 11 their author (William John, 3/23/11, The Race for Solar Energy from Spacehttp://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/032311b.html, RG)

Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely solve the worlds energyand greenhouse gas emission problems. The technology currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites intogeostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the Suns radiant energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to safelytransmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying antennas on Earth. Following its proposal by Dr. Peter Glaser in1968, the concept of solar-power satellites was extensively studied by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By 1981, the organizations determined that the idea was a high-risk venture; however, they recommended further study. With increases in electricity demand and costs, NASA took afresh look at the concept between 1995 and 1997. The NASA study envisioned a trillion-dollar project to place severaldozen solar-power satellites in geostationary orbits by 2050, sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power toEarth. The NASA effort successfully demonstrated the ability to transmit electrical energy by microwaves through theatmosphere; however, the studys leader, John Mankins, now says the program has fallen through the cracks becauseno organization is responsible for both space programs and energy security.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

4
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/032311b.htmlhttp://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/032311b.html


5/40


AT: DoE/NASA CoopThe plan would turn into the squo

Foust '7 editor and publisher of The Space Review (Jeff, 8/13/07, "A renaissance for space solar power?www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1, RG)

Another big problem has been finding the right government agency to support R&D work on space solar power. Space

solar power doesnt neatly fit into any particular agencys scope, and without anyone in NASA or DOE actively advocatingit, it has fallen through the cracks in recent years. NASA does science, they do astronauts, and they do aeronautics, butthey dont do energy for the Earth, Mankins said. On the other side, the Department of Energy doesnt really do energyfor space. That situation, at least in regards to those two agencies, shows little sign of changing. Marty Hoffert, a NewYork University professor who has been a long-time advocate of space solar power, contrasted the current plight with thatof fusion, the one other energy source Hoffert believes could provide energy security to the world. While space solar powergoes virtually unrecognized by the US and other governments, an international consortium is spending up to $20 billion ona test fusion reactor, ITER, in France. For half that money I think we could deliver a working solar power satellite,whereas ITER is just going to show the proof of feasibility of controlled nuclear fusion without generating any power, hesaid.

AT: Mission CreepAgency direction k2 development -- otherwise the aff turns into the squo

Shea '10 Master of Arts in Science Technology and Space Policy at George Washington University (Karen, 11/1/10, "NASA HasA Space Solar Power Program?" http://spacesolarpowerinformationservice.blogspot.com/2010/11/nasa-has-space-solar-powerprogram.html, RG)

What if I said that NASA has been banging at the door of the U.S. Department of Energy for over a decade and no one willanswer. Every time they get a foot in the door they are chastised for mission creep and overreach. NASA? Thosescientists need to stick to pictures of Mars.If the Department of Energy doesn't want NASA to do space solar power than they should fund a space solar powerprogram at least as large as its fusion program. Secretary of Energy Dr. Chu should stop saying space solar power is notcommercial.Usually the DOE says that space solar power is space and it does not do space when asked about space solar power, soobviously the DOE thinks space solar power is NASA's job and so NASA should not worry about mission creep.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

5


6/40


***Advantage Frontlines***

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

6


7/40


1NC Hegemony FrontlineUS hegemony is inevitablewe are too far ahead for anyone to catch up

Steven G. Brooks --AND-- William C. Wohlforth, Associate Professors of Government at DartmouthCollege, 09[Reshaping the World Order, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009,

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64652/stephen-g-brooks-and-william-c-wohlforth/reshaping-the-world-order]

Now, the conventional wisdom is that the world is rapidly approaching the end of the unipolar system with the United Statesas the sole superpower. A dispassionate look at the facts shows that this view understates U.S. power as much as recent talk ofempire exaggerated it. That the United States weighs more on the traditional scales of world power than has any other state in modernhistory is as true now as it was when the commentator Charles Krauthammer proclaimed the advent of a"unipolar moment" in these pages nearly two decades ago. The US continues to account for about half the world's defensespending and one-quarter of its economic output. Some of the reasons for bearishness concern public policy problems thatcan be fixed (expensive health care in the United States, for example), whereas many of the reasons for bullishness are morefundamental (such as the greater demographic challenges faced by the United States' potential rivals). So why has opinion shifted soquickly from visions of empire to gloomy declinism? One reason is that the U nited S tates' success e s at the turn ofthe century led to irrational exuberance, thereby setting unreasonably high standards for measuring the superpower'sperformance. From 1999 to 2003, seemingly easy U.S. victories in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq led some toconclude that the United States could do what no great power in history had managed before: effortlesslydefeat its adversaries. It was only a matter of time before such pie-in-the-sky benchmarks proved unattainable. Subsequentdifficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq dashed illusions of omnipotence, but these upsets hardly displaced the U nited S tates as the world'sleading state, and there is no reason to believe that the militaries of its putative rivals would have performed any better. The U nitedS tates did not cease to be a superpowerwhen its policies in Cuba and Vietnam failed in the 1960s; bipolarity lived on for threedecades. Likewise, the United States remains the sole superpower today. Another key reason for the multipolarmania is "the rise of the rest." Impressed by the rapid economic growth ofChina and India, many write as if multipolarity has alreadyreturned. But such pronouncements mistake current trajectories for final outcomes -- a common strategic error with deeppsychological roots. The greatest concern in the Cold War, for example, came not from the Soviet Union's actually attaining paritywith the United States but from the expectation that it would do so in the future. Veterans of that era recall how the launch of Sputnikin 1957 fed the perception that Soviet power was growing rapidly, leading some policymakers and analysts to startacting as if the Soviet Union were already as powerful as the United States. A state that is rising should not beconfused with one that has risen, just as a state that is declining should not be written off as having already declined. China is

generally seen as the country best positioned to emerge as a superpower challenger to the United States. Yet depending on how onemeasures GDP, China's economy is between 20 percent and 43 percent the size ofthe U nited St ates'. More dramatic isthe difference in GDP per capita, for which all measures show China's as being less than 10 percent of theUnited States'. Absent a 1930s-style depression that spares potential U.S. rivals, the United States will not be replaced as the solesuperpower for a very long time. Real multipolarity -- an international system of three or more evenly matchedpowers -- is nowhere on the horizon . Relative power between states shifts slowly. This tendency to conflate trends with outcomes isoften driven by the examination in isolation of certain components of state power. If the habit during the Cold War was to focus onmilitary power, the recent trend has been to single out economic output. No declinist tract is complete without a passage notingthat although the United States may remain a military superpower, economic multipolarity is, or soon will be, the order of the day.

Much as highlighting the Soviet Union's military power meant overlooking the country's economic and technological feet of clay ,examining only economic output means putting on blinders . In 1991 , Japan's economy was two-thirds the size of the U nited S tates',which, according to the current popular metric, would mean that with the Soviet Union's demise, the world shifted from bipolarity to,well, bipolarity. Such apartial assessment of power willproduce no more accurate an analysis today. Nor will giving in to

apprehension about the growing importance of nonstate actors. The National Intelligence Council's report GlobalTrends 2025 grabbed headlines by forecasting the coming multipolarity, anticipating a power shift as much to nonstateactors as to fast-growing countries. But nonstate actors are nothing new -- compare the scale and scope oftoday'spirates off the Somali coast with those of their eighteenth-century predecessors orthe political power oftoday's multinationalcorporations with that of such behemoths as the British East India Company -- and projections of their rise may well be asmuch hype as reflections of reality. And even if the power of nonstate actors is rising, this should only increasethe incentives for interstate cooperation; nonstate threats do not affect just the U nited S tates. Most nonstate actors'behavior, moreover, still revolves around influencing the decisions of states. Nongovernmentalorganizations typically focus on trying to get states to change their policies, and the same is true of most

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

7


8/40


terrorists. When it comes to making, managing, and remaking international institutions, states remain the most important actors --and the United States is the most important of them.No other country will match the U nited S tates' combination of wealth, size,technological capacity, and productivity in the foreseeable future. The world is and will long remain a 1 + x world, with onesuperpower and x number of major powers. A shift from 1 + 3 to 1 + 4 or 5 or 6 would have many importantconsequences, but it would not change the fact that the United States will long be in a far stronger position to lead theworld than any other state.

No internal between SPS and leadership other factors like our economy, military, and readiness affect

our primacy more than a couple of satellites boots on the ground solve

No relationship between US capabilities and peaceno impact to hegemony

Fettweis 10 Professor of national security affairs @ U.S. Naval War College. [Christopher J. Fettweis, Threat and Anxiety in USForeign Policy, Survival, Volume 52,Issue 2 April 2010 , pages 59 82//informaworld]

One potential explanation for the growth of globalpeace can be dismissed fairly quickly: US actions do not seem to have contribute dmuch. The limited evidence suggests that there is little reason to believe in the stabilising power of the US hegemon , and that thereis no relation between the relative level of American activism and international stability. During the 19 90s, the U nited St ates cut backon its defence spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defence in

real terms than it had in 1990, a 25% reduction.29 To internationalists, defence hawks and other believersin hegemonic stability, this irresponsible 'peace dividend' endangered both national and global security.'No serious analyst of American military capabilities', argued neo-conservatives William Kristol and RobertKagan in 1996, 'doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet America'sresponsibilities to itself and to world peace'.30 And yet the verdict from the 1990s is fairly plain: the worldgrew morepeaceful while the United States cut its forces.No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable US military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief.No militaries were enhancedto address power vacuums ; no security dilemmas drove insecurity orarms races ; no regional balancing occurred once the stabilis-ingpresence of the US military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressingconcern, despite the reduction in US military capabilities. Most of all, the United States was no less safe . The incidence andmagnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Bill Clinton, and keptdeclining as the George W. Bush administration ramped the spending back up. Complex statistical analysis isunnecessary to reach the conclusion that world peace and US military expenditure are unrelated.

Cox is a hack and shouldnt be trusted- hes literally a freelance writer who knows nothing about

technical developments

SPS is expensive and loses 50% of its energy, outweighs any tech advancements

Wired News 6/10 (Roy Wood, 6/10/11, " Space-Based Solar Power: An Overview ",http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/06/space-based-solar-power-an-overview/)//zy

Let's face it: we live in world that provides a quality of life that exceeds the dreams of historical kings and emperors. At the touch of abutton, we have light, heat, clean water, instantaneous communication, boundless access to information, miracle medical technology,and a near-endless variety of food. Whether we realize it or not, the wonders of modern society are possible only because of the cheapoil and coal we've been burning for the past hundred years or so. Unfortunately, the fossil fuels we've taken for granted will not last

forever, and one of the biggest challenges our species faces in the coming years is the need to find safe, clean, reliable, and renewablepower sources. There are many avenues of research being pursued in the quest for new power sources, but the most far-out idea is(literally) space-based solar power. Traditional solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays are attractive for a number of reasons, but there are alsoa number of problems with them. An interesting variation on the traditional, ground-based solar PV is discussed in detail in a recentarticle over at The Oil Drum. The article discusses the prospect of placing the PV arrays in orbit as geosynchronous satellites thatcollect solar power and beam it back down to ground stations as microwave energy. Audacious? Definitely. Possible and Practical?Well, that depends on a number of factors, as discussed in the article. As mentioned by the author of the article, Keith Henson, themain advantages of space-based solar are: Unfortunately, power satellites also have some disadvantages: Due to optical constraints,power satellites don't scale down well, so 5 GW is the smallest practical size possible 50% of power generated is lost by the time it isreceived on the ground; losses are due to conversion to microwaves, dispersion of energy during transmission, and reconversion back

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

8
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/06/space-based-solar-power-an-overview/)//zyhttp://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/06/space-based-solar-power-an-overview/)//zy


9/40


from microwave Lifting the satellites into orbit is extremely expensive , both financially and energetically That last point is obviouslythe critical hurdle that must be overcome in order to make the concept of orbital solar power practical. The article goes into extensivedetail in analyzing the economics of orbital solar power generation and the logistics of placing the satellites into orbit. The latter pointis the most interesting aspect of the article, since it touches on the limitations of chemical rocket technology , and the possiblealternatives such as space planes and laser propulsion systems. Finally, the overall energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI) forsolar satellites is discussed. The concept of space-based power generation is fascinating, and Keith does a fantastic job of providing ahigh-level introduction to the topic. The comments from Oil Drum readers are also worth reading, though be forewarned that they geta little flamey at times (pity that couldn't be tapped to generate useful power).

SPS isnt key to forward deployment we can still maintain deterrence in states that we dont have to

have long chains supply chains too Japan and Korea

- Also the plan wouldnt create tanks to deploy the energy means they cant use it

SPS beams are too inefficient and hazardous to help the military no deployment internal

Naval Research Laboratory, (W. Neil Johnson, et. al., 10/23/09, High-energy Space EnvironmentBranch, Space-Based Solar Power: Possible Defense Applications and Opportunities, Keith Akins, JamesArmstrong, Kwok Cheung, Glen Henshaw, Steven Huynh, Paul Jaffe, Matthew Long, Michael Mook, MichaeOsborn, Robert Skalitzky, And Frederick Tasker Jill Dahlburg And Michael N. Lovelette Robert Bartolo And

Keith Williams Mark Dorsey Donald Gubser Philip Jenkins, Scott Messenger, John Pasour, And RobertWalters Nathan Smith Wayne Boncyk Michael Brown David Huber//jchen)

Direct SBSP powerdelivery to daily patrols , either individuals or vehicles, seems problematic at best . In considering this, note that atmicrowave frequencies of 1.5 to 15 GHz, safe power densities for continuous exposure are between 1 and 10 mW /cm2, or about 1 to10 W per sq ft., respectively (IEEE C95.1-1999). The FCC (Bulletin 65) limits this exposure more, to a constant 1 mW /cm2 (about 1W per sq ft) above 1.5 GHz. Category Peacetime OPTEMPO* Wartime OPTEMPO Combat vehicles 30 162 Combat aircraft 140 307Tactical vehicles 44 173 Generators 26 357 Non-tactical 51 51 TOTAL 291 1050 6 Johnson et al. Examples of end-userconsumption include the following: Radio transmitters: Considerable power needs to be available, for example, to operate a radio tens to hundreds of Watts while transmitting. Vehicle operation: A typical car only requires tens of horsepower to travel at reasonablespeeds on a highway (much more when accelerating or traversing rough terrain). 1 HP is approximately 750 W, so even a 10 or 20 HPrequirement becomes a requirement for 7.5 to 15 kW of power, even before considering the conversion efficiency between electricaland mechanical energy. The preferred application of power to these problems would require the ability to directly beam energy to eachrecipient rather than blanketing the area for several reasons: Only the people/vehicles need the power a tremendous fraction of

power is wasted if it is transmitted everywhere. Transmitting power everywhere is like providing a natural resource onesenemies can also use i t (for free !), greatly reducing the advantage one gains by developing and implementing the system (at greatcost). At radio frequency (RF) frequencies, it is (probably impossible , but optimistically speaking) extraordinarily difficult to directlypoint beams small enough to solve the efficiency problem from space . Extraordinarily large antenna apertures would likely berequired at microwave frequencies. Perhaps even more difficult would be how to tell the power source exactly where to point thebeams (potentially several thousand of them, all to a delivered accuracy of 1 m or less). To further compound the problem, if the beampointing challenges were solved,power density issues would need to be resolved that is, if there was enough power in the beam todo any good, it would likely pose a safety hazard to the people in or near the beam. Based on these statements, direct delivery ofenergy using microwave power to a final application to small, mobile units is not practically feasible with near-term foreseeabletechnology.

Leadership now

Matthews, 6 (Merrill Matthews, writer, 10/13/06, And the Nobel Prize for the Most Innovators Goestoo,http://www.ipi.org/ipi/ipipressreleases.nsf/70218ef1ad92c4ad86256ee5005965f6/f8b066cd433064b8862572050054b4d4?OpenDocument )We are pleased to announce that innovation is alive and well in the U.S. Indeed, ifNobel Prizes are any indication and they seem to bea pretty good indicatorthe U.S. is the most innovative country in the world, hands down. The New York Times ran a story looking atNobel Laureates in medicine. According to the Times, In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone toAmerican-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7have gone to researchers working outside the country. Pretty impressive, wed say. Moreover, of the six most important medical

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

9


10/40


innovations of the last 25 years, four of them were developed in American hospitals or by American companies, and one other wasimproved in the U.S. The Times goes on to say, Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads inconverting new ideas into workable commercial technologies. That got us to thinking, how does the U.S. fair is some of the otherscientific fields? Apparently, even better. Of the 14 winners of the Nobel Prize in economics since 2000 (some years had multiplewinners), 12 were listed with a U.S. affiliation (a few included a second country, such as Israel). Of the 20 winners of the Nobel Prizein physics since 2000, 14 had a U.S. affiliation. Finally, of the 18 Nobel Prize winning chemists,11 identified with the U.S. Looking atthe sciences (including economics), the U.S. is by far the leader. No other country even comes close. Of course, many of the topscientists are trained in the U.S. But others move here after graduating to pursue their careersbecause of the countrys deepcommitment to innovation . For all the(often-justified) complaints about the American education system, when it comes to creating andsupporting world-class innovators, we must be doing something right.

1NC Oil Dependence FrontlineCase turn Launches

A. EnvironmentSPS would require a minimum of 100,000 launches to meet current energy demand

destroys the environment and turns the case

Al Globus 8, Chair of the NSS Space Settlement Advocacy Committee and recipient of the NASA Public

Service Medal, On the Moon, Ad Astra, 2008, www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf)

While it has been suggested that in the long term, space solar power (SSP) can provide all the clean,renewable energy Earth could possibly need (and then some), there has been less discussion on the mosteconomic way to produce that power. If we want to build two or three solar power satellites, one obvious approach is tomanufacture the parts on the ground, launch them into orbit, and assemble them there, just like the International SpaceStation. But a few power satellites wont solve our energy or greenhouse gasproblems. Well need more. To generate all the energyused on Earth today (about 15 terawatts) would require roughly 400 solar power satellites 10 kilometers across. Assumingadvanced , lightweight space solar power technology, this will require at least 100,000 launches to bring all the materials up fromEarth. But even 400 satellites wont be enough . Billions of people today have totally inadequate energy suppliesand thepopulation is growing. Providing everyone with reasonable quantities of energy might takefive to ten times more than we producetoday. To supply this energy from solar power satellites requires a staggering launch rate. There are two major issues with avery high launch rate.

B. HegemonyPlan would increase space debris

The Australian Space Weather Agency, 7/19/2011 Overview of Orbital Space Debris,http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/4/2/1

The initial and continuing source of space debris is the launch of satellites. Not only the satellites themselves add to thepopulation of orbiting space objects, but often the last stages of the rockets that are used to place them in orbit also remainaloft for many years. As satellites get old they deteriorate under the influence of the space environment.Outgassing can not only release gases, but may also take other materials with them, as the gas beneath asurface slowly makes it way into the surrounding environment. The strong solar UV in space can cause thedeterioration of many materials. Paint and other surface materials may be expelled in flakes. More catastrophic thanage related deterioration are satellite fragmentation events. These may result from collisions with other (external)objects, or they may be explosive, as when remnant fuel in an old spacecraft undergoes an exothermic

reaction (ignites). Both ofthese type of events can produce an astounding number of small fragments thatbecome a new sourceof space debris .

Debris kills US satellites

Buxbaum 11 (Peter A Buxbaum, a Washington, DC-based independent journalist, has been writingabout defense, security, business and technology for 15 years. His work has appeared in publications suchas Fortune, Forbes, Chief Executive, Information Week, Defense Technology International, HomelandSecurity and Computerworld. He holds a Juris doctorate from Temple University and a Bachelor's inpolitical science and economics from Columbia University. June 27 2011 Taming the Heavens: The New

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

10
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfhttp://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf


11/40


Space Diplomacy http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233) JT

Congestion in space - there are 1,100 active systems in orbit and 21,000 pieces ofdebris - threatens US national security,according to Shulte,because of the possibility ofcollisions between space objects or interference with their transmissions .

Shulte also noted that competition among nations in the realm of space technology means that "the UScompetitive advantage in space has decreased": eleven countries now operate 22 launch sites and 60nations currently operate satellites. Furthermore, US adversaries such as China and Iran have developed capabilities to"disrupt and disable satellites."

Space satellites are key to all military applicationsthe plan collapses readiness and turns their heg

advantage

Adams et al 11 (The Heritage Foundation: George Adams Senior Production Specialist * David Addington img David Addington Vice President, Domestic &Economic Policy * Matthew Adkins img Matthew Adkins Job Bank Manager * Alex Adrianson img Alex Adrianson Editor, InsiderOnline.org * Robert Alt img Robert AltSenior Legal Fellow and Deputy Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies * Daniel Anastas img Daniel Anastas Personnel and Benefits Assistant * Ericka AndersenSenior Digital Communications Associate * David Azerrad img David Azerrad Assistant Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics * Matt Bagnoli img MattBagnoli Event Planner * Jena Baker McNeill img Jena Baker McNeill Senior Policy Analyst, Homeland Security * Brittany Balmer img Brittany Balmer Event Planner * JeanBarry Special Assistant to the Executive Vice President * Michael Barvick img Michael Barvick Director, Heritage Legacy Society * William Beach img William BeachDirector, Center for Data Analysis * Ann Beckwith img Ann Beckwith Assistant Director of Special Events, Programs & Internal Operations * Erin Bender Associate Manager,Membership Programs * Michaela Bendikova Research Assistant * Kibreab Berhe Help Desk SpecialistHeritage is so qualled and has 265 members contributing to this article. AStrong National Defense: The Armed Forces America Needs and What They Will Cost, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/A-Strong-National-Defense-The-Armed-

Forces-America-Needs-and-What-They-Will-Cost)

Space assets and access to those assets are essential components of military power and are vital to the prosperity of the Americanpeople. The military depends on space systems for a variety of functions , including communications , early warning of attack,battle damage assessment, intelligence, navigation, and weather forecasting.

Japan is doing SPS now means status quo solves the aff

Schirber, 8 (Michael, science writer focusing on physics, space science and the environment, 6/18/08,LiveScience How Satellites Could Power the Future, http://www.livescience.com/2626-satellites-power-future.html)

The Pentagon-sponsored report offered a roadmap for how to build a 10-megawatt test satellite over the next 10 years for $10 billion.But where that money will come from is hard to say. According to Hopkins, NASA sees this as an energy application and the

Department of Energy sees this as a space enterprise. "There are bureaucratic problems finding a home for this project," he said. Japanplans ahead The Japanese space agency, JAXA , has been providing steady support over the past decade for their Space Solar PowerSystem (SSPS). The goal is to launch a geostationary satellite by 2030 that could supply 500,000 homes on Earth with a gigawatt ofpower . Currently, JAXA researchers are looking at both microwaves and lasers as possible options for beaming the energy down."The technology for microwave transmission is more advanced, since it is based on current communication satellites," said SusumuSasaki, a manager at JAXA's Advanced Mission Research Group.

SPS cant warming because China or India will still pollute they do 40% of global warming

SPS cant solve climate change would require 400 satellites and 1000 years

Mark Hempsell, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica,Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen

The key contributor to global warming gases isanthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the atmosphere wouldclearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual production rateof around 30 Gtonnes a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To remove a tonne of the gasover a year and split the carbon from the oxygen would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW systemdedicated to a removal and processing plant would remove 5 million tonnes a year, which is a factor of tenthousand below the current production rate. Taking a scenario of the expanded reference system with around200 SPS in place providing most of the world's energy needs without any carbon dioxide being produced there would stil

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

11
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/A-Strong-National-Defense-The-Armed-Forces-America-Needs-and-What-They-Will-Costhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/A-Strong-National-Defense-The-Armed-Forces-America-Needs-and-What-They-Will-Costhttp://www.livescience.com/2626-satellites-power-future.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/2626-satellites-power-future.htmlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchenhttp://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=130360&contextid734=130360&contextid735=130103&tabid=130103&dynrel=4888caa0-b3db-1461-98b9-e20e7b9c13d4,0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/A-Strong-National-Defense-The-Armed-Forces-America-Needs-and-What-They-Will-Costhttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/04/A-Strong-National-Defense-The-Armed-Forces-America-Needs-and-What-They-Will-Costhttp://www.livescience.com/2626-satellites-power-future.htmlhttp://www.livescience.com/2626-satellites-power-future.htmlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576506001755//jchen


12/40


be a need to remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and dedicated to CO2removal the removal r ate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the current production rate. Such a system(doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be operational for a thousand years to undo thefew decades of heavy dependence on energy from fossil fuels.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

12


13/40


Oil is abioticthose in the oil industry keep quiet to remain profitable and multiple studies prove

Burquest 11 (Bret Burquest is an award-winning columnist. March 25, 2011 Abiotic Oil Bloghttp://bret1111.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiotic-oil.html JT)

The USA controls three percent of the world's proven oil supply yet consumes 25 percent of the world's oil, thereby allowing foreigngovernments, corrupt political leaders and terrorists to have leverage on our economy. To make matters worse, the USA productionof crude oil has been curtailed in the aftermath of the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf in April of 2010 whereby off-shore drillinghas been put on hold by the Obama Administration. Under these conditions, oil industry insiders reap large profits and cause

economic instability. The USA has become dependent on foreign suppliers, particularly from the Middle East where self-centeredsheiks and tyrants squander zillions of dollars on themselves while their subjects struggle in poverty. But suppose the supply of oilwas somehow regenerating itself and not in danger of being depleted after all. Dr. Thomas Gold is a physicist at Cornell University.Some of his accomplishments include landmark research on the workings of the ear, developing the mathematics of the rules ofcosmology, and overseeing the construction and operation of the world's largest radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Dr. Gold is

also aproponent of the abiotic theory of oil. Developed by the Russians in the 1950s, the abiotic theory states that oil is not derivedfrom decayedplant and animal life , but is rather a bio-product of a continual biochemical reaction below the surface of the earth that isforced to attainable depthsby the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation. In other words, oil is continually being produced (created)deep within the planet and "seeps" toward the surface by the centrifugal force of the rotation of the planet, which rotates at a speed ofover 1,000 miles per hourat the equator, as Planet Earth travels through the Universe at 67,000 miles per hour. Basically, Planet Earthis a spinning, moving orb through space. THE DEEP HOT BIOSPHERE: THE MYTH OF FOSSIL FUELS is Dr. Gold's groundbreaking book,published in 1998, that promotes the idea that oil is not a fossil fuel and, contrary to popular belief, is a renewable resource. Whileconventional scientific wisdom dictates that life is formed on the Earth's surface, with the aid of the sun, Dr. Gold believes that most

living entities reside deep within the Earth's crust at temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Celsius, living off of methane and otherhydrocarbons. Although highly regarded as a physicist, Dr. Gold has had a history as being a maverick. In the 1950s, the first radioastronomers discovered odd radio sources in the sky and thought they were unusual stars. Dr. Gold claimed they were actuallydistant galaxies. Years later, with new technology, Dr. Gold was proven to be correct. In the 1960s, a different type of radio sourcewas detected in the skies, flashing on and off with regularity. Dr. Gold wrote that these pulsars were neutron stars, the existence ofwhich had been predicted but had never been seen. Although many of his colleagues scoffed at this explanation, once again Dr. Goldwas proven to be correct. Jerome R. Corsi (PhD from Harvard) is the author of 18 books, including ATOMIC IRAN and UNFIT FOR

COMMAND. Craig R. Smith, Chairman of the board of Swiss America Trading Company, is the author of 24 scholarly books. Corsi andSmith have co-authored BLACK GOLD STRANGLEHOLD, which shares the notion that oil is continually created deep inside the planetand contends that the so-called scarcity is a marketing ploy to charge higher prices. For example, researchers at the Royal Institute ofTechnology in Sweden, as well as other studies, have demonstrated that fossils from plants and animals are not necessary to createcrude oil or natural gas. It's a fact that numerous capped wells which were formerly dry have been discovered to be plentiful onceagain after many years. Perhaps this is newly created oil "seeping upward" by the pressure of the expansion of newly created crude oil(and centrifugal force). According to various sources, includingNASA, USGS and many oceanographic institutes, there is a "natural"oil seepage into the earth's oceans, estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of75 millions gallons of crude oil per year. Onceagain, this is clearly an example of "seeping upward" on the ocean floor from lower depths below the floor surface -- highly unlikely tobe extinct dinosaur juice "trapped" under the depths of the ocean. In 1542, Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo used tar fromnatural oil seepage, known to sailors as asphaltum, off the coast of North America to waterproof his ships -- just as the NativeAmerican Chumash Indians did with their canoes. In 1792, English explorer George Vancouver noted in his log that parts of the PacificCoast were covered in all directions "with an oily surface so thick that the entire sea took on an iridescent hue." Natural seepage ofoil under the ocean, which is currently monitored by NASA, continues to this day. And 75 million gallons of crude oil seeping upwardfrom the ocean floor every year is no small amount -- additional evidence of the possibility of oil perpetually regenerating itself.Presently, in the Spring of 2011, the Middle East is in extreme turmoil. World War III may be on the horizon. And it's all about theavailability and production of crude oil, supposedly a limited resource formed millions of years ago by decaying vegetation and

extinct animals. However, all of this spilled blood in the Middle East may be unnecessary. Perhaps oil is a renewal resource,continually generating additional crude oil deep within the earth whereby it seeps upward toward the surface on a regular basis.Perhaps there are those within the oil industry (and elsewhere) who are aware of the abiotic phenomenon but remain silent(or preventdisclosure) of this fact in order to remain highly profitable.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

13
http://bret1111.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiotic-oil.htmlhttp://bret1111.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiotic-oil.html


14/40


Too late to solve warmingtoo much CO2

Garnet 10 (Andre Garnet, Senior Analyst at Investology, Inc. 8/14/10 , the energy collective, SlowingCO2 emissions cannot end global warming, but removing CO2 from the atmosphere will,http://theenergycollective.com/andre-garnet/41653/slowing-co2-emissions-cannot-end-global-warming-removing-co2-atmosphere-will)

Scarcely a day goes by without some announcement as to yet another effort to limit CO2 emissions, hereor there, for the purpose of fighting global warming. Yet, all such attempts are futile given that so much CO2has already accumulated in the atmosphere that even if we ended all CO2 emissions today, global warming would probably continueto increase unabated. However, as explained below, we do have the technology to extract CO2 from theatmosphere and it is due to inept thinking on the part of United Nations scientists that we are not applyingit. Before going into details, it might be useful to frame the problem: It is since the advent of the industrialrevolution circa 1,850 that factories and transportation caused a large and enduring increase in theamount of CO2 emissions. This phenomenon has been compounded by the rapid increase in the populationgiven that humans emit CO2 as they breathe. As a result, an enormous quantity of CO2 has accumulated in theatmosphere given that we emitted more than could be absorbed by plants and by the sea. So much so , that the amount of new CO2 thatwe emit nowadays is a drop in the bucket compared to the quantity of CO2 that has already accumulated in the atmosphere sincearound 1,850 as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased by about 30%. It is this enormous quantity of atmospheric CO2 thattraps the heat from the Sun, thus causing about 30% of global warming.The point is that, if we are to stop or reverse global

warming, we need to extract from the atmosphere more CO2 than we emit. However, all we are currently attempting is to limitemissions of CO2 . This is too little, too late an d totally useless inasmuch it could reduce our CO2 emissions by only 5% at best, whileachieving nothing in terms of diminishing the amount of atmospheric CO2. Rather than wasting precious time onattempts to LIMIT our CO2 emission, we should focus on EXTRACTING from the atmosphere more CO2 thanwe are emitting. We have a proven method for this that couldn't be simpler, more effective andinexpensive, so what are we waiting for? More specifically, it has been shown that atmospheric CO2 hasbeen perhaps twice higher than now in the not too distant past (some 250,000 years ago.) So what causedit to drop to as low as it was around 1,850? It was primarily due to the plankton that grows on the surfaceof the sea where it absorbs CO2 that it converts to biomass before dying and sinking to the bottom of thesea where it eventually becomes trapped in sedimentary rock where it turns to oil or gas. There simplyisn't enough biomass on the 30% of Earth's surface that is land (as opposed to sea) for this biomass togrow fast enough to soak up the excess atmospheric CO2 that we have to contend with. Plankton, on theother hand, can grow on the 70% of Earth that is covered by the sea where it absorbs atmospheric CO2

much faster, in greater quantities and sequesters it for thousands of years in the form of oil and gas.Growing plankton is thus an extremely efficient, yet simple and inexpensive process for removing thealready accumulated CO2 from the atmosphere. All we need to do is to dust the surface of the ocean withrust (i.e. iron oxides) that serves as a fertilizer that causes plankton to grow. The resulting plankton growsand blooms over several days, absorbing CO2 as it does, and then about 90% of it that isn't eaten by fishsinks to the bottom of the sea. The expert Russ George calculated that if all ocean-going vesselsparticipated in such an effort worldwide, we could return atmospheric CO2 concentration to its 1,850 levelwithin 30 years. It's very inexpensive and easy to do, wouldn't interfere with the ships' normal activitiesand would, in fact, earn them carbon credits that CO2 emitters would be required to buy. Moreover it is theONLY approach available for addressing global warming on the global scale that is necessary. By contrast,efforts to limit CO2 emissions by means of CO2 sequestration could address only about 5% of NEW CO2generated by power plants. So even while causing our electricity costs to treble or quadruple, such effortswouldn't remove any of the massive amount of CO2 already accumulated in the atmosphere. In fact, the

climatologist James Hansen believes that even if we could stop all CO2 emissions as of today, it mayalready be too late to avert run-away, global warming as there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere for globalwarming to keep increasing in what he fears is becoming an irreversible process. In other words,atmospheric CO2 is trapping more heat than Earth can dissipate which causes temperature

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

14


15/40


Warming is just a scare tactic

Jaworowski 08(Zbigniew, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for RadiologicaProtection in Warsaw, NZCPR Research, NZCPR Research, Sun Warms and Cools the Earth, 20September, 2008)

It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the real danger of climate

change. But earlier scare them to deaths! morality of climatists was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their topgurus: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promisingto tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but On the other hand, we are not just scientists but humanbeings as well we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination . That, of course, entails getting loadsof media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios , make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of anydoubts we might have Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and beinghonest (Schneider, 1989).The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore : I believe it is appropriate to have anoverrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up theaudience to listen to what the solutions are (Gore, 2006). In similar vein Rajendra K. Pauchari, thechairman of IPCC, commented in the last Fourth PCCC Report: I hope this will shock people and governments intotaking more serious action (Crook, 2007). Thus IPCC does not have ambition to present an objective climatic situation, but ratherto shock the people to take actions which would bring no climatic effects (NIPCC, 2008), but rather disastrous global economic andsocietal consequences. Implementation of these actions would dismantle the global energy system , the primary driving force of our

civilization. This is what Maurice Strong and other leaders of Green Movement apparently have in mind.

Alarmists have hijacked the global warming debate by cutting off funding for skeptical scientists.

The Telegraph 2007 (Tom Harper, 9/3/07,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-%27climate-denial%27.html#continue)

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned bythe scientific community. They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians,scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deathsthreats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change. One of the

emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming. "Westerngovernments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor. "I cantolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics,but then they started calling us deniers, with all theconnotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal." Last week, Professor Ball appearedin The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed thetheory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to beignored. Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology -who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen theirfunds disappear , their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. "Consequently, lies about climate change gaincredence even when they fly in the face of the science." Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "TheGreen movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to startmicro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do." Nigel Calder, a former editor of NewScientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees . Einstein could not have got

funding under the present system."

Oil Dependency does not cause war

Aonorat 11, (Huffington Post Blogger, and former United States Navy Captain, 2011,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/energy-dependence-oil-war-conflict-_n_845153.html)

Fuel does not cause war and conflict ....People Do! especially those whose greed surrounding the energy we use. There have been carsdesigned to run on a variety of fuels....but those whose financial interests are in the current energy source lobby against alternativesthat would definately reduce the potential for demand that creates tension...it is that tension that keeps their bank accounts bulging.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

15
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-'climate-denial'.html#continuehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-'climate-denial'.html#continuehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/energy-dependence-oil-war-conflict-_n_845153.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-'climate-denial'.html#continuehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-'climate-denial'.html#continuehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/energy-dependence-oil-war-conflict-_n_845153.html


16/40


Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

16


17/40


***Solvency Answers***

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

17


18/40


SQ Solves*

Japan pushing even harder for SPS after the disasters solves the aff

McCue 11 (Dan McCue is a staff writer for the Business Journal.12 July 2011 Japan continues to pursuedream of solar power harvested from spacehttp://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/index/pag/pv_solar/colleft/colright/pv_solar/tip/articulo/pagid/16323/botid/71/ JT)

In the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, many have speculated about how the densely populated andresource poorcountry will meet its future energy needs. Japan continues to pursue dream ofsolar power harvested from spaceToday, five months and a day after the cataclysmic earthquake and tsunami the brought chaos and destruction to Japans northern prefectures, Japaneseofficials have yet to send a clear signal about whether theyll continue what had been a robust nuclear power program, or whether theyll instead seek to

put their nation on a steady diet of renewables. Against this backdrop, a dedicated band of engineers at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

(JAXA), along with corporate, agency and university partners, quietly continue to work on a project that if successful wouldnot only solve Japans energy quandary by mid-century, but would undoubtedly revolutionize the entire solar energy sector inthe process. The project is a space solar array that the engineers envision someday orbiting the Earth staying in perpetualsunshine and beaming electricity from space in the form ofeithermicrowaves or lasers. The space agencys best current estimatesare that the effort will take nearly 30 years to come to fruition. But when it does, the agency says, the solar array in space will send 1 GW of power back tothe Earth. Based on the assumption that the power demand of a single home is 3 KW, the system known by the acronym SSPS (for satellite solar powersystem), will supply power for about 300,000 homes. Hoping to learn more about the project, Renewable Energy Magazine reached out to Tatsuhito

Fujita, Associate Senior Engineer with the Advanced Mission Research Group at the Japanese space agencys Innovative Technology Research Centre,with whom we exchanged questions and answers via email. After the accident of the nuclear power plant, interview requests from TV, newspaper and

publishing companies have increased remarkably, Fujita said from his office, which is part of Japans Aerospace Research and Development Directorate.

Early published reports about SSPS put its price tag at about two trillion yen (roughly $21 billion) and said a total of16 Japanesefirms, including Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd, were participating in the projects development. Fujita, however, indicated that the clearcost of the SSPS project is not yet known. Its something that we continue to study, he explained. Two trillion yen is the target for the totalcost of developing SSPS, but it must be studied to determine whether this cost is feasible or not. Fujita went on to say that someof the original 16 companies involved in the effort are no longer participating, but also said JAXA has firm contracts with the others. Right now,engineers in Tsukuba and at the Institute for Unmanned Space Experiment Free Flyer (USEF) in Tokyo are deep into the developing thetechnology needed to beam the electricity produced back to Earth. Fujita said experiments of transmitting energy bymicrowave and laser are now the primary studies conducted in relation to the SSPS . Eventually, a determination will be made as to whichwill be most effective for our purposes, Fujita said. However, the selection of which to use is something that must be done in the future. To produce1 GW of power, the solar power station will rely on a four km2 (approximately 2.5 square miles) array of photovoltaic panelsto collect solar rays while orbiting some 36,000 km (22,500 miles) above the earth's surface. Power will then be beamed to a

receiving site that will be constructed at an as yet undetermined site off the Japanese coast. Thats because Japan doesnt have much flat [land] area, Fujita said. From there the power will flow tothe existing commercial power network, he added. Of course, Japan isnt the first country to consider the viability of the space-based collection of solar energy, nor is it the only country doing so now. Theconcept, alternatively known as space-based solar power (SBSP) or satellite solar power system (SSPS), first gained currency in the late 1960s. Then, in 1973, Dr. Peter Glaser was granted a US patentnumber for his method of transmitting power over long distances using microwaves from a very large antenna (up to one square kilometre) on the satellite to a much larger one, now known as a rectenna, onthe ground. Glasers work (he was then vice president of a firm called Arthur D. Little Inc.) caught the attention of the US space agency NASA, which asked Glaser and ADL to take the lead on a broaderstudy. While that study identified several barriers to the concept including the expense of putting the required materials in orbit and the lack of experience on projects of this scale in space -- space-basedsolar power collection nevertheless showed enough promise to merit further investigation. Between 1978 and 1981, the US Congress authorized the Dept. of Energy and NASA to jointly investigate theconcept, a study that became known as the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program. Although that project was discontinued, interest in the space-based harvesting of solarpower revived in the late 1990s, and in 1997 NASA was directed to take a fresh look at the concept. Two years later, NASA began its Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program(SERT). The group concluded that space solar power concepts were no longer the stuff of science fiction as the price of sending such a system, while still enormous, had come down considerably, andknowledge of solar power had advanced considerably since the 1960s. Space solar power may well emerge as a serious candidate among the options for meeting the energy demands of the 21st century,

the study committee said. In all the US is estimated to have spent about $80 million to explore the possibilities of a space based solar system. Japan entered the fray 15 to 20 yearsago, after researchers at its National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA), the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS)and some of its top university firstproposed the country seriously consider solaras the way to meet its future energy needs. Many of the firstresearch projects undertaken by those entities involved microwave transmission, including the effects of the environment on the microwaves and how the

microwaves impacted the environment.NASDA and ISAS were merged into JAXA in 2003. More recently, Europes Astrium, an aerospacesubsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), announced that it too is developing new systems and technologies fortransferring orbital solar energy to Earth. For all that activity, however, there are still those who, like Dr. Pete Worden, a participant in the NASA studies,

maintain that space-based solar is about five orders of magnitude more expensive than solar power gathered by panels in a desert, with a major cost beingthe transportation of materials to orbit. Dr. Worden said as a result all possible solutions are merely speculative, and would not be available for decades atthe earliest. Some people often say that, Fujita said. We explain that SSPS can supply solar power to the earth even at night and in rainy or cloudy day,while solar panel on the earth can not supply solar power in the same situation. SSPS can supply solar power to the earth more steadily than solar panelon the earth, he said. The Japanese realize the cost of building the solar station in orbit would be prohibitive at the moment, and thats one reason for the

methodical, but ceaseless work on the project. There are many technical challenges in order to realize SSPS, Fujita said. The maintechnical problems to solve are how to assemble such a large structure, increasing of efficiency of electrical equipment likethe solar battery and the generator of microwave, and decreasing the cost of transportation. The first step in bringing theplans to fruition will be the launch in around 2020 of the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) of the International Space Station.The module will be fitted with equipment that will beam electricity to Earth.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

18
http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/index/pag/pv_solar/colleft/colright/pv_solar/tip/articulo/pagid/16323/botid/71/http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/index/pag/pv_solar/colleft/colright/pv_solar/tip/articulo/pagid/16323/botid/71/http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/index/pag/pv_solar/colleft/colright/pv_solar/tip/articulo/pagid/16323/botid/71/http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/energias/renovables/index/pag/pv_solar/colleft/colright/pv_solar/tip/articulo/pagid/16323/botid/71/


19/40


Japan is doing the plan

Schubert 10 -- Ph.D., P.E. Packer Engineering, Inc. (Winter, Online Journal of Space Communication, Issue No. 16: Solar PowerSatellitesCosts, Organization, and Roadmap for SSP, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html,RG)

The European Space Agency (ESA) has several modest research programs in SSP. India's space agency ISRO has interest,but inadequate funding for SSP. The current center of mass for SSP is in Japan, with the recent announcement of long-termcorporate investment. Japan has limited indigenous resources, leading to a strong ethic of energy conservation, so itscitizenry are aware of the importance of energy. The space agency JAXA, together with the Ministry of International Tradeand Industry (MITI), large corporate conglomerates, and able universities, appear to have the will and the way to achieveviable SSP satellites.

China will develop SSPSchubert 10 -- Ph.D., P.E. Packer Engineering, Inc. (Winter, Online Journal of Space Communication, Issue No. 16: Solar PowerSatellitesCosts, Organization, and Roadmap for SSP, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html,RG)

China's rapidly growing need for electric power results in projects like the Three Gorges Dam, and a regular progression of

coal-fired power plants being built across the country. The environmental devastation is staggering. Yet the economic boonhas helped fund China's space program, one which generates considerable national pride. China's government is alsofamously forward-looking. China will probably be the first country to develop SSP on a large scale.

UV rays will destroy satellites

Taylor, 7 Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air Force Space Command; B.A,Berry College; J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill University (Michael W. Trashing the Solar SystemOne Planet at a Time: Earths Orbital Debris Problem, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall, 2007)

Without Earth's atmosphere to protect them, satellites are exposed to the full force of solar radiation, including ultravioletrays, X-rays, positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. n16 Ultraviolet rays and X-rays can damagesatellites by degrading solar panels, which many satellites use as a source of energy, thus shortening their useful life. n17

When solar activity increases, the number of damaging rays also increases. The charged particles can cause even moredamage than the rays because the particles penetrate the outer layers of the satellite and directly degrade its electronicsystems. Unlike the rays, which are generally evenly distributed around Earth, the particles become trapped in Earth'smagnetic field and concentrate in two doughnut-shaped (torus) areas around the equator. n18 These regions are called theVan Allen radiation belts. n19 The Van Allen radiation belts significantly limit the operation of satellites.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

19
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.htmlhttp://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.htmlhttp://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.htmlhttp://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html


20/40


Long TimeframeTheres no SPS until 2050

Foust 8 (Jeff, editor and publisher of The Space Review and aerospace analyst, with a BS with honors in geophysics from Caltechand a PhD in planetary sciences from MIT, A renaissance for space solar power?, 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 inthe near term. If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, its going to take a long time, he said. The horizonwere looking at is 2050 before were able to do something significant. The first major milestone, he said, would be asmall demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate power beamingfrom GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that couldalter the direction space solar power systems would go. That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved inJell-O.

Developing an SPS takes time- a long process

David Boswell, Democratic Nominee in the 2008 congressional, 8/30/04, Whatever happened to solar power satellites?, TheSpace Review,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1

A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous. Some designs suggest creatingrectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side. If we assume that enough money could be found tobuild something like this and that it could be run competitively against other energy options, there is the very real problemof figuring out how to get it into orbit or how to build it in orbit from separate smaller pieces. The largest solar panels everdeployed in space are currently being used on the International Space Station. They cover more than 830 square meters andare 73 meters long and 11 meters wide. These large panels make the ISS one of the brightest objects in the night sky.Scaling up from there to something much larger would be challenging, but the good news is that we can take one thing at atime. For a proof of concept satellite it makes sense to use the stations solar panels as a baseline. By taking advantage ofimprovements in solar cell technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of the same size that generates up to 3times as much power. The stations solar panels are 14% efficient, but recent advances with solar cells and solarconcentrators could allow us to build panels that are up to 50% efficient. If this demonstration system validated the theorybehind generating power in space and beaming it down to Earth, the next step would be figuring out how to put even biggersolar panels in space. It may be that with our current launch options it simply isnt possible to launch an operational solarpower system into orbit. If that were the case, the concept would need to be put on hold until other lift options, such as aspace elevator, are available. There are a number of reasons why we wont be seeing huge orbiting solar collectors beamingus lots of energy anytime soon. Starting the development of such a system by building small proof of concept satellites is

completely within our reach, though. There are economic, political, and engineering hurdles in the way, but none of theseshould be enough to stop the idea if we choose to pursue it. Once a successful demonstration has been achieved, there maybe enough interest in government or in private industry to continue working toward fully-operational solar power satellites.

Technology fails its 40 years away

Day, 08 (Dwayne, Knights in shining armor, The Space Review, 6/9,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)

The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP andthat it is not a viable solution for even the militarys limited requirements. It states that the technology to implement spacesolar power does not currently exist and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years. Substantial technology developmentmust occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the report makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheapaccess to space, which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skipthis part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). The activists have ignored the message and fallen in love withthe messenger.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

20
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1


21/40


SSP will not be available for 30 years even with a massive tech breakthrough

William Fan Harold Martin James Wu Brian Mok, senior fellows at the Caltech Institute of Space Technology, 6/2/2011,SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER, Caltech, http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf

Right now, SPSP is not viable as a mainstream source of energy. In fact, even when accounting for the most optimaleffects, we would need to wait at least 30 more years before beginning a large attempt at adopting space based solar power.

In order for SBSP to be feasible before then, we would require some sort of disruptive technology in orbital launch, such asa space elevator. Another case might be where the Earths atmosphere suddenly prevented more of the sunlight fromreaching the Earth, increasing the efficiency gains from using SBSP

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM

21


22/40


Tech BarriersLow tech and new launch vehicles mean no solvency

Rogue, Director of National Security Space Office 07 (Joseph D. Rogue, Phase O Architecture Feasibility Study)Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of lowcost space accessand a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges forSBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid

resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSPsatellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeatedreview finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSPdevelopment. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incrementalresearch and development program that culminates with a spaceborne proofofconcept demonstration in the next decade.A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawattsclass systems is included inAppendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will benecessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercialcommercial, governmentcommercial, and governmentgovernment) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter andto incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems comingonline today.

Plan requires drastic tech breakthroughs that take yearsNRC 1 (Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy, Aeronautics and Space EngineeringBoard, National Research Council, Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power: An Assessment of NASA's Space Solar PowerInvestment Strategy National Academies Press 10-30-01)

As stated above, improvements in PV solar array technology alone will not enable SSP to be economically competitivewith terrestrial utility electricity, even if the solar array were free and theoretical efficiency and mass performance levelswere obtained. The committee believes that the greatest challenge for the SSP program is to develop more realistic andaccurate system cost and performance models, including theoretical solar array, power management and distribution(PMAD), thermal control, and wireless transmission cost and performance parameters, that will allow the launch cost to berealistically quantified. The issue is not the future cost of PV solar array technology, because one day the terrestrial PVindustry will reduce costs to a point competitive with utility electricity, but the cost to place the array in orbit. Consideringthe paramount challenge in technology development required for other SSP disciplines, and the approximate $200$300million invested annually in space and terrestrial PV development worldwide, the SSP program should make minimalinvestment in current PV technologies. It is important to note that there is actually little difference between space andterrestrial PV technologies. There is virtually no difference in the electrically active part of the PV cell that controlsconversion efficiency, called the p/n junction. The only difference lies in packaging of the cell, a technology that requiresno significant new development. Also, a more thorough trade study must be conducted to rule solar dynamic heat enginesfor power generation in or out. The option of using solar dynamic heat engines in the SERT program was briefly discussed;however, a comprehensive trade study has not been conducted. Solar dynamic options are presently 34 times heavier thanconventional PV arrays, 20 W/kg versus 6080 W/kg, respectively. Also, current solar dynamic options are roughly 10times more expensive than PV arrays, $5,000/W versus $500/W, respectively. These data, along with the additionalconcern that solar dynamic requires very high solar concentration ratios and, hence, extremely accurate pointing of verylarge solar collectors, indicate that it may not be a good choice for SSP. Recommended Priority for Investment Consideringthe paramount challenge of reducing SSP power generation system mass to several orders of magnitude less than todaysPV solar array systems, concepts other than conventional crystalline PV, thin-film PV, or solar dynamic concepts need tobe developed. Even if SSP PV-based solar array were free, the theoretical specific power for conventional PV arrays of

1,000 W/kg would result in a cost-prohibitive launch requirement. Revolutionary breakthroughs are required in solar-to-electric power generation technology offering system-specific power in the range of 2,50010,000 W/kg. Consideringthe small SSP investment in PV solar array technology today (


23/40


Tons of technical barriers prevent launch, none of which have been taken into account by anyone

seriously considering developing SBSP

John Mankins, Ad Astra, president of the Space Power Association, and former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, Office of

Space Flight at NASA, Spring 2008, Inexhaustible Energy from Orbit, pg. 20, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

A major barrier to all space endeavors also applies to space solar power, and that is affordable access to space. This barrieris one of compelling importance. The problem of space access includes both low-cost and highly-reliable Earth-to-orbittransportation, and in-space transportation. (Fortunately, one of the key ingredients in overcoming this barrier is having amarket that requires many flights. Its hard to imagine how air travel between continents would be affordable if the aircraftwere used once or twice per year rather than once or twice per day!)Advances that drive down the cost of space operationspresent significant hurdles, too. These hurdles involve a range ofcapabilities, most of which have never been demonstratedin spacebut all of which are entirely taken for granted here on Earth. The kinds of capabilities in question include thehighly-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 andsustaining engineers on Earthwhich drive the high cost of contemporary space operations.)

SSP technology fails and is based on propagandaRako, 08 technical editor of Electronics Design, Strategy, and News (Paul, Solar power in space, a really stupid idea, 7/25,

http://www.edn.com/blog/1700000170/post/1830030583.html

The New York Times has an article about solar power satellites (SPS). This is where you put a few square mile of solar panels up in space and then just beam the power down to earth with microwaves. Thisidea was so loony and so farcical on its face that I about had a conniption fit. Well, this is the great thing about the Internet. See, the New York Times allowscomments on its articles and they soon had six pages of comments, many from engineers like ourselves that pointed out how incredibly stupid thisidea was. A few years ago the Times would have received a dozen letters critical of the article and maybe published one or maybe killed them and nobody is the wiser. Now they get 143 comments, mostly con, thatsuddenly appear and the whole world can see how absurd the proposals in the article are. And I love the researcher that comments, What would it hurt to spend abou t 100 million on further research? Well not his housepayment, but we peons have better things to research with our tax dollars. Like why the seam of my blue jeans legs curl up when they come out of the dryer. I always wondered about that.Just as sad, of all the comments with good reasoned analysis, the comment the Times put on the first page in a little highlighted box was:"Energy from space really is one of the crucial 'three pillars' of renewable electricity, along with wind and thermal solar farms." Dr. Paul J. Werbos, Arlington, Va.That was pretty unbelievable to me, but just look the first paragraph of the article itself:As we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems orharm the environment. There is, however, one potential future energy source that is environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

This is a flat-out lie. Its a lie in so many places it hurts my teeth. Sweeping all the alternative energy sources under the rug, without looking athe complex analog tradeoffs involved is an affront to reason and decency. That is a bad enough lie. But to then follow that absurditywith the assertion that space solar power is somehow economically possible and environmentally friendly is comp

SPS Case Neg

Documents

Transcript of SPS Case Neg