Solar Power Sats AFF - Fellows

KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 SOLAR POWER SATELLITES AFFIRMATIVE
ROBIN AND RETT PAGE ____ OF ____
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................7
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................27
Inherency – Development Now.............................................................................................................................................................28
Inherency – Development Now...........................................................................................................................28
Inherency – Misdirected Now................................................................................................................................................................31
Inherency – Misdirected Now.............................................................................................................................31
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................32
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source.....................................................................................................................................................33
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source...................................................................................................................33
Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy.......................................................................................................................................................36
Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy....................................................................................................................36
Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy......................................................................................................................................................37
Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy...................................................................................................................37
Solvency – SPS Better than Ground Solar.............................................................................................................................................38
Solvency – SPS Better than Ground Solar.........................................................................................................38
Solvency – SPS Integration Works........................................................................................................................................................39
Solvency – SPS Integration Works.....................................................................................................................39
Solvency – USFG’s SPS Reliable..........................................................................................................................................................40
Solvency – USFG’s SPS Reliable........................................................................................................................40
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap.........................................................................................................................................................................41
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap........................................................................................................................................41
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap........................................................................................................................................................................43
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap.......................................................................................................................................43
Clearly the US should have a death ray… 1

Solvency – SPS Solves Squo Problems.................................................................................................................................................45

Solvency – SPS Solves Squo Problems...............................................................................................................45
Solvency – Investment Justified............................................................................................................................................................46
Solvency – Investment Justified..........................................................................................................................46
Solvency – Efficient ..............................................................................................................................................................................47
Solvency – Efficient .............................................................................................................................................47
Solvency – R&D Key............................................................................................................................................................................48
Solvency – R&D Key...........................................................................................................................................48
Solvency – Incentives Solve.................................................................................................................................................................49
Solvency – Incentives Solve................................................................................................................................49
Solvency – Incentives Cause Development...........................................................................................................................................50
Solvency – Incentives Cause Development........................................................................................................50
Solvency – Economic Return From SPS...............................................................................................................................................51
Solvency – Economic Return From SPS............................................................................................................51
Solvency – Personal Advocacy is Key..................................................................................................................................................52
Solvency – Personal Advocacy is Key.................................................................................................................52
Solvency – NASA Key to Timeframe....................................................................................................................................................53
Solvency – NASA Key to Timeframe..................................................................................................................53
Solvency – Lunar Resources Key..........................................................................................................................................................54
Solvency – Lunar Resources Key.......................................................................................................................54
Solvency – Few Resources Needed.......................................................................................................................................................55
Solvency – Few Resources Needed.....................................................................................................................55
Tech Race Advantage...........................................................................................................................................56
Tech Race – Brink Now.........................................................................................................................................................................57
Tech Race – Brink Now.......................................................................................................................................57
Tech Race – Japan Developing Now.....................................................................................................................................................60
Tech Race – Japan Developing Now...................................................................................................................60
Tech Race – SPS Key to Tech Leadership.............................................................................................................................................61
Tech Race – SPS Key to Tech Leadership..........................................................................................................61
Tech Race – SPS Key (Laundry List)....................................................................................................................................................62
Tech Race – SPS Key (Laundry List).................................................................................................................62
Tech Race – SPS Would Be Easy..........................................................................................................................................................63
Tech Race – SPS Would Be Easy........................................................................................................................63

Tech Race – Increased Innovation Key to Tech.....................................................................................................................................64
Tech Race – Increased Innovation Key to Tech.................................................................................................64
Tech Race – Tech Key to Econ (With Impact).......................................................................................................................................65
Tech Race – Tech Key to Econ (With Impact)...................................................................................................65
Tech Race – Tech Key to Econ..............................................................................................................................................................66
Tech Race – Tech Key to Econ............................................................................................................................66
Death Ray Advantage..........................................................................................................................................68
Death Ray – Government Secret............................................................................................................................................................69
Death Ray – Government Secret........................................................................................................................69
Death Ray – Government Secret............................................................................................................................................................70
Death Ray – Government Secret........................................................................................................................70
NASA Credibility Advantage .............................................................................................................................71
NASA Cred – Funding Being Cut Now.................................................................................................................................................72
NASA Cred – Funding Being Cut Now..............................................................................................................72
NASA Cred – Low Now/ SPS Solves...................................................................................................................................................73
NASA Cred – Low Now/ SPS Solves..................................................................................................................73
NASA Cred – SPS Increase NASA Cred...............................................................................................................................................74
NASA Cred – SPS Increase NASA Cred............................................................................................................74
NASA Cred – Cred Key to Budgets......................................................................................................................................................76
NASA Cred – Cred Key to Budgets....................................................................................................................76
NASA Cred – Cred Key to Programs....................................................................................................................................................77
NASA Cred – Cred Key to Programs.................................................................................................................77
NASA Cred – GOES Key to Weather Preperation................................................................................................................................78
NASA Cred – GOES Key to Weather Preperation...........................................................................................78
Military Readiness Advantage............................................................................................................................79
Military Readiness – Fuel Destroying MR Now...................................................................................................................................80
Military Readiness – Fuel Destroying MR Now................................................................................................80
Military Readiness – SPS Key...............................................................................................................................................................81
Military Readiness – SPS Key............................................................................................................................81
Military Readiness – SPS Key...............................................................................................................................................................82
Military Readiness – SPS Key............................................................................................................................82
Military Readiness – SPS Key..............................................................................................................................................................83
Military Readiness – SPS Key...........................................................................................................................83
Military Readiness – SPS Key to Air Power.........................................................................................................................................84

Military Readiness – SPS Key to Air Power......................................................................................................84

Military Readiness – SPS Key to Security............................................................................................................................................85
Military Readiness – SPS Key to Security.........................................................................................................85
Military Readiness – Oil Kills Readiness..............................................................................................................................................86
Military Readiness – Oil Kills Readiness...........................................................................................................86
Nuclear Power Tradeoff Advantage...................................................................................................................87
Nuclear Tradeoff – NP Shouldn’t Be Funded........................................................................................................................................88
Nuclear Tradeoff – NP Shouldn’t Be Funded....................................................................................................88
Nuclear Tradeoff – SPS is Better...........................................................................................................................................................89
Nuclear Tradeoff – SPS is Better........................................................................................................................89
Nuclear Tradeoff – SPS Replaces Nuclear Power.................................................................................................................................90
Nuclear Tradeoff – SPS Replaces Nuclear Power.............................................................................................90
Nuclear Tradeoff – Nuclear Power  Accidents..................................................................................................................................91
Nuclear Tradeoff – Nuclear Power  Accidents..............................................................................................91

Get Off the Rock Advantage...............................................................................................................................92
Get Off the Rock – SPS Gets Us Off the Rock......................................................................................................................................93
Get Off the Rock – SPS Gets Us Off the Rock..................................................................................................93
Get Off the Rock – Impact (Liberty).....................................................................................................................................................94
Get Off the Rock – Impact (Liberty)..................................................................................................................94
Get Off the Rock – Impact (Extinction) ...............................................................................................................................................95
Get Off the Rock – Impact (Extinction) ............................................................................................................95
China Advantage..................................................................................................................................................96
China – China Needs Energy.................................................................................................................................................................97
China – China Needs Energy..............................................................................................................................97
China – China Can’t Solve....................................................................................................................................................................98
China – China Can’t Solve..................................................................................................................................98
China – US Solves China’s Needs........................................................................................................................................................99
China – US Solves China’s Needs......................................................................................................................99
China – US’s SPS Key.........................................................................................................................................................................100
China – US’s SPS Key.......................................................................................................................................100
2AC Stuff............................................................................................................................................................101
2AC – SPS Not Dangerous on Earth...................................................................................................................................................102
2AC – SPS Not Dangerous on Earth................................................................................................................102
2AC – Military Lobbies Approve........................................................................................................................................................103
2AC – Military Lobbies Approve.....................................................................................................................103

2AC – Space Lobbies Approve............................................................................................................................................................104

2AC – Space Lobbies Approve..........................................................................................................................104
2AC – Free Trade Add-on....................................................................................................................................................................105
2AC – Free Trade Add-on.................................................................................................................................105
2AC – SPS Inevitable .........................................................................................................................................................................106
2AC – SPS Inevitable ........................................................................................................................................106
2AC – SPS Opens Markets..................................................................................................................................................................107
2AC – SPS Opens Markets................................................................................................................................107
2AC – SPS Opens Markets..................................................................................................................................................................108
2AC – SPS Opens Markets................................................................................................................................108
2AC – SPS Causes Private Investment................................................................................................................................................109
2AC – SPS Causes Private Investment............................................................................................................109
2AC – SPS Causes Increased NGO Missions......................................................................................................................................110
2AC – SPS Causes Increased NGO Missions..................................................................................................110
2AC – Plan is Popular..........................................................................................................................................................................111
2AC – Plan is Popular........................................................................................................................................111
2AC – The Beam is Safe......................................................................................................................................................................112
2AC – The Beam is Safe.....................................................................................................................................112
2AC – Can’t Attack SPS......................................................................................................................................................................113
2AC – Can’t Attack SPS....................................................................................................................................113
2AC – Fed Gv’t Key............................................................................................................................................................................114
2AC – Fed Gv’t Key...........................................................................................................................................114


1AC

Contention One is Inherency

SPS is the perfect energy source – it just needs catalyzation.
Boyle, 2007 (Alan Boyle, MSNCB, Science Editor, “Power From Space?,” October 12, 2007)
"While the technical challenges are real, significant investment now can build space solar Power into the ultimate energy
source: clean, green, renewable, and capable of providing the vast amounts of power that the world will need.
Congress, federal agencies and the business community should begin that investment immediately,” Mark Hopkins,
senior vice president of the National Space Society, said in a written statement. It's up to policymakers, business leaders and
voters to decide whether space-based solar power, or SBSP, is worth pursuing, according to the acting director of the
Pentagon's National Security Space Office, Joseph Rouge. "It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and
the business case for creating SBSP is improving with each passing year," Rouge said in his foreword to the report. "Still
absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actually developing a
SBSP capability."

Thus the plan:

The National Aeronautics Space Association should substantially increase its federal loan guarantees to
all relevant industries for the research and development of a comprehensive solar power satellite system
by the year 2018.

Advantage ____ is the Tech Race

Other countries are working on SPS.
Dinerman, 2007 (Taylor Dinerman, Author and Journalist based in NYC, October 22, 2007, “China, the US, and Space Solar
Power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)
If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums
over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages described in the NSSO study.
America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for international partners, but instead should opt for
a high level of international transparency. Information about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS,
should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments
should brief all of the major spacefaring nations, including China.
Other countries are surpassing the US in space tech now. Government incentives are necessary to bridge
the gap.
David, 2002 (Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “US Commission Calls for Space Program Overhaul,” November 18, 2002)
Japan, China, Russia, India, and France, to name a few, see space as a strategic and economic frontier that should be
pursued aggressively. "So should we," the Commission report comments. For example, in the booster-for-hire business, the
French company, Arianespace, captured 50 percent of the commercial world market in 2001. The United States and Russia
each has 19 percent, the report warns. "The U.S. commercial space industry continues to lose access to markets as demand
decreases and international competition increases. Government regulations and incentives are necessary to bolster this
important market until there is a turn-around in demand." U.S. market share is on the decline due to foreign government
intervention and protectionist policies, the report says, adding that there is need for fair and open competition. In this arena,
the success or failure of America's future efforts in space exploration is linked to our ability to work effectively with partners
on projects "such as the International Space Station and planetary defense." A Commission recommendation is for a new
business model geared to the U.S. aerospace industry, making use of innovative government and industry policies. The hope is
to establish a strong and healthy U.S. aerospace industry that is attractive to investors One photo used by the Commission
points to a candidate space investment prospect. "Mining the Moon for ore and isotopes might make sound commercial
business opportunities in the future."
Space based solar power solves the great power wars, regional conflicts and failed states associated with
approaching energy scarcity and maintain tech competitiveness.
NASA, 2007 (NASA, “Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security” Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study,
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long term route to alleviate the security challenges of energy scarcity,
and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this
century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be
some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will
increase with a negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for
minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and
poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an
energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative in the third dimension” to lessen the chance
of such conflicts.

US tech competitiveness is key to heg and the economy. More innovation is needed to prevent Asia from
overtaking us.
Adam Segal 2004 Is America Losing Its Edge? From Foreign Affairs , November/December http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893
Summary: For 50 years, the United States has maintained its economic edge by being better and faster than any other
country at inventing and exploiting new technologies. Today, however, its dominance is starting to slip, as Asian
countries pour resources into R&D and challenge America's traditional role in the global economy. Adam Segal is
Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon:
High Technology Enterprises in China. The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop
new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and
technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans
who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely
followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most
serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and
development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are
improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents
issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian
companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and
managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S.
advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains
in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many
other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of
research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is
learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant
threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain
dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position
in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

Hegemony solves multiple scenarios for global nuclear war

Kagan, 2007 (Robert Kagan, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return of History,
July 19, 2007, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html)
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively
benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is
unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error,
like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on
greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the
world 's powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international
law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it
is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from
a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many
others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the
way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world
that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it.
The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. The return of great
powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by
the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial.
During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for
wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War,
the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the
normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in
range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for
regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today,
and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the
Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power
in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is passé; hence their now two-decades-long military
buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that
it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that
status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have
been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -- with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -- now appears
embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North
Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to
play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its
own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well
as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history
as a pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese
nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also
looks like Asia's past. Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by
a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration
into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and
NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of
gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet
empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations,
including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain
about threats to their security from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with
resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or
that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that
does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the
Russians all the more difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than <CONTINUED>

<CONTINUED>
postmodern aspirations. India 's regional ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly
engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on
the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and
leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian
territory from attack by the United States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to
play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in
what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety.
The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and
economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired
by others for playing this role. Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders
of radical Islam, including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass
a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect,
including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often
oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of
humiliation." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the
living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even
their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant
America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter
of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative,
Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until
recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the
Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not
retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it
maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions
with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern
Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and
though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to
relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw
from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and
claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The
jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new
post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international
competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying --
its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is
currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past:
sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope,
intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess
nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is
easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even
as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations
cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the
guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even
when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely
multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and
possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of
the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such
order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American
power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the
European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the
thought, but even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one <CONTINUED>

<CONTINUED>
hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely
multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality
among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They
believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where
American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that 's not the way
it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international
order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the
Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States,
India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful
states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and
Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The
current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world 's
great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could
erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and
Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a
Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other
Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be
unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States
weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations
agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most
of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the
region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe,
too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be
destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its
periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the
possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe,
history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United
States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -- this could in time
increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States
back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the
Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the
United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make
it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle
it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability,
and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment,
paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a
heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American
power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for
influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic
fundamentalism doesn 't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a
sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change.
The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region
and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of
other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18
And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is
doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle
East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not
return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the
United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not
a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of <CONTINUED>

<CONTINUED>
intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American
predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American
influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

Advantage ____ is the Get Off the Rock

SPS systems get us off the rock.
Mankins, 1998 (John C. Mankins, “A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts and Technologies,”
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml)
Lastly, there are a number of potential applications of these technologies in future human exploration missions,
including the moon, Mars and asteroids in the inner solar system. These include: megawatt-class SEPS Lunar cargo space
transfer vehicles Lunar orbit WPT for Lunar surface power affordable human Mars mission transportation systems. Of these,
the concept of using multi-megawatt-class space solar power systems to achieve very low cost Mars mission concepts
appears to have particular leverage. By using systems that are amenable to low-cost, multi-unit, modular
manufacturing, even though the overall system masses are not lower, the cost appears to be significantly lower.
Example: The "SolarClipper". An especially intriguing opportunity is that of using affordable megawatt-class space power for
interplanetary space missions. It appears to be possible to reduce the cost for Earth surface-to-Mars orbit transportation
dramatically through the use of very advanced, large-scale space solar power in a solar electric propulsion system
(SEPS) approach. The basic architectural strategies of the SolarClipper concept are straightforward.
SPS systems would establish vital parts of technology allowing a creation bigger than that of even the
international space station. Our evidence cites the experts.
Berger, 2007 (Brian Berger, Fox News, citing Lieutenant Colonel Paul Damphousse of the National Space Security Office,
“Pentagon Report: Let’s Put Solar Power Collectors in Orbit,” October 15, 2007,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301479,00.html)
Space-based solar power, according to the report, has the potential to help the United States stave off climate change and
avoid future conflicts over oil by harnessing the Sun's power to provide an essentially inexhaustible supply of clean
energy. The report, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," was undertaken by the Pentagon's
National Security Space Office this spring as a collaborative effort that relied heavily on Internet discussions by more than 170
scientific, legal, and business experts around the world. The Space Frontier Foundation, an activist organization normally
critical of government-led space programs, hosted the Web site used to collect input for the report. Speaking at a press
conference held here Oct. 10 to unveil the report, U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul Damphousse of the National Space Security
Space Office said the six-month study, while "done on the cheap," produced some very positive findings about the feasibility of
space-based solar power and its potential to strengthen U.S. national security. "One of the major findings was that space-based
solar power does present strategic opportunity for us in the 21st century," Damphousse said. "It can advance our U.S.
and partner security capability and freedom of action and merits significant additional study and demonstration on the
part of the United States so we can help either the United States develop this, or allow the commercial sector to step up."
Demonstrations needed/ Specifically, the report calls for the U.S. government to underwrite the development of space-
based solar power by funding a progressively bigger and more expensive technology demonstrations that would
culminate with building a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the international space station and capable of
beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a receiving station on the ground. Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in
depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to show that space-based solar power is a technically
and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs.

Ten to the thirty-second power human lives perish each second we delay space colonization.
Bostrum, 2003 (Bostrum, Professor of Philosophy at Yale, 2003, Is Cosmology Relevant to Transhumanism?)
Suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms; unused energy is being flushed down black holes; our great common
endowment of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale, as I write these words. These are
resources that an advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentient beings living
worthwhile lives. The rate of this loss boggles the mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations
based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential human lives in our own galactic supercluster is at least
~10^46 per century of delayed colonization (Cirkovic 2002) . This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been
used for productive purposes, although no currently known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that.
Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this radically unconservative assumption is undesirable. We can, however, get
a lower bound more straightforwardly by simply counting the number or stars in our galactic supercluster and multiplying this
number with the amount of computing power that the resources of each star could be used to generate using technologies for
whose feasibility a strong case has already been made. We can then divide this total with the estimated amount of computing
power needed to simulate one human life. As a rough approximation, letÕs say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars.
One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using
advanced molecular nanotechnology (Drexler 1992) , is 10^42 operations per second (Bradbury 2000) . A typical estimate of
the human brainÕs processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second (Bostrom 1998; Kurzweil 1999) or less (Moravec
1999). Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the
simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences (Bostrom 2001) . Given these
estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our
local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second.

Advantage ____ is NASA Credibility

NASA’s credibility is low now because of failed shuttle attempts and misplaced goals, putting funding for
key programs at risk. a new initiative would solve.
David, 2006 (Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “Space Shuttle: NASA’s Risky, High-Stakes Gamble,” June 28, 2006)
NASA credibility and space funding "In truth, the problems that NASA continues to experience with its shuttle and the
International Space Station program--really the only reason the shuttle is still flying--goes back at least to the Challenger
disaster in 1986," Pelton said. Two major national space commissions back then--one looking into the Challenger accident,
the other delving into the future of the American space program--noted that the shuttle was indeed becoming "obsolescent"
and that it had to be replaced by another vehicle within at least 15 years, or 2001, Pelton noted. "Instead of developing
alternative plans for the launch of International Space Station components in smaller and more modular parts at that
time," Pelton said, "NASA pushed ahead without developing a new vehicle, nor developing a back-up plan. Now, not
only is NASA's credibility and space funding at risk, Pelton continued, but also at risk are the agency's international
partners that are engaged in the $100 billion station program. "The now 'tar baby-like tandem' of the ISS and the space shuttle
has done great harm to space programs around the world." NASA has over-invested in both the shuttle and station
initiatives, Pelton said, taking away money from programs that truly matter to the United States and indeed the world.
The credibility NASA needs to continue it’s programs is gone because of bureaucratic scandals.
Anthis, 2006 (Nick Anthis, Journalist, February 8, 2006)
NASA Science Censor Resigns For a president that paints himself as a champion of national security, the NASA incident is
a major blow to Bush’s credibility. This isn’t the first time either, with George Deutsch now joining the ranks of Michael
Brown, the embattled former director of FEMA, and Harriet Myers, Bush’s Supreme Court nominee who was subsequently
withdrawn. Congratulations, Deutsch, this is a pretty elite circle! The NASA censorship scandal was originally about
partisan figures compromising the science, and it still is, but now it’s also about something much deeper and much
more troubling. I don’t know how many others there are out there like Deutsch, but it shouldn’t be hard to find out.
Journalists, it’s time to make some phone calls! In the meantime, NASA needs the authority to remove the rest of those who
are interfering with the scientific process for partisan gains. Although NASA's credibility has tragically taken a big hit
here due to political interference, the real victim is the science. And, when the science suffers, we are all affected.

NASA faces budget cuts that threaten the earth sciences necessary to protect life on the planet.
Empirically, when budget cuts are made, programs like Aura are the first to go.
House Science Committee 2006
"How Severe Budget Cuts May Threaten the Vitality of NASA Earth Science Programs" The House Science Committee
initiated what may be a series of hearings that question NASA's plans to cancel or delay a number of Earth Science
satellite missions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, NASA has proposed to spend $1.37 billion for Earth Science research, a cut n
8% from FY 2005 levels, and a 24% cut in real dollars from FY 2004, according to Science Committee ranking member Bart
Gordon. A day before the hearing, the National Research Council (NRC) released a report, which found that tight budgets at
NASA and other agencies are threatening the value and preeminence of U.S. earth observing systems. Concerned with
these findings, committee members called on senior U.S. scientists to offer testimony regarding NASA's role in meeting
future scientific priorities. Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, Representative Gordon, and other members of
Congress have been concerned that cuts to Earth observing missions are due to NASA's strategic reorientation around
the President's "Vision for Space Exploration." In his opening remarks, Chairman Boehlert challenged the apparent shift
in priorities. "The planet that has to matter most to us is the one we live on," he said. "You'd think that would go
without saying." Gordon added that under the proposal, Earth Science and Aeronautic Programs would absorb 75% of
the overall cuts that NASA must sustain to meet tight budget demands. In comparison, exploration programs would only
account for 10% of the overall cuts.
NASA’s Aura program is key to understanding and protecting earth’s atmosphere, preventing extinction.
Ramanujan, 2004 (Krishna Ramanujan, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, 2004)
When people search for conditions that might support life on other planets, one of the first things they look for is water. Right
now, NASA is searching for signs of water on Mars as a precursor to whether life may have been possible there. But the thin
sliver of gases and air that make an atmosphere around a planet is just as necessary for life to exist. The atmosphere
traps air around our planet, making it possible to breathe and to have a climate. It also regulates the temperature
within a range that allows life to exist, and our ozone layer blocks life-threatening ultraviolet radiation from the sun
from reaching earth's surface. Earth's atmosphere sustains life in all these ways, and by the thinnest margins. If a
person could cruise at a speed of 60 miles an hour straight up, it would take just 6 minutes to exit the air we need to survive.
Considering the relatively delicacy of this thin protective film, understanding our atmosphere goes hand in hand with
protecting life as we know it. On June 19, NASA will launch Aura, a next generation Earth-observing satellite that will
make global observations of the ocean of air that surrounds our planet. Aura will supply the best information yet
about the health of Earth's atmosphere. Answering Key Science Questions Aura will provide an essential component for
understanding changes in our climate, our air quality, and the ozone layer that protects life from harmful solar
radiation. In doing so, it will help answer some fundamental questions regarding climate change. One question that
researchers have asked is: Is the stratospheric ozone layer recovering? International agreements, like the Montreal
Protocol, have banned ozone destroying chemicals like Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but scientists are unclear about the
effectiveness of these treaties. Aura will accurately detect global levels of CFCs, and their byproducts, chlorine and
bromine, which destroy the ozone layer. Another question that researchers need more information to: What are the
processes controlling air quality? Aura will help greatly to unravel some of these mysteries by tracking the sources and
processes controlling global and regional air quality. When ozone exists in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, it
acts as an air pollutant. Gasoline and diesel engines give off gases in the summer that create ozone and smog. Aura will
help scientists follow the sources of ozone and its precursors. Finally, Aura will offer insights into the question: How is
the Earth's climate changing? As the composition of Earth's atmosphere changes, so does its ability to absorb, reflect
and retain solar energy. Greenhouse gases, including water vapor, trap heat in the atmosphere. Airborne aerosols from
human and natural sources absorb or reflect solar energy based on color, shape, size, and substance. The impact of
aerosols, tropospheric ozone and upper tropospheric water vapor on Earth's climate remains largely un-quantified,
but now Aura will have the unique ability to monitor these agents.

Advantage ____ is Military Readiness

Issues surrounding fuel kill military readiness.
Shachtman, 2007 (Noah Shachtman, “Military Target: Solar-Beaming Sats,” June 7, 2007)
Now, the Defense Department is going to see if it can come up with ways to overcome these not-inconsiderable obstacles.
Pentagon "officials have decided to examine this concept now because the military is growing increasingly dependent on
fossil fuels -- a dependency that is causing the United States to rely on unreliable sources of energy, pay higher prices
and face operational insecurities linked to the logistical burden of delivering oil on the battlefield," Inside Defense says.
SPS systems are a military necessity, fossil fuels are too unreliable and inflexible. Our evidence cites the
experts.
Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power
down from space could also enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far-flung, hostile regions such as Iraq
without relying on vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators needed to keep the lights
on. As the report puts it, "beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the potential to be a
disruptive game changer on the battlefield. [Space-based solar power] and its enabling wireless power transmission
technology could facilitate extremely flexible 'energy on demand' for combat units and installations across and entire
theater, while significantly reducing dependence on over-land fuel deliveries."
Space based solar solves troop readiness by negating the need for fuel supply lines and overcoming time
and transportation issues.
Jeremy Eades @ 17-10-2007 , US military proposes space-based solar power station
A few weeks ago, Tobias posted about the US military and eco-technology. In it, he jokingly suggested an eco-DARPA. As it
turns out, the military seems headed in that direction, specifically with a space-based solar power station that would beam
energy down to the surface. The idea is that the Pentagon has decided that energy independence is now a national security
issue, and as such falls under their purview. In addition, this orbiting power station would negate the need for long fuel
supply lines. Units could have needed energy beamed down directly from orbit. Another benefit of having the military
act as the early adopter is that prices should begin to decrease almost immediately, making it more affordable for
commercial enterprises to license the technology for civilian consumption.

SPS systems solve the numerous problems associated with military use of fossil fuels.
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical need for
secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war-fighter. • When all indirect and support costs are included, it is
estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward
military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon, the fully burdened
average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of
fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon. • Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are
injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 70%
of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraq—total daily consumption is approximately 1.6 million gallons. Any estimated
cost of battlefield energy (fuel and electricity) does not include the cost in lives of American men and women. • The DoD is
a potential anchor tenant customer of space-based solar power that can be reliably delivered to U.S. troops located in
forward bases in hostile territory in amounts of 5-50 megawatts continuous at an estimated price of $1 per kilowatt
hour, but this price may increase over time as world energy resources become more scarce or environmental concerns about
increased carbon emissions from combusting fossil fuels increases.
A Decrease in US military power will trigger a world war.

Kagan, 1997 (Donald Kagan, Hillhouse professor of History and Classics, Yale, Orbis, 1997 Pg.1)
The diminution of U.S. power and credibility, which would follow on a policy of reduced responsibility, would thus not be a
neutral act that would leave the situation as it stands. Instead, it would be a critical step in undermining the stability of the
international situation. Calculations based on the absence of visible potential enemies would immediately be made invalid
by America’s withdrawal form its current position as the major bulwark supporting the world order. The cost of the resulting
upheaval in wealth, instability, and the likelihood of war would be infinitely greater than the cost of continuing to uphold the
existing international structure.
A strong US military is critical to stop global conflict – there is no alternative.

Parameteres, 2005 (Summer 2005 v35 i2 p149)
The Sheriff: America's Defense of the New World Order. Damon Coletta. .Kagan relished the irony of postmodern Europe,
gasping from its gated community at brutish America on the outside, even as the United States atavistically guaranteed security for
Europe's liberal-democratic union. Gray further insists that, despite appearances of a historical transformation, the Kantian
paradise in Western Europe is not really a world apart. As Thucydides and Hobbes remarked before Kant, the world--all the
world for all of recorded history--tends toward competition, strife, and disorder unless a coherent power persuades,
coerces, or compels people to behave in a civilized manner. The United States, in a league apart from the European Union,
China, or the United Nations, derives its political influence from dominant military and economic power. For Gray, the
United States is the only actor that has a chance of preserving some semblance of world order from cancer-like regional
chaos in the coming decades.

Advantage ____ is Nuclear Power Tradeoff

NASA is pursuing nuclear power in space now.
Grossman, 2002 (Karl Grossman, “Covert Action Quarterly Plutonium in Space Again!,” Summer 2002)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is moving to revive its scheme to build nuclear-propelled rockets -
on which $10 billion in 1950s and 60s dollars was spent. 1 The program was cancelled because of the problem, still-
present, of disaster happening if such a rocket fell back to Earth. Also, NASA is moving to expand its use of atomic
power to generate electricity on space probes and planetary rovers. NASA calls the program its Nuclear Systems
Initiative. Some $125.5 million would be spent on it next year - an appropriation request now moving through committees in
Congress and expected to undergo a final vote in Fall 2002, according to Congressional staffers. 2 This is to be the first
installment of $1 billion that NASA is seeking over the next five years for its new atomic space program. The Nuclear
Systems Initiative is "a new element" in NASA's "space science program," NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told the House
of Representatives Committee on Science in February. 3 Three months before, O'Keefe replaced Daniel Goldin as NASA
administrator. Goldin, increasingly concerned about opposition to NASA's use of nuclear power on space devices and the
potential political and public impacts on NASA, sought to avoid their use during his tenure. 4 As Apollo astronaut John
Young complained at a Space Technology and Applications International Forum in 1999, Goldin doesn’t want nuclear power.
5 But OKeefe, appointed NASA chief by President George W. Bush and U.S. secretary of the Navy under Bush's father
and, before that, comptroller and chief financial officer of the Department of Defense working for then Defense Secretary
Richard Cheney, 6 has made it clear he is bullish on the use of nuclear power in space.
SPS systems replace nuclear power.

October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankind’s reliance
on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that will
almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort
to meet their energy needs with carbon neutral sources. To the extent mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel
sources, SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the rate at which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil
hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to
both mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy
could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground transportation, a movement toward plug-in hybrids
would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be powered by SBSP electricity. For those
applications that favor or rely upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels, America’s national labs are pursuing several promising avenues
of research to manufacture carbon-neutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct solar thermal energy or radiated/electrical
SBSP. The lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently split energy-neutral feedstocks or upgrade lower-grade
fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid hydrocarbons. Put plainly, SBSP could be utilized to split hydrogen
from water and the carbon monoxide (syngas) from carbon dioxide which can then be combined to manufacture any desired
hydrocarbon fuel, including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. This technology is still in its infancy, and significant
investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of technical readiness and meet economic and efficiency
goals. This technology enables a carbon-neutral (closed carbon-cycle) hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable
sources of power, which can utilize the existing global fuel infrastructure without modification. This opportunity is of
particular interest to traditional oil companies. The ability to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for
existing fuels, in a carbon neutral cycle, is a “total game changer” that deserves significant attention. Both fossil and fissile
sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be carefully managed.
Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of nuclear power is not of particular concern
in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it may be of greater concern
in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges of wide proliferation of
enrichment-based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a comparable niche
might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence.

Nuclear power in space is a stepping stone for nuclear weaponization of space. We should pursue space
solar power instead.
The new nuclear-propelled rocket push is seen by Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and
Nuclear Power in Space, as "the foot in the door, the Trojan horse, for the militarization of space" in the Star Wars plans
of the George W. Bush administration. "Control and domination of the space program by the Pentagon proceeds apace,"
he says. Also, he warns that beyond accidents impacting people, "the production process at Department of Energy
laboratories making space nukes will lead to significant numbers of workers and communities being contaminated."
He says: "Serious questions need to be asked: Where will they test the nuclear rocket? How much will it cost? What would be
the impacts of a launch accident? These nuclearization of space plans are getting dangerous and out of control." 41
Gagnon also notes that the U.S. government agency in charge of the production of the radioisotope power systems used on
space probes is the Department of Energy's Office of Space & Defense Power Systems and the devices have long had a
military dual use. 42 "The U.S.," says Green activist Lorna Salzman, a founder of the New York Green Party, "is now
allocating billions of taxpayer's dollars, mobilizing all its police, military, investigative and spy powers to head off potential
bio- and nuclear-terrorism - not to mention suicide bombers, airplane hijackers and makers of chemical weapons - to protect
American citizens while preparing to invest a fortune on space nukes that could inundate those same citizens with
radiation . . . Is NASA trying to tell us that terrorism inflicted by religious fanatics is bad but self-inflicted nuclear
terrorism is OK? Or is NASA itself so infected by fatal hubris that it refuses to entertain the possibility of rocket
failure. There are viable alternatives that do not put lives at risk." 43 "Why on Earth," asks Alice Slater, president of the
New York-based Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, "would any sane person propose to take nuclear
poisons to a whole new level?" 44 "Nuclear power," says Sally Light, executive director of the anti-nuclear Nevada Desert
Experience, "whether in space or on Earth is a risky business. Why is the U.S. blindly plunging ahead with such a potentially
disastrous and outmoded concept? We should use solar-powered technologies as they are clean, safe and feasible.
Committing $1 billion for NASAs Nuclear Systems Initiative is unconscionable. Did the people of Earth have a voice in this?
One of the basic principles of democracy is that those affected have a determinative role in the decision-making process. We
in the U.S. and people worldwide are faced with a dangerous, high-risk situation being forced on us and on our
descendents."
Space weaponization breeds multiple scenarios for extinction via nuclear war.
Lambakis, 2001 (Steven Lambakis, Heritage Foundation, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics,” 2001)
THE CASE FOR TREATING space as a sanctuary is grounded in two central concerns. The first is that the introduction of
space weapons would radically destabilize security relationships. The second is that arming the heavens would
undermine U.S. foreign policy by unnecessarily torturing relationships with allies (and potential warfighting partners)
-- and would cause anti-American coalitions to form and wage political and economic warfare against U.S. interests
abroad. The case against combat activities in space draws heavily on 1950s-vin-tage theories of strategic stability that evolved
to support U.S. policy on nuclear weapons. As policy makers gave up on early disarmament initiatives on practical grounds,
many who pondered defense schemes in a world with nuclear weapons focused on arms control and theories about the
stability of deterrence. Responsible leaders sought political solutions and the establishment of international legal mechanisms
for methodically reducing nuclear arms and improving transparency and predictability in decision making. This security
approach sought to eliminate the possibility that the United States or the Soviet Union would perceive an opportunity for a
"first strike" against the other. Such fears of nuclear instability and the escalation of regional conflicts have survived the Cold
War and enliven commentary on national security today. In this view, the military use of space has both stabilizing and
destabilizing potential. Satellites perform nonthreatening, largely benign, and stabilizing military functions that contribute to
nuclear deterrence and transparency. But weapons in space, especially antisatellite weapons, would risk impairing the very
instruments and sensors we deploy in orbit to monitor potential enemies and maintain reliable communications.
Reconnaissance satellites observe arms control compliance and provide strategic warning of an impending crisis. Infrared
sensors on early warning satellites detect ballistic missile launches and, together with observation spacecraft, remain central
pillars of peace and stability in the international system. A sudden attack against such spacecraft, in this view, would lead
at once to heightened alert status and would aggravate instability in command structures. In today's Russia, the
situation may be even more dangerous, given the <CONTINUED>

<CONTINUED>
deterioration of command and control capabilities since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Misperceptions falling out of
cloaked activities in space could lead to war and prime a conflict for escalation to higher levels of destruction, in this
reasoning. Indeed, one may draw parallels with the famous gunfight at the OK Corral. When the first shot rang out in
Tombstone, Ariz., the reflexive response of all was to shoot wildly at anything that moved. Assuming the proliferation
of space weapons and a similar instance of provocation, combatants would be tempted to respond in a similar fashion.
Each side would have very little time to assess the threat and select an appropriate response. The deployment of space
weapons, in the view of their critics, would accordingly increase sensitivity to vulnerability and needlessly heighten
fears and tensions, thereby undermining deterrence. Out of fear of losing everything in a surprise war, a "first strike"
against space assets (possibly a prelude to a first nuclear strike) could well make this fear self-fulfilling. In conflict,
communications would be hindered, and our decision cycles would slow to the point at which we would not
understand the events unfolding in space. The "fog of war" would assume a new density. In the view of space weapon
critics, this is not the only danger. The deployment of spacecraft to gather and channel information of importance to the
armed forces has militarized space already; but, they ask, can we not now draw the line to prevent the weaponization of
space in a dangerous new arms race? After all, U.S. leaders ought not to assume that they can acquire space weapons
unchallenged. Other states would respond. Moreover, those going second (or third or fourth) might have an easier time of
it. They would strive to capitalize on years of American research and development, avoiding along the way early mistakes
and exorbitant development costs. For prestige, foreign governments will not want to be left behind in this "Revolution in
Military Affairs." Indeed, out of self-interest, other states eventually would acquire capabilities to affect the course of war
in space and even to strike the United States. To build weapons for use in space, in this view, would be to recklessly
disregard American history -- in particularly, U.S. experience with multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or
MIRVS. Our attempt to gain a technological edge over the Soviets in the 1970s backfired, critics argue. What resulted was a
Soviet campaign to match and eventually surpass the U.S. MIRV capability. When the dust settled, each side had acquired the
technology to increase substantially the number of warheads and destroy with alarming efficiency the other's nuclear forces.
We might, in this account, expect a similar result after Washington deploys its first space weapon. Upending foreign policy
FINALLY, CRITICS ASSERT, failure to exercise restraint in space would risk upsetting U.S. foreign policy and
destabilizing international relationships. The United Nations has provided platforms for denouncing the militarization of
space since the late 1950s, when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge expressed the hope before the General Assembly that
"future developments in outer space would be devoted exclusively to peaceful and scientific purposes." Over the years,
various U.N. state representatives have pleaded with the major powers to take the lead in preserving the purity of this
environment. In this view, deploying arms in environments unexploited by other states would earn for Washington the
enmity of capitals around the world. They would see the strongest country in the world trying to become even stronger
-- and doing so in untraditional, unparalleled ways. This very condition would make it harder to retain friends and
allies. The shadow of such weapons would alarm foreign capitals, much as the launch of Sputnik unnerved Washington.
The negative effect of space weapons on foreign opinion could have far-reaching consequences. The multinational
coalition assembled by Washington to throw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991 might not have been possible if the United
States had deployed space weapons in disregard of political sensitivities exhibited by the partnership countries. Washington's
military plans, moreover, would provoke a costly hostility among potential adversaries and neutral parties in the absence of
major threats. Washington's October 1997 test of the Mid-Infrared Chemical Laser (MIRACL), developed under President
Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, against a dying U.S. Air Force satellite touched off some spirited international
opposition. On balance, this experiment -- a test of the ability of a laser based at White Sands, N.M., to degrade the
effectiveness of a satellite's optical and infrared sensors -- received scant attention in the foreign media. Yet a few editors,
pundits, and analysts in Western Europe and Asia condemned and belittled Washington's development of systems to paralyze
enemies by depriving them of their eyes and ears in space. To them, this event clearly signaled a new round in the arms race,
and to many it foretold the revival of Reagan's "Star Wars" plan. The idea of space warfare must create in the minds of
government leaders around the world vivid images of merciless domination by a state with the power to rain fire upon
unyielding enemies. Does Washington really want to conjure this image, critics ask. Do the American people want to
provoke an arms race that, in the end, could leave their homes less secure once other states follow the U.S. lead?

Solvency
SPS is the most efficient energy system available and policy action ensures inexpensive construction and
use.
SSI, 2000 (Space Studies Institute Company, http://chview.nova.org/station/sps.htm)
Larger and SPS with spaceplane images A solar power satellite beams down energy to a reception area on Earth in the
form of microwaves, which would be safe for both birds as well planes to fly through. Global energy demand continues
to grow along with worldwide concerns over fossil fuel pollution, the safety of nuclear power and waste, and the impact
of carbon-burning fuels on global warming. As a result, space-based, solar power generation may become an important
source of energy in the 21st Century. According to a study by the Space Studies Institute (SSI), the nonprofit foundation
founded by the late physicist and visionary Gerard O'Neill (19??-92), over 99 percent of the materials needed for building
solar power satellites (SPS) can be obtained from Lunar materials. This would reduce the cost of SPS construction by
almost 97 percent compared to the alternative of use materials launched from Earth. NASA (A relatively small suntower
can be used to exploit Solar power.) Promoted as early as 1968 by Peter Glaser, then a NASA scientist, Solar power satellites
can be built to convert direct Solar radiation received in the full, unobstructed intensity possible in space to direct
current (DC), electrical power. Although early photovoltaic systems were very inefficient, state-of-the-art systems can now
convert the sun's energy into electricity at a rate of 42 to 56 percent, according to Neville Marzwell, a NASA scientist at the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in California. If not built in space, giant sheets of photovoltaic cells could be unfolded in low Earth
orbit by astronauts or robots, and then boosted to about 22,300 miles above the equator where they would remain in the
same spot over the Earth. Free of atmosphere or dust or clouds, such photovoltaic arrays would collect at least eight
times more solar energy than they could on the ground and would work 24 hours a day, practically all year. Solar-
generated, DC power would be converted to microwaves and transmitted through space as electronically steerable
microwave beams. Called "wireless power transmission" (WPT)), these beams would be captured by receivers
(covering several square miles) in remote areas on Earth and converted back into DC power for terrestrial electrical
grids. According to the SunSat Energy Council, a non profit organization affiliated with the United Nations, the beam would
be so low in density that it wouldn't even feel warm if you happened to walk through it.

Government incentives solve, and there’s already a framework for implementation.

Government incentives for carbon-neutral energy technologies — such as carbon/pollution credits and offsets as well as
loan guarantees — should be extended to space power programs as well. The loan guarantees could be modeled on the
program currently provided to the nuclear power industry. Legislation should be enacted to create transferable
investment tax credits for private investments in reusable space transportation systems, as well as in commercial space
infrastructure such as orbital fuel depots and assembly platforms. Miller noted that the energy market amounts to $1
trillion a year market, and said the future payoff could be at least as huge as the present challenges. "If space solar
power takes off, everything that came before — Apollo, the shuttle, the station, all together — will look like a college
science project," Miller told msnbc.com. "It's that much bigger."
SPS systems need to begin development immediately.

Canizares, 2000 (Alex Canizares, associate for Covington & Burling LLP, Space.com, “Solar Satellites Will Power Earth,
Scientists Say,” September 8, 2000, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.html)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (States News Service) – Solar-powered satellites will become a major energy source by 2030,
scientists testified at a congressional hearing Thursday, helping to reduce reliance on dwindling fuel supplies. With fuel
supplies projected to fall and energy costs reaching historic highs, using satellites to transmit energy to provide
electricity used to heat homes and run appliances is becoming technologically viable, scientists told the House Science
subcommittee on space and aeronautics. Electric energy use is projected to grow 75 percent worldwide by 2020, and oil
production will slow due to depleting reserves after 2015, said Ralph H. Nansen, president of Solar Space Industries. "Space
solar power can solve these problems," Nansen said. "The time is now right for their development to begin."

Inherency

Inherency – Development Now

SPS systems are being developed now and will be highly accurate and efficient
Canizares, 2000 (Alex Canizares, associate for Covington & Burling LLP, Space.com, “Solar Satellites Will Power Earth,
Scientists Say,” September 8, 2000, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.html)
A roadmap/ John C. Mankins, manager of Advanced Concepts Studies at NASA, said the space agency is laying out a
"roadmap" to develop satellite-powered energy using several technologies in the works. High-voltage solar panels that
could handle sunlight during 99 percent of a 24-hour day, wireless transmitters that can beam large amounts of
microwave energy, and an "inflatable radiator" to absorb heat in space, are all under development, Mankins said.
SPS systems would work and the blue prints already exist and have been carefully mapped out by
engineering corporations.
IEEE, 2008 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “Solar-Power Satellites,” http://www.ieee-virtual-
museum.org/collection/tech.php?id=2345888&lid=1)
The sun powers the biosphere, which is to say that the energy used by almost all plants and animals comes from the sun. So
why not use solar energy to power industry, transportation, and the home as well? Well, a principal difficulty with solar
power is that the sun doesn't always shine on a particular location: half the time the earth blocks the sun, and for much of
the remaining time clouds and fog do. But what if the solar energy were collected by a set of satellites above the earth’s
atmosphere? Then we might obtain solar power for 24 hours every day of the year. This is the idea behind solar-power
satellites. A satellite with solar panels to convert light energy into electricity can be put into orbit. Indeed, most satellites
in orbit today are powered by solar panels. But how can we get the energy from the satellite back to earth? Clearly it would be
impossible to use the electric lines we use for long-distance power transmission on earth. This is where microwaves
come in. The idea is that a satellite be equipped with a microwave generator, so that the electrical energy from the solar
panels can be converted into a microwave beam. Then the microwave beam can be directed to antennas on the surface
of the earth, which would convert the microwaves back to electrical energy. The energy could then either be used at the
site of the antenna or injected into the electric-power network.


Construction Of SPS Systems Is Extremely Plausible
Space Future, 2001 (SpaceFuture.com, think tank dedicated to space issues and space power, “Energy From Space: How SPS
Could Power the World,” World” http://www.spacefuture.com/power/introduction.shtml)
From the point of view of public support, energy, and particularly environmentally clean energy, is a subject of great
popular concern in many countries, and so is capable of receiving large-scale funding. Consequently it should be
possible to raise a budget for an SPS demonstration project - if there's a good, credible plan, supported by researchers
around the world. But in order to produce such a plan, more work is still required.
The Logistics Of Solar Powered Satellites Were 100% Feasible 10 Years Ago
SSP: Development & Manufacturing. This concept, owning to its extensive modularity, will entail relatively small
individual system components which can be developed at a moderate price, ground tested with no new facilities, and
demonstrated in a flight environment with a sub-scale test. Manufacturing can be 'mass production' style from the first
satellite system. Ground Launch Infrastructure. No concept-unique ground launch infrastructure is required, beyond that
necessary to achieve extremely low launch costs (on the order of $200-$400 per kg). Earth-to-Orbit Transportation. No
concept-unique ETO transportation system is required, beyond that necessary to achieve extremely low launch costs (on
the order of $400 per kg), with payloads of greater than 10 MT; this is consistent with Highly Reusable Space Transportation
(HRST) system concepts. (The HRST study and its results are discussed in IAF-97-V.3.06.) In-Space Infrastructure. No
unique in-space infrastructure is required for initial system deployment, which takes place in LEO. However, it is
assumed that the launched systems include modular assembly-support systems. These consist of a clever mechanical
scheme inherent in the structure. In-Space Transportation. No permanent in-space transportation is required for initial
system deployment, which could take place in LEO or (better) at an intermediate staging orbit (e.g., 1200 km. Two functions
must be met by the in-space transportation approach: (1) transport of the 5SF to its operational orbit (this may be an inherent
function of the SSP - e.g., using SEPS), (2) transport of new or replacement elements to the operational orbit and return for de-
orbit of replaced elements. Markets. Electrical energy markets on a global basis could be served by a single SunTower
satellite with incremental increases in coverage with expansion of the space segment to a constellation.


All The Tech Exists
Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, “Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power From Space,” October 11, 2007)
Washington, DC After conducting preliminary research, the US abandoned the idea as economically unfeasible in the 1970s.
Since that time, says Mankins, advances in photovoltaics, electronics and robotics will bring the size and cost down to a
fraction of the original schemes, and eliminate the need for humans to assemble the equipment in space. Several
technical challenges remain to be overcome, including the development of lower-cost space launches. A satellite capable of
supplying the same amount of electric power as a modern fossil-fuel plant would have a mass of about 3000 tonnes – more
than 10 times that of the International Space Station. Sending that material into orbit would require more than a hundred
rocket launches. The US currently launches fewer than 15 rockets each year. In spite of these challenges, the NSSO and its
supporters say that no fundamental scientific breakthroughs are necessary to proceed with the idea and that space-
based solar power will be practical in the next few decades. "There are no technology hurdles that are show stoppers
right now," said Damphousse.
SPS systems are being investigated now.

IEEE, 2008 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “Solar-Power Satellites,” http://www.ieee-virtual-
museum.org/collection/tech.php?id=2345888&lid=1)
It was during the late 1960s that the engineer Peter Glaser first had the notion of solar power satellites. The principle of
transmitting power by microwaves had already been demonstrated, though not put into practice. (Microwaves in
practical devices, such as radar systems and long-distance telephone relays, were used to convey information.) To
convey information, the intensity of the received signal need only be less than one nanowatt (one billionth of a watt). Glaser’s
idea was to put the solar-power satellites in geosynchronous orbits, so that each would hover over a single location on the
earth. This meant, however, that the satellites had to be very high (36,000 kilometers or about 22,000 feet), and this in turn
meant that the antenna on the satellite and the receiving antenna on the ground had to be extremely large (a kilometer or more
in diameter). The idea did not seem practical, and after some initial funding by the U.S Department of Energy and NASA there
was little interest in pursuing the technology. Today, however, the situation is changed because of the very large number of
communications satellites in low orbits. It might be possible to make these satellites dual purpose—solar-energy collectors as
well as communications devices. Because of the much lower orbits, the antennas on the satellites and on the ground need not
be nearly so large. A drawback however, is that satellites in low-earth orbit circle the earth rapidly (about every 90 minutes)
and therefore do not provide a connection for a very long time. There are also other concerns. One is that the transmission
down to the ground might be interrupted by clouds and weather. Another is the safety of the people and animals near the
receiving antennas who might be exposed to the microwave radiation. Today, the viability of solar-power satellites as a long-
term solution to our energy needs is being investigated by government agencies and individual companies in many
countries.

Inherency – Misdirected Now

Current misdirection causes instability within the formation of SPS systems.
O’Neill, 92 (Gerard K. O’Neill, Doctorates Degree, Trilogy: “The World’s Energy Future Belongs in Orbit,” January/ February
1992, http://ssi.org/?page_id=8)
In the bureaucratic format, satellite power has no natural home and no built-in constituency. NASA, now a timid, fearful NASA
made up of aging pre-retirees rather than the young tigers who made Apollo work in just eight years, would be frightened
out of its skin by a tough, make-it-work assignment with a tight budget and a tighter time scale. And NASA’s charter
doesn’t cover energy. The DOE? Its charter doesn’t include space. The NSF? Satellite power isn’t science, it’s
engineering.

Solvency

Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source

Solar Power Satellites are far superior to current forms of energy – conversion rates are high.
Can SPS Technology Deliver? As people concerned about our environment and about the world we leave to our children we
should question proposed solutions to major physical problems. As fossil fuels, nuclear energy, ground-based solar, and
other conventional sources of energy all fail to make sense in the world. First of all, there is plenty of energy in space.
Even in a narrow band 25,000 miles above the equator, where a satellite can maintain a fixed orbit, plenty of solar energy
streams by constantly to supply far more than enough energy for the Earth of 2050. What of the conversion on Earth? It was
demonstrated years ago. The antennas convert the radio waves with an efficiency so high that less than 100 watts of waste
heat goes into the environment for every 1,000 watts that goes into power lines. For coal or nuclear the numbers are:
1,500 watts waste, 2,500 watts total; for ground-based solar they are several thousand watts waste plus another thousand to
make up the total - different from an Earth without solar cells - because solar cells absorb more heat than the ground they
cover.


SPS Systems = Sweet Energy Source
Potter, 1998 (Seth Potter, Research scientist/ NYU/ Member of the board of directors of the Space Frontier Society of New York,
“Solar Power Satellites: An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” 1998)
For years humanity has dreamed of a clean, inexhaustible energy source. This dream has lead many people to do what, in
retrospect, seems obvious, and look upward toward nature's "fusion reactor", the sun. However, while sunlight is clean
and inexhaustible (for a few billion years anyway!), it is also dilute and intermittent. These problems led Peter Glaser of the
Arthur D. Little Company to suggest in 1968 that solar collectors be placed in geostationary orbit. Such collectors are known
as solar power satellites (SPS). The solar energy collected by an SPS would be converted into electricity, then into
microwaves. The microwaves would be beamed to the Earth's surface, where they would be received and converted
back into electricity by a large array of devices known as a rectifying antenna, or rectenna. (Rectification is the process
by which alternating electrical current, such as that induced by a microwave beam, is converted to direct current. This direct
current can then be converted to the "slower" 50 or 60 cycle alternating current that is used by homes, offices, and factories.)
At geostationary orbit (36,000 kilometers or 22,000 miles high), the SPS would have a 24-hour orbital period. It would
therefore always hover over the same spot on the equator and can keep its beam fixed on a position at a higher latitude. Since
the Earth's axis is tilted, an SPS orbiting over the equator wouldswing above or below the Earth's shadow during its daily orbit.
Sunlight would not be blocked, except for a period of about an hour eachnight within a few weeks of the equinoxes. It is
interesting to compare the availability of sunlight in space with that on Earth. A solar panel facing the sun in near-Earth
space receives about 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter (130 watts per square foot). (Of course, only a fraction of this
is usable due to conversion inefficiencies.) On Earth, the day-night cycle cuts this in half. The oblique angle of the sun's rays
with respect to the ground (except at noon in the tropics) cuts this in half again for a typical spot on the Earth. (Solar panels on
the ground can be angled upward to circumvent this, but they must then be spread out over more ground to avoid casting
shadows on each other.) Clouds and atmospheric dust cut the available sunlight in half again. Thus, sunlight is about eight
times more abundant in geostationary orbit than it is on the Earth. Although the microwave beam from an SPS would
also be dilute, it would be converted to electricity at a greater efficiency than sunlight. However, the largest cost savings in
SPS versus terrestrial solar collectors may be the elimination of the need for storage at night (or transmission from the day side
of the Earth).
SPS Systems Are The Only Viable Source Of Energy That Provides For World Demand And Avoid
Energy Wars
Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when China, India, and
other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West enjoying.
Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or
terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physics and politics. Only space solar power can be
delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is
imperative that this country be able to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is
in everyone’s interest.


SPS Systems Are The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread
Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?,” August 13, 2007)
For nearly four decades, one concept has tantalized space professionals and enthusiasts alike: space solar power. The ability
to collect solar power in space, continuously and in effectively limitless quantities, and then transmit that energy back
to Earth, could radically reshape not only the space industry but also society in general. That clean (or, in the current
vernacular, carbon neutral) energy would, advocates claim, help meet the growing energy needs of an increasingly
developed world without relying on sources that degrade the environment and/or come from politically unstable
regions of the globe. That demand for energy, in turn, would create tremendous demand for launch and other space
services, driving down costs that would, in turn, open other markets.
SPS Systems Could Make Us 100% Energy Independent And Carbon Neutral
Mankins 2008 Space-Based Solar Power Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit national space society john c spring
At an altitude of 22,240 miles above Earth, a great platform orbits, using vast, mirrored wings to collect a continuous torrent of
sunlight always available in space. With few moving parts, the platform redirects and focuses this solar energy onto
concentrating photovoltaic arrays—converting it into electrical power. In turn, the power is transmitted wirelessly—and
with minimal losses—to highly-efficient receivers the size of airports on the ground. It is a seamless, endless transfer:
The platform constantly gathers more than 5,000 megawatts of sunlight and delivers more than 2,000 megawatts of
clean, near-zero carbon electrical power to customers as needed anywhere within an area the size of a continent. It can
be routed directly into the electrical grid as base-load power—and divided across a half dozen or more receivers to meet
local peak power needs. It can be used as well to power the annual production of hundreds of millions of gallons of
carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. In an era when new energy options are urgently needed, space solar power is an
inexhaustible solution—and the technologies now exist to make it a reality. The world cannot wait much longer. While
the past century has been one of the most remarkable periods in human history, it has also been dominated by the use
of fossil fuels. Yet, the accelerating global consumption of affordable and available energy sources will soon present
fundamental challenges. In less time than has passed since the founding of Jamestown, today’s coal reserves will be
forever gone. Also, most scientists agree that the use of fossil fuels is profoundly altering both local environments and
the climate of the world itself. Capturing solar power from space-based platforms can solve this crisis. This is energy
that is essentially carbon-free, endless and can be dispatched to best meet the dynamically changing requirements of
populations separated by thousands of miles. The Vision of space solar power To be economically viable in a particular
location on Earth, ground-based solar power must overcome three hurdles. First, it must be daytime. Second, the solar
array must be able to see the sun. Finally, the sunlight must pass through the bulk of the atmosphere itself. The sky
must be clear. Even on a seemingly clear day, high level clouds in the atmosphere may reduce the amount of sunlight
that reaches the ground. Also various local obstacles such as mountains, buildings or trees may block incoming sunlight.
The longer the path traveled, the more sunlight is absorbed or scattered by the air so that less of it reaches the surface.
Altogether, these factors reduce the average energy produced by a conventional ground-based solar array by as much as
a factor of 75 to 80 percent. And ground solar arrays may be subjected to hours, days, or even weeks of cloud cover—
periods when the array produces no energy at all. By comparison, the sun shines continuously in space. And in space,
sunlight carries about 35 percent more energy than sunlight attenuated by the air before it reaches the Earth’s surface.
No weather, no nighttime, no seasonal changes; space is an obvious place to collect energy for use on Earth. The concept
of space solar power first emerged in the late 1960s, invented by visionary Peter Glaser and then studied in some detail by the
U.S. Department of Energy, and NASA in the mid-to-late 1970s. However, at that time neither the technology nor the market
were ready for this transformational new energy option. Today, that has all changed.

Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy

Space based solar power can solve the entire globe’s energy problems in an entirely eco-friendly manner,
and is the only viable long term alternative energy source
Glaser 2000 (Peter E. Glaser, “The World Needs Energy from Space,” February 23, 2000)
Humanity faces a new energy crisis. A growing population and rising per-capita energy consumption require a move
away from the polluting, finite energy supplies now in use. Moreover, renewable energy sources such as conventional
solar and wind power can only meet a portion of projected needs. Space holds the key to an inexhaustible, non-polluting
energy supply. That key is space solar power (SSP) -- using space-based systems to collect the sun's energy and turn it
into usable power for Earth. SSP would employ satellites in Earth orbit or systems on the moon's surface equipped with solar
cells that convert the sun's energy into electricity. The electricity is fed to transmitting antennas and beamed to receiving
antennas on Earth, located on land or offshore. This is not some futuristic dream. The key SSP technologies -- solar cells and
wireless power transmission (WPT) -- are based on the work of 19th century innovators such as Henri Becquerel and Nikola
Tesla. The conversion of solar energy in space to usable power on Earth is the most plausible global alternative to nuclear
power plants. During the past three decades, SSP has been studied extensively by space agencies, universities and industry
groups worldwide. International meetings have been held on the subject since 1970. There now exists a large and growing
literature on the technical, economic and societal issues associated with SSP. NASA and the Energy Department conducted a
joint-evaluation program of solar power satellites in the 1970s, but interest among policymakers declined after that decade's
energy crisis faded away. Recently, U.S. political interest in SSP has begun to revive -- sparked in part by the specter of global
warming -- though other nations, including Japan and Russia, have conducted serious SSP research throughout. But much
greater attention and effort are needed. SSP should become a top priority of the U.S. space program, and more broadly of
government and industry in the U.S. and around the world. Consider the energy situation now confronting the world.
Industrialization and urbanization will mean sharply increased energy use. Reliance on fossil fuels could produce
unprecedented environmental damage. Moreover, such finite sources may soon be past their peak availability, if they
aren't already. The solution to this problem is to utilize terrestrial renewable energy resources to the maximum extent
possible, while at the same time developing SSP as a global, 24-hour-a-day energy supply. The conversion of solar energy in
space to usable power on Earth is the most plausible global alternative to nuclear power plants, with their attendant safety,
decommissioning and plutonium proliferation issues. SSP can also be an integral part of global development. It can help boost
economic growth and improve living standards. It is the only means toward increased energy supplies compatible with the
environment. Space solar power is a challenging, long-term opportunity to tap space's unlimited resources rather than
relying only on Earth's limited ones. It will help sustain human life on Earth and, at a future time, in space.

Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy

SPS Systems Deliver Enough Energy To Power The Entire World For Centuries
October 10, 2007)
The reservoir of Space-Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with room for growth far past the foreseeable
needs of the entire human civilization for the next century and beyond. In the vicinity of Earth, each and every hour
there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energy continuously pouring through every square kilometer of space. If one were to
stretch that around the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1 km-wide ring receives over 210 terawatt-years of
power annually. The amount of energy coursing through that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly
equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years),
and far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy output of the fusion-powered Sun is
billions of times beyond that, and it will last for billions of years—orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources
combined. Space-Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the solar system. This is not
to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing this resource or the tremendous time
and effort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energy—
clean, renewable energy—available to the human civilization if it can develop the means to effectively capture it.
The energy from a one kilometer wide band of SPS systems for one year would be equal to the amount of
energy from all oil reserves left on earth.
Hamilton, 2007 (Tyler Hamilton, energy research reporter and business columnist for the Toronto Star, “Space-Based Solar Power
Back in Play,” October 15, 2007, http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/266738)
Seriously. "A single kilometre-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to
nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today,"
the study states. "There is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental
stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and
possess (the) capability."

Solvency – SPS Better than Ground Solar

Space Solar Systems Produce Energy Much More Efficiently Than Ground Based Solar
October 10, 2007)
The Sun is a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located some 150 million km from the Earth, radiating 2.3 billion times
more energy than what strikes the disk of the Earth, which itself is more energy in a hour than all human civilization
directly uses in a year, and it will continue to produce free energy for billions of years. Our Sun is the largest known
energy resource in the solar system. In the vicinity of Earth, every square meter of space receives 1.366 kilowatts of solar
radiation, but by the time it reaches the ground, it has been reduced by atmospheric absorption and scattering;
weather; and summer, winter, and day-night cycles to less than an average of 250 watts per square meter. Space-Based
Solar Power offers a way to break the tyranny of these day-night, summer-winter and weather cycles, and provide
continuous and predictable power to any location on Earth.

Solvency – SPS Integration Works

SPS can be easily worked into the current energy system and can be used in place of fuel or even at very
specific locations including households.
High oil prices, energy security fears and the potentially devastating effects of climate change have prompted the U.S.
government to again explore the idea of placing millions of solar panels in orbit to beam immense amounts of clean
power back to Earth. Seriously. An agency called the National Security Space Office, which reports to the U.S. Department
of Defence, released a feasibility study last week recommending that "space-based solar power," an idea first proposed in
the U.S. some 40 years ago, be pursued in the name of national security. The sun, after all, shines more strongly and for 24
hours a day in space, outside the filters of Earth's clouds and its relatively dirty atmosphere. There are also few real-estate
problems up there, fewer people to complain and the potential of having a fuelling post for Richard Branson and other private
space travellers. According to the study, the energy collected would be electromagnetically beamed back to Earth and
connected to the electrical grid, or used in the manufacture of synthetic fuels. It even suggests that weaker beams could
be directed at individual households.

Solvency – USFG’s SPS Reliable

An SPS system now, receiving only a fraction of the nuclear fusion budget and led by the government
would be extremely successful and establish a reliable energy structure.
Again, the discussion has come up before. NASA and the U.S. Department of Defence have together spent about $80
million (U.S.) over the last three decades studying the idea. Seems like decent money, until you see that the U.S.
government has spent about $21 billion over 50 years on that elusive energy utopia called nuclear fusion. Perhaps it is
time to give space-based solar power another look, given that such a system might already exist today had it received the
money dumped into fusion. Oil has surged past $80 a barrel and there's a desperate need for low- or zero-carbon energy
sources. Lob a few bombs at Iran and the situation gets worse, not better. On the positive side, technology has advanced
significantly over the past four years. "While significant technical challenges remain, space-based solar power is more
technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors promise to further improve its viability,"
according to the study. "A government-led proof-of-concept demonstration could serve to catalyze commercial sector
development." The recommendation is that a co-ordinated national program be created with "high-level leadership"
and financial resources "at least" on level with nuclear fusion research or construction of an international space station.
It's proposing a 10-megawatt pilot plant that would beam a continuous flow of solar electricity back to Earth. Not to say
the barriers, mostly economic, aren't huge. It costs dearly to rocket the materials into space that would be required to build
the solar panels and associated equipment. Would the fuel and related greenhouse gas emissions resulting from such frequent
launches undermine the "clean" logic of space-based solar power? If one considers that the Internet started this way, as did
the Global Positioning System, it's not a stretch to see orbital solar power plants becoming a serious commercial
venture.

Solvency – Fill Oil Gap

SPS Systems Eliminate The Need For Fossil Fuels.
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankind’s
reliance on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that will
almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort to meet
their energy needs with carbon neutral sources. To the extent mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP
offers a capability over time to reduce the rate at which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon
resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to both
mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy
could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground transportation, a movement toward plug-in
hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be powered by SBSP electricity. For those
applications that favor or rely upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels, America’s national labs are pursuing several promising
avenues of research to manufacture carbon-neutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct solar thermal energy or
radiated/electrical SBSP. The lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently split energy-neutral feedstocks or
upgrade lower-grade fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid hydrocarbons. Put plainly, SBSP could
be utilized to split hydrogen from water and the carbon monoxide (syngas) from carbon dioxide which can then be
combined to manufacture any desired hydrocarbon fuel, including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. This
technology is still in its infancy, and significant investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of
technical readiness and meet economic and efficiency goals. This technology enables a carbon-neutral (closed carbon-
cycle) hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable sources of power, which can utilize the existing global fuel
infrastructure without modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil companies. The ability
to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a carbon neutral cycle, is a “total game
changer” that deserves significant attention. Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix,
but dependence on the exact mix must be carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While
increased use of nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal
security mechanisms, it may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the
security challenges of wide proliferation of enrichment-based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable
alternative that fills a comparable niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and
fissile fuel dependence.


SPS satellites would fill in the oil gap.
ABC Online, 07 (Jennifer Macey, The World Today: “The World Today – Pentagon back future space-based power stations,”
October 17, 2007, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2061875.htm)
ELEANOR HALL: The US Defense Department is planning to put more of its resources into developing alternative
energy sources - and its latest proposal involves outer space. The Pentagon has just released a report recommending that a
pilot solar power station be sent into orbit to test whether energy collected from the sun can be beamed down to earth as
electricity. The report says space-based power stations could provide clean energy and avert potential energy security
conflicts when oil supplies run low. Jennifer Macey has our report. JENNIFER MACEY: As the quest for alternative
energy intensifies, space has become the new frontier for energy security. The Pentagon has commissioned its National
Security Space Office to study the feasibility of sending giant solar panels into space to collect electricity for earth.
More Evidence…
It wants to build a pilot solar power station to orbit the earth within six years at a cost of US$10-billion. Later, massive
photovoltaic stations, several kilometres wide and weighing more than 3,000 tonnes, would be sent into space. The report
says these stations could collect enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the total amount of energy contained
within the known oil reserves on earth today. Dr Charley Lineweaver is from the Planetary Science Unit at the Australian
National University in Canberra. He says orbiting solar stations could overcome earthbound problems such as the reduced
ability of photocells to collect energy during cloud cover or at night.


Fuel Prices Make SPS Systems Viable And Open Up New Markets And Industries
Milonopoulos, 2007 (Theo Milonopoulos, LA Times, “Orbiting Solar Panels’ Day May be Near,” October 11, 2007)
A new federal study released Wednesday concluded that continued increases in oil prices may finally make the generation
of solar power in orbit economically competitive. The report urged the government to sponsor a demonstration of the
technology to spur private investment in the concept. The orbiting power plants would reduce the nation’s dependence
on imported oil and help reduce the production of carbon dioxide that is contributing to global warming, according to
the report led by the National Security Space Office, part of the Department of Defense. “This is a solution for all
mankind,” said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman of the spaceflight advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation. Aldrin
joined a group of other space advocacy organizations to unveil the report in Washington. Since the Space Age began 50 years
ago, scientists have dreamed of launching acres of photovoltaic cells into orbit and beaming the electricity
electromagnetically to Earth’s surface but have stumbled over the project’s high cost and the technical difficulties. The report
estimated that in a single year, satellites in a continuously sunlit orbit could generate an amount of energy nearly
equivalent to all of the energy available in the world’s oil reserves. Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National
Space Society, said space-based solar energy could generate so much power that it could transform the United States
from an energy-importing country into an energy-exporting nation. “It is the largest energy option which is available
to us today in the sense that it would derive more power potentially than all of the other power sources combined,”
Hopkins said. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent $80 million in the last three decades to study space-based
solar energy, but the effort faded in the mid-1990s. Critics have charged that ground-based solar energy is more economical.
But putting the solar factories in space would allow them to operate 24 hours a day and would eliminate interference
by clouds and adverse weather, said Charles Miller, director of the Space Frontier Foundation.
SPS systems would cost around $10 billion dollars but would be net beneficial because one kilometer-
wide band would gain enough energy in one year to equal the energy of all oil reserves on Earth.
Mankins said the space station could be used to host some early technology validation demonstrations, from testing
appropriate materials to tapping into the station's solar-powered electrical grid to transmit a low level of energy back to
Earth. Worthwhile component tests could be accomplished for "a few million" dollars, Mankins estimated, while a space
station-based power-beaming experiment would cost "tens of millions" of dollars. Placing a free-flying space-based solar
power demonstrator in low-Earth orbit, he said, would cost $500 million to $1 billion. A geosynchronous system capable of
transmitting a sustained 5-10 megawatts of power down to the ground would cost around $10 billion, he said, and
provide enough electricity for a military base. Commercial platforms, likewise, would be very expensive to build. "These
things are not going to be small or cheap," Mankins said. "It's not like buying a jetliner. It's going to be like buying the Hoover
Dam." While the upfront costs are steep, Mankins and others said space-based solar power's potential to meet the world's
future energy needs is huge. According to the report, "a single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit
experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable
conventional oil reserves on Earth today."


SPS Systems Are An Environmentally Energy Option That Can Replace Fossil Fuels With Carbon-
Neutral Options
Hedman, 2008 (Eric R. Hedman, “The Space Review: If We Build It, Will They Come?,” February 4, 2008)
The advantages of a working solar power satellite system are enormous. There are no toxic chemical emissions of any
kind on Earth while the system is in operation (though there may be some emissions in the production and possibly the
launch of components). The land under the rectennas can remain as productive crop and pasture land. There isn’t the
waste heat generated that even large solar farms produce, changing the climate in the area of the collectors. The
energy can be used to produce fuels for vehicles creating carbon-neutral transportation.

Solvency – SPS Solves Squo Problems

Space based solar solves all the problems associated with ground based solar and efficiently addresses the
demand for clean energy, but it’s being ignored now.
Space Future, No Date (SpaceFuture.com, think tank dedicated to space issues and space power, “Energy From Space: How
SPS Could Power the World,” World” http://www.spacefuture.com/power/introduction.shtml)
The concept of solar power satellites, or SPS, first put forward in the 1960s, is still not widely known by the general
public. For example at many public exhibitions about Energy, SPS is not even mentioned. This is mainly because very little
funding has been spent on SPS research to date - about 1/1000 of 1% of the approximately US$1 trillion that
governments have spent subsidizing the development of nuclear power over the past 50 years. There are critics who
claim that SPS is unrealistic - because launch costs are much too high today; or because microwave beams will set fire to
cities; or because it's too futuristic. So why do we believe that it is important to continue to do research on SPS? The reason
is very simple. Humans are going to need enormous amounts of electric power in coming decades. Within 50 years the
world population is expected to double, while economic growth will continue around the world, especially in the poorer
countries. But existing energy sources already face serious problems. They're limited; they're polluting; they're
dangerous. So 50 years from now, 100 years from now, where is our power going to come from? Nobody knows. And so
we believe that new large-scale possibilities should be studied further. A limitless source of energy The solar energy that
reaches the Earth is about 10,000 times total human energy production today, and the energy available in near-Earth
space is limitless. Research is being done on many different ways of using solar power economically on Earth, and many of
these will be successful. Terrestrial solar energy is going to become a colossal business. However, sunlight is diffuse and not
available continuously at the Earth's surface. So one additional possibility is to collect solar energy 24 hours per day in
space, and transmit it as microwave beams to receivers on Earth. Compared to solar power collected at the Earth's surface,
SPS faces the extra costs of space transportation and microwave power transmission. But in order to supply continuous
electric power, solar systems on Earth need much greater area for collection, large scale energy storage for supply
during the night-time and when it's cloudy, and long-distance transmission from desert areas to population centers.
Consequently, at the present state of knowledge we do not know that in future solar power from space could not compete with
solar power collected on Earth. And so we believe that more research should be done on this possibility - and that SPS
research should receive funding similar to other potential new energy sources. We support research efforts aimed at
increasing the efficiency of energy use. But we also support efforts to demonstrate new, environmentally benign energy
sources. A change in policy We must remember that humans have some choice concerning our future. To some extent we can
choose the direction in which our civilisation develops. And choices that are made in the coming decades - such as the
energy sources that we will or will not use - will have major, long-term implications for human life on Earth. We believe
that, provided that research continues to show that SPS is environmentally and economically attractive, SPS will open the
door to a much more attractive future for human civilization than any ground-based energy source; and one that the
public will support; and that young people will find challenging and exciting. Furthermore energy from SPS can be
readily used in developing countries, as the SPS 2000 project will demonstrate, thereby aiding economic development
world-wide. In addition, by creating large commercial revenues for space engineering, SPS will open the frontier of
space to economic development, thereby creating a limitless new field for growth of the world economy.

Solvency – Investment Justified

Current Economic And Security Concerns Justify Investment In SPS Systems, Which Have Become
More Viable Since The 90s
The report — which was done on an unfunded basis and took advantage of online collaboration with outside contributors —
notes that several factors have changed in the decade since NASA took its most recent in-depth look at the space power
concept (PDF file). Today's best solar cells are about three times as efficient as they were in 1997, while crude-oil prices
are roughly three times as high. And in the post-9/11 era, energy security has taken on far more importance. "The
technology has advanced vastly, and the security situation has changed quite a bit, as well as the economic situation,"
Marine Lt. Col. Paul Damphousse, who took over the study from Smith last month, told msnbc.com. "Those things
warranted another look."

Solvency – Efficient
SPS Systems Prevent The Waste Heat Associated With Other Energy Sources Form Entering The
Atmosphere
October 10, 2007)
Geostationary SBSP experiences nearly continuous sunlight and therefore is available more than 99% of the time and
so does not incur the same difficulties of storage for terrestrial solar, which requires a corresponding increase in
overcapacity. Even considering the energy cost of launch, SBSP systems do payback the energy to construct and launch.
In fact, SBSP systems have net energy payback times (<1 year except for very small 0.5 GW plants) well within their multi-
decade operational lifetimes. Payback times are equivalent and perhaps faster than terrestrial solar thermal power (Zerta et al,
2004). The reason for this is that an equivalent area in space receives 8-10 times the energy flux for the annual average, and
as much as 30-40 times the energy flux in a given week than the same area located on a favorable place on the ground after
considering day/night, summer/winter, and dust/weather cycles. Prior analyses suggest that the resulting energy payback
(time to recover the energy used in deploying a power system) for SBSP is equivalent to or less than (perhaps as little as ½)
comparable ground solar baseload power systems (which includes energy storage capacity for 24/7 usage, and pay back in
1.6-1.7 years). • Even after losses in wireless power transmission, the reduced need for overcapacity and storage to
make up for periods of low illumination translates into a much lower land usage vs. terrestrial solar for an equivalent
amount of delivered energy. • Unlike terrestrial solar facilities, microwave receiving rectennas allow greater than 90%
of ambient light to pass through, but absorb almost all of the beamed energy, generating less waste heat than
terrestrial solar systems because of greater coupling efficiency. This means that the area underneath the rectenna can
continue to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes. To deliver any reasonably significant amount of base-load
power, ground solar would need to cover huge regions of land with solar cells, which are major sources of waste heat.
As a result, these ground solar farms would produce significant environmental impacts to their regions. The
simultaneous major increases to the regional temperature, plus the blockage of sunlight from the ground, will likely
kill off local plants, animals and insects that might inhabit the ground below or around these ground solar farms. This
means that that a SBSP rectenna has less impact on the albedo or reflectivity of the Earth than a terrestrial solar plant
of equivalent generating capacity. Moreover, the energy provided could facilitate water purification and irrigation,
prevent frosts, extend growing seasons (if a little of the energy were used locally) etc. In the plains of the U.S. (e.g.,
South Dakota, etc), in sub-Saharan Africa, etc. etc. there are vast areas of arable land that could be both productive
farm land and sites for SBSP rectennas. • The final global effect is not obvious, but also important. While it may seem
intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat into the biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the
opposite. All energy put into the electrical grid will eventually be spent as heat, but the methods of generating
electricity are of significant impact for determining which approach produces the least total global warming effect.
Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and greenhouse gases, while terrestrial solar and wind power
also emit significant amounts of waste heat via inefficient conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion
inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is that the most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the
biosphere to be radiated into space. The losses in the atmosphere are very small, on the order of a couple percent for
the wavelengths considered. Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with the exception of initial manufacturing
and launch fuel emissions), it does not contribute to the trapping action and retention of heat in the biosphere.

Solvency – R&D Key

US R+D Is Sweet
Executive Branch Of The Untied States Federal Government 2006 National Aeronatuics Research And
Development Policy
The overarching goal of this policy is to advance U.S. technological leadership in aeronautics by fostering a vibrant and
dynamic aeronautics R&D community that includes government, industry, and academia. To this end, in accordance with
the above principles, as well as the President’s Management Agenda and the Office of Management and Budget’s R&D
Investment Criteria, the U.S. Government should: • Provide long-term stability and focus in innovative research that
leads to ground-breaking ideas, concepts, approaches, technologies, and capabilities in order to provide a robust
foundation for the advancement of U.S. technological leadership in aeronautics; • Pursue and develop promising
advanced aircraft concepts and technologies to enable new opportunities to provide unsurpassed military capability; •
Pursue and develop advanced concepts and technologies that enable increased air traffic capacity and new aircraft
concepts in the national airspace; • Pursue a coordinated approach to managing U.S. Government aeronautics research,
development, test, and evaluation infrastructure identified as critical national assets required to maintain and advance
world-class U.S. experimental and computational R&D capabilities; • Identify the roles of the Federal Government in
aeronautics R&D and the interrelationship between the Federal Government and the private sector in discovering and
applying technological innovations; • Cultivate an R&D environment that enables a globally competitive U.S.
aeronautics enterprise, and encourages industry investment and academic participation; • Enhance coordination and
communication among executive departments and agencies to maximize the effectiveness of government R&D
resources; and • Strengthen mechanisms to engage partners in industry and academia concerning government R&D
priorities, programs, and planning processes.

Solvency – Incentives Solve

Economic Incentives Close The Business Case For SPS Enough To Make Satellites Viable By 2012
A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system
that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth. The military itself could become the “anchor
tenant” for such a power source, due to the current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says. The
75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business
case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as
2012.

Solvency – Incentives Cause Development

Infrastructure And Launch Abilities Would Be Developed Upon Incentivizing Their Construction
October 10, 2007)
Today the United States initiates less than 15 launches per year (at 25MT or less). Construction of a single SBSP
satellite alone would require in excess of 120 such launches. That may seem like an astounding operations tempo until
one considers the volume of other transportation infrastructure. For instance, in 2005, Atlanta International Airport
saw 980,197 takeoffs & landings alone, an average of 1,342 takeoffs/day, or about 1 every minute 24 hours a day. In the
same year, Singapore’s 41 ship cargo berths served 130,318 vessel arrivals (about 15 per hour), handling about 1.15 billion
gross tons (GT), and 23.2 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TFUs). Technology adoption can move at astounding
speeds once a concept has been demonstrated and a market is created. Who would have imagined that barely 100
years after the single wood & cloth, 338 kg Wright Flier flew only 120 feet at a mere 30 mph, that the world would
have fleets of thousands of jet-powered, all-metal giants weighing as much as 590,000 kg cruising between continents
at close to the speed of sound? Who, as the first miles were being laid, would have foreseen the rate at which railroads,
highways, electrification or communications infrastructure would grow? SBSP calls mankind to look at the means to
achieve orbit and in-space maneuver differently—not as monuments in themselves, but as a utilitarian infrastructure
purposefully designed to achieve a very worthwhile goal.

Solvency – Economic Return From SPS

Government Incentives For Space Based Solar Will Catalyze Private Sector Investment And Make A
Huge Economic Return
October 10, 2007)
The business case is much more likely to close in the near future if the U.S. Government agrees to: o Sign up as an
anchor tenant customer, and o Make appropriate technology investment and risk reduction efforts by the U.S. Government,
and o Provide appropriate financial incentives to the SBSP industry that are similar to the significant incentives that
Federal and State Governments are providing for private industry investments in other clean and renewable power
sources. The business case may close in the near future with appropriate technology investment and risk reduction efforts by
the U.S. Government, and with appropriate financial incentives to industry. Federal and State Governments are providing
significant financial incentives for private industry investments in other clean and renewable power sources.
Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that in order to reduce risk and to promote development of SBSP,
the U.S. Government should increase and accelerate its investments in the development and demonstration of key
component, subsystem, and system level technologies that will be required for the creation of operational and scalable
SBSP systems. The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by the US Government is likely to
catalyze substantially more investment by the private sector. This opinion was expressed many times over from energy
and aerospace companies alike. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that even the activity of this interim study has already
provoked significant activity by at least three major aerospace companies. Should the United States put some dollars in for
a study or demonstration, it is likely to catalyze significant amounts of internal research and development. Study
leaders likewise heard that the DoD could have a catalytic role by sponsoring prizes or The SBSP Study Group found that
SBSP appears to have significant growth potential in the long run, and a national investment in SBSP may return many times
its value. Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP, however, may create
new markets and the need for new products that will provide many new, high paying technical jobs and net significant
tax revenues. Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to
themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars. The energy market is trillions of
dollars, and there are many billions of people in the developing world that have yet to connect to the various global markets.
Such a large export market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to mature SBSP
are similarly likely to have significant economic spin offs, each with their own independent revenue stream, and open
up or enable other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications,
and use of off world resources. Not all of the returns may be obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility.
Estimating the value of utilities is difficult since they benefit society as a whole more than any one user in particular—
consider what the contribution to productivity and GDP are by imagining what the world would be like without electric lines,
roads, railroads, fiber, or airports. Not all of the economic impact is immediately captured in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the
services and products that spring up to support those workers and their communities. Historically such infrastructure projects
have received significant government support, from land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural electrification, to
development of atomic energy. While the initial capability on ramp may be slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very
significant portion of the world energy portfolio by mid century and beyond. signaling its willingness to become the
anchor customer for the product. These findings are consistent with the findings of the recent President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology (PCAST) report which recommended the federal government “expand its role as an early adopter
in order to demonstrate commercial feasibility of advanced energy technologies.” The SBSP Study Group found that
adequate capital exists in the private sector to finance construction, however private capital is unlikely to develop this
concept without government assistance because the timeframe of reward and degree of risk are outside the window of
normal private sector investment. Capital in the energy and other sectors is available on the level needed for such a large
project, but capital flows under fairly conservative criteria, and SBSP has not yet experienced a suitable demonstration, nor
have the risks been adequately characterized to make informed business plan decisions.

Solvency – Personal Advocacy is Key

Personal advocacy is the critical first step for any real action.
That’s why research support toward satellite power has been left largely to the Space Studies Institute, a small foundation
supported by thousands of private citizens -much as the organizations of the environmental movement are supported.
Environmentally concerned citizens and groups, and SSI, should be talking. Their concerns are the same and their goals are the
same. Since the governmental-scientific establishment in the United States is making no useful move toward a serious
review of satellite power as a practical alternative, it may well be that concerned citizens are the only force that can
bring about the necessary action. We as citizens have often succeeded in “Stop!” actions. Let us review, carefully and with
open minds, whether SPS is something that we may want to “Start!”

Solvency – NASA Key to Timeframe

This card is amazing - Incentivizing NASA is the only way to ensure that SPS systems are launched
within the next 10 years.
Berger, 2007 (Brian Berger, Fox News, citing Lieutenant Colonel Paul Damphousse of the National Space Security Office and
Charles Miller the Space Frontier Foundation Director, “Pentagon Report: Let’s Put Solar Power Collectors in Orbit,” October 15,
2007, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301479,00.html)
Although the U.S. military would reap tremendous benefits from space-based solar power, Damphousse said the
Pentagon is unlikely to fund development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said, would be more
appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy, both of which have studied space-based solar power in the past. The
Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new technology, Damphousse said, and provide a potentially
robust market for firms trying to build a business around space-based solar power. "While challenges do remain and the
business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based solar power is closer than ever," he
said. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this." Damphousse, however, cautioned that the private
sector will not invest in space-based solar power until the United States buys down some of the risk through a
technology development and demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusion
research and perhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space station. "Demonstrations are
key here," he said. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the Space
Frontier Foundation's directors, agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground. Miller told
reporters here that the space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House and Congress
embrace the report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kind of
incentives it offers the nuclear power industry.

Solvency – Lunar Resources Key

Only the moon has the materials necessary for Solar Power Satellites.
To make solar power satellites (SPS) practical and economical, we do not need any new science; we only need to apply
what we are already doing in the more advanced industries: robotic production, computer control, and the replication
by robotic machines of some of their heavier, simpler components. We do need one more thing: materials. It is neither
practical. nor economical, nor environmentally acceptable to lift from the Earth by rockets the thousands of tons of materials
needed to build an SPS that would supply Earth electricity equal to the output of ten nuclear power plants. Let the Moon Pitch
In/ Fortunately, we do not have to. We were given something unique in our solar system: an enormous moon, orbiting
tantalizingly nearby, and containing on its surface just the materials we need. Lunar soils contain 20 percent silicon for
solar cells, and about 20 percent metals. Much of the rest, surprisingly enough, is oxygen. The moon has two other great
advantages as a source of materials: its gravitational pull is only one-sixth of the Earth’s, and because of its small diameter, the
moon’s gravitational grip is less than a twentieth of the Earth’s. The moon’s second advantage is it has no atmosphere. The
combination of the moon’s weak gravitational grip and its vacuum environment makes it practical to locate electric
mass accelerators on its surface which would be capable of lofting a steady stream of small payloads to a precise
collection point high in space. Such machines, called “mass-drivers,” were tested nearly a decade ago under the sponsorship
of our small, quiet, nonprofit foundation, the Space Studies Institute (SSI). Mass-drivers were shown to obey their computer
design programs within one percent - no new science there - just straightforward engineering. Since then SSI has sponsored
laboratory research on making useful products from ores similar to lunar soils.
Lunar material skeptics are wrong and biased because of their unwillingness to accept change.
SPS Stuck in Bureaucratic Morass/ You and I know that satellite power aided by the use of construction materials from the
lunar surface is an idea that is still almost unheard of, much less the subject of national debate, as it should be. Indeed,
those most seriously studying SPS are Japan and Europe. Why does this conspiracy of silence exist? The reasons are partly
unfamiliarity: three-dimensional thinking is often unwelcome in a two-dimensional world. Oddly enough, it is often more
unwelcome to people who think of themselves as experts than to people who have a general, rather than a specialized
education. Institutional barriers and the normal behavior patterns of bureaucracies explain the rest of the “why”. Since shortly
after World War II, the generation of scientists who contributed so greatly to winning that war have championed nuclear power.
Though that generation is well into retirement now, it remains a powerful force in advising the government. It is joined by the
heavy industries which see (or used to see) nuclear power as a market opportunity.

Solvency – Few Resources Needed

SPS systems require a limited amount of investment to achieve energy distribution, improved
international standing and economic growth
Space Future, No Date (SpaceFuture.com, think tank dedicated to space issues and space power, “Energy From Space: How
SPS Could Power the World,” World” http://www.spacefuture.com/power/introduction.shtml)
For these reasons we believe that for governments to continue to do almost zero research on SPS would be a terrible
mistake. To continue to give most energy research funding to nuclear power and none to SPS, as happens in almost all
countries to day, would be a narrow and dangerous policy which could close off the possibility of this attractive future.
A demonstration of power And in order to advance SPS work we believe that the SPS 2000 pilot plant project is now a timely
step. The basic technologies of SPS have been developed and demonstrated. It is time to start to accumulate experience
of operating a real SPS, and to show the electricity industry that this technology is ready for use. At the " SPS 91"
international SPS conference a paper on SPS 2000 won the prize for the best proposal, and the project has made good progress
since then. Building and operating the SPS 2000 system will be a major step towards SPS, and a major step towards an
optimistic and exciting new era of peaceful growth for humans. Even if the SPS 2000 project cost US$1 billion, that would
be just a small fraction of government subsidies to nuclear energy research, and the same scale as other government
satellite and energy research projects. We believe that this would be a good investment, which would be popular with
the public. We believe that the "space-future", the vigorous expansion of human activities into space to which this will
lead - is much more attractive than a future in which humans are confined to the surface of the Earth, competing over
dwindling energy resources. It's more likely to be peaceful; it's more likely to permit adequate economic growth
throughout the world; and it will certainly be more fun. It's our choice Can anyone doubt that, given the choice, young
people would choose a future involving large-scale space development than one confined to Earth? But they must be given the
choice. And despite the concept of SPS being proposed nearly 30 years ago, no one has yet demonstrated it. Since it was
proposed, hundreds of $ billions have been spent on space activities, and hundreds of $ billions have been spent on
nuclear energy research and development. But apart from $20 million during the 1970s in the USA, the total spending on
SPS work throughout the world has been no more than a few $ million, at most - and it's almost zero at present. This
does not reflect its potential; it does not reflect a rational balance of its potential relative to nuclear energy: and it does
not reflect the preferences of the general public.

Tech Race Advantage

Tech Race – Brink Now

US Tech Leadership Is High Now But It’s Waning
PENNYWISE At the moment, it would be premature to declare a crisis in the United States' scientific or technological
competitiveness. The United States is still the envy of the world for reasons ranging from its ability to fund basic scientific
research to the speed with which its companies commercialize new breakthroughs. This year, total U.S. expenditures on R&D
are expected to top $290 billion-more than twice the total for Japan, the next biggest spender. In 2002, the U.S. R&D total
exceeded that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined (although the United
States trailed Finland, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden in the ratio of R&D to GDP). And although scholars from
other parts of the world may write relatively more science and engineering papers than Americans do, U.S. research continues
to be cited the most. The United States also leads the major global technology markets, holding commanding market shares in
aerospace, scientific instruments, computers and office machinery, and communications instruments. U.S. information and
communications technology producers lead almost every sector. And for the last two decades, U.S. firms have been the top
providers of high-technology services, accounting for about one-third of the world's total. These strengths, however, should
not obscure the existence of new threats to the long-term health of science and innovation in the United States. A record
$422 billion budget deficit, for example, may undermine future government support for R&D. Recent shifts in federal
spending will leave basic research-that driven by scientific curiosity rather than specific commercial applications-
underfunded, depriving the economy of the building blocks of future innovation. Although federal expenditures on R&D
are expected to reach $132 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $137.5 billion in 2009, new spending will be concentrated in the
fields of defense, homeland security, and the space program. Funding for all other R&D programs, meanwhile, will remain
flat this year and decline in real terms over the next five years. In July, Congress approved a record-breaking $70.3 billion
for R&D for the Defense Department in 2005, a 7.1 percent increase from last year and more than the Pentagon had asked for
(in fact, the department's top brass had asked to cut R&D spending). Such largesse makes it likely that the Pentagon will be
able to continue innovation in the near term. Its longer-term prospects, however, are more worrying. According to five-year
projections by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Defense Department will focus more and more
on weapons development while neglecting basic and applied research. Privately funded industrial R&D, meanwhile-which
accounts for over 60 percent of the U.S. total-is also starting to slip as a result of the current economic slowdown.
Private industry cut R&D spending by 1.7 percent in 2001, 4.5 percent in 2002, and 0.7 percent in 2003. This year, R&D
spending is expected to increase-but by less than one percent, which is less than the inflation rate. Furthermore, with
less than 10 percent of its R&D spending dedicated to basic research, industry will not be able to fill in the gaps created
by the government's shift of funding to defense and homeland security-related research. These funding decreases may
be exacerbated by a coming labor shortage. The number of Americans pursuing advanced degrees in the sciences and
engineering is declining, and university science and engineering programs are growing more dependent on foreign-born
talent. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's scientists and engineers with doctorates were born outside the country. And
of the Ph.D.'s in science and engineering awarded to foreign students in the United States from 1985 to 2000, more than half
went to students from China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan. Such dependence on foreign talent could become a critical
weakness for the United States in the future, especially as foreign applications to U.S. science and engineering graduate
programs decline. With booming economies and improving educational opportunities in their countries, staying at home is an
increasingly attractive option for Chinese and Indian scientists. In addition, visa restrictions put in place after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, have created new barriers for foreign students trying to enter the United States. Surveys
conducted by the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and other education groups have
blamed repetitive security checks, inefficient visa-renewal processes, and a lack of transparency for significant drops in
applications to U.S. graduate programs this year. ENGINEERING BIOSYSTEMS The real test for the United States' future
will be whether it can maintain and improve its environment for innovation. For the last 30 years, U.S. companies have
led in the invention of new products while Asian firms have played a secondary role, lowering the costs to manufacture
U.S. inventions. But Asian firms have begun to challenge that division of labor and are no longer content simply to
follow.


US Aerospace Leadership Is On The Brink Of Collapse
Douglass, 2002 (John W. Douglass, President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, “US Aerospace Leadership: A
Wakeup Call” May/June 2002)
The U.S. AEROSPACE work force is declining. That’s hardly a secret. But it is a trend gaining momentum. Many factors
contribute: the end of the Cold War leading to aerospace industry consolidation, foreign competition which has reduced
U.S. commercial aircraft market share, recession, shock waves from the September terrorist attacks, and, ironically, the
industry’s increasing efficiency. The statistics are startling. When I graduated from college in 1963, one third of those
receiving U.S. University science and engineering degrees went into aerospace. Today, it’s less than 5 percent. At its peak in
1989, the industry employed 1.3 million. Last year, it was 790,000, down more than half a million people. A closer
examination is even more disturbing. The average aerospace industry employee is now 51 years old, with many nearing
retirements. The number of employees between 25 and 34 – the recent graduates gaining experience to sustain U.S.
aerospace leadership – is off 10 percent points since officials began collecting such data 10 years ago. More than half those
now receiving science and engineering degrees from U.S. universities are not U.S. citizens and thus cannot work on sensitive
national security programs. Changes in the industry itself have darkened the employment picture. Today there are fewer
programs meaning less need for design engineers and skilled production workers. The concern about dwindling design
talent is particularly acute. Now there is only one military aircraft program, the Joint Strike Fighter, in development with
no new programs beyond than. If, by 2006, the U.S. government does not determine what should follow the JSF, this nation
will have little work for the keen minds that create such unparalleled aircraft. The same holds true for solid rocket boosters,
whose sales were two thirds defense (mainly for missiles) and one-third space (for satellite and shuttle launches) in 1984. In
1999, those numbers were reversed. In the same period, solid rocket motor sales dropped more than half, from $2.5 billion to
$1.2 billion. Current booster production is scheduled to end by 2008 with no further development or production planned before
2015. For the first time in 50 years, there is no new strategic missile solid-propulsion development or production program on
the horizon. The aerospace manufacturing picture, while still unsettling, is not as bleak, Manufacturing program tend to run
longer than design and development efforts.
US Tech Leadership Is Eroding

Kelly et al, 2004 (Terrence K. Kelly, “The US Scientific and Technical Workforce Improving Data for Decisionmaking,” 2004)
Concerns about the size and adequacy of the U.S. scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics workforce have
grown amid fears of a dwindling labor pool and concern that this may erode U.S. leadership in science and technology
and could complicate mobilization of appropriate manpower for homeland security. In the past, such fears have failed to
materialize, and surpluses have been more common than shortages. But this should not be grounds for complacency.
Fundamentally, available data are inadequate for valid predictions. The RAND Corporation organized a conference to identify
the limitations of the available data and explore potential improvements. The event brought together leading researchers,
science agency policymakers, and statistical agency experts together to address ways to improve the data system for
decisionmaking with respect to this workforce. This volume contains the proceedings of that conference, consisting of the
papers delivered and discussed at the workshop, as well as RAND's synthesis of workforce data needs and opportunities for
meeting those needs.


The US Faces An Aerospace Leadership Crisis That Seriously Threatens The Country
David, 2002 (Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “US Commission Calls for Space Program Overhaul,” November 18, 2002)
A White House and Congressional study on the future of the U.S. aerospace industry calls for a major revamp of the
nation's space program to accelerate both human and robotic exploration and investigate cutting-edge power and propulsion
technologies. The report argues for the United States to create a "space imperative" - harnessing Department of Defense (DoD),
NASA, and industry talent to build new boosters, open up public space travel, and bolster the commercial development of
space. The final report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry was drawn up by a 12-
member panel formed in 2001 by President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress. Former republican Congressman from
Pennsylvania, Robert Walker, chairs the Commission. In releasing the report today, Walker said the Commission is issuing "an
urgent call for action" for the public and for lawmakers to understand the importance of the aerospace industry. "The crisis that
we now face is real," he said. Walker warned that "systemic failures" over the years have dogged the aerospace industry. The
nation and the aerospace sector face great economic challenges as a result of those failures, he said. "Far too often we believe
that Americans have taken aerospace leadership for granted. We can no longer do that. The challenges that are in the global
economy for this industry are things that we need to meet head-on," Walker explained at a press briefing.

Tech Race – Japan Developing Now

Japan Will Have A Functioning System By 2040
SSI, 2000 (Space Studies Institute Company, http://chview.nova.org/station/sps.htm)
In 1990s, Japan research flew a small airplane powered by microwaves beamed up from the ground. Indeed, because
the island nation has no energy resoures of its own, Japanese officials have announced plans to have their first solar
power satellite in operation by the year 2040. WPT, however, also has great potential for non-terrestrial applications,
including electrically propelled spaceships for interplanetary (within Solar System) as well as interstellar transport (at sublight
speeds) by providing beamed power for space propulsion systems, such as those using space Sails.

Tech Race – SPS Key to Tech Leadership

Incentivizing SPS Systems Maintains Our Tech Leadership
SSP 2007 (Space Solar Power, scientific discussion forum, 2007)
I emphasised JP Aerospace’s model in an earlier post as an effective way to build a Powersat system without having to rely on
lunar or asteroid based materials processing in large part because it makes use of EXISTING technologies. With much of our
manufacturing industry headed offshore, boosting some of our remaining capacity would seem to be a wise use of our
resources. The U.S. is still a leader in the electronics industry, more demand for PV cells and RF power transmission
systems would help to maintain that situation and provide an incentive for those companies to expand. Boeing and GE
to name a couple, might be recruited as allies to help move this process along.

Tech Race – SPS Key (Laundry List)

SPS Systems Would Revitalize Aerospace Industry Leadership In The United States, Which Is Key To
Our Overall Tech Competitiveness
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission
which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical
and industrial base, our “national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP
program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United
States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the
21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in
long-term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the
last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense
during the Cold War…Government policies and investments in long-term research have not kept pace with the
changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal
research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal
government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long-term enabling research and related RDT&E
infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation
and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services.
The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments
in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that
government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national
aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space-faring nation in order to be the
global leader in the 21st century—that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore,
recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration.
They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make
the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch
infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment
community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of
a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when
addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding
for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the
aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long-term research
programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must
remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen
transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent
some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private-public partnerships were also to
be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base
will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in
the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling
breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a
requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive,
develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter.
A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe
aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which
included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to
assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States
must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a
powerful expression of this imperative.

Tech Race – SPS Would Be Easy

The Tech Has Improved To A Point Where Construction And Use Would Be Simple
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that significant progress in the underlying technologies has been made since previous
government examination of this topic, and the direction and pace of progress continues to be positive and in many
cases accelerating. • Significant relevant advances have occurred in the areas of computational science, material
science, photovoltaics, private and commercial space access, space maneuverability, power management, robotics, and
many others. • These advances have included (a) improvements in PV efficiency from about 10% (1970s) to more than
40% (2007); (b) increases in robotics capabilities from simple tele-operated manipulators in a few degrees of freedom
(1970s) to fully autonomous robotics with insect-class intelligence and 30-100 degrees of freedom (2007); (c) increases
in the efficiency of solid state devices from around 20% (1970s) to as much as 70%-90% (2007); (d) improvements in
materials for structures from simple aluminum (1970s) to advanced composites including nanotechnology composites
(2007); and many other areas.
Any Holes In The Tech Can Be Overcome Easily

October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that the underlying technical challenges related to SBSP are identifiable and technical
challenge reduction pathways can be described. • DoD and other ongoing U.S. Government and international R&D
efforts are independently reducing SBSP technical barriers via S & T development for other goals. However, there is no
single entity for identifying and tracking these independent developments for the sole purpose of SBSP applicability. •
Numerous technological advances are emerging for each of the technical challenges (example: entrepreneurial private
space access ventures, highly efficient concentrator photovoltaics, very low-weight thin-film photovoltaic systems,
etc.).

Tech Race – Increased Innovation Key to Tech

Increased Activity And Innovation In Space Industries Is An Advantage, Not A Solvency Takeout, And
It’s An Internal Link To Competitiveness
October 10, 2007)
The expertise gained in developing large structures for space based solar power could allow entirely new technologies
for applications such as image and real-time surface and airborne object tracking services, as well as high bandwidth
telecommunications, high-definition television and radio, and mobile, broadcast services. It would enable entirely new
architectures, such as power platforms that provide services to multiple payloads, autonomous self-constructing
structures, or wireless cooperative formations. The Solar Electric Transfer Vehicles (SETV) needed to lift the Space Solar
Power Satellites out of low-earth orbit, and perhaps even form its components, would completely revolutionize our
ability to move large payloads within the Earth-Moon system. • The technology to beam power over long distances
could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth- and space-based power beaming
applications. A truly developed Space-Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and
commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but
because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems,
de-orbit of space debris, space-to-space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far-term
concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forward’s StarWisp Concept.

Tech Race – Tech Key to Econ (With Impact)

Tech Leadership Is Key To The Economy
At home, Washington should not strive to identify the next big thing. Rather, policymakers should ensure that the United
States remains the most dynamic innovation system. Funding for science and education must be maintained. Although
it might be tempting to shrink the budget deficit by reducing discretionary funding for the sciences, this would weaken
one of the pillars of the country's future economic and technological health. Money for basic research, especially in the
physical sciences and engineering, and support for the National Science Foundation should therefore be maintained at
current levels or increased. Of equal importance, policymakers must also reinforce the United States' entrepreneurial
climate, its greatest asset. The building blocks of American innovation-flexible capital and labor markets, transparent
government regulation, and a business environment that rewards risk-need to be strengthened. Making the R&D tax
credit permanent and expanding it to include more types of collaborative research, for example, would help provide
incentives for innovation in as many technological sectors as possible. With innovative capacity rapidly spreading
across the Pacific, the United States cannot simply assume that it will remain the epicenter of scientific research and
technological innovation. Instead, it should meet the challenge from Asia head-on. The United States must actively
engage with new centers of innovation and prepare itself to integrate rapidly and build on new ideas emerging in China,
India, and South Korea. Above all, it must not assume that future innovation will occur automatically. Only through renewed
attention to science funding, educational reform, the health of labor and capital markets, and the vitality of the business
environment can the United States maintain its edge-and the most innovative economy in the world.
Extinction.
Beardon, 2000 (TE Beardon, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis,” June 24, 2000,
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc)
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations
will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a
starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a
spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States
— attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw
other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such
extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to
launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD
coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As
the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed
. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least
for many decades.

Tech Race – Tech Key to Econ

US Tech Leadership On Alternative Energy Is Key To The Economy
GreenBiz 2002 Staff Losing the Clean Energy Race By Published March 26, Energy & Climate » Energy Efficiency;
The United States once led - actually, began - the clean energy revolution. As recently as 1990, U.S. industries played the
dominant global role in wind and solar PV development and deployment. But, due to a lack of appropriate and consistent
government support for clean energy technologies, and government subsidies that continue to favor dirty, conventional
fuels and technologies, we are losing our role as technological leaders. We are now falling farther and farther behind as
Japan and Europe surpass us with regard to total installed clean energy generating capacity, share of the global
market, and ownership of manufacturers. U.S. companies must compete in the global marketplace. If this trend is not
reversed, America will lose millions of potential high-wage, high-tech jobs, billions of dollars in potential investment
and revenue. The US will also fail to glean multiple benefits not traditionally measured in economic terms that come
with clean, safe, domestic and renewable energy technologies - including cleaner environment, reduced risk of global
warming, improved human health, better quality of life, and a more secure future. With only 4.5 percent of the United
States land area and a fraction of its wind resource potential, Germany has more than double the U.S. installed wind energy
capacity. Denmark, a small nation of about five million people, is the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines, with
several turbine companies that consistently rank in the global top ten. The U.S. share of global PV shipments reached a peak in
1996, declining from 44 percent that year to 27 percent in 2001. Total grid-connected PV in the United States is now estimated
to be only 15 percent of that in Japan, and 31 percent of that in Germany. The rising demand for Japanese and European
made technology is due primarily to the dramatic increases in demand for renewable energy capacity in these countries,
sparked by successful government policies aimed to develop markets for renewable energy. Meanwhile, the U.S.
government continues to subsidize fossil fuels and nuclear power, at levels many times that for renewable energy
technologies. Around the world, leaders in business and government are calling for a transition to a clean energy
economy to address global climate change, increase national security and meet rising demand for energy worldwide.
Perhaps most importantly, the American public wants clean energy. In poll after poll, Americans have expressed their
preference for investment in renewable energy technologies over conventional energy. According to a Gallup poll taken
November 8, 2001, 91 percent of Americans favor investments in new sources of energy, such as solar and wind. Top level
advisors under Clinton, Reagan and Nixon have urged Congress to adopt strong measures now to advance renewable energy in
order to advance America's energy security. "They [renewable energy technologies] are now ready to be brought, full force,
into service…. Speedy action by the Administration and the Congress is critical to establish the regulatory and tax
conditions for these renewable resources to rapidly reach their potential." David Freeman, who has held top positions at
the New York Power Authority and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and now heads the California Power Authority, notes
that "our whole system of electricpower supply is hard to defend against attack. The worst is nuclear." Sir Mark Moody
Stuart, former CEO of Shell Oil company last month called on governments of northern countries "to expand renewable energy
targets, removing inappropriate subsidies and switching some to renewable energy to provide a level playing field in the
energy sector." Russian Vice Prime Minister Ylia Klebanov recently said that "using traditional energy technologies, it's
hard to talk about [a] competitive economy. And for renewable energy technologies we do too little…." Every region and
state in this nation has significant renewable energy potential - wind and solar energy, geothermal energy, ocean power, crops
for biomass, and environmentally sustainable hydropower. In fact, North America has some of the world's greatest wind energy
resources; North Dakota alone has enough to produce 1.2 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity each year , 37 percent of
total U.S. electricity consumption in 1999 (3 trillion kWh ). Every minute, the sun drenches earth's surface with more energy
than the world consumes in a year. The United States has the best solar resource of any industrialized country. According to the
U.S. Department of Energy, enough electricity could be generated to meet all of U.S. demand with solar energy on a plot of
land 100 miles square in Nevada. The benefits of renewable energy are compelling: a cleaner environment for current
and future generations, reduced threats of global warming, economic growth, greater diversity of fuel supply, improved
energy and national security, rapid and modular deployment, and a global potential for technology transfer and
innovation. In addition, renewable energy technologies provide more jobs per unit of energy generated than do
conventional energy technologies. According to the Department of Energy, wind energy provides about five times more jobs
per dollar invested than coal or nuclear power. A recent study concluded that solar PV provides the most jobs of any renewable
technology, on an energy capacity basis, and many of these positions are high-wage, high-tech jobs. The global markets for
renewable energy and energy efficient technologies are booming. Wind has been the fastest growing energy source worldwide
for most of the past decade, while global shipments of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and modules have <CONTINUED>

<CONTINUED>
increased at an average annual rate of 33 percent since 1996. During the same period, the use of coal for generating electricity
has declined by 9 percent worldwide. Solar PV and wind power technologies have matured considerably since the 1980s,
experiencing dramatic increases in productivity and lifetime, while achieving significant declines in cost. In good wind sites,
wind power is now the cheapest new energy source, with full life-cycle costs below those of most fossil-fuel powered plants.
Today, solar PV provides electricity for several hundred thousand people around the world, creates employment for more than
ten thousand people and generates business worth more than $2 billion annually. According to some forecasts, clean-energy
markets will grow from less than $7 billion in 2000 to more than $82 billion by 2010 , and the U.S. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) predicts that PV technology has "the potential to become one of the world's most important
industries." Driven by concerns about global warming, energy security, increasing demand for energy worldwide -
particularly in developing countries and advances in renewable energy technologies, nations around the world are
setting targets for renewable energy. The European Union aims to generate ten percent of its electricity with renewables by
2010, and the European Wind Energy Association projects that Europe will have 60,000 MW of installed wind capacity by that
year. By the year 2020, wind energy could generate 10 percent of the world's electricity and create more than 1.7 million jobs.
The European PV Industry Association projects that solar PV will provide 26 percent of total global annual electricity demand
by 2040. Even China, India and Brazil have committed to significant increases in the use of renewable energy; India
established a ministry for advanced energy technologies, and China has eliminated subsidies for coal. These three nations
combined have more than two billion people, with rapidly rising demand for energy and the technologies that produce it,
offering nearly unlimited market potential. The current political and commercial commitment to renewable energy around the
world implies that the recent surge of activity in this industry is only the beginning of a massive transformation and expansion
expected to occur over the coming decades. But without strong and sustained political leadership at home, Americans will
lose out in this energy revolution. To compete successfully in the clean energy race, U.S. industries must be strong and
resilient, which requires a strong and consistent domestic market for their products

Death Ray Advantage

Death Ray – Government Secret

The government would never admit to a plan to use an SPS as a weapon, they are attempting to gain
trust.
National Security Space Office, 2007 (“Phase o Architecture Feasibility Study,” page 30, October 10, 2007,
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)
The SBSP Study Group found that there is likely to be concern, both domestically and internationally, that a
SBSP system could be used as a “weapon in space,” which will be amplified because of the interest shown by
the DoD in SBSP. Mitigating these concerns, developing trust, and building in verification methods will be key
to political consensus for sustainable development of SBSP. ∙Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group
recommends that the federal government should take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that SBSP
systems cannot be utilized as space based weapons systems, and to dissuade and deter other nations from
attacking these strategic power sources, including but not limited to: ∙ Tasking a civilian federal agency to be
the lead agency responsible for federal investments in SBSP and in the demonstration of key technologies needed by
industry. ∙ Providing transparency and open public dialogue throughout the development and build out phase to
reduce the risk of public misperceptions regarding SBSP.
The government would never admit to a plan to use an SPS as a weapon, people would be too afraid.
The SBSP Study Group found that when people are first introduced to this subject, the key expressed concerns
are centered around safety, possible weaponization of the beam, and vulnerability of the satellite, all of which
must be addressed with education.

Death Ray – Government Secret

Weapons like that of an SPS laser are maintained highly secret at all levels of the government but are
proven to exist.
Worthington, 2004 (Amy Worthington, Centre for Research on Globalization, “Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War,” November
11, 2004, http://www.rense.com/general59/aerosolandelectromag.htm)
A glimpse into new death technologies under construction is in legislation introduced by Ohio Congressman Dennis
Kucinch. His [the] unsuccessful Space Preservation Act of 2001 was intended to ban space deployment of:4 * electronic,
psychotronic and information weaponry * high altitude ultra low frequency weapons * plasma, electromagnetic, sonic and
ultrasonic weapons * laser weapons [and] * strategic, theater, tactical or extraterrestrial weapons * chemical biological,
environmental climate or tectonic weapons * chemtrails (this item was stricken from a later version, suggesting duress) In
their quest to remain top dog in the kill chain, the purveyors of perpetual war have deliberately dimmed earth's life-
giving sunlight,5 and reduced atmospheric visibility with lung-clogging particulates and polymers.6 This ecological
terrorism has severely compromised public health, according to thousands of testimonials. Years of mass appeals to legislators,
media and military officials for information, and for cessation of catastrophic atmospheric degradation, have fallen on deaf
bureaucratic ears. Public awareness of what befalls us remains as murky as our skies because those "in the know" are
muzzled by national secrecy laws and Americans have no authority to challenge matters of national security. Left to
gather clues, we know this much so far: 1. At least part of the aerosol project has been dubbed Operation Cloverleaf,7
probably due to its multi-faceted operations, which include: weather modification, military communications, space weapons
development, ozone and global warming research plus biological weaponry and detection testing.
The government is keeping SPS weapon capabilities secret, the legislation proves however that they exist.
Worthington, 2004 (Amy Worthington, Centre for Research on Globalization, “Weapons in the Age of Nuclear War,” November
11, 2004, http://www.rense.com/general59/aerosolandelectromag.htm)
North America is now suffering its seventh year of conspicuous and dangerous aerosol and electromagnetic operations
conducted by the U.S. government under the guise of national security. Concerned citizens watch in fear as military
tankers discolor the skies with toxic chemicals that morph into synthetic clouds. We continually witness bizarre
meteorological occurrences as powerful electromagnetic devices manipulate both the jet stream and individual storm fronts to
create artificial weather and climatic conditions. Black operations projects embedded within these aerosol missions are
documented to sicken and disorient select populations with biological test agents and psychotronic mind/mood control
technologies. Part of what is happening in the atmosphere above us involves the Pentagon’s secret space weapons
program, designed for strategic, operational and tactical levels of war. NASA missions will soon be transferred to
Pentagon control. 1 The Air Force Space Command declares that, in order to monitor and shape world events, it must
fight intense, decisive wars with great precision from space.2 Air Force Secretary James G. Roche has stated: “Space
capabilities are integrated with, and affect every link in the kill chain.”3

NASA Credibility Advantage

NASA Cred – Funding Being Cut Now

Funding Is On The Chopping Block Now For NASA’s Earth Monitoring Systems
Rowan, 2008 (Linda Rowan, Director of government affairs at the American Geological Institue, “AGI Fiscal Year 2009 Testimony
to the House: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Testimony,” March 28, 2008)
AGI appreciates the President’s request for increased funding for NOAA for a total budget of $4.1 billion. Unfortunately,
NOAA's funding has remained flat, at $3.9 billion since FY 2005 and based on an annual inflation rate of 3 percent a budget
of $4.4 billion in FY 2009 would leave the agency’s budget level in constant dollars. NOAA cannot support its core
mission services including weather and severe storm forecasting, spill response, ocean observing, habitat restoration
and conservation, and research on climate change, fisheries, and coastal and marine ecosystems without a more robust
budget. We ask that the Subcommittee provide small increases (about 10 percent increases to their total budgets) rather
than proposed cuts to the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Office of Atmospheric
Research following the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. AGI also supports the additional
increased funding for the National Weather Service for analysis, modeling and upgrading of observing systems and additional
increases for the National Environment Satellite, Data and Information Service for the development of the Geostationary
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-R) and the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS). Both satellite systems will maintain a global view of the planet to continuously watch for atmospheric triggers of
severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, flash floods, hailstorms, and hurricanes.

NASA Cred – Low Now/ SPS Solves

NASA Lacks Cred Now Because Of An Unpopular Focus And Failed Initiatives. Constructing SPS
Systems Would Shift The Paradigm
Peltona, 2006 (Joseph N. Pelton, Director of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute, “Revitalizing NASA? A
Five-Point Plan,” October 16, 2006)
Following its early successes, NASA has taken a number of mis-steps, resulting in a loss of focus at the agency. Over-reliance
on the Space Shuttle, treating it as an operational rather than an experimental vehicle, and the massive-cost-for-limited-results
debacle of the ISS are chief among them, while the new and expensive Project Constellation targetting the Moon and Mars also
promises little return. NASA needs to revitalize itself by pursuing missions more relevant to ordinary people—solar energy
generation, planetary protection and sustainability, development of a robotically assembled Moon colony, among others—by
restructuring itself and by working much more closely with industry and private entrepreneurs.

NASA Cred – SPS Increase NASA Cred

Construction Of SPS Systems Revitalizes NASA As An Agency
Peltona, 2006 (Joseph N. Pelton, Director of the Space and Advanced Communications Research Institute, “Revitalizing NASA? A
Five-Point Plan,” October 16, 2006)
The key question that everyone—i.e. Congress and the White House, space enthusiasts, the space industry, and the public—
should ask at this time is simply this: ‘How do we revitalize NASA and make the space program more successful, productive
and innovative? How do we make NASA relevant again?’ To try to simplify and focus NASA's vision for the future, we might
begin by asking these basic questions: • Could we use space technology to make the Earth's biosphere more sustainable so that
humans might have a chance to survive for the longer term? • Is it possible to design, build and deploy at reasonable cost solar
power systems in space that could allow us to achieve independence from petrochemical fuels and also help address global
warming? • Is it possible to use, in an economically and ecologically valid way, the resources of the solar system to sustain life
on Earth, and if so how might we prioritize our actions? • Can we deploy space systems to prevent the destruction of human
civilization by the impact of asteroids, meteorites, comets or other near Earth objects? (In light of the possibility of a major
impact by NEO 2004MN4 that could come crashing into the Earth sometime around the 2029–2036 time period, this is really a
very pertinent question.) When one asks such basic questions, and reasonable answers are explored to such thought-provoking
inquiries, it tends to call into question some of NASA's current goals. Do we really have the right ‘vision’? Is the right vision
in fact sending astronauts to the Moon in 12 years or so and to Mars at some future date at least two decades from now? Is the
best way to go to Mars to use a conventional set of chemical rockets? In short, is Project Constellation, an undertaking that will
expend over a $100 billion of taxpayer's money, the best possible plan? Can’t we do better? Longer-term goals for NASA
could indeed be much different. These might be something like energy independence via space solar power technology,
creating a permanent space elevator system to offer long-term and low-cost transportation to outer space, or creating an
entrepreneurial enterprise to develop a Moon colony, largely by using robotic systems—something the Italians and Chinese
have given a lot of serious thought to in their plans to create an astronomical observatory on the Moon using robotic
assemblage. Should we irrevocably commit ourselves to a $100 billion project that is a retro ‘Apollo Program on steroids’, as
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has described it himself? Might not we think a bit more imaginatively? Could we come
up with a space program with objectives that might even seem like a good idea to Joe or Josephine Q. Public? Is it possible to
devise low-cost and reasonably reliable launchers to send highly capable robotic missions to the lunar surface over the next
decade to prepare a ‘safe habitat for astronauts’? Could this habitat, over time, perhaps become equipped with radiation
shielding, water and oxygen generators and material processors that could sustain astronauts for the longer term? Could this
robotically built infrastructure include material processing and a mass driver transport system which could actually support
longer-term industrial activity that would justify the investment? Could private enterprise take the lead in many of these
activities with NASA limiting its role to developing the most demanding and longer-term technology? Or maybe the vision
should be solar powered satellite systems that could reduce our dependence on oil? Or perhaps we need to find a way to build a
planetary heat irradiator to help us cool our warming planet? The point is that we might try to get our brightest minds from
universities, as well as space innovators and entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Paul Allen, Bert Rutan, Robert Bigelow, James
Benson, Sir Richard Branson, Dr Peter Diamandis, Brad Edwards and others, to come up with some better ideas whereby
NASA might do more with less. Could we not build some public–private enterprises that would let private capital and
entrepreneurial scientists and engineers do some of the heavy lifting? Simply as a possible baseline for such an effort, I offer a
five point program that could lead to a ‘new NASA’. This slimmer and more agile NASA, perhaps even with a smaller budget,
would undertake a US Space Program along the following lines. • A true ‘Mission to Planet Earth’. This would be a NASA that
seeks to be more relevant. It would be more focused on immediate planetary needs (i.e. saving the planet's biosphere,
providing access to clean, cheap energy and enhancing the provision of low-cost educational and health care services to a
world community that seemingly sees the USA as ‘the enemy’ rather than as a ‘caring friend’) These would not need to be
entirely NASA-funded programs. Rather NASA would work with industry, international agencies and other governments,
international industry, and even entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to realize these goals. NASA could simply
be the stimulator and provide vital technical help to key projects. 3. A five-point program for a revitalized NASA Here are the
five reforms that could make NASA more focused, more efficient and more cost effective. This five-step program would not be
easy but it could go a long way to restoring NASA to its former glory and make it relevant to 21st century needs of real people.
3.1. Re-establishing balance for space science, space applications and space exploration Not too surprisingly, the average tax
payer would like to think that NASA expenditures go in some good part to developing new space applications related to saving
the Earth from life-threatening NEOs, or supplying low-cost, clean and non-polluting energy to the planet or otherwise making
the everyday lives of humans better or safer. The man or woman in the street would be more interested in NASA if it could be
demonstrated that space programs could have a positive impact on their lives. This might be in generating new jobs, taming
violent weather, monitoring pollution, beaming down clean and affordable energy, preventing destruction from asteroids and
comets or simply making education and health systems better. If the ‘new NASA’ came forward with a truly sincere bumper
sticker proclaiming: ‘NASA—working for you’ suddenly showed up, public support might indeed rise. The key here would be
to develop new forms of public–private partnerships where NASA would do the advanced R&D for only the most advanced
technologies.

NASA Cred – Cred Key to Budgets

Performance And Credibility Are Key To Increased NASA Budgets
Ian Koski February 3, 2003 The Performance Institute Bush’s ’04 Budget Puts Premium on Transparency and Performance
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 intended to make government agencies more accountable
for tangible results by requiring the use of performance measures to justify and drive budgets. The Administration’s use
of the PART assessment and associated budget requests for the programs makes clear its commitment to make
performance budgeting a reality, not just a dream. On the Administration’s use of performance in the budget, DeMaio
noted: “Federal managers for years have said that performance budgeting and GPRA would go away eventually if they waited
long enough. Anyone in government who doubted whether GPRA is real need only look at the President’s ‘04 budget
proposal. The performance evaluations of the programs are out there for the entire public to see—complete with
supporting evidence. That’s real transparency! More importantly, there is a direct correlation between good
performance and budget increases as well as bad performance and budget decreases.” Analysis of the President’s
requested funding levels for the 234 programs demonstrates the extent of the use of performance evaluations. On average, the
President’s proposal rewards programs deemed effective with a 6 percent funding increase, while those not showing
results were held to less than a 1 percent increase.

NASA Cred – Cred Key to Programs

NASA’s Budget Faces Constraints Which Will Force Tradeoffs. Increased Credibility Is Necessary To
Reverse The Trend.
HSTC, 2008 (House Science and Technology Committee, “House Science and Technology Subcommitte Expresses Concern Over
Budgetary Outlook for NASA Science Programs,” March 13, 2008)
"NASA's science program has long been one of the agency's 'crown jewels', and it has delivered outstanding results since the
dawn of the Space Age 50 years ago--results that have rewritten the scientific textbooks and captivated the imagination of the
public both here and around the world.," stated Subcommittee Chairman Mark Udall (D-CO). "I want to see that record of
accomplishment and inspiration continue. However, I'm concerned that NASA's science program is facing an uncertain future
under the funding plan offered by the Administration." NASA's science programs represent 25% of the agency's FY09 budget.
That budget directs $4.4 billion toward NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) programs which include Earth science,
heliophysics, astrophysics, and planetary science. The FY09 budget for these programs is $264.7 million less than the FY08
appropriated amount. Chairman Udall recognized NASA Associate Administrator Dr. S. Alan Stern for his efforts to further
science programs at the agency, but cautioned that sustaining those activities under current budget conditions looked unlikely.
"I commend Dr. Stern for his efforts to address some of the stresses facing the science community from past NASA budgetary
problems, and for the energy and commitment he has brought to his job. Yet, as we heard from a number of our witnesses
today, it is not at all clear that it is going to be possible to sustain those new initiatives in an effective manner under the
Administration's assumed funding plan." As an example of this concern, Udall pointed to a recent National Academies estimate
that some $7 billion would be required over the next 12 years to carry out the 15 NASA Earth Science missions recommended
in the Decadal Survey. Yet, the Administration's budget plan for the next five years would allocate less than $1 billion to that
effort. Udall expressed similar concerns about the programmatic and budgetary outlook for NASA's highly productive robotic
Mars exploration program, as well as for the agency's astrophysics program. Over the last year, NASA's Science Mission
Directorate launched the Dawn mission that will explore two large asteroids; the Phoenix Mars lander mission; the Solar
Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) mission to study coronal mass ejections from the Sun; the Time History of Events
and Macroscale Interactions During Substorms (THEMIS) mission, and the Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM)
mission. In 2008, the Science Mission Directorate plans to launch the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), the Solar
Dynamics Observatory (SDO), the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), the Ocean Surface Topography
Mission (OSTM), the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), conduct a fourth Hubble servicing mission, and complete
contributions to international and interagency partner missions that are planned for launch in 2008. Added Udall, "NASA's
challenging new science initiatives are to be built on a budget that increases by only 1% through FY11, and that assumes only
inflationary increases at best in the years beyond that. There will be little new money--instead, there will be a continuing need
to transfer of funds across the science accounts to support each new initiative--an approach some might call 'robbing Peter to
pay Paul'. I'm very concerned that such an approach will not prove sustainable or credible."
Performance And Credibility Is Key To Funding NASA’s Programs

Koski, 2003 (Ian Koski, The Performance Institute, “Bush’s 04 Budget Puts Premium on Transparency and Performance,” February
3, 2003)
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 intended to make government agencies more accountable for
tangible results by requiring the use of performance measures to justify and drive budgets. The Administration’s use of the
PART assessment and associated budget requests for the programs makes clear its commitment to make performance
budgeting a reality, not just a dream. On the Administration’s use of performance in the budget, DeMaio noted: “Federal
managers for years have said that performance budgeting and GPRA would go away eventually if they waited long enough.
Anyone in government who doubted whether GPRA is real need only look at the President’s ‘04 budget proposal. The
performance evaluations of the programs are out there for the entire public to see—complete with supporting evidence. That’s
real transparency! More importantly, there is a direct correlation between good performance and budget increases as well as
bad performance and budget decreases.” Analysis of the President’s requested funding levels for the 234 programs
demonstrates the extent of the use of performance evaluations. On average, the President’s proposal rewards programs deemed
effective with a 6 percent funding increase, while those not showing results were held to less than a 1 percent increase.

NASA Cred – GOES Key to Weather Preperation

NASA’s GOES Program Is Key To Predicting And Tracking Severe Weather And Issuing Warnings And
Preparations
NOSO, 2008 (National Office Of Satellite Operations Environmental Satellite Data And Information Service http://www.oso.noaa.gov/goes/)
GOES satellites provide the kind of continuous monitoring necessary for intensive data analysis. They circle the Earth
in a geosynchronous orbit, which means they orbit the equatorial plane of the Earth at a speed matching the Earth's
rotation. This allows them to hover continuously over one position on the surface. The geosynchronous plane is about
35,800 km (22,300 miles) above the Earth, high enough to allow the satellites a full-disc view of the Earth. Because
they stay above a fixed spot on the surface, they provide a constant vigil for the atmospheric "triggers" for severe
weather conditions such as tornadoes, flash floods, hail storms, and hurricanes. When these conditions develop the
GOES satellites are able to monitor storm development and track their movements. GOES satellite imagery is also
used to estimate rainfall during the thunderstorms and hurricanes for flash flood warnings, as well as estimates
snowfall accumulations and overall extent of snow cover. Such data help meteorologists issue winter storm warnings
and spring snow melt advisories. Satellite sensors also detect ice fields and map the movements of sea and lake ice.

Military Readiness Advantage

Military Readiness – Fuel Destroying MR Now

The Military’s Reliance On Fossil Fuels Devastates Troop Readiness
NCPA, 2001 (National Center for Policy Analysis, “Daily Policy Digest: Federal Spending and Budget Issues,” October 2, 2001)
Oil Dependence Hurts Military Readiness America's dependence on foreign oil is not only an economic concern but a
national security issue as well. We are highly reliant on foreign oil, much of which comes from the Middle East.
During the 1970s energy crisis, America was 36 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today we are 56 percent dependent -- and
by 2010 we're headed for well over 60 percent. (dependent) For the military it now takes eight times as much oil to meet
the needs of each soldier as it did during World War II. The Department of Defense now accounts for nearly 80
percent of U.S. government energy use -- 75 percent of that for jet fuel. During the Persian Gulf War, our 582,000 soldiers
consumed 450,000 barrels of petroleum products a day -- four times the amount used by the two million soldiers who
liberated Europe in World War II. This is why, observers note, energy is a top priority and the House passed a bipartisan
comprehensive energy policy, which the Senate must now act on.

Military Readiness – SPS Key

Space Solar Power Systems Increase Military Readiness By Replacing Inefficient And Dangerous Fuel
Systems Both Domestically And Overseas
Washington, DC The NSSO report says that solar-power-generating satellites could also solve supply problems in distant
places such as Iraq, where fuel is currently trucked along in dangerous convoys and the cost of electricity for some
bases can exceed $1 per kilowatt-hour – about 10 times what it costs in the US. The report also touts the technology's
potential to provide a clean, abundant energy source and reduce global competition for oil.


SPS Systems Solve Resource Conflict Overstretch And Other National Security Concerns
October 10, 2007)
Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high
priority for the Department of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including
opportunities from space. In March 2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the
idea of space-based solar power (SBSP) as a potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but
environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well. First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last
explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look” Study. In the decade since this last study, advances in technology and new
challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications of SBSP. For these reasons, my
office sponsored a no-cost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring and Summer of 2007.
Fossil Fuel Dependence Is A Major Threat To Our National Security. Alternatives Like Space Based Solar
Power Are Necessary To Make The Military Energy Independent.
October 10, 2007)
Consistent with the US National Security Strategy, energy and environmental security are not just problems for
America, they are critical challenges for the entire world. Expanding human populations and declining natural
resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy scarcity as the
foremost threat to national security. Conflict prevention is of particular interest to security providing institutions such
as the U.S. Department of Defense which has elevated energy and environmental security as priority issues with a
mandate to proactively find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic security is preserved. The
magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all
options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40
years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth
orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the
surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured
synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer wide
band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy
contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that
there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship,
advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP
capability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept
(by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear
fusion). The first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a
reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an
economic case for development relative to other lower-cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995-1997 NASA initiated a
“Fresh Look” Study to re-examine the concept relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the
National Research Council) indicated that technology vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and
provided recommended development focus areas, but for various reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other
energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. The post-9/11 situation has changed that calculus
considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. In addition to the
emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now under threat
from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition
by emerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on
foreign oil, often imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the
deployment of clean technologies to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will
ignite an era of global growth through free markets and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic
impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.


Space Based Solar Is The Perfect Energy Source, And It Solves Troop Readiness
Globus, 2007 (Al Globus, board of directors for the National Space Society/ senior research associate for Human Factors Research
and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Research Center, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and
the World?,” May 2007)
Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al
Qaeda and dictatorial regimes. unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of nuclear
weapons. unlike terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. unlike oil, gas, ethanol and coal, does not
emit greenhouse gasses, warming our planet and causing severe problems. unlike nuclear, does not provide tremendous
opportunities for terrorists. unlike coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. unlike oil, does not lead us
to send hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women to war and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on
a military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth orbit to gather sunlight, convert it
to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know we can do it, most satellites are powered by
solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has been demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking
about SSP - solar satellite power. SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will heat the
atmosphere slightly and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and
that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The satellites can be built
from lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas) need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably
the most environmentally benign possible large-scale energy source for Earth, there is far more than enough for
everyone, and the sun's energy will last for billions of years. While help is always nice, the U.S. can build and operate
SSP alone, and SSP is nearly useless to terrorists. The satellites themselves are too far away to attack, the rectennas are
simple, solid metal structures, and there is no radioactive or explosive fuel of any kind. Access to SSP energy cannot be
cut by foreign governments, so America will have no need to maintain an expensive military presence in oil-rich
regions. The catch is cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP requires enormous up-front expense, although after
development of a largely-automated system to build solar power satellites from lunar materials SSP should be quite
inexpensive. To get there, however, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and infrastructure development - just
what America is good at. And you know something, we're spending that kind of money, not to mention blood, on America's
Persian Gulf military presence today, and gas went over $3/gallon anyway. In addition, we may end up spending even more to
deal with global warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP may be the best bargain we've ever had.
What should we do? Besides having NASA do interesting and inspiring things, direct and fund NASA to do something vital:
end U.S. dependence on foreign oil by developing SSP. Redirect the lunar base to do the mining, and develop the launch
vehicles, inter-orbit transfer, and space manufacturing capacity to end oil's energy dominance completely and forever. It will
be expensive, but it's a better, cheaper, safer strategy than military control of oil in far flung lands. Oh, by the way, SSP will
develop lunar mining, launch vehicles, and large satellite construction - most of what we need to build space settlements!

Military Readiness – SPS Key to Air Power

SPS Systems Increase Our Air Power In An Eco-Friendly Manner
Space Future, 2005 (SpaceFuture.com, think tank dedicated to space issues and space power,
http://www.spacefuture.com/power/business.shtml)
Environmentally, geo-politically and macro-economically SPS would be a very satisfactory energy source. The US
DOE studied the potential environmental impacts of SPS in considerable detail, and found that it's very benign. In the
intensities and quantity concerned, microwave beams would have no adverse impact on the environment (though
continuing research is under way in Japan and elsewhere). And in particular SPS would produce far less CO2 than all fossil
sources. The macro-economic pattern of evolution of the world economy is another (long) story, but in simple terms, unless
the rich countries can continue to make things or provide services that poorer countries can't yet do, they can't maintain a
higher standard of living. Once everyone's reached the current level of the rich countries, that's no problem - but there's a long
way to go before then, and "old industries" are leaking to the rapidly developing countries FAST, bringing a real possibility of
falling standards of living in the rich countries - possibly expressed in some countries as a growing unemployed population...
As it happens, one industry in which the richer countries still have a considerable lead is aerospace - but apart from civil
airliners, the only thing that makes serious money is weapons. (Space business is tiny, remember!) The rich countries are keen
to export weapons, of course! (Especially the members of the UN "Security Council"!) But that's hardly a recipe for peaceful
development of the world economy! It has a quite limited prospect, in fact!! So, using aerospace technology to "export"
environmentally benign energy to the developing countries would be an extremely appropriate use of existing skills in
such a way as to balance international trade while more and more basic manufacturing businesses move abroad. It
just requires the will - and particularly the will to make low-cost launch systems.

Military Readiness – SPS Key to Security

SPS Systems Solve Multiple Internal Links To National Security
October 10, 2007)
Since the “Fresh Look” Study much has changed. The events of 9/11 dramatically altered the world strategic security
environment. Major energy producing areas of the world are perceived as being unstable, and the risks of dependence
on unstable areas of the world for energy supplies are increasingly less acceptable to both citizens and policymakers.
The rising demand of the developing world—in particular the burgeoning economies of China and India—are
increasing energy competition. Growing concern over long-term climate change has become a mainstream issue.
Globalization, begun at the end of the last century has created an extremely rapid and accelerating pace of change in
the technological, informational, and business sectors. These changes are being driven by the aggregate decisions of
billions of people, millions of companies, thousands of governments, and huge international markets that cross the
borders of over a hundred countries. The ability to stop, or even slow, this change is beyond the ability of any single
nation, company, or organization. The DoD, as the nation’s largest institutional consumer of technology and energy, has
determined that long-term energy security is now a forefront issue. The early developments of the 21st Century have
created conditions that merit that this nation takes a relook of SBSP.

Military Readiness – Oil Kills Readiness

Dependence on oil kills military readiness.
Scire 2K8 (John Scire, Professor of Political Science at UNR, Nevada Appeal, Oil Dependancy, National Security, February 10,
2008, http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080210/OPINION/227691244)
DoD's dependency on oil as a primary motor fuel makes military operations much more costly than if it had alternative
fuels. Oil dependency also requires that we dedicate military forces to the Persian Gulf area, reducing our ability to use
those forces in other places. Furthermore, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East raises the potential for military
conflicts with other importing nations as world demand increases and supplies decrease. Our oil dependency also
strains military alliances, such as NATO, as members compete for oil. Witness the French and Germans working with the
Iranians to increase oil production and Pakistan building a port to import Iranian natural gas while we are trying to stop the
Iranian nuclear program. Their need for oil and gas trumps our need to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The last
and perhaps most serious impact on national security of our oil dependency is that the chronic weakening of the U.S.
economic base will inevitably weaken our military; we cannot sustain a strong military with a weak economy.

Nuclear Power Tradeoff Advantage

Nuclear Tradeoff – NP Shouldn’t Be Funded

Nuclear power is only funded because generations of conservatives persuade the government to.
Fusion power research has gone on in large part because governmental science agencies like the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation are extremely responsive to the
scientific establishment. That establishment is led by such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences. The academy
is made up of intelligent and highly qualified scientists, but as a body it is very conservative. Indeed, one of my colleagues high
in its councils once described it as an “Old Men’s Club.” Fusion power research has been supported for some 40 years
because, literally, generations of scientists have worked on it as graduate students, then gone on to positions of authority,
and finally risen to positions where their recommendations arc heard with respect by government agencies.

Nuclear Tradeoff – SPS is Better

Space Based Solar Is The Alternative To Nuclear Powered Space Exploration And Colonization
Use low-mass/high-efficiency space solar energy, rather than nuclear energy, as the basic power system; Modularize
transportation systems into packages of less than 40,000 pounds each to enable launch of all but selected surface systems, with
resorting to heavy lift launch vehicles (HLLVs); Fabricate multiple identical SEPS systems to enable effective mass production
at dramatically lower cost per unit weight of purchased hardware; and, Use "brilliant" systems architectures that can
assemble themselves in Earth orbit with little more than autonomous rendezvous and docking technologies; Exploit the
higher fuel efficiency ("specific impulse" of electric propulsion to offset the mass associated with modularity of systems
and interconnections between systems assembled in space. Because the majority of a mission's mass could be
transported to Earth orbit on lower cost vehicles, a substantial savings (perhaps a factor of 2-to-3) in launch costs might
be achieved. Because most system elements are mass-produced, costs per unit weight could be reduced by as much as a
factor of 10. As an added advantage, SolarClipper cargo transfer vehicles can - once they reach Mars orbit - be deployed
for use as operational solar power satellites using wireless power transmission to provide essential energy to surface
operations (thus eliminating the need for Mars surface nuclear reactors). This combination of SEPS for Earth-Mars
transport, and SPS WPT at Mars, could make possible non-nuclear exploration architectures (at least within the inner
solar system).

Nuclear Tradeoff – SPS Replaces Nuclear Power

Development Of SPS Systems Would Prevent The Continued Use Of Problematic Nuclear Systems
Karl Grossman 2002 Plutonium in Space (Again!) Covert Action QuarterlyNumber 73 Summer
Although NASA stresses doing interplanetary exploration with nuclear power including propelling rockets on voyages to
Mars a military link is seen by Dr. Dave Webb, who had been a scientist in the British space program and is now secretary of
the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. "The recent increase in the U.S. budget for Star Wars
and NASA’s plans to spend $1 billion in the next five years on its nuclear power and propulsion programs is no
coincidence," he says. "Star Wars projects like the Space-Based Laser require significant sources of power and it is very useful
for the U.S. government to be able to bury some of the costs for the development work in civilian or dual use programs." 18
"Firing nuclear material into space on the top of rockets subject to frequent failures is just asking for trouble," says
Webb. "How long will it be before the residents of central Florida are subjected to a shower of nuclear debris from a
launch that goes wrong? Historically there is about a 1-in-10 chance of a catastrophic accident during satellite launches.
Who will cover the costs including the medical costs if things like that happen to a nuclear payload?" Webb, principal
lecturer at the United Kingdoms Leeds Metropolitan University’s School of Engineering, also points to the solar option and
stresses the use of solar energy on Rosetta by ESA of which the UK is part. 19 A branch of NASA its Photovoltaics and
Space Environment Branch headquartered at the John Glenn Research Center in Cleveland has, like ESA, been working at
the cutting-edge of space solar energy development. The silicon solar cells "developed decades ago" which now power the
International Space Station, notes NASA’s website, have 14.5% efficiency, and the branch is "exploring new ways to harness
the Suns power - including more efficient solar cells, laser-beaming energy to distant spacecraft and solar power systems for
the Moon and Mars." This includes solar systems for exploring and powering bases on Moon and Mars. 20 NASA’s website
includes detailed NASA plans such as "Photovoltaic Power for the Moon," 21 "Power Systems for Bases and Rovers on Mars"
22 and "A Solar Power System for an Early Mars Expedition." 23 There is no "edge" or limit to solar power, says a solar
scientist at the NASA branch, Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis. "In the long term, solar arrays wont have to rely on the Sun. We're
investigating the concept of using lasers to beam photons to solar arrays. If you make a powerful-enough laser and can
aim the beam, there really isn’t any edge of sunshine." 24 Solar is also being developed to propel spacecraft. In solar
electric propulsion, electricity collected by panels is concentrated and used to accelerate the movement of propellant out
of a thrust chamber. NASA’s Deep Space 1 probe, launched in 1998, is the first space probe to be propelled with solar electric
propulsion.

Nuclear Tradeoff – Nuclear Power  Accidents

Nuclear Power In Space Opens Up The Possibility Of Disastrous Accidents
In contrast, NASA's new stress on nuclear power in space "is not only dangerous but politically unwise," says Dr.
Michio Kaku, professor of nuclear physics at the City University of New York. "The only thing that can kill the U.S. space
program is a nuclear disaster. The American people will not tolerate a Chernobyl in the sky. That would doom the
space program." 13 "NASA hasn’t learned its lesson from its history involving space nuclear power", says Kaku, "and a
hallmark of science is that you learn from previous mistakes. NASA doggedly pursues its fantasy of nuclear power in
space. We have to save NASA from itself." He cites "alternatives" to space nuclear power. "Some of these alternatives
may delay the space program a bit. But the planets are not going to go away. What’s the rush? I'd rather explore the
universe slower than not at all if there is a nuclear disaster." 14 Dr. Ross McCluney, a former NASA scientist, says the
Nuclear Systems Initiative "is a surprise to me because I thought the issue of using nuclear in space had been settled at NASA
because of the history of problems and the dangers." 15 McCluney regards the new nuclear program as "an example of
tunnel vision, focusing too narrowly on what appears to be a good engineering solution but not on the longer-term
human and environmental risks and the law of unintended consequences. You think you’re in control of everything
and then things happen beyond your control. If your project is inherently benign, an unexpected error can be
tolerated. But when you have at your projects core something inherently dangerous, then the consequences of
unexpected failures can be great." 16 "As a former NASA employee and a great NASA supporter, I am fearful of the future
of NASA if it gets too involved with nuclear material," says McCluney, principal research scientist at the Florida Solar
Energy Center. 17

Get Off the Rock Advantage

Get Off the Rock – SPS Gets Us Off the Rock

SPS Is The Only Non-Nuclear Means Of Powering Systems To Get Off The Rock
IAC, 2004 (55th International Astronautical Congress, “Solar Power Satellites for Space Applications, 2004)
The Solar Power Satellite (SPS) system is a candidate solution to deliver power to space vehicles or to elements on
planetary surfaces. It relies on RF or laser power transmitting systems, depending on the type of application and relevant
constraints. The SPS system is characterized by the frequency of the power beam, its overall efficiency and mass. It is driven
by user needs and SPS location relative to the user. Several wavelengths can be considered for laser transmission systems.
The visible and near infrared spectrum, allowing the use of photovoltaic cells as receiver surface, has been retained. Different
frequencies can be used for the RF transmission system. The 35 GHz frequency has been considered as a good compromise
between transmission efficiency and available component performances. The utilisation of the SPS to deliver power to small
rovers or human outpost on Mars, and to an infrastructure on the Moon allows to assess different drivers in terms of user
needs, receiver surface, distance between SPS and target, and to perform a preliminary sizing, based on current or reasonably
achievable technologies, with respect to different sets of constraints. The SPS system appears as an attractive solution for
these applications. The use of advanced or new technologies would drastically lower mass and increase the performances of
the SPS system. 1. INTRODUCTION Power generation is one of the crucial elements of space vehicles and of future
infrastructures on planets and moons. The increased demand for power faces many constraints, in particular the sizing of
the power generation system, driven by eclipse periods and the solar intensity at the operational spot. In the medium term,
Earth orbiting platforms will require higher power levels. Interplanetary exploration vehicles face the problem of distance
to the Sun, especially when high power levels may be needed. Large infrastructures on the Moon and planets, like
Mars, are constrained by environment attenuation, long eclipse or distance to the Sun. New systems and technologies
have to be found, which go beyond simple improvements of the current technologies. Solar Power Satellite (SPS)
systems, based on wireless power transmission, are attractive candidate solutions to provide power to space vehicles or
to elements on planetary surfaces.
…
The SPS system appears as a promising solution for power delivery to elements on planet surfaces. In both Mars and
Moon cases, it could be a solution for users, which face the problem of either low solar energy density and
environment attenuation or long eclipse duration. It appears as today’s only alternative to nuclear power sources.

Get Off the Rock – Impact (Liberty)

Space colonization will check government tyranny and ensure the survival of civilization by checking
corrupt governmental power
Ust, 2004 (Daniel Ust, The Thought, “Freedom Above or Tyranny Below,” http://mars.superlink.net/~neptune/SpaceFreedom.html)
The Future on Earth Some might look at this from the angle of the potential for freedom in space alone. This is, after all, my
main point – that freedom will be greater in space. However, the other side of this is that freedom on Earth is very
limited. The more transportation and monitoring technology progresses on Earth, the more limited freedom will be barring
no outlet into space or no other checks on centralized power. Over time, even cultural and constitutional checks erode.
Absent any external shocks to the world-system on Earth or off world expansion, there seem to be only two paths that will be
taken. Either the level of freedom will rise and fall as governments rise and fall or it will reach a steady state. In either case, the
total amount of freedom is likely to be a lot less than even now – and now is hardly ideal. This is because there are no checks
on governmental power save for the stark ones that governmental power must not be abused to the point that people
either openly rebel or to the point where society generally declines. (Even rebellion or a general decline and collapse
only amount to a temporary period of decentralization of the worst sort before centralization gets back on track.) 3
Settling space solves this problem because it will not only allow people to move away from power centers, but will also
provide an external shock to the system. This shock will likely not topple existing governments, but it will act to check
their power. Why? Those governments that are less exploitative, less controlling will likely have better economies, more
immigrants, more talented people and this translates into stability and stronger militaries. Absent an external shock of
this sort, the disaffected have nowhere to turn to and there’s no competition. The space frontier, too, unlike any terrestrial
one is inexhaustible. It will be the ultimate edge society, since the edge is highly mobile and practically infinite. Once
settlements are established in Earth orbit, people will eventually migrate beyond there out into the solar system, then out into
the galaxy and beyond. There is no physical limit to movement, save the need for energy and time. Looked at this way, the
option to settle space is not some pie in the sky dream, but likely the best option for the future of humanity and the
future of civilization. In other words, those interested in freedom in the long-range, in the survival of humanity, and in
the survival of civilization should think seriously about space migration and settlement.
Reject every infringement on liberty

Petro, 1974 (Sylvester Petro, Professor of Law at Wake Forest University, Spring 1974, pg 480)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to
bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable
to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other
aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask
Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society
aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and
resisted with undying spirit.

Get Off the Rock – Impact (Extinction)

Expansion into space would prevent global wars resulting in extinction
Asimov, 2003 (Isaac Asimove, President of the American Humanist Association, Biochemist, “Our Future in the Cosmos – Space,”
http://www.wronkiewicz.net/asimov.html)
I have a feeling that if we really expanded into space with all our might and made it a global project, this would be the
equivalent of the winning of the West. It’s not just a matter of idealism or preaching brotherhood. If we can build power
stations in space that will supply all the energy the world needs, then the rest of the world will want that energy too. The
only way that each country will be able to get that energy will be to make sure these stations are maintained. It won’t be easy to
build and maintain them; it will be quite expensive and time-consuming. But if the whole world wants energy and if the
price is world cooperation, then I think people are going to do it. We already cooperate on things that the whole world
needs. International organizations monitor the world’s weather and pollution and deal with things like the oceans and with
Antarctica. Perhaps if we see that it is to our advantage to cooperate, then only the real maniacs will avoid cooperating and
they will be left out in the cold when the undoubted benefits come in. I think that, although we as nations will retain our
suspicions and mutual hatreds, we will find it to our advantage to cooperate in developing space. In doing so, we will be able to
adopt a globalist view of our situation. The internal strife between Earthlings, the little quarrels over this or that patch of
the Earth, and the magnified memories of past injustices will diminish before the much greater task of developing a
new, much larger world. I think that the development of space is the great positive project that will force cooperation, a
new outlook that may bring peace to the Earth, and a kind of federalized world government. In such a government, each
region will be concerned with those matters that concern itself alone, but the entire world would act as a unit on matters
that affect the entire world. Only in such a way will we be able to survive and to avoid the kind of wars that will either
gradually destroy our civilization or develop into a war that will suddenly destroy it. There are so many benefits to be derived
from space exploration and exploitation; why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure
destruction of all that humanity has struggled to achieve for 50,000 years? That is one of the reasons, by the way, that I have
come from New York to Hampton despite the fact that I have a hatred of traveling and I faced 8 hours on the train with a great
deal of fear and trembling. It was not only The College of William and Mary that invited me, but NASA as well, and it is
difficult for me to resist NASA, knowing full well that it symbolizes what I believe in too.

China Advantage

China – China Needs Energy

China needs solar power satellites now to maintain it’s economy.
At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly
unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to
limit the use of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a massive
recession. Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global repercussions
would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to generate enough clean energy
to satisfy China’s mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. The capital costs for such systems are gigantic, but
when compared with both future power demands and considering the less-than-peaceful alternative scenarios, space solar
power looks like a bargain.

China – China Can’t Solve

China Can’t Solve – No Tech
In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be many years
before they can realistically contemplate building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-
based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the US gets
back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel manufacturing facility up there is beyond what can
reasonably be anticipated.

China – US Solves China’s Needs

China is growing but it’s need for more technology to produce energy is eminent, the US has the tech
possible to solve this back.
China, with its growing energy needs, could be a major customer of any future space solar power system. (credit: ©
Mafic Studios Inc.) Now that the National Security Space Office’s (NSSO) space solar power study has been released and
shows that the technology is well within America’s grasp, a set of decisions have to be made concerning how the US
government should proceed. The idea that the government should fund a series of demonstration projects, as the study
recommends, is a good place to start. Another aspect should be to study the impact that this technology will have on the
political and economic future of the world. The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of
China to true great power status. Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest
danger to China’s future prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According to an International Energy
Agency estimate, demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from 2003 and 2025. At
some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly
unprepared. Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. China is already
experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and Zhijiang and
contributes almost 20% of China’s GDP, faced capacity shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak summer demand in
2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new power sources, including dam building and new coal-fired power plants,
China’s economic growth is outstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to keep it going.
The US would give China the solar capabilities it needs to avoid a Chinese economic collapse and it would
create a peaceful world power structure.
For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the ability of private US or multinational firms to offer China a
reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive price would allow China to continue its economic growth and
emergence as part of a peaceful world power structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and
connect them to its national grid, but this would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar
project would take in the US or Europe when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost
any new project.

China – US’s SPS Key

Solar power is the only way that the future can have a reliable energy source, China especially will be
dependant on this technology and the US capturing it would avoid a catastrophic energy war.
Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get as China and other nations attain Western lifestyles. Clean
solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. In spite of the major advances that China has
made in developing its own space technology, it will be many years before they can realistically contemplate building the off-
Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and
they do manage to land on the Moon before the US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel
manufacturing facility up there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated. If the US were to invest in space-based solar
power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the years on this technology and other
nations will seek the same advantages described in the NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not
be looking for international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Information
about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders
from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of the major spacefaring nations, including
China. Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when China,
India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West
enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear,
wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physics and politics. Only space solar power can be
delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is
imperative that this country be able to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is
in everyone’s interest.

2AC Stuff

2AC – SPS Not Dangerous on Earth

SPS microwave beams would not be dangerous.
JENNIFER MACEY: The report says the microwave beams sent to earth would be less dangerous than the noon day sun
and leakage would be no more than that of a microwave oven but Richard Corkish from UNSW says energy will be lost in
the transfer of electricity from space to a receiver on the ground. RICHARD CORKISH: The conversion from the electricity
to microwave on the satellite, can be done quite efficiently I believe. The transmission from the satellite to earth is done
by transmission from a microwave antenna on the satellite and reception on the earth with a microwave antenna array.
The beam is safe on earth.

Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at densities
substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial
solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the
edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave
oven. This low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely
small, comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire.

2AC – Military Lobbies Approve

Military Lobbies Love The Plan
Washington, DC A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large
supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the
US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for
further private development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to
gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be
collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar
power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy
conditions."We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel
Paul
Military Lobbies Love The Plan

Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?,” August 13, 2007)
“The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with
some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power,
something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to
Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space
solar power.

2AC – Space Lobbies Approve

Space Lobbie,s Including The Space Solar Alliance For Future Energy, Love The Plan
Washington, DC At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced a new alliance to promote
space solar power – the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These supporters of space-based solar power say the
technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossil fuels, wind and nuclear power combined.
Space Lobbies Love The Plan Because It Coordinates Our Efforts In Space
"I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing
in space," Air Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National
Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday. Space advocacy groups immediately seized on the idea and formed a
new alliance to push the plan.

2AC – Free Trade Add-on

SPS Systems Open Up Markets For Free Trade
Smith said such systems could eventually deliver electricity to places that lack the infrastructure for traditional power
transmission grids, and turn the decades-old dream of wireless power into reality. "It's using space for an actual
tradeable commodity — not for a rover on Mars, which is also necessary — but actually delivering a commodity that
can be given to anybody in the world," he said.
Liberalized trade increases living standards for the poor lifting millions out of poverty
Bhagwati, 2005 (Jagdish, Professor of Economics at Columbia, New Perspectives Quarterly, “China Shows Trade is Best Route
out of Poverty”, Spring)
JAGDISH BHAGWATI |That is exactly right. Liberalized trade, along with foreign investment, has opened up
opportunity for the poor across the globe by expanding economic growth. In fact, the great sea change over the past
decade has been precisely that the governments of traditionally poor countries like India, China and Brazil now see
liberalized trade and investment flows not as a threat but as the opportunity it actually is. This way of thinking marks a
profound break with the old prominent ideas of people like Raul Prebisch about the “Third World periphery” being exploited
by the “rich center.” As a sociology professor before he preceded (Luiz Inacio) Lula (da Silva) as president of Brazil and
changed his mind, Fernando Henrique Cardoso formulated the “dependencia” theory, which said that the “South” was poor
because the “North” exploited it to get rich. If a country avoided the “neocolonial embrace,” he thought in the old days, it
would be better off. Governments in the poorer world today have not changed their policies on ideological grounds
—“embracing the neoliberal,Washington consensus”—but as a pragmatic response to the need for access to markets,
investment capital and economic growth.They did not move to the right, only from the left to the center. Of course,
privatization can be corrupted, as it was in Russia’s haste to break with the Communist past. It went from the Politburo to the
oligarchs. China, of course, has its problems with corruption. But two decades of high growth that resulted from opening
up to the world economy have pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty.
The impacts of poverty are a systemic holocaust against the underclass tantamount to nuclear war
Abu-Jamal, 1998 (Mumia, Cop Killer, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence”, September 19,
http://www.angelfire.com/az/catchphraze/mumiaswords.html)
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence,
of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr.
James Gilligan observes; By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those
who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a
demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's
collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am
contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by
specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in
warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage,
1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is
invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very
fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that
caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the
world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every
decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196]

2AC – SPS Inevitable

The Negative Can’t Win Uniqueness - Space Solar Is Inevitable
Dinerman, 2007 (Taylor Dinerman, NYC based author and journalist, “Solar Power Satellites and Space Radar,” July 16, 2007)
Space solar power is, in the long run, inevitable. The Earth’s economy is going to need so much extra power over the
next few decades that every new system that can be shown to be viable will be developed. If the US were to develop
space solar power for military applications it would give the US civilian industry a big head start. As long as the military
requirements are legitimate, there is no reason why this cannot be made into a win-win outcome.

2AC – SPS Opens Markets

SPS Systems Open Up New Markets And Space Industries
In addition to these 3 reasons, there is a 4th reason why developing power from space will be beneficial. This is because
building and operating SPS units in Earth orbit will lead on spontaneously, through purely commercial evolution, to a
range of further developments in space - to our space future, in fact. It's easy to see this by considering the ways in
which business typically grows - which is much easier to predict than political decisions. Selling electricity from space
to Earth will provide commercial companies with both the finance and the incentive to develop and use extra-
terrestrial materials. The world electricity market is already the best part of $1 trillion per year, and due to grow by
10 times. So, without predicting the details, it's easy to see that if an electricity-from-space industry develops there will be
a market in Earth orbit for hundreds of thousands of tons a year of a range of materials including aluminum, glass,
silicon (for solar cells), oxygen, iron, titanium etc - all of which are of course available in Moon rock and other extra-
terrestrial resources.
SPS Systems Open Up Manufacturing Markets

For SPS construction there will be even bigger things - tugs and cranes manoeuvring kilometer-sized structures,
electrical engineering of Gigawatt cables, orbit-raising of power-satellite sections 10 square kilometers or more in
area, orbital manufacturing plants using materials from comets and asteroids. And there's no limit to the innovative
technological employment that will be created by these new and profitable commercial activities in space. This will be
just the same as the way that the amazing contemporary technologies of deep-sea oil-rigs that operate in stormy seas hundreds
of meters deep, or wide-body jets that carry hundreds of passengers non-stop half-way round the world, have created many
new career-paths, from diving to air-traffic control, from geological analysis to aircraft leasing, from underwater welding to
international ticket sales. And note that these jobs have all been created by two industries on Earth - energy and tourism -
which represent $trillion segments of the mass consumer markets that power economic growth world-wide. These two
industries can and will power the economic development of space, through the use of large-scale solar energy
generating systems for electricity supply to Earth, and tourism activities in Earth orbit and beyond.

2AC – SPS Opens Markets

Development Of Space Based Solar Will Open Up New Markets In Space
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that the SBSP development would have a transformational, even revolutionary, effect on
space access for the nation(s) that develop(s) it. • SBSP cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly),
cheap, and reliable access to space and ubiquitous in space operations. The sheer volume and number of flights into
space, and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game changing. By lowering the cost to orbit so
substantially, and by providing safe and routine access, entirely new industries and possibilities open up. • SBSP and
low cost, reliable space access are codependent, and advances in either will catalyze development in the other.

2AC – SPS Causes Private Investment

Incentives Will Allow The Private Industry To Achieve Required Space Capabilities, And Space Access Is
An Advantage To The Aff
October 10, 2007)
Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low-cost space access
and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges for
SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or
asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own
SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated
review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP
development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental
research and development program that culminates with a space-borne proof-of-concept demonstration in the next decade. A
spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class systems is included in
Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be
necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial-commercial, government-commercial, and government-
government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter and
to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming
on-line today.

2AC – SPS Causes Increased NGO Missions

SPS Systems Can Be Used To Power NGO Missions
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space-based solar power would be to broadcast power
directly to energy-deprived areas and to persons performing disaster relief, nation-building, and other humanitarian
missions often associated with the United Nations and related non-governmental organizations. Recommendation: The
SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of the SBSP feasibility study opportunities for broad
international partnerships with non-state and trans-state actors should be explored. In particular, cooperation with the United
Nations and related organizations to employ SBSP in support of various humanitarian relief efforts support consistent
with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed with the help of affiliated professionals.

2AC – Plan is Popular

Plan Is Popular
October 10, 2007)
The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP is an idea that appears to generate significant interest and support across a
broad variety of sectors. Compared to other ideas either for space exploration or alternative energy, Space-Based
Solar Power is presently not a publicly well-known idea, in part because it has no organizational advocate within
government, and has not received any substantial funding or public attention for a significant period of time.
Nevertheless, DoD review team leaders were virtually overwhelmed by the interest in Space-Based Solar Power that
they discovered. What began as a small e-mail group became unmanageable as the social network & map-of-expertise
expanded and word spread. To cope, study leaders were forced to move to an on-line collaborative group with nearly daily
requests for new account access, ultimately growing to over 170 aerospace and policy experts all contributing pro-bono. This
group became so large, and the need to more closely examine certain questions so acute, that the group had to be split into
four additional groups. As word spread and enthusiasm grew in the space advocacy community, study leaders were invited to
further expand to an open web log in collaboration with the Space Frontier Foundation. The amount of media interest was
substantial. Activity was so intense that total e-mail traffic for the study leads could be as high as 200 SBSP-related e-mails a
day, and the sources of interest were very diverse. There was clear interest from potential military ground customers—
the Army, Marines, and USAF Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low
environmental-impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing
logistics chain. There was clear interest from both traditional “big aerospace,” and the entrepreneurial space
community. Individuals from each of the major American aerospace companies participated and contributed. The
subject was an agenda item for the Space Resources Roundtable, a dedicated industry group. Study leaders were made
aware of significant and serious discussions between aerospace companies and several major energy and construction
companies both in and outside of United States. As the study progressed the study team was invited to brief in various policy
circles and think tanks, including the Marshall Institute, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Energy Consensus
Group, the National Defense Industry Association, the Defense Science Board, the Department of Commerce’s Office of
Commercial Space, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong
in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS),
Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or
participated in events related to this subject during the study period. There is reason to think that this interest may
extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when
respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was
collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular
response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) /
Mars(10%). How does one account for such significant interest? Perhaps it is because SBSP lies “at the intersection of
missionary and mercenary”—appealing both to man’s idealism and pragmatism, the United States’ special mission in
the world and her citizens’ faith in business and technology. As an ambitious and optimistic project, it excites the
imagination with its scale and grandeur, besting America’s previous projects, and opening new frontiers. Such interest
goes directly to the concerns of the Aerospace commission, which stated, “The aerospace industry has always been a
reflection of the spirit of America. It has been, and continues to be, a sector of pioneers drawn to the challenge of new
frontiers in science, air, space, and engineering. For this nation to maintain its present proud heritage and leadership
in the global arena, we must remain dedicated to a strong and prosperous aerospace industry. A healthy and vigorous
aerospace industry also holds a promise for the future, by kindling a passion within our youth that beckons them to
reach for the stars and thereby assure our nation’s destiny.”

2AC – The Beam is Safe

The Beam Used To Deliver The Energy To Earth Is Perfectly Safe
October 10, 2007)
Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at densities
substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar
energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the
rectenna equivalent to the leakage allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low
energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small, comparable to
the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire. • The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is
uncompromising, and economies of scale make the beam very unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be
resolved through an inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the geostationary
belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be
designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the
microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cut-off mechanisms. The likelihood of
the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if occurring would be extremely anti-climactic.

2AC – Can’t Attack SPS

Attacks On An SPS System Would Be Ineffective
October 10, 2007)
• Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of energy infrastructure.
However, it takes significantly more resources and sophistication to attack an asset in geostationary orbit than it does
to attack a nuclear power plant, oil refinery or supertanker on Earth. The satellite is also very large and constructed of
a number of similar redundant parts, so the attack would need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving antenna
would probably be the least value-added attack, since it is a diffuse and distributed array of identical modular
elements that can be quickly repaired while the receiving station continues to operate. Nevertheless, the best routes to
security are a diversity and redundancy of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are
capable of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their own benefit.

2AC – Fed Gv’t Key

Federal Government Is Key To Incentivizing The Development Of SPS Systems
Development Policy
In order to achieve the goal of this policy, the executive departments and agencies of the U.S. Government should adhere to
the following general guidelines: Role of the Federal Government in Aeronautics R&D. The Federal Government should
only undertake roles in supporting aeronautics R&D that are not more appropriately per- formed by the private sector.
Specifically, the Federal Government plays a key role in the following three aspects of aeronautics R&D. Investment in
a full range of aeronautics R&D that supports national defense and homeland security, from basic research through
advanced technology development and beyond, is a responsibility of executive departments and agencies and should
remain a U.S. Government priority. The U.S. Government plays a unique role in long-term, fundamental aeronautics
research that provides the foundation for future technology development. Executive departments and agencies perform
this role through direct Federal investment and indirectly through policies and regulations that stimulate academic or
private sector R&D investment and innovation. In addition, executive departments and agencies should provide for the
widest practical and appropriate dissemination of research results, consistent with national security, foreign policy, and
the Office of Management and Budget’s Information Quality Guidelines. The Federal Government also has a role in
more advanced civil aeronautics research. In these cases, the Federal Government’s involvement in R&D must be based
on well-defined goals with objective measures of efficacy. These goals must be scrutinized to ensure that the government is
not stepping beyond its legitimate purpose by competing with or un- fairly subsidizing commercial ventures. In such cases, the
primary areas of government involvement are: Public Interest Research: Research that directly benefits the public by
improving public safety and security, by promoting energy efficiency, or by protecting the environment. Research and
Development to Address Gaps: In certain cases where risks or other market factors limit private sector investment in
more advanced research, the Federal Government may decide investment is required. The appropriateness of Federal
investment in such research must be justified by an assessment indicating that the benefits of such R&D would occur far in
the future or the risks would be too great for non-Federal participants, and the results from the research would not be
appropriable to a single entity. In these cases, Federal R&D investment must be the best means to achieve the objectives
as opposed to other means such as regulatory, policy or tax incentives. Government Internal R&D: Research in direct
support of government infrastructure or services and the setting and enforcement of regulations.
Federal Incentives For Space Based R+D Solve Best

Development Policy
The aeronautics enterprise is an integral part of the nation’s economy. In order to foster a competitive domestic
commercial aeronautics sector, executive departments and agencies should continue to: • Engage the private sector in
government activities related to the design and development of the U.S. aeronautics enterprise, including leveraging
private sector resources as appropriate to further U.S. Government interests; • Ensure that U.S. Government
aeronautics activities, technology, and infrastructure are accessible for private use, consistent with national security; •
Draw on industry’s expertise to help inform government R&D priorities, programs, and planning processes; • Provide
a timely and responsive regulatory environment, consistent with national security and foreign policy considerations, for
civil and commercial aeronautical activities that supports the infusion of new technology into the U.S. aeronautics
enterprise;

Solar Power Sats AFF - Fellows

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solar Power Sats AFF - Fellows

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KENTUCKY FELLOWS 2008 SOLAR POWER SATELLITES AFFIRMATIVE

ROBIN AND RETT PAGE ____ OF ____

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 1

Solvency – SPS Solves Squo Problems.................................................................................................................................................45

Tech Race – SPS Would Be Easy........................................................................................................................63

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 3

Military Readiness – SPS Key to Air Power......................................................................................................84

Nuclear Tradeoff – Nuclear Power  Accidents..............................................................................................91

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 4

2AC – Space Lobbies Approve............................................................................................................................................................104

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 5

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 6

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 7

Contention One is Inherency

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 8

Thus the plan:

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 9

Advantage ____ is the Tech Race

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 10

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 11

Hegemony solves multiple scenarios for global nuclear war

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 12

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 13

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 14

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 15

Advantage ____ is the Get Off the Rock

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 16

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 17

Advantage ____ is NASA Credibility

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 18

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 19

Advantage ____ is Military Readiness

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 20

A Decrease in US military power will trigger a world war.

A strong US military is critical to stop global conflict – there is no alternative.

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 21

Advantage ____ is Nuclear Power Tradeoff

SPS systems replace nuclear power.

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 22

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 23

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 24

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 25

Government incentives solve, and there’s already a framework for implementation.

SPS systems need to begin development immediately.

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 26

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 27

Inherency – Development Now

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 28

Inherency – Development Now

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 29

Inherency – Development Now

SPS systems are being investigated now.

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 30

Inherency – Misdirected Now

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 31

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 32

Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 33

Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 34

Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 35

Solvency – SPS Long Term Energy

Clearly the US should have a death ray… 36

ROBIN AND RETT PAGE OF