Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1AC..........................................................................................................................................................................7
Inherency..............................................................................................................................................................27
Inherency – Development Now.............................................................................................................................................................28
Inherency – Development Now...........................................................................................................................28
Inherency – Development Now.............................................................................................................................................................29
Inherency – Development Now...........................................................................................................................29
Inherency – Development Now.............................................................................................................................................................30
Inherency – Development Now...........................................................................................................................30
Inherency – Misdirected Now................................................................................................................................................................31
Inherency – Misdirected Now.............................................................................................................................31
Solvency................................................................................................................................................................32
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source.....................................................................................................................................................33
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source...................................................................................................................33
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source.....................................................................................................................................................34
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source...................................................................................................................34
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source.....................................................................................................................................................35
Solvency – SPS Best Energy Source...................................................................................................................35
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.........................................................................................................................................................................42
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap........................................................................................................................................42
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap........................................................................................................................................................................43
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap.......................................................................................................................................43
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap.........................................................................................................................................................................44
Solvency – Fill Oil Gap........................................................................................................................................44
1AC
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.
<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.
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.
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.
SPS systems are a military necessity, fossil fuels are too unreliable and inflexible. 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)
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.
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 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.
Nuclear power in space is a stepping stone for nuclear weaponization of space. We should pursue space
solar power instead.
Grossman, 2002 (Karl Grossman, “Covert Action Quarterly Plutonium in Space Again!,” Summer 2002)
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.
Inherency
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.
The Logistics Of Solar Powered Satellites Were 100% Feasible 10 Years Ago
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)
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.
Solvency
SPS Systems Are The Only Viable Source Of Energy That Provides For World Demand And Avoid
Energy Wars
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)
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 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 plat- forms 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.
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."
More Evidence…
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)
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.
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.
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)
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."
Solvency – Efficient
SPS Systems Prevent The Waste Heat Associated With Other Energy Sources Form Entering The
Atmosphere
NASA, 2007 (NASA, “Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security” Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study,
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.
Lunar material skeptics are wrong and biased because of their unwillingness to accept change.
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)
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.
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.
<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
The government would never admit to a plan to use an SPS as a weapon, people would be too afraid.
National Security Space Office, 2007 (“Phase o Architecture Feasibility Study,” page 26, October 10, 2007,
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)
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.
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
to develop new forms of public–private partnerships where NASA would do the advanced R&D for only the most advanced
technologies.
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.
NASA, 2007 (NASA, “Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security” Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study,
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.
China Advantage
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.
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)
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.
2AC Stuff
Space Lobbies Love The Plan Because It Coordinates Our Efforts In Space
Boyle, 2007 (Alan Boyle, MSNCB, Science Editor, “Power From Space?,” October 12, 2007)
"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.
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]