127 SS Space Case Neg

8/7/2019 127 SS Space Case Neg

1/71

SPACE NEGDDI SS 2008KAPUSTINA

SPACE NEG

Space Militarization Bad F/L................................................................................................................... 3

Space Militarization Bad Exts: Hegemony.............................................................................................. 4

Space Militarization Good F/L................................................................................................................. 6




Space Militarization Good Exts: Prolif.................................................................................................. 10

Space Militarization Good Exts: WMD................................................................................................. 11

AT: Space Militarization Inevitable....................................................................................................... 13

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 14

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 14

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 16

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 17

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 19

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 20

Solvency F/L............................................................................................................................................. 21

Solvency Exts: Disease............................................................................................................................. 22

Space Colonization F/L........................................................................................................................... 23Space Colonization F/L........................................................................................................................... 24

Space Colonization F/L........................................................................................................................... 25

Space Colonization F/L........................................................................................................................... 26

Weapons Security Case Turn................................................................................................................. 28

KO Information Warfare F/L................................................................................................................ 29

KO Information Warfare F/L................................................................................................................ 30

Generic Competitiveness F/L.................................................................................................................. 31

Generic Competitiveness F/L.................................................................................................................. 32

CM Competitiveness Block..................................................................................................................... 33

CO Competitiveness Block...................................................................................................................... 34

Competitiveness- Space Mil Turn.......................................................................................................... 35

Competitiveness- Space Mil Turn.......................................................................................................... 37

F-22 Trade-Off Disad.............................................................................................................................. 39

F-22 Trade-Off Disad.............................................................................................................................. 40


2/71


F-22 Trade-Off Disad.............................................................................................................................. 41

F-22 Trade-Off Disad Exts: Link........................................................................................................... 42

F-22 Trade-Off Disad Exts: Heg Impact............................................................................................... 43

Space Militarization China Disad.......................................................................................................... 44

Space Miltarization China Disad........................................................................................................... 45

Space Militarization China Disad Exts: Link....................................................................................... 46

CTBT Treaty Disad................................................................................................................................. 47

Space Militarization Indo-Pak Disad..................................................................................................... 48

Politics Links: Info Warfare Unpopular............................................................................................... 49

Politics Links: Dems Oppose.................................................................................................................. 52

Politics Links: NASA Popular................................................................................................................ 53

Japan CP Solvency.................................................................................................................................. 54Private Sector CP Solvency.................................................................................................................... 55

Private Sector CP Solvency.................................................................................................................... 56

Private Actor CP- AT: Perm Do Both................................................................................................... 57

Cooperation Counterplan 1NC.............................................................................................................. 58

Cooperation Counterplan Solvency Exts............................................................................................ 59

Cooperation Counterplan- Solvency Exts............................................................................................. 60

Cooperation Counterplan- Solvency Exts............................................................................................. 62

Cooperation Counterplan AT: China Not Ready.............................................................................. 63

Cooperation Counterplan AT: Kills US Business .............................................................................64

Cooperation Counterplan AT: China Gets US Tech Secrets ..........................................................65

CO Japan F/L........................................................................................................................................... 66

CO Japan F/L........................................................................................................................................... 67


3/71


Space Militarization Bad F/L

Space weaponization key to U.S. hegemony

Everett C. Dolman, , 9-14-05 Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the U.S. Air Force, US MilitaryTransformation and Weapons in Space, http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf

This rationality does not dispute the fact that US deployment of weapons in outer space would represent the addition of a potentnew military capacity, one that would assist in extendingthe current period ofAmerican hegemony well into the future. Thiswould clearly be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But suchan outcome is less threatening than any other state doing so. Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be

perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the currentinternational balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. Acontinuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ itspower arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time.

Hegemony key to prevent global nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad, Senior assistant at RAND Institute and former U.S. ambassador Spring, 1995, The Washington Quarterly,

Rethinking Grand Strategy, Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, Lexis

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a returnto multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision isdesirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendousadvantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's majorproblems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally,

U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to

avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadershipwould therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdfhttp://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdfhttp://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdfhttp://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf


4/71


Space Militarization Bad Exts: Hegemony

Space weaponization key to hegemony- global control and surveillance

Center for Defense Information, 4-18-02, Theresa Hitches- CDI Vice President, Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or RussianRoulette?, http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm

The United States already enjoys an overwhelming advantage in military use of space; space assets such as the GlobalPositioning System satellite networkhave proven invaluable in improving precision-targeting giving the U.S. military adecisive battlefield edge. There would be even a more formidable military advantage to possession of weapons in space global power projection and the enormous difficulty in defending against space weapons aimed at terrestrial targets. "It

is ... possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Having this

capability would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary militaryadvantage," notes the Space Commission report.


5/71


Space Militarization Good F/L

Space militarization sparks accidental war

David Ritchie, 1982, Space War, p. 191-2, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1768/Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the militarization of space is that of war by accident. At any given time, severalthousand satellites and other pieces of equipment -- spent booster stages and the like -- are circling the earth, most of themin low orbit. The space immediately above the atmosphere has begun to resemble an expressway at rush hour . It is notuncommon for satellites to miss each other by only a kilometer or two, and satellites crashing into each other may explainsome of the mysterious incidents in which space vehicles simply vanish from the skies. One civillian TV satellite has beenlost in space; it never entered its intended orbit, and no signals were heard from it to indicate where it might have gone.Collision with something else in space seems a reasonable explanation of this disappearance. Even a tiny fragment of metalstriking a satellite at a relative velocity of a few kilometers per second would wreck the satellite, ripping through it like aMagnum slug through a tin can.Now suppose that kind of mishap befell a military satellite -- in the worst possiblesituation, during a time of international tension with all players in the spacewar game braced for attacks on theirspacecraft. The culpable fragment might be invisible from the ground; even something as small and light as a paper clip couldinflict massive damage on a satellite at high velocity. Unaware of the accident, a less than cautious leader might interpretit as a preconceived attack. Wars have begun over smaller incidents

Space weaponization causes backlash and undermines conventional U.S. hegemony

Michael Katz-HymanandMichael Krepon , April 2003,Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space,p. 89, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1304/

Given the extraordinary and growing differential in power that the United States enjoys in ground warfare, sea power, and airpower, it is hard to propound compelling arguments for seeking to supplement these advantages by weaponizing space.Thecurrent U.S. lead in the military utilization of space has never been greater and is unchallenged. If the United States pushesto extend its pronounced military dominance into space, others will view this through the prism of the Bush

administration 's national security strategy, which places emphasis on preventive war and preemption. Foreign leaders will notpassively accept U.S. initiatives to implement a doctrine of space dominance. They will have ample, inexpensive means to

take blocking action, as it is considerably easier to negate U.S. dominance in space than on the ground, at sea, and in the air.The introduction of space weaponry and ASAT testing are therefore likely introduce grave complications for the terrestrial military

advantages that the United States has worked so hard, and at such expense, to secure.

Hegemony key to prevent global nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad, Senior assistant at RAND Institute and former U.S. ambassador Spring, 1995, The Washington Quarterly,Rethinking Grand Strategy, Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War, Lexis

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a returnto multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision isdesirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendousadvantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major

problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally,U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to

avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadershipwould therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81


6/71



Space mil undermines U.S. values and leads to an arms race

Mike Moore, 2006, "A New Cold War?." SAIS Review. 175-188, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2302/

We Americans love our Statue of Liberty, our Washington and Lincoln memorials, our Grand Canyon and our Golden Gate,our Constitution, our rule of law, our democratic ways. We never tire of telling the world about these marvels and many more.But for good or ill, how we Americans actually employee our high-tech, space-based military power is the thing by whichthe United States increasingly will be judged by the rest of the world . In a world of sovereign nations, a unilateral U.S.space-control capability would raise profoundly troubling questions about the meaning of sovereignty in the 21stcentury. An attempt to deploy a space-control capability and insert weapons into orbit surely would be regarded bymany states as an intolerable violation of global norms and of their sovereignty. Today's threats do not require the UnitedStates to pursue high-tech, space-based weaponization. To do so would threaten relations with the rest of the world andpossibly set off a damaging arms race in space.

TURN- space mil undermines U.S. soft power

ChristopherCoffelt, June 2005, The Best Defense: Charting the Future of US Space Strategy and Policy, online version:

http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2328/

Weaponizing space also decreases the United States ability to influence adversaries and achieve policy objectives shortof military action (soft power). It undermines the legitimacy of the United States actions and its role as the leader of thefree world.How can the United States assume the mantle of world leadership if it continues to act unilaterally at theexpense of the international cooperation, peace, and interests it claims to value? Putting weapons in space is the ultimateunilateral act and affords no opportunity to form coalitions of the willing. The United States currently enjoys asignificant superiority in air/land/sea combat power, robustly enhanced and enabled by space capabilities. In this position ofadvantage, it makes little strategic sense to disrupt the status quo with the deployment ofdestabilizing, offensive weaponsin space. Putting weapons in space or pursuing an offensive space strategy upsets an advantageous status quo and overplaysthe United States hand, shortening the period of advantage. Moreover, if, as some believe, the world is on a path to theinevitable weaponization of space, there are clear advantages in assuming the follower role.

Soft Power key to hegemony
http://spacedebate.org/source/SAIS%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/SAIS%20Reviewhttps://research.maxwell.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=5293https://research.maxwell.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=5293http://spacedebate.org/source/SAIS%20Reviewhttps://research.maxwell.af.mil/viewabstract.aspx?id=5293


7/71



Space militarization crushes U.S. leadership and ability to fight the war on terror

Bruce M. Deblois, , 7-5-03 Director of Systems Integration at BAE SYSTEMS, The Advent of Space Weapons,http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Bergman_11ast03.pdfBeyond adversarial responses, allies and partners abroad might also react unfavorably. Any unilateraldecision to weaponize space might have negative consequences for diplomatic relationships worldwide. The E uropeanUnion has been a consistent and vocal critic and, as validated by multiple resolutions in the UN regardingthe prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS), reflects the opinions of the largerinternational community. In response to proposed US tests of its mid-infrared advanced chemicallaser (MIRACL), an official from the European Space Agency commented: 'The world space community is confused asto the need for the US to develop space weaponry now, and is dismayed that the US is planning to test ahigh-powered laser against a satellite target'. Although it is unlikely that weapons in space wouldthreaten or sever strong existing diplomatic ties, simple unpopularity might prompt a shift in the internationalcenter of gravity. Countries opposing or alienated by one states' space policy might gravitate to other alignments,

possibly creating an international coalition to oppose the space-weaponizing country on these and other issueswithin international organizations such as the UN or the World Trade Organization (WTO). A decisionto posture weapons in space might also diminish the ability of the space-weaponizing country to assembleinternational coalitions. In the case of the United States, such international political clout has been crucially important

to the military, political, judicial and economic conduct of the war on terrorism. These forms of diplomatic influence

might be more important than hard power in the maintenance of global stability in the twenty-first century.


8/71



Space weaponization damages U.S. leadership, environment, economy while promoting war and proliferation

Michael Krepon, 2004, Founding President of the Henry L. Stimson Center and author ofCooperative ThreatReduction, Missile Defense and theNuclear Future, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs,

http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/publications/journal/Issues/sf04/Forum%20Krepon.pdf

The potential debrisand disruptioncaused by space warfare would impair global commercethat depends on space,produceenvironmental damage, and create hazards to space exploration. Companies that depend on space-aided commerce wouldbe particularly hard-hitby the flight-testing, deployment, or use of space weapons.Insurance companies that backstop space-related activities would look for less risky investments, or raise their ratesappreciably. The avid pursuit of flight-testing andthedeployment of space weaponry by the United Stateswould also be likely to create deeper fissures in alliance ties andrelations between major powers, whose assistance is most needed toform coalitions of the willing tostopand reverse proliferation. Washingtons choice is therefore stark and clear: The United States and other countries would not bereassured by the flight-testing and deployment of weapons based in space or weapons on Earth designed for space warfare. Thepursuit of space weapons would come at the direct expense ofspace assurance. Space assurance is defined here as a mutuallysupporting network of agreements, cooperative measures, international norms, codes of conduct and mil itary hedgesdesigned to prevent dangerous military activities in space, especially the flight testing, deployment and use of space weapons.


9/71



Space warfare creates dangerous debris

The Space Review, 3-24-08, Taylor Dinerman, Messy Battlefields, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1089/1

When it happens, war in space is going to be a very messy business, especially in low Earth orbit (LEO), where most of thereally lucrative targets are. Big high-performance spy satellites are especially important. They provide those nations thatown and operate them with very high-resolution imagery across swaths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Knocking them outin the first moments of a conflict is going to be a priority.During the Cold War this was expected and planned for. The US expected to USSR to knock out its big Keyhole satellites as aprelude to an all-out nuclear attack. It was one of the reasons why some leaders in the US figured they could count on at least asmall margin of early warning. Today, when the possibility of a major nuclear war has receded, space warfare may befought without the cloud of atomic uncertainty hanging over every operation.According to one report in Aviation Week, the US is now building a pair of advanced Keyhole satellites at a cost of about $15billion. The idea that the US will launch a defenseless military asset that costs $7.5 billion seems to defy logic, yet that isexactly what the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) seems to have in mind.

As space technology spreads, the incentives for small and medium-sized states to seek space warfare capability

increases. A dictator who does not want to end the way Saddam Hussein did may seek way to hurt US warfighting capabilityin such a way as to impose major costs and casualties on the US early on. The destruction of a major US satellite would be

both a substantive and a symbolic victory over the US. Hitting a number of satellites would increase the effect.Such an attack would result in a major increase in the amount of debris orbiting the Earth. This would be the

equivalent of a scorched earth policy if enough deadly debris were created. One possibility that has not been publiclyexamined might be to build highly- or ultra-destructive ASAT weapons that would literally pulverize the target and leavenothing behind but bits of dust. Even small particles can do some damage, but paint flakes like those that sometimes hit spaceshuttles have not managed to destroy an orbiter.

Technical obstacles prevent successful space weaponizationIndeed, the technical barriers to development and deployment of space-based weapons cannot be overestimated, even for theU.S. military. There are serious, fundamental obstacles to the development of both kinetic kill weapons and lasers both foruse against targets in space and terrestrial targets not to mention the question of the staggering costs associated with launchand maintaining systems on orbit. Problems with lasers include power generation requirements adding to size, the need forlarge quantities ofchemical fuel and refueling requirements, and the physics of propagating and stabilizing beams across long

distances or through the atmosphere. Space-based kinetic energy weapons have their own issues, including achieving properorbital trajectories and velocities, the need to carry massive amounts of propellant, and concern about damage to own-forcesfrom debris resulting from killing an enemy satellite. Space-based weapons also have the problem of vulnerability, forexample, predictable orbits and the difficulty of regeneration. A detailed discussion of technology challenges is beyond thescope of this paper, but a comprehensive primer on the myriad problems with developing space-based weapons is a September1999 paper by Maj. William L. Spacy II, "Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?" written for the College ofAerospace Doctrine, Research and Education at Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.


10/71


Space Militarization Good Exts: Prolif

U.S. space leadership increases prolif- no cooperation with China or Russia

Michael Katz-Hyman andMichael Krepon , July 2005, "Viewpoint: Space Weapons and Proliferation."Non ProliferationReview. Vol. 12, No. 2, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2468/

Successful efforts to stop and reverse proliferation face long odds when the dominant state demands to play by its ownrules. These odds become even longer when the dominant state cannot enlist the active support of Moscow and Beijing

on hard proliferation cases that bother Washington more than they do Russia and China. Nor do Russian or Chinese leadersappear unduly distressed over the difficulties U.S. forces presently face in Iraq. Burden sharing with respect to proliferationis not high on their list of priorities and is likely to drop lower if U.S. space warfare initiatives are pursued. OfficialChinese and Russian threat perceptions of the United States are not articulated in public, but they may reasonably beinferred. Both capitals might well question why Washington seeks to extend its military dominance into space bypursuing capabilities that would not be particularly helpful in scenarios involving Iran, North Korea, or other developingcountries. Instead, the pursuit of U.S. dominance into space may well be viewed by Moscow and Beijing as part of a broadereffort to negate their nuclear deterrents. If so, prospects for nonproliferation and disarmament would further decline.

When dominance poses a threat to major powers whose cooperation is most needed to halt and reverse proliferation,

dominance becomes part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

Space militarization increases proliferationMichael Katz-Hyman andMichael Krepon , July 2005, "Viewpoint: Space Weapons and Proliferation."Non ProliferationReview. Vol. 12, No. 2, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2390/#

We argue that additional proliferation of nuclear weapons, rather than new arms races, is the most likely outcome of arenewed interest in space warfare. Proliferation will be a natural consequence of more nations feeling less secure as a

result of space weapons. Adverse proliferation consequences could be both direct and indirect. China and Russia will likelyfeel most directly threatened by U.S. space warfare initiatives. Beijing will likely increase its nuclear weaponrequirements to counter increased threat perceptions without engaging in an arms race, while Moscow will probably

seek to adjust the contraction of its nuclear arsenal to the extent the Kremlin believes that its deterrent might be challengedby U.S. initiatives. Indirect, horizontal proliferation is likely to result from greater strains in major power relations andin U.S.-alliance ties triggered by U.S. initiatives to dominate space. In the absence of united fronts against proliferation bymajor powers and by America's friends and allies, international efforts to strengthen nonproliferation and disarmament

norms are likely to fail, and hedging strategies against a more worrisome future are likely to multiply.
http://spacedebate.org/author/2145http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/author/2145http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/author/2145http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/author/2145http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Reviewhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Non%20Proliferation%20Review


11/71


Space Militarization Good Exts: WMD

TURN- U.S. space militarization encourages enemies to develop tech the U.S. cant beat

BarryWatts, February 2001, The Military Use of Space: A Diagnostic Assessment, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategicand Budgetary Assessments, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1539/

The rub, of course, is that potential adversaries may not elect to emulate American approaches to the military use oforbital space. A regional opponent primarily concerned with preventing the United States from projecting its military powerinto its region of the world could choose to exploit space assets in very different ways than mirroring American capabilities.Some focused capabilities in orbit along with a willingness to combat or negate US advantages derived from space usingterrestrial means could very well go far to level the playing field between the United States and a future regionalopponent. For example, a redundant fiber-optic network coupled with a few overhead transponders for relaying mobilecommunications could turn the enemy's in-theater command and control into a system the United States could findnearly impossible to take down. If targeted with data from commercial or military imaging satellites, the system couldpermit prompt precision-missile strikes against any theater bases and airfields bases being utilized by American forces.This sort of asymmetric response to US power-projection capabilities could be quite effective with only the most limiteduse of satellite assets, and the trend toward orbital assets becoming a global commons makes denying the enemy access to any

commercial satellites a difficult proposition. In such a scenario, the far superior and more sophisticated space capabilities of theUS military might yield little overall strategic or operational advantage.

U.S. space militarization prompts international WMD use

Michael Katz-HymanandMichael Krepon . April 2003, Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against WeaponizingSpace, online version: http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1181/

The flight-testing and deployment ofspace weaponry has been inextricably linked to the dangers associated with weaponsofmass destruction. The initial prohibitions on space weaponry, after all, were expressly tied to weapons ofmassdestruction. During the Cold War, space warfare was widely considered a harbinger of nuclear warfare, given theconnectivity of satellites most likely to be attacked with the command, control, and targeting ofnuclear forces. Thislinkage has not disappeared with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the advent of extreme forms of asymmetric warfare

and terrorism. States possessing nuclear weapons that might become adversaries to the United States could view U.S.initiatives to weaponize space as an attempt to negate their deterrents. Space-to-ground warfare initiatives to further

extend U.S. military advantages could therefore prompt compensatory steps by weaker states, including the acceleratedpursuit of unconventional weapons.
http://spacedebate.org/author/1248http://spacedebate.org/author/1248http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://spacedebate.org/author/1248http://spacedebate.org/author/577http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81


12/71


Space Militarization Good Exts: HegemonySpace weaponization crushes U.S. hegemony in the long-term


Chinese moves to put weapons in space would trigger regional rival India to consider the same, in turn, spurring Pakistan to

strive for parity with India. Even U.S. allies in Europe might feel pressure to "keep up with the Joneses." It is quite easy toimagine the course of a new arms race in space that would be nearly as destabilizing as the atomic weapons race proved

to be.

Such a strategic-level space race could have negative consequences for U.S. security in the long run that would outweigh

the obvious (and tremendous) short-term advantage of being the first with space-based weapons. There would be directeconomic costs to sustaining orbital weapon systems and keeping ahead of opponents intent on matching U.S. space-weapon capabilities raising the proverbial question of whether we would be starting a game we might not be able towin. (It should be remembered that the attacker will always have an advantage in space warfare, in that space assets areinherently static, moving in predictable orbits. Space weapons, just like satellites, have inherent vulnerabilities.) Again, theprice tag of space weapons systems would not be trivial with maintenance costs a key issue. For example, it now costscommercial firms between $300 million and $350 million to replace a single satellite that has a lifespan of about 15 years,according to Ed Cornet, vice president of Booz Allen and Hamilton consulting firm.130

Weaponization sparks arms race that U.S. wont win- kills hegemony


Spurring other nations to acquire space-based weapons of their own, especially weapons aimed at terrestrial targets, wouldcertainly undercut the ability of U.S. forces to operate freely on the ground on a worldwide basis negating what todayis a unique advantage of being a military superpower .232 U.S. commercial satellites would also become targets, as well asmilitary assets (especially considering the fact that the U.S. military is heavily reliant on commercial providers, particularly incommunications). Depending on how widespread such weapons became, it also could even put U.S. cities at a greater riskthan they face today from ballistic missiles.

The potential for strategic consequences of a space race has led many experts, including within the military, to tout a space

arms control regime as an alternative. A ban on space weapons and ASATs could help preserve at least for some time the status quo of U.S. advantage (especially if coupled with U.S. moves to shore up passive satellite defenses). In a recentarticle in Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Jeffrey Lewis, a graduate research fellow at the Center for InternationalSecurity Studies at the University of Maryland, makes a good case for an arms control approach, arguing: "If defensivedeployments in space cannot keep pace with offensive developments on the ground, then some measure of restraining offensivecapabilities needs to be found to even the playing field."33In any event, it is clear that U.S. policy-makers must look at the potential strategic and direct military risks, and the costs, ofweaponizing space.

1

2


13/71


AT: Space Militarization Inevitable

Space mil not inevitable- self-fulfilling prophecy

Andrew Park, 2006, "Incremental Steps for Achieving Space Security: The Need for a New Way of Thinking to Enhance theLegal Regime for Space."Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, online version:http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2423/

The simplest argument for space weaponization (inevitability) may also be the most reckless because of its self-fulfilling

nature. Proponents of the inevitability of space weaponization have proffered multiple theories as to why the realm of spacewill eventually become weaponized. According to the logic of these inevitability proponents, the United States should leadthe way rather than be left in the dust as military technology continues to rapidly develop. However, while the inevitabilityargument may have some merit, its true danger lies in its unverifiable nature until weaponization actually occurs. Moreover,it is important to note that this premise is driven not only by American insecurities, but also by the need for the UnitedStates to control its own future. Since the ideological divide between space doves and those who believe spaceweaponization is inevitable is not likely to be bridged soon, the international community must recognize the need for a legalregime for space with teethor, put another way, a legal regime that goes beyond simply establishing a set of norms that havelittle to no consequences.

Weaponization not inevitable- Cold War proves

Michael Krepon, 2004, Founding President of the Henry L. Stimson Center and author ofCooperative ThreatReduction, Missile Defense and theNuclear Future, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs,http://www12.georgetown.edu/sfs/publications/journal/Issues/sf04/Forum%20Krepon.pdf

Dire predictions to the contrary, the weaponization of space, or a space Pearl Harbor is not inevitable.1 Ifthe weaponization ofspace were inevitable, it would surely have occurred during the Cold War. While many countries have used space to supportmilitary operations, no weapons are deployed in space, interactive ASAT testing during the Cold War ended two decades ago,and no satellites have been destroyed in warfare. Thus, the weaponization of space is cer tainly not inevitable, unless this

mindset holds sway.
http://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdfhttp://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdfhttp://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdfhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Houston%20Journal%20of%20International%20Lawhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Houston%20Journal%20of%20International%20Lawhttp://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdfhttp://www.hjil.org/ArticleFiles/28_3_871.pdfhttp://spacedebate.org/source/Houston%20Journal%20of%20International%20Law


14/71


Solvency F/L

Solar energy distribution is not technically or financially feasible

John C. Mankins, 9-7-00,Manager of Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, Testimony Before the Subcommittee onSpace and Aeronautics Committee on Science of U.S. House of Representatives,http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568

Power management and distribution continues to be a major challenge for large-scale SSP systems. A major feature ofthe 1979 SPS Reference System was the presumption of very high solar array voltages (e.g., 40,000 volts) that would largelyeliminate the requirement for massive power management for the system. The findings of the SERT Program suggest that thisfeature is not technically feasible for reasons of interactions with the space environment at these voltagesand that lowervoltages must be used. However, a great disparity exists between the cost of terrestrialvoltage converters (about $0.20per watt) compared to voltage converters in space (about $20 per watt). Studies are continuing to better understand thereasons for these differences and to formulate affordable and effective power management and distribution concepts for large-scale SSP systems. Also during the SERT Program, an option identified during the SSP Fresh Look Study the use ofsuperconducting power cabling at lower voltages has resurfaced as one potential solution.

No tech to relay solar energy back to Earth

John C. Mankins, 9-7-00,Manager of Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, Testimony Before the Subcommittee onSpace and Aeronautics Committee on Science of U.S. House of Representatives,http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568

Many of the space solar power concepts and technologies that have been examined could be applied to the development ofpower relay systems and/or infrastructures. However, achieving economic viability continues to appear challenging. Earlyterrestrial demonstrations, as mentioned previously, (e.g., over a 100-kilometer distance) using microwave wireless powertransmission may have applicability in specific regions. However, using current concepts for a geostationary Earth-orbit-based relay, a microwave wireless power transmission system is expected to be either too large on the ground (or inspace) to be viable. On the other hand, it appears possible that ground-space-ground power relays may be viable in the case ofvisible light transmission concepts, which would be smaller in size than microwave systems. Investigation of these options -which are also useful for a number of ground-to-space and space-to-space power-beaming applications - continues.

Space exploration brings back dangerous viruses and diseases

Bruce K. Gagnon, 1999,Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power inSpace, Space Explorationand Exploitation, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm

Potential dangers do exist though. Barry DiGregorio, author and founder of the International Committee Against Mars SampleReturn, has written that "any Martian samples returned to Earth must be treated as biohazardous material untilproven otherwise."At the present time NASA has taken no action to create a special facility to handle space samplereturns. On March 6, 1997 a report issued by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended thatsuch a facility should be operational at least two years prior to launch of a Mars Sample Return mission. Reminding us of theSpanish exploration of the Americas, and the smallpox virus they carried that killed thousands of indigenous people,DiGregorio warns that the Mars samples could "contain pathogenic viruses or bacteria."

Disease means extinction

Solvency F/L

Even with recent tech advancements, SSP not feasible
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568


15/71

SPACE NEGDDI SS 2008KAPUSTINAJohn C. Mankins, 9-7-00,Manager of Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, Testimony Before the Subcommittee onSpace and Aeronautics Committee on Science of U.S. House of Representatives,http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568

Large-scale SSP is a very complex integrated system of systems that requires numerous significant advances in currenttechnology and capabilities

A technology roadmap has been developed that lays out potential paths for achieving all needed advances - albeit overseveral decades

Ongoing and recent technology advances have narrowed many of the technology gaps, but major technical, regulatoryand conceptual hurdles continue to exist

Space exploration destroys the environment, turning case

Bruce K. Gagnon, 1999,Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power inSpace, Space Explorationand Exploitation, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm

We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown suchenormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries"and "explorers" are now ready to rape andpillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will

seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any realplans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us.The possibility of an expanding nuclear-poweredarms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years ofconsensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2568


16/71


Solvency F/L

Significant advances in SSP wont happen until 2050

JeffFoust, 8-13-07, aerospace analyst and writer for The Space Review, 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 feasiblein the near term. If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, its going to take a long time, he said. Thehorizon were looking at is 2050 before were able to do something significant. The first major milestone, he said,would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate powerbeaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies thatcould alter the direction space solar power systems would go. That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carvedin Jell-O.

More funding wont solve without increased political will

Space Review, 8-30-04, staff writer David Bowell, Whatever happened to solar power satellites?http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1

Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed to get asolar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was produced more expensive thanother alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before generating solar power in space makes

economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been made?There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every weekon average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are alsodozens of GPS satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available forthese purposes, but not enough to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source

of energy?

In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the

government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not beable to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding backsolar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the

money available for further development.

SPS will not become cost-competitive


Even if a solar power system was built and launched there would still be the economic problem of producing electricity

at a cost that is comparable to other options. Government subsidies can help get this new industry on its feet but it will

need to compete in the market in order to survive. This is a challenge for all emerging renewable energy solutions.

Current non-renewable energy supplies are cheap. Even with the recent increases in the price of oil, it is still historicallylow. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are still much lower than they were during the oil crisis in the 1970s. With current pricesthere is little incentive for customers or producers to pursue alternatives. Even if oil prices continue to increase, it is notlikely that this will be enough to drive demand for alternatives . Although we will eventually run out of oil, coal, and othernon-renewable energy sources, in the short term rising oil prices will simply generate more oil.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1


17/71


Solvency F/L

Impossible to launch SPS into orbit


A fully-operational solarpowersatellite 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

to build something like this and that it could be run competitively against other energy options, there is the very real

problem of figuring out how to get 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 covermore than 830 square meters and are 73 meters long and 11 meters wide. These large panels make the ISS one of thebrightest objects in the night sky. Scaling up from there to something much largerwould be challenging, but the good newsis 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 taking advantage ofimprovements in solar cell technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of the same size that generates up to 3 timesas much power. The stations solar panels are 14% efficient, but recent advances with solar cells and solar concentrators couldallow us to build panels that are up to 50% efficient.If this demonstration system validated the theory behind generating power in space and beaming it down to Earth, the next step

would be figuring out how to 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, the concept would need to beput on hold until other lift options, such as a space elevator, are available.

Ground solar power is a prerequisite to effective SPS

Geoffrey A. Landis, February 04, scientist at the NASA Glenn Research Center, Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite, NASA,http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf

Analyses of space solar power often assume that ground solar power is a competing technology, andshow that space solar power is a preferable technology on a rate of return basis. In fact, however, spacesolar power and ground solar power are complementary technologies, not competing technologies. These

considerations were initially discussed in 1990 [4]. Low-cost ground solar power is a necessary precursorto space solar power: Space solar power requires low cost, high production and high efficiency solar

arrays, and these technologies will make ground solar attractive for many markets. The ground solarpower market, in turn, will serve develop technology and the high-volume production readiness for space

solar power. Since ground solar is a necessary precursor to space solar power, an analysis of space solar power

should consider how it interfaces with the ground-based solar infrastructure that will be developing on a

faster scale than the space infrastructure.

Satellites have an inefficiently short lifetime

Robert McLeoud, 9-12-06, Professor of Computer Science, Solar Power Satellite,http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/07/solar-power-satellite.html

A further problem is that satellites in geosynchronous orbit are outside the Earth's magnetosphere, leaving them open tobombardment by charged particles. This will drastically limit their lifetime compared to ground-based systems. A satellitein geosynchronous orbit will see a flux of 61013 (1 MeV electrons) cm-2 year-1 (with considerable variation year-to-yeardepending on solar flare activity). A 1 Mega electron volt particle is highly energetic and more than enough to break bonds andeject K and L-shell electrons from semiconductors. A solar cell in geosynchronous orbit will typically lose 5-6 % of itsperformance per year. Compare that to ground based units that are guaranteed to provide 90 % power after 12.5 years,ora loss of 0.8 %/year. We can see that even if a space solar panel receives 8 the insolation of a ground based unit, it willin fact produce less energy over its much shorter lifetime. The wikipedia article claims a lifetime of 20 years but that is notrealistic. The economics suffer as a result.

SPS is economically unfeasible

Robert McLeoud, 9-12-06, Professor of Computer Science, Solar Power Satellite,http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/07/solar-power-satellite.html
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdfhttp://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf


18/71


The biggest overall drawback to any sort ofspace power solution is the cost of launching material into orbit. At the topend of the chain, NASA's Space Shuttle or the Titan booster cost approximately $10,000/kg to reach low earth orbit. Gettingup to geosynchronous orbit requires an additional booster and increases the cost by a factor of 5-6. Programs such asSeaLaunch or the Russian Proton booster are cheaper but by less than an order of magnitude. Realistically, in order for spacesolar to have any opportunity costs would need to drop to $100/kg, which is nearly impossible for a Western company.

There are all sorts of concepts for reducing the costs of launching satellites air-launch, or the big-dumb booster concept but none have the financing given the lack of a dependable market and high-profile busts such as Beal Aerospace.

The high capital cost of launch services has a secondary effect that it requires one to use expensive, high-efficiency cells

rather than the one with the lowest price per unit peak power. This further hampers the ability of space solar of being costcompetitive with ground solar.

Successful tech is 40 years away, even with appropriate funding

The Space Review, 6-9-08, Knight in Shining Armor, Dwayne Day, http://thespacereview.com/article/1147/1

The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSPand that it is not a viable solution for even the militarys limited requirements. It states that the technology toimplement space solar power does not currently exist and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years. Substantial

technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the report makes clear that the keytechnology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhapswhy SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). The activists have ignored themessage and fallen in love with the messenger.
http://www.bealaerospace.com/welcome.htmhttp://www.spectrolab.com/prd/space/cell-main.asphttp://www.spectrolab.com/prd/space/cell-main.asphttp://www.bealaerospace.com/welcome.htmhttp://www.spectrolab.com/prd/space/cell-main.asp


19/71


Solvency F/L

SPS is not technologically or economically feasible

Geoffrey A. Landis, February 04, scientist at the NASA Glenn Research Center, Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite, NASA,http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf

Power distribution is a general problem with allconventional solarpowersystem designs: as a designscales up to high power levels, the mass of wire required to link the power generation system to the

microwave transmitter becomes a showstopper. A design is required in which the solar power can beused directly at the solar array, rather than being sent over wires to a separate transmitter. (The "solarsandwich" design of the late 70's solved this problem, but only with the addition of an unwieldy steeringmirror, which complicates the design to an impractical extent).In addition to technical difficulties, the baseline concept does not meet economic goals . As shown intable 6-4 of the "Fresh Look" final report [1], even with extremely optimistic assumptions of system cost,solar cell efficiency, and launch cost, each design analyzed results in a cost which is either immediately

too expensive, or else yields a cost marginally competitive (but not significantly better) than terrestrialpower technologies, with an internal rate of return (IRR) too low for investment to make money. Only if

an "externality surcharge" is added to non-space power sources to account for the economic impact of

fossil-fuels did space solar power options make economic sense. While "externality" factors are quite

real, and represent a true cost impact of fossil-fuel generation, it is unlikely that the world communitywill artificially impose such charges merely to make space solar power economically feasible.

Significant tech challenges to successful SPS

John Mankins, 10-12-07, interview conducted by David Houle for Evolution Shift, Mankins is Manager of Advanced ConceptsStudies Office of Space Flight and former NASA leader, ,Leading Scientists and Thinkers on Energy John C. Mankins,http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy--john-c-mankins/

Mankins: All of the basic science seems to be in hand. Unlike fusion energy R&D, not fundamental problems of science remainto be solved for space solar power to become feasible. However, there are definitely significant technical challenges remainingbefore economic feasibility can be established. Solving these challenges is more than just engineeringit requires real

inventionbut not basic research. A number of areas remain to be developed, including wireless power transmission,

robotics, materials and structures, thermal managementand, of course, very low cost Earth to orbit transportation iscritical.

SPS not being used now because of interference with global satellites

Richard M. Dickinson, member of the Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,CA, Jan. 29,1999,

A major issue in space solarpower systems employing microwave powertransmission is their potential interference with satellitecommunication systems, which use frequencies in the same multi-gigahertz range that is best suited to microwave powertransmission. The filtering and/or frequency restrictions necessary to avoid such interference could be a major barrier to theeconomics of space-based power systems for terrestrial consumption, and obtaining their approval by the Federal CommunicationsCommission and the International Telecommunications Union may be extremely difficult due to the potential interference with the

ubiquitous global satellite communication services.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdfhttp://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-%E2%80%93-john-c-mankins/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdfhttp://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-%E2%80%93-john-c-mankins/


20/71


Solvency F/L

NASA will reject SPS funding

JeffFoust, 8-13-07, aerospace analyst and writer for The Space Review, A Renaissance for Space Solar Power,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

Another big problem has been finding the right government agency to support R&D work on space solar power. Space solarpower doesnt neatly fit into any particular agencys scope, and without anyone in NASA or DOE actively advocating it,it has fallen through the cracks in recent years. NASA does science, they do astronauts, and they do aeronautics, but theydont do energy for the Earth, Mankins said. On the other side, the Department of Energy doesnt really do energy forspace. That situation, at least in regards to those two agencies, shows little sign of changing.

SPS tech is too big to suspend in space

The Space Review, 6-4-07, Taylor Dinerman, Space solar power: opposition and obstacles,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/881/1

The other really big problem is that no one has ever even tried to build anything the size of a solarpowersatellite inspace. Russias Mir space stationand the ISSare the only examples we have of anything that even approaches the sizeand complexity of an SPS. The difficulties that both these projects have encountered bodes nothing but ill for a project

that tried to use modern-day technology. Lighter structures made from new materials might help, as would new methods ofpower and thermal management.

Space debris damage satellite tech

Rachel Courtland, 6-27-08, Expert analyst for News Scientist Space MIT alum, Weak Solar Cycle May Keep More Space Junk InOrbit (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14207-weak-solar-cycle-may-keep-more-space-junk-in-orbit.html)

Dodging bulletsThese numbers are set to fall, regardless of the severity of the solar cycle, as the pieces gradually get dragged into Earth'satmosphere, where they will burn up.But if the weak solar cycle forecast is correct, hundreds more pieces ofFengyun-1C debris larger than 10 cm will still be

in orbit by 2019 compared to a normal cycle, according to simulations by Whitlock and colleagues.This could spell trouble for satellite operators, who must plan manoeuvres to avoid passing Fengyun debris. In 2007, forexample, the NASA satellite Terra had to dodge a fragment set to approach it within 19 metres.Mild solar weather could also keep thousands of smaller pieces in orbit. An estimated 40,000 Fengyun pieces between 1and 10 cm across below the limit ground-based radars can detect currently circle the Earth, says Whitlock.These objects can also cause considerable damage. "Anything over 1 centimetre can really cause problems, almost forany satellite. If it happens to hit an instrument or an antenna, it could completely disable it," Whitlock told NewScientist.

Debris and nuclear accidents destroy satellites

Because of the high velocities of objects in orbit, even a small object can destroy the most durable military satellite. For

example, engineers cannot shield satellites against orbital debris larger than one centimeter in diameter anything largerthan an M&M.20 Moreover, the space environment is harsh and subject to human manipulation. During a high-altitude nucleartest in the early 1960s, the United States discovered that a nuclear weapon detonated in space could create a lethalelectromagnetic pulse that would deaden virtually all of the satellites in its line-of-sight, and leave a long-term radiation

hazard that would disable large numbers of satellites over the next several months.21
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1


21/71


Solvency F/L

Treaties make SPS illegal hurts effective tech and competitiveness

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

Application of the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) may constitute a major barrierto effective partnerships in SBSP and negatively impact national security . Right now ITARgreatly restricts and complicates all space related business, as it treats all launch and satellitetechnologies as arms . This has had the effect of causing Americas competitors to developITARfree products, and had a negative impact on our domestic space industries, which can nolonger compete on level ground. Many participants in the feasibility study were very vocal that

including satellite and launch technology in ITARhas had a counterproductive and detrimental

effect on the U.S.s national security and competitiveness losing control and market share,and closing our eyes and ears to the innovations of the competition while selling ourselves on anational illusion of unassailable space superiority. Effective collaboration , even with allies on

something of this level, could not take place effectively without some special consideration ormodification.


22/71


Solvency Exts: Disease

Space increases spread of disease among astronauts, who then spread it on Earth

NASA, 9-29-04, Dolores Beasley and William Jeffs, Study Suggests Spaceflight May Decrease Human Immunity,

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04320_immunity.html)

A NASA-funded study has found the human body's ability to fight off disease may be decreased by spaceflight. The

effect mayeven linger after an astronaut's return to Earth following long flights.

In addition to the conditions experienced by astronauts in flight, the stresses experienced before launch and after landingalso may contribute to a decrease in immunity.

Results of the study were recently published in "Brain, Behavior, and Immunity." The results may help researchers betterunderstand the affects of spaceflight on the human immune response. They may also provide new insights to ensure the health,safety and performance of International Space Station crewmembers and future spacefarers on extended missions.

"Astronauts live and work in a relatively crowded and stressful environment," said Duane Pierson, the study's principalinvestigator and NASA Senior Microbiologist at Johnson Space Center, Houston. "Stresses integral to spaceflight canadversely affect astronaut health by impairing the human immune response . Our study suggests these effects mayincrease as mission duration and mission activity demands increase," he added.


23/71


Space Colonization F/L

Space colonization is impossible- inadequate environment and materials

Donald F. Robertson, 3-6-06, industry journalist, Space Exploration: A Reality Check,http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html)

Two largely unquestioned assumptions long ago took root within the space community. As we prepare to voyage back toEarth's Moon and on to Mars, it is time to question them both.

The first assumption is that exploring the Moon, Mars, or any part of the solar system, can be accomplished in ageneration or two and with limited loss of life. The second is that we can use robots to successfully understand another

world. Both assumptions are almost certainly wrong, yet many important elements of our civil space program are based

on one or both ofthem being correct.To paraphrase Douglas Adams, even within the space community most people don't have a clue how "mind-boggingly bigspace really is." Most of the major worlds in the solar system have surface areas at least as large as terrestrial continents-- a few are much larger -- and every one of them is unremittingly hostile to human life. Learning to travel confidentlythrough former President John F. Kennedy's "this new ocean" will be difficult, expensive, time-consuming and dangerous.Mr. Kennedy's rhetoric was more accurate than he probably knew. The only remotely comparable task humanity has faced waslearning to travel across our world's oceans. We take trans-oceanic travel for granted, but getting from Neolithic boats tomodern freighters cost humanity well over 10,000 years of hard work and uncounted lives. Even today, hundreds of people die

in shipping accidents every year. We and our woefully inadequate chemical rockets are like Stone Age tribesfolkpreparing to cast off in canoes, reaching for barely visible islands over a freezing, storm-tossed, North Atlantic.


24/71



Space colonization prevents quick disaster recovery

The Space Review, 3-19-07, Why the Moon? Human survival! http://www.thespacereview.com/article/832/1

When we face a brand new situation, such probabilities are impossible to calculate. Countermeasures against each individualthreat can of course be taken, but we would also be prudent to back up our civilization and our species. We need to place aself-sufficient fragment of society out of harms way, which for practical purposes means off the Earth. A buffer of emptyspace would protect that sanctuary from virtually all of the catastrophes named above.Physicist Stephen Hawking, and a number of others, have called for humanity to spread out to distant planets of ourSolar System. But there is no need to go so far to protect ourselves. After a few decadescenturies at worstdust andash will settle, radioactive materials will decay, and viruses will perish. Earth will once again become the best home for

humanity in the Solar System. Return would be easiest if a safe sanctuary were nearby . In the more probable instance thatonly a limited disaster took place, that nearby sanctuary could also play a valuable role in restoring lost data and culturalmaterials, and coordinating the recovery. And of course, construction of the rescue base will be much easier if it is only days,rather than months or years, away.

Space colonization sparks conflict over sovereignty

The Space Review, 1-15-07, Independent space colonization: questions and implications,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/784/1

If colonization is a dirty word, then so are conquest, exploitation, settlement, and industrialization. If fact, anythingthat goes beyond simple exploration is problematic. The Outer Space Treaty has theoretically forbidden any nation fromclaiming sovereignty over any celestial body. Within a couple of decades we will see if this approach can pass the realitytest. Once one or more bases are established on the Moon, nations will find themselves exerting control over parts of thatbody which, in practical terms, will amount to sovereignty. Within a moonbase, even one occupied by only a couple ofastronauts, the government that sent them there will regulate their lives in more or less the same way a governmentregulates the lives of the crew of a warship. The ship itself is considered the sovereign territory of the state that owns it

while the waters through which it passes may be international or belong to another sovereign state that is obliged to respect the

right of innocent passage.The ships crew lacks anything like the ability to function as free citizens and to buy sell and trade in a free marketplace. Onequestion that advocates for space colonization have to consider is: how can the transition from a quasi-military lifestyle to acivilian one be handled? The experience that many communities in the US have had when a nearby military base closed downmight be relevant. Another source of experience might be the transitions from martial law to civilian law that have taken placeover the years, including the one that happened in Hawaii at the end of the Second World War.None of these have involved any change in sovereignty. Post World War Two decolonization involved such a change. Yet, ifthe provision in the Outer Space Treaty (OST) regarding their extended responsibility of launching states for whatever they putinto space means anything, it mean that states will have to exercise control over the inhabitants of a colony no matter howlong ago their ancestors left Earth.

It is difficult to imagine a third or fourth generation inhabitant of Mars or of another accessible planetary surface, to use theold NASA euphemism, accepting the right of a distant Earth government to control any aspect of their lives, let alone thekind of regulations promulgated under martial law. Their reaction to such control might not be a quick and easily

mollified revolt, but a more permanent split between the Earthbound and the spacefaring parts of humanity.


25/71



Human extinction is inevitable- space colonization just speeds us towards the impactHankDolben, 1-6-04, senior software engineer and writer for Nothing is Perfect, No Escape for Environmental Disaster,http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.html

Do you think that mankind can escape an earth it has rendered uninhabitable by thoughtless environmental negligence,

and rocket away tocolonies in space ? I know it's risky to predict what technology cannot accomplish, but feel so stronglyabout this that I will speak out anyway. OK, what do I risk, you ask. Being proved wrong? When? Who will know? Who willcare? Who cares now? Can you see the irony in the ultimate absurdity of "wasting" the environment and then throwingthe whole ecosphere away by leaving it behind, as if tossing a styrofoam, fast-food container out the window of an SUV,speeding down the interstate.First, our destruction of the environment seems inevitable. Humanity is a virulent infestation, unlikely to be stemmed byanything short of a catastrophic collapse of the ecosystems it lays waste. By the time the crisis is reached it will be too

late to save ourselves, the losses irreversible. It's not that living in harmony with the biosphere that we haven't yet ruinedis technically infeasible, ratherpolitically unattainable. I won't try to prove that. I couldn't anyway. I'll even admit that I mightbe wrong. The optimist in me sees that polls show that people generally want to save the environment. It's just simply andcompletely inconsistent with the way people have always behaved and continue to behave. The retrograde policies of thecurrent U.S. administration reinforce my pessimism. Our strength is in our ability to exploit the world to satisfy our

appetites. Even our environmental consciousness seems to be based on an aesthetic hunger that can be satisfied by little(on global scales) nature parks, which by themselves couldn't provide sustainable support for more than a handful of primitivehumanoids. If there is any optimism in my view, it is that the destruction will not be complete. Life on earth will go on, even asit has in the deep past, following astronomical cataclysms, though certainly not as we know it. Among other species, smallpockets of our infestation may even survive, as the uneven collapse leaves isolated populations some naturally protectedecosystems, perhaps a Pacific island for example. Life on earth will likely survive until the Sun heats up enough to boil itdry, though anything like humans will be gone long before then . Meanwhile, I'll be scouting Pacific islands.

Space colonization is impossibleHankDolben, 1-6-04, senior software engineer and writer for Nothing is Perfect, No Escape for Environmental Disaster,http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.html

Second, we will never accomplish the colonization of space . Again, not because it is technically impossible, though certainlymuch more difficult than most people seem to appreciate. How can one imagine that we could create artificial ecosystemsthat would be sufficiently rich and robust to support human life as we know it, when we could not prevent our own

destruction of the natural world that gave us our existence to begin with? What potential return on investment wouldmotivate the unimaginably huge expense of attempting the establishment of a self-sustaining colony? Or do you think thatsome government would have the political will and resources to accomplish it? There would not be enough resources if thecrisis were reached, not enough will if not. In short, there is a better chance of saving our existing environment than

creating a new one. Still, it's unprovable, only refutable by counterexample.

Space colonization justifies further degradation of the environment

HankDolben, 1-6-04, senior software engineer and writer for Nothing is Perfect, No Escape for Environmental Disaster,http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.html

Last, given that the colonization of space is theoretically possible, or rather not provably impossible, its potentiality providesa psychological escape hatch that permits our self-annihilation. If you're availing yourself of that excuse, can you at leastappreciate that it would be an awful exchange; our beautiful earth for some artificial environment? And, of course, whatabout the poor bastards we couldn't get off. All x billion just aren't going to fit in those shuttles you know. Well, there won't beso many left by then. Oh, that's not good either. We might even say, look, the earth is doomed by the eventual heating up ofthe Sun anyway, so we're going to have to get off sooner or later. Now that's taking a long-term view. But, why not gofurther? Unless there's an as yet unknown loophole in the third law of thermodynamics, life is doomed no matter what we do.Might as well live for today. My point is that there are lots of available escape hatches if that's what you're looking for. Thecolonization fantasy just happens to fit into a loosely imaginable time scale and relieves some scruples we might have

for the lives of future generations that look pretty grim to the environmental pessimists.
http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.htmlhttp://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.htmlhttp://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.htmlhttp://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.htmlhttp://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/http://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.htmlhttp://www.dolben.org/nothingisperfect/archives/2004/01/no_escape_from.html


26/71



Space colonization is unfeasible and doesnt prevent human extinction

Economists View, 6-16-07, Charlie Stross, The High Frontier, Redux, published writer, http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html

And I don't want to spend much time talking about the unspoken ideological underpinnings of the urge to space colonization,

other than to point out that they're there, that the case for space colonization isn't usually presented as an economicenterprise so much as a quasi-religious one. "We can't afford to keep all our eggs in one basket" isn't so much ajustification as an appeal to sentimentality, for in the hypothetical case of a planet-trashing catastrophe, we (whocurrently inhabit the surface of the Earth) are dead anyway. The future extinction of the human species cannot affect youif you are already dead: strictly speaking, it should be of no personal concern.Historically, crossing oceans and setting up farmsteads on new lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants bydisease has been a cost-effective proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive.

Space cant sustain human life

Economists View, 6-16-07, Charlie Stross, The High Frontier, Redux, published writer, http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html

We're human beings. We evolved to flourish in a very specific environment that covers perhaps 10% of our home planet'ssurface area. (Earth is 70% ocean, and while we can survive, with assistance, in extremely inhospitable terrain, be it arctic ordesert or mountain, we aren't well-adapted to thriving there.) Space itself is a very poor environment for humans to live in.A simple pressure failure can kill a spaceship crew in minutes. And that's not the only threat.Cosmic radiation poses aserious risk to long duration interplanetary missions, and unlike solar radiation and radiation from coronal mass ejectionsthe energies ofthe particles responsible makeshielding astronauts extremely difficult. And finally, there's the travel time.Two and a half years to Jupiter system; six months to Mars.Now, these problems are subject to a variety of approaches including medical ones: does it matter if cosmic radiation causeslong-term cumulative radiation exposure leading to cancers if we have advanced side-effect-free cancer treatments? Better still,

ifhydrogen sulphide-induced hibernationturns out to be a practical technique in human beings, we may be able to sleepthrough the trip. But even so, when you get down to it, there's not really any economically viable activity on the horizon

for people to engage in that would require them to settle on a planet or asteroid and live there for the rest of their lives.

In general, when we need to extract resources from a hostile environment we tend to build infrastructure to exploit them (suchasoil platforms) but we don't exactly scurry to move our families there. Rather, crews go out to work a long shift, then returnhome to take their leave. After all, there's no there there just a howling wilderness of north Atlantic gales and frigid

water that will kill you within five minutes of exposure . And that, I submit, is the closest metaphor we'll find forinterplanetary colonization. Most of the heavy lifting more than a million kilometres from Earth will be done by robots,overseen by human supervisors who will be itching to get home and spend their hardship pay. And closer to home, the

commercialization of space will be incremental and slow , driven by our increasing dependence on near-earth space forcommunications, positioning, weather forecasting, and (still in its embryonic stages) tourism. But the domed city on Mars isgoing to have to wait for a magic wand or two to do something about the climate, or reinvent a kind of human being who can

thrive in an airless, inhospitable environment.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.htmlhttp://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.htmlhttp://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.htmlhttp://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation#Significance_to_Space_Travelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation#Significance_to_Space_Travelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_radiation#Significance_to_Space_Travelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejectionhttp://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/more/spacetravel.htmlhttp://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/more/spacetravel.htmlhttp://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/more/spacetravel.htmlhttp://www.lbl.gov/abc

Documents

127 SS Space Case Neg