You are on page 1of 134

Baylor Debate Workshops 1

Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SPACE - BASED SOLAR POWER AFF


“They will gaze up and strain to find the blue dot in their skies. They will love it no less for its obscurity and
fragility. They will marvel at how vulnerable the repository of all our potential once was, how perilous our infancy,
how humble our beginnings, how many rivers we had to cross before we found our way.” – Carl Sagan

ADVANTAGE MAP:..........................................................................................................................................................8
ADVANTAGE MAP:....................................................................................................................................................8
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – INHERENCY...................................................................................................................9
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – INHERENCY...............................................................................................9
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – INHERENCY.................................................................................................................10
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – INHERENCY.............................................................................................10
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE...............................................................................................11
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE....................................................................11
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE...............................................................................................12
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE....................................................................12
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE...............................................................................................13
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE....................................................................13
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE...............................................................................................14
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE....................................................................14
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE...............................................................................................15
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE....................................................................15
..................................................................................................................................................................................15
......................................................................................................................................................................................15
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE..............................................................................16
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE..........................................16
..................................................................................................................................................................................16
......................................................................................................................................................................................16
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE..............................................................................17
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE..........................................17
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE .............................................................................18
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE .........................................18
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE .............................................................................19
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE .........................................19
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE .............................................................................20
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE .........................................20
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE..............................................................................21
Baylor Debate Workshops 2
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE..........................................21


1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – SPACE COLONIZATION ADVANTAGE.................................................................................23
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – SPACE COLONIZATION ADVANTAGE...............................................23
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – SOLVENCY...................................................................................................................24
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – SOLVENCY................................................................................................24
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – SOLVENCY...................................................................................................................25
1AC SOLAR SPACE POWER AFF – SOLVENCY................................................................................................25
2AC ADD-ON- GLOBAL WARMING................................................................................................................................26
2AC ADD-ON- GLOBAL WARMING.....................................................................................................................26
2AC ADD-ON- GLOBAL WARMING................................................................................................................................27
2AC ADD-ON- GLOBAL WARMING.....................................................................................................................27
2AC ADD-ON- ECONOMY ...........................................................................................................................................28
2AC ADD-ON- ECONOMY .....................................................................................................................................28
2AC ADD-ON- TORNADOES..........................................................................................................................................29
2AC ADD-ON- TORNADOES...................................................................................................................................29
2AC ADD-ON- NATURAL DISASTERS..............................................................................................................................31
2AC ADD-ON- NATURAL DISASTERS.................................................................................................................31
2AC ADD-ON- NATURAL DISASTERS..............................................................................................................................32
2AC ADD-ON- NATURAL DISASTERS.................................................................................................................32
2AC ADD ON- ASTEROIDS............................................................................................................................................33
2AC ADD ON- ASTEROIDS.....................................................................................................................................33
2AC ADD ON- TECH LEADERSHIP..................................................................................................................................34
2AC ADD ON- TECH LEADERSHIP......................................................................................................................34
INHERENCY: ATTITUDINAL .............................................................................................................................................37
INHERENCY: ATTITUDINAL ...............................................................................................................................37
**************** HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS ******************........................................................38
**************** HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS ******************...................................38
HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE : MILITARY DOMINANCE..............................................................................................................39
HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE : MILITARY DOMINANCE...................................................................................39
HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE : READINESS EXTENSIONS............................................................................................................40
HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE : READINESS EXTENSIONS................................................................................40
**************** ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS ******************.......................................41
**************** ENERGY INDEPENDENCE ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS ******************.........41
ENERGY INSECURITY  CONFLICT.................................................................................................................................42
ENERGY INSECURITY  CONFLICT...............................................................................................................42
SBSP  ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.................................................................................................................................43
SBSP  ENERGY INDEPENDENCE....................................................................................................................43
SBSP  ENERGY INDEPENDENCE..................................................................................................................................44
Baylor Debate Workshops 3
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.....................................................................................................................44


SPS SOLVES ENERGY WARS...........................................................................................................................................45
SPS SOLVES ENERGY WARS.................................................................................................................................45
ENERGY DEPENDENCE  RECESSION..............................................................................................................................46
ENERGY DEPENDENCE  RECESSION............................................................................................................46
ENERGY DEPENDENCE  RECESSION..............................................................................................................................47
ENERGY DEPENDENCE  RECESSION............................................................................................................47
OIL DEPENDENCY  OVERSTRETCH................................................................................................................................48
OIL DEPENDENCY  OVERSTRETCH..............................................................................................................48
**************** SPACE COLONIZATION ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS ******************.........................................49
**************** SPACE COLONIZATION ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS ******************..............49
UNIQUENESS : AXN NOW KEY..........................................................................................................................................50
UNIQUENESS : AXN NOW KEY............................................................................................................................50
SPACE COLONIZATION ADV. – EXTINCTION COMING / COLONIZ. KEY..................................................................................51
SPACE COLONIZATION ADV. – EXTINCTION COMING / COLONIZ. KEY..............................................51
SPACE LEADERSHIP ADV. – INEVITABLE WITHOUT US / MUST BE FIRST.............................................................................52
SPACE LEADERSHIP ADV. – INEVITABLE WITHOUT US / MUST BE FIRST............................................52
SPACE LEADERSHIP ADV. – SBSP = SPACE LEADERSHIP...................................................................................................53
SPACE LEADERSHIP ADV. – SBSP = SPACE LEADERSHIP............................................................................53
SBSP  SPACE COLONIZATION.....................................................................................................................................54
SBSP  SPACE COLONIZATION..........................................................................................................................54
SBSP  SPACE COLONIZATION.....................................................................................................................................55
SBSP  SPACE COLONIZATION..........................................................................................................................55
SBSP  SPACE COLONIZATION.....................................................................................................................................56
SBSP  SPACE COLONIZATION..........................................................................................................................56
IMPACT MODULES – ECONOMIC GROWTH.........................................................................................................................57
IMPACT MODULES – ECONOMIC GROWTH...................................................................................................57
IMPACT MODULES – ECONOMIC GROWTH ........................................................................................................................58
IMPACT MODULES – ECONOMIC GROWTH ..................................................................................................58
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION I)..................................................................................................................59
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION I)...........................................................................................59
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION II)................................................................................................................60
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION II)..........................................................................................60
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION III)...............................................................................................................60
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION III)........................................................................................60
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION IV)...............................................................................................................62
IMPACT MODULES - EXTINCTION (VERSION IV)........................................................................................62
Baylor Debate Workshops 4
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

IMPACT MODULES – HEGEMONY / LEADERSHIP ...............................................................................................................64


IMPACT MODULES – HEGEMONY / LEADERSHIP .......................................................................................64
IMPACT MODULES EXTENSION – HEGEMONY / LEADERSHIP ...............................................................................................65
IMPACT MODULES EXTENSION – HEGEMONY / LEADERSHIP ..............................................................65
IMPACT MODULES EXTENSION – HEGEMONY / LEADERSHIP ...............................................................................................66
IMPACT MODULES EXTENSION – HEGEMONY / LEADERSHIP ..............................................................66
SPS  LUNAR MINING...............................................................................................................................................67
SPS  LUNAR MINING.........................................................................................................................................67
AT: ONLY RICH PEOPLE TRAVEL SPACE..........................................................................................................................68
AT: ONLY RICH PEOPLE TRAVEL SPACE.........................................................................................................68
AT: SPACE LEADERSHIP  BACKLASH............................................................................................................................69
AT: SPACE LEADERSHIP  BACKLASH...........................................................................................................69
**************** 2AC ADD ON – GLOBAL WARMING - IMPACT EXTENSIONS ******************........................70
**************** 2AC ADD ON – GLOBAL WARMING - IMPACT EXTENSIONS ******************
.......................................................................................................................................................................................70
GLOBAL WARMING  EXTINCTION.................................................................................................................................71
GLOBAL WARMING  EXTINCTION................................................................................................................71
GLOBAL WARMING  EXTINCTION.................................................................................................................................72
GLOBAL WARMING  EXTINCTION................................................................................................................72
SSP SOLVES GLOBAL WARMING....................................................................................................................................73
SSP SOLVES GLOBAL WARMING.......................................................................................................................73
SSP SOLVES GLOBAL WARMING.....................................................................................................................................74
SSP SOLVES GLOBAL WARMING........................................................................................................................74
**************** 2AC ADD ON – NATURAL DISASTERS - IMPACT EXTENSIONS ******************......................75
**************** 2AC ADD ON – NATURAL DISASTERS - IMPACT EXTENSIONS
******************...................................................................................................................................................75
SBSP SOLVES NATURAL DISASTERS................................................................................................................................76
SBSP SOLVES NATURAL DISASTERS.................................................................................................................76
**************** 2AC ADD ON – TECH LEADERSHIP- EXTENSIONS ******************......................................77
**************** 2AC ADD ON – TECH LEADERSHIP- EXTENSIONS ******************.................77
SBSP DEVELOPMENT SOLVES TECH LEADERSHIP..............................................................................................................78
SBSP DEVELOPMENT SOLVES TECH LEADERSHIP.....................................................................................78
**************** ANSWERS TO CASE ARGS ******************........................................................................79
**************** ANSWERS TO CASE ARGS ******************..............................................................79
AT: SOLAR PANEL ROCKET DEPLOYMENT KILLS ENVIRONMENT .........................................................................................80
AT: SOLAR PANEL ROCKET DEPLOYMENT KILLS ENVIRONMENT ......................................................80
AT: TECHNOLOGICAL OBSTACLES....................................................................................................................................81
AT: TECHNOLOGICAL OBSTACLES...................................................................................................................81
Baylor Debate Workshops 5
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................................................82


AT: SBSP BAD FOR ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................................................82
AT: SPSP WEAPONIZATION...........................................................................................................................................83
AT: SPSP WEAPONIZATION..................................................................................................................................83
AT: SBSP HAS HEALTH RISKS ......................................................................................................................................84
AT: SBSP HAS HEALTH RISKS .............................................................................................................................84
AT: THE SUN WILL RUN OUT OF ENERGY.........................................................................................................................85
AT: THE SUN WILL RUN OUT OF ENERGY.......................................................................................................85
AT: SBSP  TERRORISM.............................................................................................................................................86
AT: SBSP  TERRORISM.......................................................................................................................................86
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE...................................................................................................................................................87
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE..............................................................................................................................................87
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE...................................................................................................................................................88
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE..............................................................................................................................................88
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE...................................................................................................................................................89
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE..............................................................................................................................................89
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE...................................................................................................................................................90
AT: SBSP EXPENSIVE..............................................................................................................................................90
AT: LONG DEVELOPMENT TIME......................................................................................................................................91
AT: LONG DEVELOPMENT TIME........................................................................................................................91
AT: DOD & NASA NOT WANT OF R&D....................................................................................................................92
AT: DOD & NASA NOT WANT OF R&D................................................................................................................92
AT: SBSP NOT SUFFICIENT ENERGY FOR US..................................................................................................................93
AT: SBSP NOT SUFFICIENT ENERGY FOR US..................................................................................................93
..................................................................................................................................................................................93
......................................................................................................................................................................................93
AT – SPS  NMD....................................................................................................................................................94
AT – SPS  NMD.......................................................................................................................................................94
AT – POLITICS/ELECTIONS DA......................................................................................................................................95
AT – POLITICS/ELECTIONS DA...........................................................................................................................95
AT – JUST BUY THE TECHNOLOGY CP............................................................................................................................96
AT – JUST BUY THE TECHNOLOGY CP.............................................................................................................96
AT – WE NEED NEW TECHNOLOGY..................................................................................................................................97
AT – WE NEED NEW TECHNOLOGY..................................................................................................................97
AT – CONSULT CP.......................................................................................................................................................98
AT – CONSULT CP....................................................................................................................................................98
AT – PRIVATE ACTOR CP..............................................................................................................................................99
AT – PRIVATE ACTOR CP.......................................................................................................................................99
Baylor Debate Workshops 6
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS ******************.........................................................................100


**************** SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS ******************.............................................................100
SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................101
SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................................................101
SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................102
SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................................................102
SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................103
SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................................................103
SOLVENCY ................................................................................................................................................................104
SOLVENCY .............................................................................................................................................................104
SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................105
SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................................................105
SOLVENCY – GOVERNMENT PROGRAM  INCENTIVES......................................................................................................106
SOLVENCY – GOVERNMENT PROGRAM  INCENTIVES........................................................................106
SOLVENCY – GOVERNMENT PROGRAM  INCENTIVES......................................................................................................108
SOLVENCY – GOVERNMENT PROGRAM  INCENTIVES........................................................................108
SOLVENCY – R&D KEY – SOLVES WARMING/OIL..........................................................................................................110
SOLVENCY – R&D KEY – SOLVES WARMING/OIL.......................................................................................110
SOLVENCY – FUNDING KEY..........................................................................................................................................111
SOLVENCY – FUNDING KEY...............................................................................................................................111
SOLVENCY – FUNDING  INCENTIVES...........................................................................................................................112
SOLVENCY – FUNDING  INCENTIVES.........................................................................................................112
SOLVENCY – FUND NASA KEY...................................................................................................................................113
SOLVENCY – FUND NASA KEY...........................................................................................................................113
SOLVENCY – DOD KEY...............................................................................................................................................114
SOLVENCY – DOD KEY.........................................................................................................................................114
SOLVENCY – FUNDING  INCENTIVES...........................................................................................................................115
SOLVENCY – FUNDING  INCENTIVES.........................................................................................................115
SOLVENCY – FUNDING  INCENTIVES...........................................................................................................................116
SOLVENCY – FUNDING  INCENTIVES.........................................................................................................116
SOLVENCY – INCENTIVES – FUNDING CREATES PRIVATE SECTOR........................................................................................117
SOLVENCY – INCENTIVES – FUNDING CREATES PRIVATE SECTOR.....................................................117
SOLVENCY – SBSP = LOTS OF ENERGY........................................................................................................................119
SOLVENCY – SBSP = LOTS OF ENERGY..........................................................................................................119
SOLVENCY – FEDERAL PILOT PROGRAM KEY..................................................................................................................121
SOLVENCY – FEDERAL PILOT PROGRAM KEY...........................................................................................121
SOLVENCY – FEDERAL PILOT PROGRAM KEY..................................................................................................................122
Baylor Debate Workshops 7
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SOLVENCY – FEDERAL PILOT PROGRAM KEY...........................................................................................122


...............................................................................................................................................................................123
...................................................................................................................................................................................123
**************** THE NEGATIVE ****************** ....................................................................................123
**************** THE NEGATIVE ****************** ..............................................................................123
STATUS QUO SOLVES...................................................................................................................................................124
STATUS QUO SOLVES...........................................................................................................................................124
INHERENCY FRONTLINE................................................................................................................................................125
INHERENCY FRONTLINE....................................................................................................................................125
SPACE ADVANTAGE FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................................126
SPACE ADVANTAGE FRONTLINE....................................................................................................................126
WARMING ADVANTAGE FRONTLINE................................................................................................................................127
WARMING ADVANTAGE FRONTLINE..............................................................................................................127
SOLVENCY FRONTLINE ................................................................................................................................................128
SOLVENCY FRONTLINE .....................................................................................................................................128
SOLVENCY FRONTLINE................................................................................................................................................129
SOLVENCY FRONTLINE.....................................................................................................................................129
JAPAN CP SOLVENCY- TECH CAPABILITIES.....................................................................................................................130
JAPAN CP SOLVENCY- TECH CAPABILITIES................................................................................................130
GENERAL CP SOLVENCY - US IS NOT KEY....................................................................................................................131
GENERAL CP SOLVENCY - US IS NOT KEY...................................................................................................131
................................................................................................................................................................................131
....................................................................................................................................................................................131
GENERIC ECONOMY TURN............................................................................................................................................132
GENERIC ECONOMY TURN................................................................................................................................132
................................................................................................................................................................................132
....................................................................................................................................................................................132
AT: OIL DEPENDENCE BAD ........................................................................................................................................133
AT: OIL DEPENDENCE BAD ...............................................................................................................................133
FUN FACT..................................................................................................................................................................134
FUN FACT.................................................................................................................................................................134
Baylor Debate Workshops 8
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Advantage Map:

1. Assist in achieving national energy independence from current liquid fuel providers
1. Reduce level of national interest in unstable regions
2. Reduce national dependence on unfriendly foreign governments
3. Reduce the risk of energy competition wars in the 21st Century
2. Assist allies in achieving their national energy independence
1. Develop and strengthen broad international partnerships
2. Participate in international energy consortia and alliances
3. Economic: Become an energy exporter
1. Increase national ability to influence or avoid geopolitical events
2. Increase GNP, wealth of the nation, and increase tax revenue
3. Use energy earnings to pay off national debt
4. Environmental: Dramatically reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere
1. Prevent food wars which might happen if global warming continues
2. Enhance soft power and green credibility around the world
3. Lead the international clean energy movement by example
Baylor Debate Workshops 9
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Inherency


Observation 1: Inherency

Space Energy development not happening now because of the perception of heavy
expenses.

Sofge 2008 [Erik, “Space-Based Solar Power Beams Become Next Energy Frontier”, Popular
Mechanics, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4230315.html, DeFilippis]

A Pentagon report released in October could mean the stars are finally aligning for space-based solar power, or SBSP. According to the report,
SBSP is becoming more feasible, and eventually could help head off crises such as climate
change and wars over diminishing energy supplies. “The challenge is one of perception,” says John
Mankins, president of the Space Power Association and the leader of NASA’s mid-1990s SBSP study. “There are people in senior
leadership positions who believe everything in space has to cost trillions.” The new report
imagines a market-based approach. Eventually, SBSP may become enormously profitable—and the
Pentagon hopes it will lure the growing private space industry. The government would fund launches to place
initial arrays in orbit by 2016, with private firms taking over operations from there. This plan could limit government
costs to about $10 billion.

And Solar Space Energy is not being developed because of excessive focus on nuclear
power.

Space Future 6 [2006-06-02,Space Future- “The Space Power Business”,


http://www.spacefuture.com/power/business.shtml, DeFilippis]

Overall,there is no rational justification for not funding SPS research seriously. The reason
why it is not being funded is the institutional hang-over from the cold war - excessive concentration of energy
funding on the institutionally entrenched nuclear power industry, and domination of the launch industry
by government organizations which have preserved their high-cost launch systems - thereby making
it difficult for outsiders to understand the great potential for reducing launch costs. Indeed, some electricity
companies even think that talk of SPS is crazy - because it's easy to calculate that at today's launch costs it's out of the question. Which brings us
back to the central importance of developing suitable Vehicles; and of Space Tourism to help pay for their development.
Baylor Debate Workshops 10
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Inherency


Status quo funding is miniscule – more is needed to develop the technology – and other countries would get on
board once the US developed.
Hamilton, 2007 (Tyler, “Space-based solar power back in play,” Oct. 15, The Toronto Star, lexis)
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. 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." It also says that Canada,
among others, has expressed interest in such a project. 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 11
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Hegemony Advantage


Observation 2: The Advantages

First is Hegemony

Space based solar power is independently key to U.S. military dominance and prevents the
possibility of resource conflict.

NSS 7 [National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for
Strategic Security”, Architecture Feasibility Study, the National Security Space Office,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, DeFilippis]

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential
to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power
transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units
and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel
deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra
long-endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual
soldier himself [themselves]. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and
sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building
activities. SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to
operate independent of vulnerable ground-based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to
helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st
Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the
chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy
supply.

Space-based solar power is key to U.S. leadership in international affairs.

McCrown 8 [Debra, April 8th, “Dominion CEO Touts Using All Available Energy Options”,
http://news.edgaronline.com/news/fis_story.asp?textpath=COMTEX%5Cko%5C2008%5C04%5
C08%5C107164729.html&clientid=168&provider=KNIGHT-RIDDER, DeFilippis]

Lt. Col. Paul Damphousse, of the National Security Space Office, spoke about a solution he thinks can replace fossil fuels --
including coal -- within the next four decades: space-based solar power. He said it's an important technology to
maintain U.S. leadership in the world while eliminating international conflicts that arise
over energy resources. "We consider that the fourth generation after wood, coal and oil," Damphousse said, adding that the
technology is bringing the concept closer to reality. Ultimately, it will be up to the private sector to develop the space
technology, but government can do a lot to help by demonstrating that it can work, he added. Also during the conference, Wise County
Administrator "Skip" Skinner announced plans for a "research and development center" adjacent to UVA-Wise in the Lonesome Pine Regional
Business and Technology Park. "We think that this is a perfect location in the heart of the coalfields just to be able to prove and do research on
some of these technologies," Skinner said. He said cost estimates and job creation numbers are still being developed, but with the help of a $1
million grant from the Virginia Tobacco Commission, he expects to break ground in 18 months on the Appalachia America Energy Research
Center. J. Glynn Loope, speaking for NanoChemonics Corp., said the company plans to occupy a 15,000-square-foot building that will initially
have six employees.
Baylor Debate Workshops 12
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Hegemony Advantage


SPS can solve military’s energy dependence and guarantee readiness.

Smith, 2007 (Colonel M.V. “Coyote” Smith, is a PhD student in the strategic studies program under Professor Colin
Gray at the University of Reading in the UK and an expert on spacepower, “The Goal for 2050 and the Build
Forward,” Aug. 7, Space Solar Power, http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/the-goal-for-2050/,
accessed 7/7, JDC)

To give you a basis for analysis, by 2050 the goal is to have forty or so concentrator-photovoltaic space-based solar power (SBSP) satellites in
geostationary orbit, each broadcasting via microwave between 2-5 gigawatts of power to terrestrial electrical power grids, with 1-to-5 broadcast
antennas that can beam power to as many locations. This must be done using a sound business case. John Mankins calculates that this can be
achieved by keeping the costs of delivery and assembly on orbit below $3,500 per kilogram–keeping the cost to customers below $0.10 per
kilowatt/hour. This will drive robotic assembly and tug systems to pull these enormous structures from low orbits to geostationary. On orbit
fueling stations will be required. Paul Werbos believes the best way to do this is to get launch costs down below $200 per kilogram. But several
other factors help make the business case. For example, if
the price of other energy sources goes up it helps to close
the business case for SBSP. Other factors include the efficiencies associated with solar collectors,
energy conversion, antennas/rectennas, signal path loss, etc. Dennis Wingo and others have suggested that the first customers for
space-based solar power will be international–in areas such as India and Japan where the price per kilowatt/hour is astronomical compared to the
Americas or Europe. All of this goes into making the business case. There will also be times when space-based solar
power becomes priceless. When the Tsunami crushed the Pacific rim, when Hurricane Katrina flattened America’s Gulf
Coast, and when United Nations forces responded to the beleaguered Darfur region the value of simply broadcasting power
immeidately to the relief efforts would have been priceless in assisting the salvation of countless lives and facilitated
the more immediate recovery of these disaster torn regions. Keep in mind American and Allied forces operating inside Iraq. Convoying
petroleum through the streets of Iraqi cities is a large source of casualties…and the electrical
power plants that convert that petroleum into electricity are under frequent attack…and the lights go out…and the people
aren’t happy. As I’ve mentioned before, one of our defense analysts calculated that the U.S. is paying between $300-to-$800 per gallon for fuel
delivered to the Iraqi electric plants. Mike Hornetschek reports that 70% of all logistics movements inside Iraq is petroleum. Inside Iraq, at this
very moment–where people are dying–a
supply of space-based solar power would have that priceless quality.
And this
is true wherever military forces and others are engaged not only in combat, but in nation
building, humanitarian relief, disaster response, etc, etc, etc. The question was posed to me today, “What does the
military need.” Here goes: According to Mike Hornitschek, a military base inside the United States consumes approximately 10 megawatts of
electrical power. Forward military base overseas are consuming approximately 5 megaWatts of electrical power. I need space-based
solar power satellites of the 5 megawatt class. Let’s say by 2015. This capability will transform our logistics and reduce
our vulnerabilities. The development of this class of space-based solar power satellite is designed to deliver that priceless quality of
energy. Best of all, it can be done with current technology using current spacelift vehicles. Think
about that. But most important of all, developing the 5 megawatt class of satellite gets the ball rolling towards the 2050 vision that started this
discussion. We WILL learn a great deal and we WILL find new efficiencies. We may make huge adjustments in the trade spaces as detailed in a
previous discusion, and must be prepared to do so. In pressing ahead to field a 5 megawatt system, we will also be building the space industrial
base and developing the rquisite spacefaring infrastructure to make the business case for the 2050 vision all the more viable. There will likely be
cities or regional utilities that will want to buy their own 5 megawatt satellite (or larger) as a backup, which will help the business case even more
and give us a better look at problems that lie waiting for us as we build bigger systems.

Readiness is key to solve war—absent plan, nations will lash out perceiving our weakness.
Spencer, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security at the Heritage foundation, 9/15/00
(Jack, the facts About Military Readiness,” Backgrounder # 1394, DeFilippis]
www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm)
Military readiness is vital because declines in America’s military readiness signal to the rest of
the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially
hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests,
inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more
likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national
interest, thereby preserving peace.
Baylor Debate Workshops 13
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Hegemony Advantage


U.S. leadership solves every impact—extinction is only possibly without hegemony

Thayer 6—professor of security studies at Missouri State—(Bradley, “In Defense of Primacy”,


November/December, The National Interest, p. 32-37)
A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power-the diplomatic, economic and
military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to
maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into
the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of
primacy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include
isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might;
and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence
abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be
avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that
would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the
United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America
remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military,
economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has
overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or
tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who
advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of
retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action but they fall to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of
primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as
its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil
flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and
protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in
Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental
objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present
grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to
play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from
threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by
declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making
unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will
respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens
aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront
the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the
United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects
the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies
overseas, away from .American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait
while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical,
on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted,
U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global common"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space-allowing
the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of
power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent ca-
A remarkable fact about international
pabilities is increased.' This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly.
politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is
that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in
most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own
purposes, their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their
security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements-and they include almost all of the major economic and
military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states
aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S.
Baylor Debate Workshops 14
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Hegemony Advantage


<Thayer Continues without Deletion>

primacy--and the bandwagoning effect-has also given us extensive influence in international


politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such
influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free
Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows
the United States to operate with allies outside of the where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq
stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter.
The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A.
Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to
halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are
the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezeula. Of course, countries like India, for example,
do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of
Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states
because it is a rising great power. But even
Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from
openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting
communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable
future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba-it is an anti-U.S.
regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability
have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.

Everything we think of when we consider the current international order-free trade, a robust
monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly
linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the
current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most
significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages
followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S.
power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Rai
Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to
ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for
Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states
that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of
complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea
and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending
all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does
reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American
power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so
is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006
issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading
democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once
states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any
type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do.
Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things
amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as
for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle
East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough
for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy
in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short
run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan,
where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military
power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not
yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive .
Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the
growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an
Baylor Debate Workshops 15
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for
international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets.

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Hegemony Advantage


And, literally no negative scenario can happen in the world of the aff—SBSP solves warming
and eliminates the possibility of war.

Morgan 2007 [James, “Ray of Hope on Energy,” Science Notebook,


http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do, July 9, BLS]
These dreams were always shot down by the costs - exorbitant when compared with the plentiful reserves of fossil fuels. Now, with spiraling
oil prices and the threat of runaway climate change, the balance has tipped, according to the National Security Space Office, part of the
Department of Defense. Its study claims that space-based solar power (SBSP) could be economically competitive in the near future. In just a
year, it calculates, satellites orbiting in a continuous sunlight could generate energy nearly equivalent to all of
the energy available in the world's oil reserves. Not only might that put the brakes on global warming, it
says, it could help to stifle the wars and political tension that the oil trade creates. The result - a
peaceful world."This is a solution for [humyn]mankind," said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman
of the space f light advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation, at the unveiling of the report in Washington. The report
urges the US government to invest GBP5bn in a pilot project, to spur private investment in the concept. It argues that SBSP could generate so
much power it could transform the gas guzzling United States into an energy-exporting nation.
Baylor Debate Workshops 16
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Energy Independence Advantage


Advantage 2: Energy Independence

Solar technology leads to global energy independence

NSS 7 [National Space Society, October, “Space Solar Power—Limitless clean energy from
space”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm, DeFilippis]
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and transmits
it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the
right direction, but solve.
Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every
person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is
literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making
space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far
the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This
technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly
all the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers few
vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel
cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation — but only if we can generate the enormous
quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to
generate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric transportation
system. While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other
energy sources. Advantages of Space Solar Power (also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP) Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants,
space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon
increasingly scarce fresh water resources. Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm
land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider. Unlike nuclear power plants,
space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar and
wind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight,
or wind speed. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not provide easy targets for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, space
solar power does not require environmentally problematic mining operations. eliminating a major Space
solar power will
provide true energy independence for the nations that develop it, source of national
competition for limited Earth-based energy resources. Space solar power will not require
dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs, enabling us to expend
resources in other ways. Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world, and its
energy can be converted for local needs — such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there are
no electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar power can take advantage of our current
and historic investment in aerospace expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and
climate change. Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation system that is required for its
deployment. This, in turn, will also bring the resources of the solar system within economic reach.
Baylor Debate Workshops 17
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Energy Independence Advantage


Global dependence on oil directly fuels terrorism, global economic collapse, and genocidal
regimes. The only option is universal energy independence—possible through solar space
power—which solves literally every scenario for extinction. The mere endorsement of the
affirmative is enough to break us from the slavery of terrorism and set into motion a
political movement in favor of energy independence.

Bengston 8 [Ron, http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/, compilation of articles from:


U.S.News & World Report, The Saudi Connection, Friedman (Pulitzer Prize winning columnist),
New York Times, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Detroit Economic Club, and
Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security, DeFilippis]
A powerful idea is spreading through America. It is a call to this generation to take action and decide the course of history by declaring and
fighting for American Energy Independence. Following the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the idea of energy independence captured the imagination of
the American people. Then during the 1980's, increased automobile fuel efficiency and new oil discoveries created a surplus of oil on the world
market, and America’s enthusiasm for energy independence faded into memory. Now, more than thirty years after the oil embargo, re-awakened
by the terrorist attack on 9/11 and war in the Middle East, the idea of American energy independence has returned with a vengeance, becoming a
powerful force shaping the political views of a new generation of Americans. Oil is no longer viewed as just another commodity. In the minds
and hearts of the American people, oil
has become associated with terrorism, political corruption,
corporate greed, and global warming. The 1973 Arab oil embargo interrupted the flow of oil causing severe gasoline
shortages and long lines at gas stations. The embargo exposed America's growing oil dependence and gave the American people their first
warning of the price they would pay for continued dependence on imported oil. The 1979 Iranian revolution interrupted the flow of oil again —
this was the second warning, signaling the urgent need for American Energy Independence. The 1991 Persian Gulf War was a military
intervention to stop one dictator from taking control of Middle East oil — this was the third and most severe warning. Failure
to make
energy independence the nation’s highest priority after the Gulf War demonstrated that the
United States did not have the political will to free itself from dependence on foreign oil.
September 11, 2001 was a preview of America's future – one possible future. America stands at a
crossroad, a choice between two very different futures. One choice leads to increased dependence on foreign oil
and a future dominated by terrorism and war. The other choice leads to American energy
independence and a world economy that is no longer desperate for oil. Today, the world consumes over 80
million barrels of oil every day (over 30 billion barrels per year); the USA alone consumes over 20 million barrels per day (over 7 billion barrels
per year). At $100 per barrel, the global petroleum industry is a three trillion dollar a year business. Development
of alternative
energy to free the world from oil dependence will create a seismic shift within the economic
foundation of the world. Oil is a natural source of energy, but it is not the only source of energy. With the help of new
technology, America’s energy needs can be obtained from sources other than petroleum. American
technology has put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome, and successfully landed robotic exploration vehicles on Mars. It seems
reasonable to believe that American scientists and engineers could also develop environmentally safe alternative energy technology that would
It is time for America to lead the development of new energy
free America from oil dependence.
technology that will free the USA and the entire world from dependence on oil. Freedom
from oil dependence will cut-off the flow of oil money to the Middle East and put an end to the
financial support of militant Islam. The global expansion of militant Islam is financed by
Middle East oil wealth. In the U.S. oil means gasoline. Every time you fill your gas tank, some
of the money will find its way into the hands of Islamic extremists who are planning the
next terrorist attack. Strength and National Security through Energy Independence. Future wars could be
prevented if everyone who has taken a stand against the war in Iraq would turn their passion
toward the goal of American Energy Independence. Standing against war is not enough – Standing together
for Energy Independence will create a positive political force and a shared national dream.
Is there anyone who still cannot see the connection between the flow of oil money into the Middle East and the flow of terrorism out of the
Middle East? “The meteoric rise of oil revenues in the 20th century meant a new era for Islam; oil
revenues were the catalyst that converted passive resentment into Islamic Terrorism...” Nexus—OIL
and AL Qaeda By Frank H. Denton, Ph.D, U.S. Foreign Service (Retired). “The rise of terrorism by militant Islam against
Baylor Debate Workshops 18
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Energy Independence Advantage


<Continues>

the United States and the West coincided with the rise in oil prices of 1979-80 and the subsequent transfer of
hundreds of billions of dollars from the West to Muslim countries.” – Max Singer, senior fellow, The Hudson Institute. How billions in oil
money spawned a global terror network: “Starting in the late 1980s—after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in
Afghanistan—Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20
countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members. The charities were part of an
extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for
hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement...” The Saudi Connection
By David E. Kaplan U.S.News & World Report “Exactly how much the Saudis have spent to spread Wahhabism is unclear.” David D.
Aufhauser, a former Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee that estimates went north of $75 billion. “The total spent
annually is between $2 billion and $2.5 billion,” he said. Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic movement that has its roots in the extreme
Islamic Takfiri ideology, which is a religious belief that encourages its followers to use violence as a means to achieve their goals. The war
against Islamic terrorism cannot be won without cutting off the flow of oil money to the Middle East Thomas Friedman The New York Times
Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign affairs columnist “No matter what happens in Iraq, we cannot dry up the swamps of authoritarianism and violent
Islamism in the Middle East without also drying up our consumption of oil—thereby bringing down the price of crude. A democratization policy
in the Middle East without a different energy policy at home is a waste of time, money and, most important, the lives of our young people. We
need a president “At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to
challenge the tyranny of oil.
For the very resource that has fueled our way of life over the last hundred
years now threatens to destroy it if our generation does not act now and act boldly. We know what the
dangers are here. We know that our oil addiction is jeopardizing our national security—that we fuel our
energy needs by sending $800 million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile
regimes in the world. We know that oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the
Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq.” U.S. Senator Barack Obama Speech on Energy Policy: Watch the Video or Read the Text
May 07, 2007 The Detroit Economic Club “Al Qaeda must revel in the irony that America is effectively helping to fund both sides of the
war.... As we sacrifice blood and treasure, some of our gas dollars flow to the fanatics who build the bombs, hatch the plots, and carry out attacks
on our soldiers and citizens.... The
transfer of American wealth to the Middle East helps sustain the
conditions on which terrorists prey.” U.S. Senator John McCain Speech on Energy Policy: Watch the Video or Read the
Text April 23, 2007 Center for Strategic and International Studies Energy: The Most Important Issue of 2008 — Speech given by U.S.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) on December 18, 2007 at the Brookings Institution on U.S. Energy Security and the 2008 Presidential Election.
“Today, I would state unequivocally, that energy security and the economic and environmental issues closely associated with it should be the most
important topics of the 2008 Presidential election. I say this deliberately, notwithstanding the existence of extremely important immediate
concerns such as the war in Iraq and the performance of the American economy, as well as persistent public policy struggles that have confronted
us for decades, such as deficit reduction, health care, and social security. I say this even in the context of my own long standing evangelism
related to non-proliferation and arms reduction, issues which I believe have not diminished in importance. “Three factors lead me to the
conclusion that energy is the most vital topic of this Presidential election: “First, energy is the issue with the widest gulf between what is
required to make our nation secure and what is likely to be achieved through the inertia of existing programs and Congressional proposals. As
such, it is the issue on which meaningful progress most depends on the great intangible in American public policymaking – the application of
dramatic, visionary, and sustained Presidential leadership. “Congress and private enterprise can make evolutionary energy advancements, but
revolutionary national progress in the energy field probably is dependent on presidential action. Our energy dependence is
perpetuated by a lack of national will and focus. Only the President has the visibility to elevate a
cause to national status, and only the President can leverage the buying power, regulatory authority, and legislative
leadership of an administration behind solving a problem that is highly conducive to political
procrastination and partisanship. “Second, transformational energy policies are likely to be a
requirement for achieving our economic and social aspirations here at home. In an era when
exploding global demand for energy creates high prices and fears of scarcity, the U.S. economy
is likely to continue to underperform. Our ability to address social security, health care, education, and
overall budget problems will be heavily encumbered over both the short and the long run if we do not
mitigate our energy import dependence. Almost any scenario for recession will be deepened by
high energy costs. Moreover, many of the most severe recession scenarios involve sustained energy disruptions due to terrorism, war,
embargo, or natural disaster. “Third, energy is the underlying condition that exacerbates almost every
major foreign policy issue. We pressure Sudan to stop genocide in Darfur, but we find that the
Sudanese government is insulated by oil revenue and oil supply relationships. We pressure Iran to stop its
uranium enrichment activities, yet key nations are hesitant to endanger their access to Iran’s oil and natural gas. We try to foster global
respect for civil society and human rights, yet oil revenues flowing to authoritarian governments
are often diverted to corrupt or repressive purposes. We fight terrorism, yet some of the hundreds of billions of dollars
Baylor Debate Workshops 19
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Energy Independence Advantage

<Continues>
we spend each year on oil imports are diverted to terrorists. We give foreign assistance to lift people out of poverty, yet energy-poor countries are
further impoverished by expensive energy import bills. We seek options that would allow for military disengagement in Iraq and the wider
Middle East, yet our way of life depends on a steady stream of oil from that region. American national security will be at risk
as long as we are heavily dependent on imported energy The final 2008 U.S. Presidential candidates, John
McCain and Barack Obama, have voiced their support for energy independence. For this reason, American voters will choose a pro-energy
independence candidate for President in 2008. However, voters should understand that Republicans and Democrats define energy independence
differently. While some Republicans reject the idea of energy independence, most Republicans acknowledge and accept the need for energy
security; indeed, many Republicans are passionate about it. Republican candidates who advocate energy independence are talking about
economic and global energy security. When Republican candidates speak of energy independence they are campaigning for expanding oil
production in Alaska and opening the oil fields off the coast of California (an oil resource potentially larger than Iraq). Republicans want all of
America's natural resources available for energy production, including all federal lands that hold oil, natural gas, coal and oil shale deposits. The
estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale located in the United States is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of
Saudi Arabia. Republicans also support the development of technology to produce coal-to-liquid transportation fuels—an American resource that
is greater than all of the oil in the Middle East. On the other hand, when Democrats speak of energy independence they are usually talking about
independence from any and all fossil fuels as well as independence from nuclear energy. Democrats tend to play down or deny the threat of oil
financed Islamic militancy, preferring instead to focus on the threat of Global Warming. It is important to acknowledge that energy
independence and global warming are separate issues. American voters need to understand the relative priority. Global Warming is a
sustainability issue that must be solved as the world progresses toward complete global modernization. In contrast, global
oil
dependence is an immediate threat, a clear and present danger. Metaphorically speaking, the threat of greenhouse gas
emissions is like the threat of cancer from prolonged cigarette smoking; In contrast, the threat of oil financed terrorism is like
a coiled rattlesnake immediately on the path in front of a day-dreaming hiker. OPEC (Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries) produces about 40% of the world’s oil today, which translates to OPEC getting 40 cents on every dollar paid for
oil anywhere in the world. Current OPEC members are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Venezuela. All are Islamic countries except Venezuela which has partnered with Iran. In 2007, over 700 billion dollars flowed into OPEC from
oil hungry countries around the world. How much of that money was given to support the worldwide advance of Islamic terrorism? With
rising oil prices, OPEC revenue is expected to exceed one trillion dollars in 2008. It doesn’t
matter where oil comes from. If the oil comes from a well in Wyoming, California, Texas, Canada, Mexico, Russia, or the North
Sea it doesn’t make any difference because oil is a global commodity. The price is the same for everyone in the world. Demand
anywhere increases demand everywhere. So it is always true that OPEC gets 40 cents on every
dollar paid for oil anywhere in the world. It averages out to that fact. Islamic terrorism, as a global threat
to civilization, cannot sustain itself without the massive oil revenue that finances it. (That does
not mean their feelings and beliefs will not sustain, it just means they will have limited influence without the oil wealth.) Islamic
militancy is emboldened by the perception of power and dominance that Islam derives from the
world’s dependence on oil — oil that the world must get from Arab countries. Eliminate world oil dependence
and the Islamic extremists will be deflated psychologically. Ronald Reagan is credited for defeating
Communism without firing a shot; by economically isolating and suffocating the Soviet Union, while at the same time enticing their leaders and
people toward freedom. In a similar way,
initiating action toward achieving global independence from
petroleum (as a source of energy) will lead to the defeat of Islamic terrorism.
Baylor Debate Workshops 20
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Energy Independence Advantage


Terrorism culminates in extinction

Sid-Ahmed, 2004 (Mohamed, columnist for Egypt's respected Al-Ahram newspaper and one of the Egypt's top political analysts,
“Extinction!” 8/26)

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and
this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no
knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs
dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes
the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations
of a
terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a
sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be
unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further
exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living.
Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and
religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It
would also speed up the arms race and develop the
awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still
more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will
emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and
losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Military reliance on fossil fuels is the root cause of conflict and military overstretch.
Erwin, 2006 (Sandra I., “Energy Conservation Plans Overlook Military Realities,” National Defense Magazine, September,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/DefenseWatch.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)
Are skyrocketing oil prices just a temporary drain on the U.S. economy or a lasting national security threat? If one is to draw conclusions from a
recent stream of Pentagon policy directives, studies and congressional rhetoric, the Defense Department will soon have to get
serious about taming its gargantuan appetite for fuel, most of which is imported from the volatile Middle East. “The
fact is that nearly every military challenge we face is either derived from or impacted by one thing: our reliance
on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources,” says Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who co-founded a “defense energy working group” with
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and former CIA Director James Woolsey. “In a world where we borrow money from China to purchase oil from
unstable Persian Gulf countries to fuel our Air Force planes that protect us against potential threats from these very countries, it’s high-time to
make the choices and investments necessary to protect our country,” Israel says. When oil prices began to surge, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld issued one of his trademark “snowflake” memos asking aides to come up with energy-saving schemes and technologies, such as hybrid
vehicles and innovative power sources. In truth, it is hard to see how Rumsfeld’s directive could change the reality of a military that
mostly operates guzzlers, and has no tangible plans to change that. Just two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency
gave the Pentagon a “national security exemption” so it can continue to drive trucks with old, energy-inefficient engines that don’t meet the
emissions standards required for commercial trucks. The Army once considered replacing the mother of all fuel-gorgers, the Abrams tank engine,
with a more efficient diesel plant. But the Army leadership then reversed course because it was too expensive. Most recently, the Army cancelled
a program to produce hybrid-diesel humvees, and has slowed down the development of other hybrid trucks in the medium and heavy fleets. The
Air Force has been contemplating the replacement of its surveillance, cargo and tanker aircraft engines, but the project was deemed too costly,
and not worth any potential fuel savings. Subsequent to Rumsfeld’s 2005 snowflake, a number of military and civilian Pentagon
officials have been eager to publicize various science projects aimed at energy conservation, such as research into synthetic fuels,
biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, wind farms and solar power, to name a few. But while these efforts have paid off on the public-
relations front, they are not expected to translate into any real energy savings, at least for the foreseeable future. “In the
short term, there is very little that politicians or anyone can do about the military’s dependence on fuel for
transportation,” says Herman Franssen, an energy consultant and researcher at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. New technologies in synthetic fuels and fuel cells will take decades to produce realistic alternatives that can
migrate to military vehicles, airplanes and non-nuclear powered ships. For at least the next 20 to 30 years, says Franssen, “oil will still be the
most important fuel.” Synthetic fuels are mostly a pipe dream. The only country that makes any significant amount of synthetic fuel is
South Africa, whose apartheid government was forced to find an alterative to petroleum in the 1970s during a trade embargo. “The technology
exists, but it’s costly and creates environmental problems,” Franssen says. Biofuels are promising, but it will be decades before they
can substantially help to reduce oil consumption. Currently, just 4 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States is mixed with
corn-derived ethanol.
Baylor Debate Workshops 21
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Energy Independence Advantage

Overstretch kills hegemony and U.S. leadership

Haass, 2005 (Richard N, “The Case for "Integration”, The national interest,
http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle
&mid=1ABA92EFCD 8348688A4EBEB3D69D33EF&tier=4&id=A561B96740654978B3472EFEEB14C84F)

The second question is whether there will be sufficient capacity to carry out a foreign policy premised on integration. Integration requires U.S.
leadership, which in turn requires U.S. strength. The United States will need considerable economic and military
resources to meet the significant challenges of this era and to discourage a renewed great power challenge. The
United States enjoys considerable primacy, but how long this primacy will continue is in doubt given the emergence of
enormous fiscal and current account deficits, a strained military that may well be too small, an energy policy that leaves the United
States overly dependent on costly imported oil and an educational system that over time seems likely to diminish U.S. competitiveness.
Doctrines and foreign policy more generally do not operate in a vacuum; integration or any other American
approach to the world will only succeed if carried out by a country that is both able and willing to devote the
requisite resources to the many tasks at hand.
Baylor Debate Workshops 22
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Space Colonization Advantage

Advantage 3: Space Colonization

The development of SPS will spontaneously lead to space colonization because of profit
motive.

Space Future 6 [2006-06-02,Space Future- “The Space Power Business”,


http://www.spacefuture.com/power/business.shtml, DeFilippis]

to get a feel for why using solar energy delivered from space is a good idea it helps if you use a
In order
little imagination and envisage
where it will lead - the world humans will live in when SPS is a major
energy source. Then it's easier to understand why it would obviously be a good direction for technological development to aim at today -
instead of being almost completely ignored! Where will the energy come from? As said elsewhere, a simple way to think of the energy problem
(or at least a large part of it - electricity) is that we have roughly 1 kW of electricity generation capacity per head in the rich countries. So it's easy
to calculate what happens if everyone in the world plans to reach this level. Electricity demand is still growing, even in the richest countries,
despite their efforts to save energy. But the poorer countries are industrializing fast, and the world population is also due to double over the next
50-100 years to about 10,000 million people. So total electricity capacity will grow to around 10,000 Gigawatts - about 10 times today's level. (In
addition, of course, today's electricity plants only last a few decades, so the existing 1000 GW of capacity will all have to be replaced too.) So in
round figures this means that we'll have to build about 100 GW of CLEAN electricity plant per year on average through the next century. This is
THE major challenge facing humans over the next century, since we don't yet know how to provide such vast amounts of electricity without
destroying the environment. So all promising ideas need to be investigated. . Solar energy is certain to provide a growing portion of this energy.
Despite minimal government funding to date - in total, perhaps 1/1000 of the funding given to nuclear power - the use of solar energy in many
different forms continues to spread. Among others, the production and use of photo-voltaics (solar cells) also continues to spread as the
technology improves year by year - faster than official energy departments ever predict(!) But of course solar energy is diffuse, intermittent, and
unreliable in many parts of the world. It's an old idea So back in 1968 the American engineer, Peter Glaser, explained the potential advantages
of an additional way of using solar energy - collecting it in space and transmitting it to Earth as microwaves: it's more intense, it shines 24 hours a
day, and could be delivered more or less anywhere - even when cloudy. So in the 1970s (yes, THAT long ago) the US Department of Energy
( DOE) spent about $20 million on some studies of " SPS" (short for Solar Power Satellites, Satellite Solar Power Stations and various other
phrases). They designed a "Reference System" 5 km-by-10 km rectangular satellite using solar cells to generate DC, and 2.45 GHz microwave
beams to transmit it to Earth.The US DOE concluded that SPS would indeed be feasible - after all it's only what
satellites do today, though on a scale a million times larger; it
would be environmentally clean - converting microwaves to DC is
highly efficient; but they calculated that it was much too expensive. So almost all work in the USA and
Europe stopped. NASA even gave away their whole SPS archive! That was a mistake! It was like asking the Wright brothers to design an
aeroplane to carry 300 passengers across the Atlantic - and then giving up aviation research because their design looks too expensive to compete
with ships! Why SPS? In 1910 the Wright brothers couldn't design a Boeing 747. Likewise, today we can't know what power-satellites will look
like decades in the future. Particularly at a time when, as we all know, engineering capabilities are advancing faster than ever before. However,
we do know a number of things for certain: Photovoltaic cells are getting cheaper and more efficient all the
time - they're part of the semi-conductor industry, the fastest-moving field of engineering. And just as the use of solar cells is
growing continually on Earth, despite the huge subsidies given to other forms of energy, so the
prospects of using solar cells in space for energy supply to Earth are getting better literally every
day. […,] 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. Potential for the space industry It's easy to see that the price of
these materials in the orbital markets will be of the order of $100,000 per ton (based on the target of $100 /
kg or so for reusable launch vehicles) - almost 100 times higher than on Earth. So companies are going to work out that if they could deliver
Baylor Debate Workshops 23
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Space Colonization Advantage

<Continues>

these materials from the Moon (or from asteroids and comets) to Earth orbit at less than this price, they'll have ready customers. So they'll
be
able to raise finance to develop Moon mines, processing equipment,linear-motor launchers and
so on, and will repay it by selling the materials they produce to the orbital power-satellite
manufacturing companies. For just as soon as it becomes cheaper than buying materials launched from Earth (taking into account
all the details of quality, types of alloy, etc), orbital SPS fabricators will buy these extra-terrestrial materials. And they'll pay for them out of the
growing stream of commercial revenues that they earn from selling $billions per year of electricity into the insatiable energy markets of Earth.
Getting started Furthermore, not a penny would be needed from the taxpayer; not a politician need be
lobbied or paid off. It'll happen in the ordinary course of competitive business evolution, just as
soon as people can make a profit by it. And once that happens of course, the door to our space future will
really be open - forever. And that's why an SPS pilot plant project like SPS 2000 is so important - to get
started! People sometimes say "But geo-stationary orbit will get crowded" or "We should build solar power systems on the Moon's surface" or
some other pet project. Right, right - there are loads of different possibilities - and may the best ones win. But we can't now predict accurately
which is going to be the best investment. Once we can just get started, so some companies are actually earning serious, genuinely commercial
money in space, different companies will invest in different projects and fight it out commercially - to the advantage of the customers. And the
scale of such business makes all current space activities trivial by comparison.

Human extinction is inevitable—human development necessitates catastrophic


consequences like nuclear conflict, disease spread, and natural disasters—the only way to
extend humanity indefinitely is through space colonization.

Huang 5 [Michael, “Spaceflight or Extinction”, cites Carl Sagan who was a professor of
astronomy and space sciences at Cornell University, cites J. Richard Gott III who is a professor
of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, cites Martin Rees who is a professor of
cosmology and astrophysics and Master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.
http://www.spaext.com/, DeFilippis]

[If there are civilizations elsewhere in the universe,] Their eventual choice, as ours, is spaceflight or
extinction. Carl Sagan ...the only factor that appears to have improved a family of organisms’ chance
of survival was widespread geographic colonization at the time of the event. The Columbia Encyclopedia
The goal of the human spaceflight program should be to increase our survival prospects by
colonizing space. J. Richard Gott The aim of astronautics is “to extend life to there”, to establish habitats
beyond Earth. This should be achieved not only for its intrinsic value, but to ensure the safety of the human
species through a critical stage of its development. A civilization restricted to the surface of a
single planet has inevitable threats to its long-term existence. Natural threats such as
epidemics and impacts from space objects, and [human, DeFilippis] man-made threats such as
nuclear and biological war, will be joined by new threats from emerging sciences and
technologies. If we have self-sufficient human settlements throughout the solar system, and access to
life support technology on Earth, humankind would have a secure future. A global catastrophe, although
terrible, would not end the human species and the potential of a universe filled with intelligent
life. We have a choice between two possible futures: spaceflight or extinction. To do nothing is a choice
for the second future. The aim of this web site is to contribute towards the first. The theme of this book is that humanity is
more at risk than at any earlier phase in its history. The wider cosmos has a potential future that could even be infinite.
But will these vast expanses of time be filled with life, or as empty as the Earth’s first sterile seas? The choice may depend on us, this century.
Martin Rees
Baylor Debate Workshops 24
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Solvency


Thus the Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase financial and technical
support for the development and deployment of Space Based Solar Power.

Observation 3: Solvency

The USFG should incentivize the development and deployment of Space-Based solar power – key to space
colonization and asteroid use.

NSSO 7 [National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”,
Architecture Feasibility Study, the National Security Space Office,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, DeFilippis]
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.

Space-based solar power is key to economic development, environmental protection, and conflict resolution.

NSSO 7 [National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”,
Architecture Feasibility Study, the National Security Space Office,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, DeFilippis]

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 25
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

1AC Solar Space Power Aff – Solvency


U.S. leadership will lead to international collaboration on Solar Space Power.

Mankins 2007 [October 10th, “Leading Scientists and Thinkers on Energy – John C. Mankins “, Qualifications: John
C. Mankins is the President of ARTEMIS Innovation Management Solutions LLC, a research and development management consulting start-up;
He is internationally recognized as a successful leader in space systems and technology innovation, as a highly effective manager of large-scale
technology R&D programs, and as an accomplished communicator. He is also one of the foremost authorities on the subject of space solar power
(SSP). Mr. Mankins led NASA’s SSP “Fresh Look Study” in the mid-1990s, managed the SSP Exploratory Research & Technology (SERT)
Program, and is the creator of several important SSP systems concepts, including the SunTower, the Solar Clipper, and others. He serves as the
President of the Sunsat Energy Council (also known as the “Space Power Association”), a non-profit international group founded in 1978 by Dr.
Peter Glaser, that promotes the potential of SSP for future application on Earth and in space. Mr. Mankins has authored numerous papers and
articles on the topic of SSP and has testified before the U.S. Congress on the topic on several occasions.
http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-%E2%80%93-john-c-
mankins/,

Evolutionshift.com: Clearly, the U.S. government needs to lead the way on this. Should a new department be created or can
NASA and the DOE work together on this? Mankins: The question is, how best for the U.S. government to take a leadership role in space solar
power? That really depends on the policies worked out by the Administration and the Congress. NASA, DOE or any other Agency
will not work on space solar power unless the Administration gives them the assignment to do so. Lots of
organizations could take a hand in this; it is such an enormous challenge. During 2002-2004, NASA worked with the National Science
Foundation on space solar power R&D—a partnership that was very successful. Also in the past, DOD organizations such as DARPA, the Office
of Naval Research or the Air Force Research Laboratory have all played critical roles in national-scale innovations. On the government side, there
probably must be a formal office somewhere—just where and how remains an open question. Ultimately, the individuals involved (and the
charter of they receive) are more important that the details of the organization, or where it resides. However, it probably should not be
entirely a government responsibility. In the nearer term, companies should play key roles in innovation R&D—that’s
what they’re best at doing. Then, when the time comes for larger scale technology demonstration on the ground or in space, it probably
makes sense for these demos to be implemented through government, industry—and probably international—partnerships.
Evolutionshift.com: Sounds like what is needed is a massive effort similar to the Apollo Space project. Should this be a multi-national effort?
Should the U.S. take the lead? Mankins: I think that a better analogy for space solar power might be with a different example from the 1950s-
1960s: the development of communications satellites. Success in this arena required both high levels of technological
innovation, driven by economics, as well as organizational innovation (inside government, in industry and in partnerships of the
two). Apollo was a tremendous success, but it was very single-minded—and gave no real attention to economics-driven innovation. Space
solar power R&D MUST have these elements, or there’s no hope for the vision. Concerning international efforts: the
answer is a strong “YES”! The development of space solar power must be an international undertaking—and the
U.S. should definitely play the leadership role in pulling together that effort.
Baylor Debate Workshops 26
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Global Warming


Ground-based solutions to climate change are ineffective—space-based energy is key to
stop warming.

Hanley 8 [Charles J, “'Drilling Up' Into Space for Energy `Beam Me Down Some Energy': Giant
Pentagon, Tiny Palau Eye Space Solar Power”, AP Special Correspondent The Associated Press,
The Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4045164, DeFilippis]

While great nations fretted over coal, oil and global warming, one of the smallest at the
U.N. climate conference was looking
toward the heavens for its energy. The annual meeting's corridors can be a sounding board for unlikely "solutions" to
climate change from filling the skies with soot to block the sun, to cultivating oceans of seaweed to absorb the atmosphere's heat-
trapping carbon dioxide. Unlike other ideas, however, one this year had an influential backer, the Pentagon, which is investigating whether
space-based solar power beaming energy down from satellites will provide "affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy
for mankind." Tommy Remengesau Jr. is interested, too. "We'd like to look at it," said the president of the tiny western Pacific nation of Palau.
The Defense Department this October quietly issued a 75-page study conducted for its National Security Space Office concluding that space
power collection of energy by vast arrays of solar panels aboard mammoth satellites offers a potential energy source for global U.S. military
operations. It could be done with today's technology, experts say. But the prohibitive cost of lifting thousands of tons of
equipment into space makes it uneconomical. That's where Palau, a scattering of islands and 20,000 islanders, comes in. In September,
American entrepreneur Kevin Reed proposed at the 58th International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad, India, that Palau's uninhabited Helen
Island would be an ideal spot for a small demonstration project, a 260-foot-diameter "rectifying antenna," or rectenna, to take in 1 megawatt of
power transmitted earthward by a satellite orbiting 300 miles above Earth. That's enough electricity to power 1,000 homes, but on that empty
island the project would "be intended to show its safety for everywhere else," Reed said in a telephone interview from California. Reed said he
expects his U.S.-Swiss-German consortium to begin manufacturing the necessary ultralight solar panels within two years, and to attract financial
support from manufacturers wanting to show how their technology launch vehicles, satellites, transmission technology could make such a system
work. He estimates project costs at $800 million and completion as early as 2012. At the U.N. climate conference here this month, a Reed partner
discussed the idea with the Palauans, who Reed said could benefit from beamed-down energy if the project is expanded to populated areas. "We
are keen on alternative energy," Palau's Remengesau said. "And if this is something that can benefit Palau, I'm sure we'd like to look at it." Space
power has been explored since the 1960s by NASA and the Japanese and European space agencies, based on the fundamental fact that solar
energy is eight times more powerful in outer space than it is after passing through Earth's atmosphere. The energy captured by space-based
photovoltaic arrays would be converted into microwaves for transmission to Earth, where it would be transformed into direct-current electricity.
Low-orbiting satellites, as proposed for Palau, would pass over once every 90 minutes or so, transmitting power to a rectenna for perhaps five
minutes, requiring long-term battery storage or immediate use for example, in recharging electric automobiles via built-in rectennas. Most
studies have focused instead on geostationary satellites, those whose orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth keeps them over a single location, to
which they would transmit a continuous flow of power. The scale of that vision is enormous: One NASA study visualized solar-panel arrays 3 by
Each such mega-orbiter might produce 5
6 miles in size, transmitting power to similarly sized rectennas on Earth.
gigawatts of power, more than twice the output of a Hoover Dam. But how safe would those beams be? Patrick
Collins of Japan's Azabu University, who participated in Japanese government studies of space power, said a lower-power beam, because of its
breadth, might be no more powerful than the energy emanating from a microwave oven's door. The beams from giant satellites would likely
require precautionary no-go zones for aircraft and people on the ground, he said.Rising oil costs and fears of global
warming will lead more people to look seriously at space power, boosters believe. "The climate
change implications are pretty clear. You can get basically unlimited carbon-free power
from this," said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society in Washington. "You just have to find a way to make it
cost-effective." Advocates say the U.S. and other governments must invest in developing lower-cost space-launch vehicles. "It is
imperative that this work for `drilling up' vs. drilling down for energy security begins
immediately," concludes October's Pentagon report. Some seem to hear the call. The European Space Agency has scheduled a conference
on space-based solar power for next Feb. 29. Space Island Group, another entrepreneurial U.S. endeavor, reports "very positive"
discussions with a European utility and the Indian government about buying future power from
satellite systems. To Robert N. Schock, an expert on future energy with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, space power doesn't look like science fiction.
Baylor Debate Workshops 27
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Global Warming


Warming destroys all life on earth
Dr. John Brandenberg, Physicist, Dead Mars, Dying Earth, 1999, p. 232-3
The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices such as
inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let’s
imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous
synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major
nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon
desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in
central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event
occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents
do not occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and
Russia… Suddenly, the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and
release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down as
oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the
oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even
more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the
oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to
Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See, I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!”
Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and
are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is
slowly lost – as is its water—because of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the
atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet
sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy
clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars – red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy
microbes surviving.
Baylor Debate Workshops 28
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Economy


Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse and extinction is inevitable.

Draiman 2008 [Jay, “Mandatory Renewable Energy: The Energy Evolution”, Energy Consultant
and Energy Development Specialist with over 20 years experience in energy research,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-
to-beam-solar-power-from-space.html, DeFilippis]
"We strive to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the worlds most powerful. Energy is the basis of this entire
world wealth, and for perhaps earth entire history, the sun energy has fueled all ecological and
economic systems. If early humans did not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind
would still be living in the tropical forests. Without the continual exploitation of new energy
sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial Revolution and no looming global catastrophe. In
order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without
being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America utilization
of energy sources must change. "Energy drives our entire economy. We must protect it. "Let's
face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to
a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American
way of life is not negotiable. Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to
catastrophic consequences.
Baylor Debate Workshops 29
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Tornadoes

SBSP prevents tornado formation

Eastlund et al, 2006 [Dr. Bernard J.; Lyle M. Jenkins, PH. D. physics Columbia University, Eastlund Scientific Enterprises,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/11012/34697/01656145.pdf?tp=&arnumber=1656145&
isnumber=34697>, 7/10/08, WAC]

Tornadoes represent the most dangerous and destructive of storms. A revolutionary concept for disrupting the formation of
tornadoes in a thunderstorm is proposed for evaluation. Beamed microwave energy from a satellite could heat cold rainy
downdrafts to alter convective forces in the storm cell. Such a satellite is termed a Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite (TSPS). The
TSPS is based on Space Solar Power Program (SSP) concepts and technology.

Tornadoes kill 62 people yearly. LAWLS!

King 8 [Kate, “2008 could set records for tornado deaths”, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/28/tornado.year/index.html]

The tornado killed four people in Parkersburg and two in nearby New Hartford that night; another victim died Monday from tornado-related
injuries, according to local media. The victims are among at least 110 people killed in the United States by tornadoes this year, putting 2008 on
track to be one of the deadliest years in recent history. The average for recent years is 62 tornado fatalities for
an entire year. This year's death toll is already the highest since 1998, with seven months left in the year. "It does look like it's going to
be a pretty remarkable year," said Greg Carbin, a meteorologist with the Storm Prediction Center of the National Weather Service. Among the
victims: a mother who died huddled over her 4-year-old son, protecting him from a tornado in Picher, Oklahoma, the night before Mother's Day;
a teenage girl killed when a tree fell on her home in Siloam, Arkansas, as she slept on May 2; and a 2-year-old in Hugo, Minnesota who died
The figures for tornado deaths have
Sunday after a tornado hit his home. Watch devastation in Parkersburg, Iowa »
skyrocketed over the past four years. In 2005, there were 38; in 2006, 67; and last year, 81. But
experts caution against reading too much into those statistics.
Baylor Debate Workshops 30
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Nuclear Proliferation

SBSP solves nuclear proliferation and conflicts

NSSO 2007 [SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STRATEGY SECURITY, National
Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf , Date
Accessed: 7/9/08, TJD]

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….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. SBSP will avoid energy shortages and great power conflict 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.

Prolif sparks extinction


Utgoff 2, Victor, Deputy fo Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division, Institute for Defense Analysis, 02 (Survival)
http://survival.oupjournals.org, DeFilippis]
Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons and that such shoot-outs will

have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.
Baylor Debate Workshops 31
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Natural Disasters


SPS can provide quick response to devastating natural disasters.
Business Recorder, 2007 (“PENTAGON EXAMINES USE OF SOLAR UNIT IN SPACE,”
December 25, lexis)
But it remains to be seen whether companies are willing to invest in research for space-based solar power because, even if the considerable
Hopkins
technical challenges of building and deploying a system can be overcome, profits would remain years - if not decades - away.
acknowledges the real technical challenges space-based solar power would face, but said investment is
needed now to develop clean and renewable energy. The system would include building kilometre-sized arrays that
would float in space and feed energy into a satellite that would beam it back to earth with a laser or microwave. Antennas on the ground would
collect it and turn it into electricity. One of the major challenges would be building a satellite that would have to be many times larger than the
International Space Station and launching it into space. The NSSO, in a recent study, concluded that Congress
should spend 10
billion dollars over the next 10 years to build a test satellite. The Pentagon's interest in the system
also has simple strategic implications. The NSSO study said fuel in Iraq is expensive and US soldiers
lose their lives guarding fuel convoys. With space-based solar power US bases would simply get
the energy they need from space. "This may provide troops abroad in unfriendly or ill-equipped territory with power," the study
said. Space-based solar power could also support humanitarian or peacekeeping missions in
remote regions of the world, and could respond to areas where power has been knocked out by
natural disasters, the NSSO said. The US government first began exploring generating solar power from arrays in space in the late 1960s,
but the idea was abandoned because it was thought to be too expensive and the necessary technology was not available.
Baylor Debate Workshops 32
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add-On- Natural Disasters


Natural Disasters culminate in extinction
SID-AHMED 2005 (Mohamed, Al-Ahram Online, Jan 6-12, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm,
DeFilippis)

The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What
happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic
disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has
become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater
magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in
the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be
moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life.
Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between [Humanity] Man and Nature. At
least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its
exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human
species than any harm it can inflict on itself. Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to
arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat
could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed following the devastating
earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26
December. This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and
shaken the sanguine belief that the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort
ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only
materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any way. We are now forced to live with the
possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.
Baylor Debate Workshops 33
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add On- Asteroids

Space solar power can be the anchor for a system to deflect an asteroid collision that could lead to the
extinction of humanity.

Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,”
Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host, JDC)

Large near-Earth object impacts, while they are comparatively rare compared to calderia volcanoes as a natural initiator of global
catastrophes, are of special interest as sufficient space capability would enable deflection of destruction of the
incoming object—thus fully preventing the catastrophe. This has been the subject of considerable recent literature and
while many different approaches have been proposed all of them require a considerably greater space infrastructure than currently available. The
size of asteroid required to create a global catastrophe is a matter of some debate. Harrison et al. [21] suggest that 1 km size object is just below a
threshold where global effects could cause a catastrophe level event. Whereas Rigby
et al. [22] argue a 1 km object could
have caused the Dark Ages in the 6th Century AD. So a system capable of handling a 1 km object
would be the minimum required to deal with potential global catastrophe level events. The size of
system that could deflect a NEO sufficiently to avoid collision with the Earth is also uncertain and is strongly dependent upon the assumptions
made on size, orbit and timescale. A small asteroid with centuries until the potential impact may be deflected sufficiently by a single nuclear
device (e.g. [23]), which is probably just about possible with the current space infrastructure. However, a
large comet with only a
year or two warning would require systems well beyond current capability. There have been
proposals for large orbital systems to deflect asteroids for example that outlined by Campbell et al. [24]. To
deflect an iron asteroid using a pulsed laser was estimated to need peak powers of 200 GW, which would
correspond to a continuous power supply requirement in the order of 20 GW. This is the output of two reference SPS
satellites giving a good indication of the size of system required for this technique. One suggested
location was a Sun Earth Lagrange point.
Baylor Debate Workshops 34
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

2AC Add On- Tech Leadership


SBSP is key to American technological and scientific leadership—boosts U.S. educational competitiveness.

NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,”
October 10, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over


FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that
US intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising
Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true “Manhattan or Apollo project for energy.” In
absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the
Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and helped the
US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was “deeply
concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic
leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP
would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐paying jobs. It would require
expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the
American Competitiveness Initiative.
Dominance in education and technology is key to maintain leadership which solves extinction

Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis, DeFilippis)

To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the
economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial
revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take
advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such
transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the
change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S.
economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by
strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology.[…] Under the third
option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the
indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because
a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world
would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would
help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another
global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more
conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Baylor Debate Workshops 35
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** Inherency Extensions ******************


Baylor Debate Workshops 36
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Inherency: general
SBSP not being developed because of budget restrictions
Dinerman 2008 [Taylor, “NASA and space solar power,” The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1, July 8, BLS]

NASA has good reason to be afraid that the Congress or maybe even the White House will give them a mandate to
work on space solar power at a time when the agency’s budget is even tighter than usual and when everything that
can be safely cut has been cut. This includes almost all technology development programs that are not directly tied to the Exploration
Missions System Directorate’s Project Constellation. Not only that, the management talent inside the organization is similarly under stress.
Adding a new program might bring down the US civil space program like a house of cards.

Costs are preventing R&D for space technology

Mankins 2008 [Space-Based Solar Power-Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit’, The Magazine of
the National Space Society, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, Date
Accessed: 07/09/2008, ZB

Lower-Cost Space Systems and Operations. The cost of space activities has several
important components, including the cost of the hardware (initial and recurring), the
cost of the people involved inoperations and sustaining engineering, and the cost of
launching the system (and its consumables) into space. As a result of these factors, a
major spacecraft development project can cost many tens, if not hundreds,of
millions of dollars. The International Space Station will have cost approximately $35 billion
dollars in hardware, and perhaps that much again in launch costs by the time it is
completed around 2010. (Fortunately, those costs have been spread across some 25 years
and shared by 16 international partners.)

Status quo funding is miniscule – more is needed to develop the technology – and other countries would get on
board once the US developed.
Hamilton, 2007 (Tyler, “Space-based solar power back in play,” Oct. 15, The Toronto Star, lexis)

High oil prices, energy security fears and the potentially devastating effects of climate change have prompted the U.S. government to again
An agency
explore the idea of placing millions of solar panels in orbit to beam immense amounts of clean power back to Earth. Seriously.
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. 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." It also says that Canada,
among others, has expressed interest in such a project. 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 37
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Inherency: attitudinal

Most significant barriers to achieving alternative energy is the cost and the will

Dinerman 2007[Taylor, Space Journalist ,Space Solar Power: Why do we need it and what do we need to
get it, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/868/1, 7/9/08, MNN]

One certainly hopes so, but there is an alternative that is within our technological grasp: space solar power. The
scientific and engineering principles are well understood. The biggest obstacles are cost, of course, and the will to do
it. According to one estimate, large-scale solar electricity production could begin on the Moon within 20 years at a per kilowatt price of 10 to 15 percent
premium over current rates. There are other estimates that tend to be more optimistic, but this one sounds about right.

Government is Wary About Making Solar Power Subsidies

Laura Meckler et al, [Reporter, McCain Raises Concerns About Subsidies for Solar Power] Wall Street
Journal May 13, 2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/13/mccain-raises-concerns-about-subsidies-for-
solar-power/, Date Accessed 7/9/08, MEC

Sen. John McCain made clear today that he is not comfortable with subsidies for solar power, though he has
supported incentives for nuclear power plants and thinks more federal support is needed to encourage the industry. John McCain walks near
Chester Morris Lake with state and local officials North Bend, Wash., Tuesday. (AP Photo/Seattle Times Pool) At a roundtable conducted in the
foggy foothills of the Cascade Mountains in North Bend, Wash., McCain listened to the chief executive of REI, the outdoor recreation and
clothing cooperative; explain what her company is doing to minimize its impact on the climate. He asked her a simple question: “What do you
want me to do?” Sally Jewel replied, “It’s a great question,” and went on to explain that REI plans to open 10 solar-powered stores in Arizona,
California and Oregon (in sunnier markets, she noted, than the rain-soaked one he was in at the moment). The problem, she said, is
there are no federal incentives to help defray the costs. “There isn’t anything significant on the federal side to help us make
the right decisions,” she said. “We’re trying to do the right thing without really any incentives.” McCain replied that he
preferred for the federal government to invest in research and development, not subsidies. “I’m a little wary–I have to give you
straight talk–about government subsidies,” he said. He cited his long-time opposition to ethanol subsidies, which have helped
push up the price of corn and increase the price of food. “When government jumps in and distorts the market, then there’s unintended
consequences as well as intended,” he said. He said over-subsidization of the solar industry in the 1970s led to “some
pretty shoddy material.”

Politics hold SBSP back—Government not read to fully finance

Boswell 2004 [David Whatever happened to solar power satellites? The Space Review, August 30, 2004,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1, Date Accessed 7/9/08]

In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in
funding renewable energy research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion
industry on their own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but
rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further
development.
Baylor Debate Workshops 38
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** Hegemony Advantage Extensions ******************


Baylor Debate Workshops 39
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Hegemony Advantage : Military Dominance


Space solar power is crucial to military readiness.

Morring 7 [Frank Jr, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, “NSSO Backs Space Solar Power”, Oct 11
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.xml, DeFilippis]

Collecting solar power in space and beaming it back to Earth is a relatively near-term possibility that could solve
strategic and tactical security problems for the U.S. and its deployed forces, the Pentagon's National Security Space Office
(NSSO) says in a report issued Oct. 10. As a clean source of energy that would be independent of foreign supplies in the strife-
torn Middle East and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could ease America's longstanding strategic energy vulnerability,
according to the "interim assessment" released at a press conference and on the Web site spacesolarpower.wordpress.com. And the U.S.
military could meet tactical energy needs for forward-deployed forces with a demonstration system, eliminating the
need for a long logistical tail to deliver fuel for terrestrial generators while reducing risk for eventual large-scale
commercial development of the technology, the report says. "The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," said
Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul E. Damphousse of the NSSO, in presenting his office's report. That could change if the Pentagon were to act as an
anchor tenant for a demonstration SSP system, paying above-market rates for power generated with a collection plant in geostationary orbit
beaming power to U.S. forces abroad or in the continental U.S., according to Charles Miller, CEO

Military power key to Heg

Gardner 4 [Stephen, Manaing director of www.euro-correspondent.com, June 04 “Questioning American


Hegemony,” http://www.nthposition.com/questioningamerican.php, DeFilippis]

The second main underpinning of the orthodoxy of American hegemony is American military power. US
military spending is vast. It will be an estimated USD 400 billion in the budget year 2005, dwarfing the defence
spend of any other country. The US has the world's most technologically advanced and potentially devastating
arsenal. Once again, the media reflects the orthodoxy that American military might is hegemonic. In The Observer
in February 2002, for example, Peter Beaumont and Ed Vulliamy wrote, "The reality - even before the latest
proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied
behind its back."
Baylor Debate Workshops 40
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Hegemony Advantage : Readiness Extensions

Space solar power key to military flexibility.


Simpson, 2007 (Jason, Energy Washington Week, “'Critical' Space-Based Solar Power Capability Could Cost
$10 Billion,” 11/7, lexis nexis)

The Defense Department has a "large, urgent and critical need" for secure, reliable and mobile
energy delivery to the warfighter, but one solution could cost upward of $10 billion and take four decades to
come to fruition, according to a report from the National Security Space Office. In the spring and summer, the
group conducted Internet discussions with more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal and
business experts around the world to answer the question: "Can the United States and partners enable the
development of a space-based solar power [SBSP] system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if
constructed could provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, and expandable energy for its
consumers?" "It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for
creating SBSP is improving with each passing year," the report, dated Oct. 10, states. The idea is to place
"very large solar arrays" into a "continuously and intensely" sunlit Earth orbit, collect gigawatts of electrical energy,
electromagnetically beam it to Earth and receive it on the surface for use either as electricity or manufactured
synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. Space-based solar power presents a strategic opportunity that could significantly
advance United States and partner security, capability and freedom of action, and, while "significant
technological challenges remain," SBSP is "more technically executable than ever before."

SBSP solves military dependence on oil.


NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7,
JDC)

the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that
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
the
troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon,
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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 41
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** Energy Independence Advantage Extensions


******************
Baylor Debate Workshops 42
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Energy Insecurity  Conflict

Expanding human populations will create conflict for resources- DOD is supportive of SBSP

Rouge, 2007 [Joseph D., SES Acting Director of the National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power

As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”, National Security Space Office, <http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-


assessment-release-01.pdf>, 7/9/08, WAC]

The first suggestion of a solar power satellite was in 1968, but early estimates put the price tag around $1 trillion, largely because astronauts
would have had to construct the facility back then. Now robots can do the job, installing improved-efficiency solar cells in a modular fashion, for
100 times cheaper than before. "If you decide to go now with today's technology, you're talking about the same cost as
ground-based solar," Hopkins said, which is around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's still too high, according to Hopkins, but he
thinks costs will continue to come down, especially if development dollars start coming in. The Pentagon-sponsored report offered a
roadmap for how to build a 10-megawatt test satellite over the next 10 years for $10 billion.

America is at threat of those who look to destabilize energy markets

Rouge, 2007 [Joseph D., SES Acting Director of the National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security”, National Security Space Office, <http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf>, 7/9/08,
WAC]

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 secur
ity is now under threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy de
mand competition by emerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too depen
dent on foreign oil, often imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelera
ting the deployment of clean technologies to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ign
ite 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 43
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  Energy Independence


SBSP solves world’s energy needs

Declard 2007 [Maryo, “SBSP: Meeting Humanity’s Energy, National Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needs,” Space
Frontier Foundation, www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViewsSBSPReport10Oct07.pdf, July 9, BLS]

There are 6 billion human beings inhabiting this world. Six billion humans who place demands on this Earth. Humans who want the Western
standard-of-living and who justifiably want all the conveniences of modern life. A fundamental challenge in this century is how to
provide for the world's growing energy needs. While meeting this challenge, it is vital that we also protect the Earth's fragile
biosphere. Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP, may be part of a combined solution for both energy and the environment. SBSP has the
potential to produce renewable energy in very large amounts, in an economic and environmentally-friendly
manner.
SBSP solves global energy dependence

Morring 2007 [Frank Jr., “SSP; Experts See Warming, Economic Concerns and Energy Security as Reasons to Build SSP,” Aviation Week and
Space Technology,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T41312493
51&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4131249354&cisb=22_T4131
249353&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=6931&docNo=2, July 9, BLS]

Growing energy worries and rapidly improving technology are giving new impetus to the 40-year-old space solar
power (SSP) concept, offering a clean way to meet the long-term energy needs of the global economy.

Space solar power solves increasing energy prices

Whittington 2005 [Mark R., “Power From the Sun: The Promise of Space Solar Power,” GoogoBits,
http://www.googobits.com/articles/2807-power-from-the-sun-the-promise-of-space-solar-power.html, July 8, BLS]

Due to advances in technology and the increase in energy prices, interest in space solar power has revived to a certain
degree. The world uses 13 terrawatts of energy per year at the present time. In about fifty years, that amount is estimated
to increase to 30 terrawatts. Some people believe that space solar power is one solution to finding that needed energy,
without causing pollution.
Baylor Debate Workshops 44
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  Energy Independence


SBSP solves energy dependence

National Space Society 2007 [Independent and educational non-profit organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring civilization,
“Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm , Date
Accessed: 7/8/08, CAK]

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. In March of 2007, the National
Security Space Office (NSSO) Advanced Concepts Office (“Dreamworks”) presented this idea to the agency director. Recognizing the potential
for this concept to influence not only energy, but also space, economic, environmental, and national security, the Director
instructed the Advanced Concepts Office to quickly collect as much information as possible on the feasibility of this concept. Without the time or
funds to contract for a traditional architecture study, Dreamworks turned to an innovative solution: the creation on April 21, 2007, of an open
source, internet-based, interactive collaboration forum aimed at gathering the world’s SBSP experts into one particular cyberspace.
Discussion grew immediately and exponentially, such that there are now 170 active contributors as of the release of this report—this study
approach was an unequivocal success and should serve as a model for DoD when considering other study topics. Study leaders organized
discussions into five groups: 1) a common plenary session, 2) science & technology, 3) law & policy, 4) infrastructure and logistics, and 5) the
business case, and challenged the group to answer one fundamental question: Can the United States and partners enable the development and
deployment of a space-based solar power system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed could provide affordable, clean,
safe, reliable, sustainable, and expandable energy for its consumers? Discussion results were summarized and presented at a two-day conference
in Colorado on 6-7 September graciously hosted by the U.S. Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense
Studies.
Baylor Debate Workshops 45
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SPS solves Energy Wars

SBSP key to solve future energy wars by providing limitless energy.


Smith, 2007 (Colonel M.V. “Coyote” Smith, is a PhD student in the strategic studies program under Professor Colin Gray at the University of
Reading in the UK and an expert on spacepower, “Space Solar Power: Much More Than Clean Energy,” Ju. 16, Space Solar Power,
http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/space-solar-power-much-more-than-clean-energy/#more-45, accessed 7/7, JDC)

We must always keep in mind that space-based


solar power systems confer additional independence from
foreign energy sources and the entanglements they so often engender. Also, as traditional energy
resources become scarcer and competition for them increase, energy provided by space-based solar power
systems help reduce the incentives for energy wars. In addition, eventually we will be able to broadcast power from
space to places in dire need of energy such as sites of natural or manmade disasters, war zones, and areas of the world without much
infrastructure.

SBSP solves resource wars


NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7,
JDC)

FINDING: 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 Agenc 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 46
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Energy Dependence  Recession

High Energy Prices can lead up to a possible recession

Scherer, 2008 [Ron, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Soaring energy prices bad news for the economy, The Christian Science
Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0221/p03s01-usec.html?page=1, 07/09/08, Z.B]

The sharp rise is already showing up at the gas pump. Between Tuesday and Wednesday, the price of gasoline rose 4
cents a gallon, reports GasPriceWatch.com. Since Feb. 9, gasoline prices nationally are up 10 cents a gallon, for an average price of
$3.05 a gallon. For the economy, the run-up could not come at a worse time. Many economists believe the US economy
is teetering on the edge of a recession. Higher energy prices act as a tax on consumers, absorbing money that would
normally be used to buy other things. If energy prices remain this high – or go higher – they could begin to eat into
the rebate checks that the government is planning to start sending taxpayers in May. "This is bad for the consumer
and the economy," says Dennis Jacobe, chief economist at the Gallup Organization in Washington. "It will be an
offset to the fiscal stimulus everyone is talking about."

High Energy Prices can lead up to a possible recession

Hagenbaugh 2008 [Barbara, USA Today, Energy prices could drain energy out of the economy, http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-
04-27-energy-econ-usat_x.htm, 07/09/08 Z.B]

In a USA TODAY survey of economists taken April 20 to 25, 40% said higher energy prices are the No. 1 risk for
the economy. While other risks were cited, such as a decline in the housing market and terrorism, energy was the top concern.
Economists mentioned that higher energy prices pose potential troubles for both economic growth and inflation.
Some economists, such as Richard DeKaser of National City and Tim McGee of U.S. Trust, say they're concerned.
It's not just the level of energy costs that matters. The timing of the latest oil surge could spell trouble, particularly
for consumers.
Baylor Debate Workshops 47
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Energy Dependence  Recession


Effects of different energy sources greatly effect the economy

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 04 [Energy prices and the economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/indepth/2004/id0402.html , 7/9/8, EMD]

Higher oil and natural gas prices have raised concern about the possible fragility of the U.S. economic recovery that is under way. Higher crude
oil prices squeeze refiner's margins, and higher prices for petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel raise
costs for the transportation sector. Higher domestic natural gas prices put considerable pressure on the U.S.
petrochemicals industry—which has to compete against foreign competitors that use crude oil or lower-priced foreign sources of natural
gas. It also raises costs for petrochemicals users. Higher natural gas prices also hurts domestic fertilizer producers, and
makes crop production more costly.[1] Higher energy prices also have a considerable effect on electric utilities and their
customers. As an energy-intensive sector, aluminum production can also be affected by higher energy costs, which can raise costs for
manufacturers that use aluminum in their products. Of course, oil and natural gas producers are helped by higher prices—as are oilfield services,
and oilfield equipment manufacturers. On balance, the U.S. economy has responded poorly to higher energy prices in
the past. As shown in Figure 1, nine of the ten post-World-War-II recessions (shown in gray bars) were preceded by sharply rising oil prices
(highlighted in green).[2] Oil prices did yield four false signals during the 1980s and 90s. So rising oil prices need not mean a recession, but the
historical relationship between energy prices and recession still raises a concern

Rising energy prices collapses the economy

Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer,[ Stimulus Unlikely to Counter Rise in Oil Prices],
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003506.html, Date
Accessed 7/8/08, MEC

Rogoff estimated that the increase in oil prices over the past five months "could easily translate into half a percent of GDP." He said: "It's not the
biggest problem on the horizon compared to the collapse of housing prices, the crisis in productivity or the never-ending credit crunch. But it's
not helpful." He added that losing half a point of growth could be enough to throw the weakened economy into recession.
Higher oil prices not only slow growth but also add to inflation, raising the specter of stagflation like that of the 1970s. "Energy
price increases, especially now that energy once again is becoming an ever-larger part of consumer spending and business costs, are
both recessionary and inflationary," said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics. And that, he said, makes
higher oil prices "a very bad kind of tax increase. They add to costs and can be part of an upward spiral of price inflation, which
possibly feeds back into wage inflation and more price inflation."

Oil prices will collapse the economy

William Nordhaus, The Economist Journalist, [Shock treatment],


http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10130655, Date Accessed 7/9/08, MEc The file
name is Koby

Higher oil prices hurt the economy because they act like a tax increase. Firms that use oil face higher costs which, if they cannot
be passed on in higher prices, might mean that some production becomes unprofitable. Consumers paying more for
their petrol and heating oil have less to spend on other things. If they look for higher wages to compensate for a drop
in purchasing power, that will only lead to job losses. Oil-producing countries benefit from higher crude prices so the impact on
global demand depends how their extra income is spent. But even if oil windfalls are spent largely on goods produced by oil importers, the
abrupt shift in the distribution of global income will still be destabilizing.
Baylor Debate Workshops 48
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Oil Dependency  Overstretch

Oil dependence is sapping military power – we need to break the addiction.


Harrington, 2007 (Caitlin, “Future generation: US alternative energy development, August 22,
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/triservice/jdw/jdw070822_1_n.shtml, accessed 7/7, JDC)

In his 2006 State of the Union address, US President George Bush


surprised critics of his proconsumption energy
policy by describing the nation as "addicted to oil" and calling on the Department of Energy to
aggressively seek energy alternatives. Sceptical US journalists and Washington-based energy analysts have since questioned
whether the president who recently authorised a multibillion dollar arms deal with six oil-producing Middle Eastern regimes is serious about
reducing US consumption of foreign oil. They doubt whether the Bush administration, which in 2001 took the position that high oil consumption
is "an American way of life", would be willing to invest major resources in efforts to reduce foreign oil dependence. More than a year later,
however, a US government agency with no formal role in domestic energy regulation - the US Department of Defense - appears
poised
to prove those critics wrong. The Pentagon has emerged as a leader behind some of the Bush
administration's most promising efforts to break the US oil addiction. The US Air Force (USAF), Army and Navy
(USN) are each spearheading fast-paced initiatives to develop new energy-saving technology and synthetic fuels that will reduce US military
reliance on oil. Taking the strategy a step further, senior Pentagon officials have also begun to articulate plans for creating a commercial market
for the production of alternative fuels for civilian and commercial uses. At the June 2007 Paris Air Show, for example, USAF Secretary Michael
Wynne and Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey held a joint press conference to urge traditional fuel suppliers and alternative energy
companies to produce an efficient synthetic fuel for commercial and military aviation. Sceptics may ask what incentive the
Pentagon has to pursue in earnest a range of energy alternative programmes. The exploding cost
of the US military's oil consumption was the number one reason cited by senior US defence
officials. "There are several major drivers here, but number one is - let's face it - cost," William Anderson, the USAF Assistant Secretary for
Installations, Environment and Logistics told Jane's. The US military is the single largest fuel consumer in the US;
the Pentagon spent USD10.9 billion on energy supplies in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05). Every USD10 dollar increase in the
price of a barrel of oil costs the US military one billion dollars in operating costs. Equally
burdensome are the indirect costs of US dependence on foreign oil. Estimates of the US
military's annual investment in the troops, infrastructure and other assets needed to secure US
and allied access to oil in the Middle East range from USD44.4 billion to more than USD150
billion a year.
Baylor Debate Workshops 49
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** Space Colonization Advantage Extensions


******************
Baylor Debate Workshops 50
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Uniqueness : Axn now key

U.S. is losing the space race—other countries will obtain space leadership if U.S. does not engage in space.

AFP 5/29 [2008, Agence France Presse, “Aldrin warns US risks falling behind in space race”,
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/06/30/aldrin-warns-us-risks-falling-behind-in-space-
race/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fafp%2F20080629%2Fts_alt_afp%2Fusspacepoliticsaldrin_080629163229&frame=true,
DeFilippis]

Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, warned in an interview published Sunday that the United States risked falling behind Russia
and China in the space race if it did not redouble its efforts. Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, Aldrin urged US presidential
candidates John McCain and Barack Obama to "retain the vision for space exploration" and said he would lobby both to ensure they increased
funding for NASA. "If we turn our backs on the vision again, we're going to have to live in a secondary position in
human space flight for the rest of the century," Aldrin was quoted as saying by the weekly. "All the Chinese have to do is
fly around the Moon and back, and they'll appear to have won the return to the Moon with humans. They could put
one person on the surface of the Moon for one day and he'd be a national hero." Aldrin warned, as well, that Russia could
adapt and enlarge its Soyuz system to better accommodate space tourists, taking the lead there. "Globalisation
means many other countries are asserting themselves and trying to take over leadership," he said. "Please don't
ask Americans to let others assume the leadership of human exploration." He said he was trying to "assemble the best
advice to two new candidates who are approaching election" and added that he wanted to get "in there and talk to them because it's (space
exploration) so important."
Baylor Debate Workshops 51
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Space Colonization Adv. – Extinction Coming / Coloniz. Key

Risk of human extinction is high – we have to get off the rock and space power is key.
Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59,
Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host, JDC)

Global catastrophes (events that cause the death of more than a quarter of world population [1]) can
credibly be caused through either natural events or through human activity. Indeed global catastrophes due to natural events
have occurred several times in human history with devastating consequences both in terms of
human life and social organisation [2]. The probability of naturally caused global catastrophe
events is high, with an average separation of around a thousand years and have a typical mortality at least a third of
the population. This makes the probability of death caused by a natural global catastrophe 0.024, that is five times larger than the
probability of death in a road accident in the UK [3]. To the risk of natural events must now be added the risk of
anthropogenic catastrophes. The ability of mankind to produce effects on a global scale is recently acquired and is growing rapidly.
It follows that the probability of an anthropogenic global catastrophe cannot be determined from history or reliably from analysis and is a matter
of opinion. However, manyworks considering current threats place the probability much higher than the historical natural
Given the high probability of a global catastrophe, and
figures—for example, Rees [4] suggests a 0.5 probability.
that in addition to the large mortality, these events also put the fabric of society at risk; it has been
argued that this should be among the highest priority of governments [5]. Previous work has drawn attention both to
the complexity of global catastrophe events and to the commonality of the agents involved regardless of the cause [2], enabling some blanket
preparations to cover a wide range of possible events. A correctly targeted capability can be a “comprehensive insurance cover” for many
Given that global catastrophes, by definition, encompass the whole of the Earth, such
potential threats.
provisions need to be of a global scale and be as immune as possible to the chain of events. Elsewhere, it has been argued that
these requirements are best met by space industrialisation which can be the most effective response to the risks
involved and should be the key focus of space infrastructure development [5]. This paper looks specifically at the
role space generated power can play in this regard. The potential role of a space power capability falls into two broad classes. The first class is
the direct use of energy produced by the systems to directly deal with the undesirable consequences of a developing catastrophe event. The
second class of impact is consequential; the
technology and infrastructure required to implement a significant
space power capacity will, by serendipity, significantly affect the general capability to address
global catastrophe events.
Baylor Debate Workshops 52
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Space Leadership Adv. – Inevitable Without US / Must Be First

At best your impact turns are inevitable – we’ll win a risk of ours because space mil. Is inevitable it’s onlya question of who can control
it to secure their hegemony.
MILLER 7 / 15 / 2002 (John J., “Our ‘Next Manifest Destiny’: America should move to control space – now, and decisively”, National Review,
l/n)

Space power is now in its infancy, just as air power was when the First World War erupted in 1914. Back then, military planes initially were used
to observe enemy positions. There was an informal camaraderie among pilots; Germans and French would even wave when they flew by each
The lesson for
other. Yet it wasn't long before the reality of war took hold and they began shooting. The skies were not to be a safe haven.
space is that some country inevitably will move to seize control of it, no matter how much
money the United States sinks into feel-good projects like the International Space Station.
Americans have been caught napping before, as when the Soviet Union shocked the world with
Sputnik in 1957. In truth, the United States could have beaten the Soviets to space but for a
deliberate slow-down strategy that was meant to foster sunny relations with the world's other
superpower. The United States is the world's frontrunner in space, with about 110 military satellites in
operation, compared with about 40 for Russia and 20 for the rest of the world. Yet a leadership role in space is not the same
as dominance, and the United States today lacks the ability to defend its assets against
rudimentary ASAT technology or to deny other countries their own weapons in space. No country
appears to be particularly close to putting weapons in orbit, though the Chinese are expected to launch their first astronaut in the next year or two
and they're working hard to upgrade their military space capabilities. "It
would be a mistake to underestimate the
rapidity with which other states are beginning to use space-based systems to enhance their
security," says the just-released annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute. At a U.N. disarmament conference two years ago, Chinese officials called for a treaty to keep weapons out of space -- a possible
sign that what they really want is some time to play catch-up.
Baylor Debate Workshops 53
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Space Leadership Adv. – SBSP = Space Leadership

SBSP key to space leadership – without dominating space America’s preeminence is doomed.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7,
JDC)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission
which called o 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 2st 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 infrastrucure 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 intrduction 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 arospace 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 investment 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 54
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  Space Colonization


Space based solar tech is key to lunar, orbital, and Martian colonization.

Globus 8 [7/8, Al, “Where Should We Build Space Colonies?”, Globus is on the National Space Society Board of Directors and is a senior
research associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center,
http://space.alglobus.net/Basics/where.html, DeFilippis]

That leaves Mars and the Moon. However, both bodies are greatly inferior to orbital space colonies in every way except for access to materials.
This advantage is important but not critical; lunar and asteroid mines can provide orbital colonies with everything they need.
Mars has all the materials needed for colonization: oxygen, water, metals, carbon, silicon, and nitrogen. You can even generate rocket propellant
from the atmosphere. The Moon has almost everything needed, the exceptions being carbon and nitrogen; water is only available at the poles, if at
all. Orbit, by contrast, has literally nothing - a few atoms per cubic centimeter at best. How can you build enormous orbital colonies if there is
nothing there? Fortunately, Near Earth Objects (NEOs, which include asteroids and comets with orbits near Earth's) have water, metals,
carbon, and silicon -- everything we need except possibly nitrogen. NEOs are very accessible from Earth, some are easier to get to
than our moon. NEOs can be mined and the materials transported to early orbital colonies near Earth. The Moon can also
supply metals, silicon, and oxygen in large quantities. While developing the transportation will be a challenge, colonies on Mars and the Moon
will also face significant transportation problems. […, DeFilippis] Energy In orbit there is no night, clouds, or atmosphere. As a result, the
amount of solar energy available per unit surface area in Earth orbit is approximately seven times that of the Earth's surface. Further, space
solar energy is 100 percent reliable and predictable. Near-Earth orbits may occasionally pass behind the planet, reducing or
eliminating solar power production for a few minutes, but these times can be precisely predicted months in advance. Solar power can
supply all the energy we need for orbital colonies in the inner solar system. Almost all Earth-orbiting satellites
use solar energy; only a few military satellites have used nuclear power. For space colonies we need far more power, requiring
much larger solar collectors. Space solar power can be generated by solar cells on large panels as with current
satellites, or by concentrators that focus sunlight on a fluid, perhaps water, which is vaporized and used to turn turbines. Turbines are used
today by hydroelectric plants to generate electricity, and are well understood. Turbines are more efficient than today's solar cells, but they also
have moving parts and high temperature liquids, both of which tend to cause breakdowns and accidents. Both panels and concentrator/turbine
systems can probably work, and different orbital colonies may use different systems. Understand though that orbital colonies can have
ample solar-generated electrical energy 24/7 so long as sufficiently sized solar panels or appropriate concentrator-turbine systems can
be built. This is a matter of building what we already understand in much greater quantities - which gives us the
much sought after economies of scale. Economies of scale simply means that if you do the same thing over and over, you get good at it. By
contrast, the moon has two-week nights when no solar power is available (except at the poles). Storing two weeks worth of power
is a major headache. The only ways around this are nuclear or orbital solar-powered satellites that transmit power to the
Moon's surface. There doesn't seem to be much, if any, uranium on the Moon, so fuel for fission reactors would have to be imported from
Earth. This adds a risk of launch accidents that could spread nuclear fuel into our biosphere. Spacecraft bound for the outer solar system (e.g.
Jupiter or Saturn) carry nuclear power plants now. Good containment is possible, and there's not much risk from the occasional probe, but
launching the large amounts of fuel necessary for a lunar colony would almost certainly involve an accident at some point. The risk of inattention
or mistakes is much greater for hundreds of launches per year than with one every decade. Colonizing the Moon with nuclear fuel
shipped from Earth will also be expensive, and we can probably rule it out as a practical approach to generating
large amounts of power. That leaves local sources. Helium-3, a special form of helium that suitable for advanced fusion reactors, is
available on the Moon. However, in spite of many decades of effort and billions of dollars, no one has ever built a commercially viable fusion
reactor, or even come close.The other approach to lunar power is solar power satellites. In this case, we build large satellites
to generate electricity and place them in orbit around the Moon. The energy is then transmitted to the lunar surface
during the two-week night. This is no different from the large solar power systems needed for orbital colonies, except that you also need to
transmit the power to the Moon and build a system to collect it. Thus, lunar colonization has energy disadvantages in comparison to orbital
colonization. There is a bit more friction. The energy situation for Mars is far worse. Mars is much further from the Sun than Earth so the
available solar energy is less (approximately 43 percent). Mars is 1.524 times further from the Sun than Earth. Since the amount of solar power
available is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the Sun, solar power satellites near Mars must be 2.29 times larger than those
near Earth for the same power output. As a result, solar panels on or near Mars would have to be quite large. Further, Mars has a night and
significant dust storms. Even between dust storms, dirt will accumulate on solar panels and need to be cleaned off, although robots to perform this
chore can undoubtedly be built; just a little more friction. In practice, Martian colonies will require nuclear power and/or solar power
satellites. If there is any nuclear fuel on Mars, we don't know where it is or how much is available. If nuclear fuel must be sent from Earth, it
suffers from all the same issues as the Moon, plus will take significantly longer to deliver. If a source of easily processed nuclear fuel can be
found on Mars there might be some hope, but processing and use of nuclear fuel is not an easy proposition. Large-scale nuclear energy production
on Mars is likely to be very difficult for the foreseeable future. Even with the red planet's distance from the Sun, solar power
satellites might be easier. Energy problems make Mars far less attractive for early settlement, though once solar power satellite
technology is well established by orbital colonization, it could be used for Martian colonization.
Baylor Debate Workshops 55
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  Space Colonization


Space-based solar power is key to space colonization.

Bonnici 2007 [Alex Michael Bonnici, The


Renaissance of Space Based Solar Power,
http://discoveryenterprise.blogspot.com/2007/10/renaissance-of-space-based-solar-power.html. google, july 08, 2008,
MZC]

The National Security Space Office (NSSO)’s Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) study group highlighted the
strategic importance of this untapped energy resource and advocated it development in order to safeguard
American's long term energy security in the post 9/11 world. A national commitment towards the development of space
based solar power is a major step towards our long term survival on this planet and a permanent human presence
in space which is economical sustainable and politically justifiable. 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 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. In March of 2007, the National Security Space Office (NSSO)
Advanced Concepts Office (“Dreamworks”) presented this idea to the agency director. Recognizing the potential for
this concept to influence not only energy, but also space, economic, environmental, and national security, the Director
instructed the Advanced Concepts Office to quickly collect as much information as possible on the feasibility of this concept. Without the time or
funds to contract for a traditional architecture study, Dreamworks turned to an innovative solution: the creation on April 21, 2007, of an open
source, internet-based, interactive collaboration forum aimed at gathering the world’s SBSP experts into one particular cyberspace. Discussion
grew immediately and exponentially, such that there are now 170 active contributors as of the release of this report—this study approach was an
unequivocal success and should serve as a model for DoD when considering other study topics. Study leaders organized discussions into five
groups: 1) a common plenary session, 2) science & technology, 3) law & policy, 4) infrastructure and logistics, and 5) the business case, and
challenged the group to answer one fundamental question: Can the United States and partners enable the development and deployment of a space-
based solar power system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed could provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable,
sustainable, and expandable energy for its consumers? Discussion results were summarized and presented at a two-day conference in Colorado on
6-7 September graciously hosted by the U.S. Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies.
Baylor Debate Workshops 56
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  Space Colonization


Extinction inevitable now because of environmental collapse—the only way to avert destruction of humankind is through SPS which
allows space colonization.

Hank , 2007 [Dolben Solar Power Satellites, http://nothingisperfect.home.comcast.net/~nothingisperfect/2004/02/07/, google, MZC]

In my rant against the use of space colonization as an escape from environmental stewardship, I referred to The High
Frontier by the late Gerard O'Neill. To be fair, I should point out that one of the justifications for colonization of space that O'Neill provided was
the amelioration of humanity's impact on Earth's fragile ecosystems, most significantly by the use of Solar Power Satellites (SPS) which,
by converting solar energy collected in space to microwave energy beamed to the surface of the Earth, have the potential of
supplying huge amounts of renewable energy with only the impact of microwave receiver antennas on the ground and the allocation of
some airspace to microwave beams. Even more important to the overall plan is that the economic benefit of manufacturing
SPSs in space provides an incentive to the investment required for building orbiting space habitats. Analysis showed that it is
much cheaper to mine materials from the moon and build manufacturing facilities in space than to manufacture the parts for an SPS
on Earth and lift them into geosynchronous orbit for assembly. The problem, which is not overlooked, but underestimated by O'Neill, is that
before private capital could be induced to support SPS construction, the technical feasibility of the complete system, from mining and
manufacturing to power generation and transmission, will have to be demonstrated in space. Environmental considerations alone should be
enough to get some government to fund such a program, if only there were the long term vision and political will. Again, there's the rub. Over the
last thirty years, there has been very little public support for a program to develop SPSs, even though it would give NASA a concrete purpose.
Private support, through the Space Studies Institute, founded by O'Neill, has been small though enthusiastic. The idea is by no means dead.
There is still time to do it before environmental catastrophe makes any large investment untenable. It won't cure all the ills of the biosphere
wreaked by the infestation of man, but it could help an enormous amount. (O'Neill's environmental naïveté is revealed in his contention
that ecosystems on Earth could be restored when space colonization reduced the terrestrial human population. Well,
something would grow in to replace the destroyed, unique ecosystems. Likewise, he writes of saving endangered species by providing habitat in
space, as if we could create ecosystems we were unable to preserve.) Clearly the project would be larger than the practically useless International
Space Station, but probably close in size to the pointless exercise of putting a man on Mars.
Baylor Debate Workshops 57
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules – Economic Growth


Space colonization key to economic growth

Collins 2006 [Patrick, Professor, Azabu University, “The Future of Lunar Tourism”, “Future Space Technology”,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tq8xz7ixIGsJ:www.koreAT050.net/unfforum/%3Fdoc%3Dbbs/gnuboard.php%26bo_table%3Dfuturet%26
sselect%3Dconcat(wr_subject%252Cwr_content)%26stext%3Djustice%26wr_id%3D287%26page%3D1+%22In+order+to+get+a+feel+for+why
+using+solar+energy+delivered%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us, DeFilippis]

Abstract Travel to and from the lunar surface has been known to be feasible since it was first achieved 34 years ago. Since that time there has
been enormous progress in related engineering fields, so there are no fundamental technical problems facing the development of lunar tourism --
only investment and business problems. The outstanding near-term problem is to reduce the cost of launch to low Earth orbit, which has been
famously described as "halfway to anywhere". Recently there has been major progress towards overturning the myth that launch costs are high
because of inescapable physical limits, as companies are planning sub-orbital flights at 0.1% of the cost of Alan Shepard's similar flight in 1961.
Market research shows strong demand for both sub-orbital flights and orbital services. Travel to the Moon will offer
further unique attractions: in addition to its allure arising from millennia of mythology in every country, bird-like
flying sports will surely become a powerful demand factor. The paper also explains that, far from being an activity of minor
economic importance, the progressive growth of tourism services from sub-orbital flights through lunar tourism, will
contribute greatly to economic growth on Earth and create new employment on a large scale, in the same way as the
development of tourism in Hawaii has enriched the US mainland and elsewhere. Tourism is still not a common subject at space conferences. This
paper argues that, far from being a trivial topic which "real" space engineers should ignore, it is the key to making space and lunar development
profitable -- and so unstoppable. There could hardly be a better place to discuss lunar tourism than Hawaii, because tourism is the largest business
activity in the state, and it generates huge wealth not only in Hawaii but also on the US mainland and in other places from where people trade or
invest in Hawaii. All this wealth creation starts for the simplest, most human of reasons: People enjoy being there. Many
millions of people have found that spending a few days in Hawaii makes them feel good. At first, people visited Hawaii spontaneously for its
delightful climate and scenery; this inspired entrepreneurs to work to make it convenient and affordable for more and more people to visit. This
has involved using their ingenuity to supply an ever-growing range of popular services, and has included supporting local governments to enforce
regulations as needed to protect the environment that visitors want to experience. Lunar tourism will be the same: as soon as they
can, many people will travel to the Moon for the same reason -- they will enjoy visiting there. Since the idea of space
tourism is known to be very popular; since the Moon has a unique place in the mythology and traditions of every
culture; and since there will clearly be many unique experiences during a trip to the Moon and back, it's clear that it
has the potential to become a major tourist destination. Unfortunately, many people in the space industry suffer from the mistaken
idea that tourism has no economic value. They believe that, unless people are working to make some kind of machine, their work is not really
valuable. This belief is objectively wrong; the error of the "labour theory of value" is a long-standing issue in economics: work to supply a
product is not valuable if there is insufficient demand. To give a simple example, without demand for tourism services from billions of people
handled by hundreds of airlines operating thousands of airliners, aircraft manufactures could not produce them at a profit, thereby together
creating millions of jobs in the civil aerospace industry. By contrast, making machines which no-one wants to buy, however technologically
advanced they are, actually destroys wealth instead of creating it, because it wastes skilled humans' efforts. The wealth in Hawaii generated by
tourism depends on people continuing to want to visit. And that can fall for a number of reasons -- for example, if there is a war, or a recession, or
if the local government allowed the environment to be polluted, or if businesses there fell behind other tourist destinations. But demand in any
industry is vulnerable to disruption and competition -- as the rapid shrinking of US manufacturing employment, including particularly aerospace,
shows clearly. Because of this way of thinking in the space industry, many of the general public have a "taboo" about the subject of lunar tourism,
and even orbital and sub-orbital tourism. They find it hard to imagine travel to and from the Moon becoming an important part of the travel
industry. They consider the idea futuristic -- "maybe 100 years from now" -- forgetting that it was already done more than 34 years ago. So this
paper starts by clearing up some "myths" about space tourism. In doing so, criticism of government space agencies is unavoidable -- so it's useful
to remember the story of the alcoholic's friends: one says "Let's go for a drink", while the other says "You look terrible; let's get you some help."
Readers will surely all agree that the one who brings help is the truer friend. The committee which investigated the Columbia accident severely
criticised Nasa, but no-one complains, because their objective was to help. In the same way, speaking the truth about lunar tourism requires facing
some uncomfortable facts, but it is in the best of causes: to correct mistakes that are costing taxpayers very dearly -- especially in the USA.
MYTH 1: "LUNAR TOURISM IS IMPOSSIBLE." First of all, it is certain that travel to and from the Moon is possible --
because it was done 34 years ago. It is quite hard to list all the products that did not yet exist in 1969 -- not just recent inventions like
CDs, laptop computers, the internet, mobile telephones or carbon nanotubes, of course, but back in 1969 Boeing 747s, optical fibres, video-
cassettes, the walkman and even electronic calculators were yet to come; most people had never even seen a colour television. Since 1969, there
have been literally generations of the fastest technological progress in history -- in materials engineering, production engineering, combustion
engineering, semiconductor technology, computing, communications and many other fields. So anything that was possible 34 years ago is
potentially very much easier today. In addition to 34 years of technological progress, since 1969 there has been about $1 billion of research in
lunar science and engineering, well summarised in the collected proceedings of the ASCE 's unique series of conferences at Albuquerque [1,
DeFilippis]. Technically there are no fundamental unknowns about lunar development -- except how rapidly the travel market will develop, and
how cheap lunar travel may ultimately become as passenger traffic builds up to large scale. MYTH 2: "IF SPACE TOURISM WAS POSSIBLE,
SPACE AGENCIES WOULD HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED IT." Many people today believe that the fact that space agencies
have not developed passenger launch vehicles proves that they are impossible with known technology. This is
perhaps the most damaging myth, but it is not true, as shown by two recent events. […, DeFilippis]. MYTH 3: "SPACE TOURISM HAS
NO ECONOMIC <CONTINUES>
Baylor Debate Workshops 58
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules – Economic Growth


<CONTINUED>

VALUE." Space agency staff often claim this, but now that applications satellites are a mature business there is nothing more valuable to be done
in space than to make it possible for the general public to travel there. How can Americans believe anything else? Historically this was the
source of the USA's strength: it was wealth created by vigorous, consumer-oriented US businesses that over-
powered the Soviet Union, not military prowess. With the commercial space industry shrinking for lack of
demand, space agencies are in denial about this. But the goal of economic development is freedom: freedom to do
what we want. Most people, once they reach a certain standard of living, like to travel, which is one of the greatest
educational activities: "travel broadens the mind." Everyone who has been to space says that it was the greatest experience of their life, and
market research shows that a majority of the population in all countries surveyed so far say that they would like to
take a trip to space. In democratic, capitalistic countries no other justification is necessary. It should be sufficient reason that many people
wish to pay for this life-enhancing experience. In addition to being unique fun, travelling to space and looking in at the Earth, and out at the solar
system and beyond towards the beckoning stars, is a profoundly educational and spiritual experience. Not only is this wish to travel to space and
to the Moon not "trivial", it is profoundly human and highly desirable for as many people to experience as possible. However, as it happens, R&D
in the aerospace industry is nearly all government-funded, and so without some effective popular pressure being put on
governments to facilitate the development of this activity, many more years are likely to be wasted, at great cost to
taxpayers, as discussed below. Economic value Space agency staff claim that their activities developing space technology are more valuable than
"ordinary people buying tickets to fly to space". However, without engaging popular consumer demand, space activities cannot grow except on
the backs of taxpayers. Economic value, that is new wealth, is created when someone profitably supplies a service or
product to someone who freely chooses to buy it from them; both sides in such a free transaction become better off than they were,
and the profit remaining which is saved for future investment is a rough measure of the benefit to society as a whole. By contrast, when someone
takes money forcibly away from another person - such as in taxation - and spends that money on performing activities with little economic value,
this destroys economic value and reduces the wealth of the society. There are, of course, cases where people think some activity has no value, but
in fact it has. (For example, compulsory health, life and unemployment insurance -- provided that it is competently managed -- can be valuable,
by compensating for people's over-optimistic expectations concerning the risks they face during their life. Likewise, efficient redistributive
policies can have value by maintaining social harmony by reducing injustices.) And space agencies generally claim this about their activities --
that they are developing the technology necessary for opening the frontier of space for humanity, so their expenditure, though loss-making in the
short-term, will have value over the longer term. Sadly, however, this claim is mostly unjustified. To date, OECD space agencies have spent about
$1 trillion of taxpayers' money, with which they have developed a significant amount of space-related technology and knowledge. But much of it
is of little economic value, because it is far too expensive. Furthermore, space agencies have made no effort to apply this technology to the most
economically valuable use of space - which is to supply the passenger travel services which large numbers of people around the world wish to
purchase. Consequently, instead of a $1 trillion/year commercial space industry, there is a commercial satellite services
industry with a turnover of around $20 billion/year, which is about 1/50 of what should result from $1 trillion investment.
Commercial demand multiplies the economic activity arising from investment by 10x to 20x, as shown in Figure 1. Without some such source of
large turnover, investment in space development cannot be repaid, and space commercialisation is impossible.

Economic collapse sparks extinction.


Bearden 2K, Lt. Col, Tom, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000, http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm

Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable
that some of the [wmd] weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old
strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple:
When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived
enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals,
and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit
earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on
earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now,
my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.
Baylor Debate Workshops 59
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules - Extinction (Version I)


Space colonization key to solve multiple scenarios of inevitable extinction—the only way to extend humankind forever is through space.

Huang 5 [“Spaceflight or Extinction “, Quotes by Carl Sagan- was an American astronomer and astrochemist and a highly successful popularizer
of astronomy, astrophysics, and other natural sciences. He pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence
(SETI). He is world-famous for writing popular science books. Sagan published more than 600 scientific papers and popular articles and was
author, co-author, or editor of more than 20 books. In his works, he frequently advocated skeptical inquiry, secular humanism, and the scientific
method, http://www.spaext.com/info/sagan/index.html, DeFilippis]

Carl Sagan Carl Sagan (1934–1996) was a professor of astronomy and space sciences at Cornell University. Extinction hazards force
civilizations to pursue spaceflight Since hazards from asteroids and comets must apply to inhabited planets all over
the Galaxy, if there are such, intelligent beings everywhere will have to unify their home worlds politically, leave their
planets, and move small nearby worlds around. Their eventual choice, as ours, is spaceflight or extinction. Carl
Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (New York: Random House, 1994), 327. We have the technology to cause
extinction or ensure survival Due to our own actions or inactions, and the misuse of our technology, we live at an
extraordinary moment for the Earth at least—the first time that a species has become able to wipe itself out. But this is also,
we may note, the first time that a species has become able to journey to the planets and the stars. The two times, brought
about by the same technology, coincide—a few centuries in the history of a 4.5-billion-year-old planet. Ibid., 371. The rationale for
spaceflight is survival Since, in the long run, every planetary society will be endangered by impacts from space, every
surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring—not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical
reason imaginable: staying alive. Ibid., 371. The more places we inhabit, the safer we will be If we were up there among the planets,
if there were self-sufficient human communities on many worlds, our species would be insulated from
catastrophe. The depletion of the ultraviolet-absorbing shield on one world would, if anything, be a warning to take special care of the shield
on another. A cataclysmic impact on one world would likely leave all the others untouched. The more of us beyond the Earth,
the greater the diversity of worlds we inhabit, the more varied the planetary engineering, the greater the range of societal standards and values—
then the safer the human species will be. Ibid., 374–375. Human spaceflight is relatively inexpensive A serious effort to send
humans to other worlds is relatively so inexpensive on a per annum basis that it cannot seriously compete with urgent social agendas on Earth.
Ibid., 375. Earthlife is the only life in the solar system But as nearly as we can tell, so far at least, there is no other life in this system, not one
microbe. There’s only Earthlife. In that case, on behalf of Earthlife, I urge that, with full knowledge of our limitations, we vastly increase our
knowledge of the Solar System and then begin to settle other worlds. Ibid., 376–377. Survival is the key argument for human
missions These are the missing practical arguments: safeguarding the Earth from otherwise inevitable catastrophic impacts and hedging our
bets on the many other threats, known and unknown, to the environment that sustains us. Without these arguments, a compelling case for sending
humans to Mars and elsewhere might be lacking. But with them—and the buttressing arguments involving science, education, perspective, and
hope—I think a strong case can be made. If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species
to venture to other worlds. Ibid., 377. There is a race between harmful technologies and beneficial technologies The technologies
that threaten us and the circumvention of those threats both issue from the same font. They are racing neck and neck.
Ibid., 384. It is the beginning of history, not the end In more than one respect, exploring the Solar System and homesteading other worlds
constitutes the beginning, much more than the end, of history. Ibid., 385. Colonization of space is the next step in evolution When
we first venture to a near-Earth asteroid, we will have entered a habitat that may engage our species forever. The first
voyage of men and women to Mars is the key step in transforming us into a multiplanet species. These events are as momentous as the
colonization of the land by our amphibian ancestors and the descent from the trees by our primate ancestors. Ibid., 403. Colonization of new
environments is usually difficult and dangerous Fish with rudimentary lungs and fins slightly adapted for walking must have died in great
numbers before establishing a permanent foothold on the land. As the forests slowly receded, our upright apelike forebears often scurried back
into the trees, fleeing the predators that stalked the savannahs. The transitions were painful, took millions of years, and were imperceptible to
those involved. In our case the transition occupies only a few generations, and with only a handful of lives lost. The pace is so swift that we are
still barely able to grasp what is happening. Ibid., 403. The beginning of new worlds does not mean the end of Earth But inhabiting other worlds
does not imply abandoning this one, any more than the evolution of amphibians meant the end of fish. For a very long time only a small fraction
of us will be out there. Ibid., 403. Peopling other worlds is a selfless act But as for a long-term goal and a sacred project, there is one before us.
On it the very survival of our species depends. If we have been locked and bolted into a prison of the self, here is an escape hatch—
something worthy, something vastly larger than ourselves, a crucial act on behalf of humanity. Ibid., 403–405. Future generations will
remember our actions They will gaze up and strain to find the blue dot in their skies. They will love it no less for its obscurity and fragility. They
will marvel at how vulnerable the repository of all our potential once was, how perilous our infancy, how humble our beginnings, how many
rivers we had to cross before we found our way. Ibid., 405.
Baylor Debate Workshops 60
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules - Extinction (Version II)


Extinction is inevitable without space exploration

Mark Carreau, Winner – 2006 Space Communicator Award, MA in Journalism – Kansas State University, “Top Experts See Space Study As Key
to Human Survival”, The Houston Chronicle, 10-19-2002, Lexis
With Apollo astronaut John Young leading the charge, top aerospace experts warned Friday that humanity's
survival may
depend on how boldly the world's space agencies venture into the final frontier. Only a
spacefaring culture with the skills to travel among and settle planets can be assured of escaping a collision
between Earth and a large asteroid or devastation from the eruption of a super volcano, they told the
World Space Congress. "Space exploration is the key to the future of the human race," said Young, who
strolled on the moon more than 30 years ago and now serves as the associate director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. "We should be
running scared to go out into the solar system. We should be running fast." Scientists believe that an asteroid wiped out the
dinosaurs more than 60 million years ago, and are gathering evidence of previously large collisions. "The
civilization of Earth
does not have quite as much protection as we would like to believe," said Leonid Gorshkov, an exploration
strategist with RSC Energia, one of Russia's largest aerospace companies. "We should not place all of our eggs in one basket."

Every second of delayed space exploration outweighs the case

Nick Bostrom, British Academy Research Fellow at Oxford University, Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological
Development, Utilitas, 15(3), 2003, http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html/
From a utilitarian perspective, this huge loss of potential human lives constitutes a
correspondingly huge loss of potential value. I am assuming here that the human lives that could have been
created would have been worthwhile ones. Since it is commonly supposed that even current human lives are typically
worthwhile, this is a weak assumption. Any civilization advanced enough to colonize the local supercluster would
likely also have the ability to establish at least the minimally favorable conditions required for future lives
to be worth living. The effect on total value, then, seems greater for actions that accelerate
technological development than for practically any other possible action. Advancing
technology (or its enabling factors, such as economic productivity) even by such a tiny amount that it leads to
colonization of the local supercluster just one second earlier than would otherwise have happened amounts to bringing
about more than 10^31 human lives (or 10^14 human lives if we use the most conservative lower bound) that would not
otherwise have existed. Few other philanthropic causes could hope to mach that level of utilitarian
payoff.
Human extinction is imminent – we need to colonize space in order to save the planet.

DAILY RECORD 7 / 8 / 02 [Graham Brough, staff writer, would the last person to leave the earth please turn out the lights]

THE Earth will be so gutted, wrecked, over-exploited and the barren seas so fished out that we will have to find a
new planet - or even two - by 2050. Environmentalists at the World Wildlife Fund say we have just another half
century of luxury living left before the Earth becomes a spent husk. By that time, we will either have to colonise
space or risk human extinction as population and consumption expand. The worst culprits are Americans, who each consume
more food and fuel per year than 25 Africans. With the chances of discovering another habitable planet still in the realms of science fiction,
WWF says the only realistic chance for survival is to curb consumption. A new WWF report tomorrow will shame the Americans with a
damning league table that shows how much land is needed to support a single American, European or African. It takes just over an acre of
land to support a person from Burundi, one of Africa's poorest nations. A European needs 15 acres of land as his "footprint" on the globe. But
a US citizen needs a staggering 30 acres, the highest consumer intake of any civilisation in the Earth's history . Critics say America is so
devoted to conspicuous consumption, that space colonisation is more realistic than a lifestyle change. And with recent
speculation about the possible discovery of water on Mars, Americans will look to the red planet first in their quest
for a new home in space.
Impact Modules - Extinction (Version III)
Space Colonization is key to species survival

Gott J.Richard, 2007, A Survival Imperative for Space Colonization,


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17tier.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin, google, MZC
Baylor Debate Workshops 61
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

In 1993, J. Richard Gott III computed with scientific certainty that humanity would survive at least 5,100 more years. At the
time, I took that as reason to relax, but Dr. Gott has now convinced me I was wrong. He has issued a wake-up call: To ensure our
long-term survival, we need to get a colony up and running on Mars within 46 years. If you’re not awakened yet, I understand. It’s
only prudent to be skeptical of people who make scientific forecasts about the end of humanity. Dr. Gott, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton,
got plenty of grief after he made his original prediction in 1993. But in the ensuing 14 years, his prophetic credentials have strengthened, and not
merely because humanity is still around. Dr. Gott has used his technique to successfully forecast the longevity of Broadway plays, newspapers,
dogs and, most recently, the tenure in office of hundreds of political leaders around the world. He bases predictions on just one bit of data, how
long something has lasted already; and on one assumption, that there is nothing special about the particular moment that you’re observing this
phenomenon. This assumption is called the Copernican Principle, after the astronomer who assumed he wasn’t seeing the universe from a special
spot in the center. Suppose you want to forecast the political longevity of the leader of a foreign country, and you know nothing about her country
except that she has just finished her 39th week in power. What are the odds that she’ll leave office in her 40th week? According to the Copernican
Principle, there’s nothing special about this week, so there’s only a 1-in-40 chance, or 2.5 percent, that she’s now in the final week of her tenure.
It’s equally unlikely that she’s still at the very beginning of her tenure. If she were just completing the first 2.5 percent of her time in power, that
would mean her remaining time would be 39 times as long as the period she’s already served — 1,521 more weeks (a little more than 29 years).
So you can now confidently forecast that she will stay in power at least one more week but not as long as 1,521 weeks. The odds of your being
wrong are 2.5 percent on the short end and 2.5 percent on the long end — a total of just 5 percent, which means that your forecast has an expected
accuracy of 95 percent, the scientific standard for statistical significance. And you can apply this Copernican formula to lots of other phenomena
by assuming they’re neither in the first 2.5 percent nor the final 2.5 percent of their life spans. Now, that range is so broad it may not seem terribly
useful to you, and Dr. Gott readily concedes that his Copernican formula often is not the ideal method. The best the formula could do regarding
Bill Clinton, who had been president for 127 days when the 1993 paper in Nature was published, was predict he would serve at least three more days
but not more than 13.6 more years. You could have gotten a narrower range by using other information, like actuarial data from previous
presidencies, or factoring in the unlikelihood that the Constitution would be changed so he could serve more than two terms. But the beauty of the
Copernican formula is that it allows you to make predictions when you don’t have any other information, which is how Dr. Gott managed to
predict the tenure of virtually every other nation’s leader that day in 1993 — a total of 313 leaders. If none of those still in power stays in office
beyond age 100, Dr. Gott’s accuracy rate will turn out to be almost exactly 95 percent. Some philosophers and experts in probability theory have
argued that Dr. Gott is making unwarranted deductions from past life spans, and that it is wrong to assume there is nothing special about the
moment we’ve chosen to make a forecast. (See www.tierneylab.com for details of the debate.) But last year two philosophers, Bradley Monton and Brian
Kierland, analyzed the criticisms and concluded in an article in the Philosophical Quarterly that Dr. Gott had indeed come up with a useful tool
for difficult situations — like trying to forecast doomsday without data from other planets. The Copernican formula predicts, based solely on our
200,000-year track record, that the human race is likely to survive at least 5,100 more years but not longer than 7.8 million — roughly the same
prediction you’d make based on the longevity of past mammals on Earth, Dr. Gott says. That upper limit is a disappointment to those of us who
imagine humans multiplying across the universe for billions of years. Dr. Gott doesn’t rule out that possibility, but the Copernican Principle
makes him conclude it is unlikely. After all, if colonization is common and there’s nothing special about our civilization, why
haven’t we already colonized other worlds? Why aren’t we colonists ourselves from a civilization somewhere else? If you think of
yourself as a randomly chosen individual among all the intelligent beings who ever lived in the universe, then the odds are you’re living in one of
the larger and older civilizations — simply because a lot more people have lived in those than in small, short-lived civilizations. “The sobering
facts,” Dr. Gott says, “are that in a 13.7 billion-year-old universe, we’ve only been around 200,000 years, and we’re only on one tiny planet. The
Copernican answer to Enrico Fermi’s famous question — Where are the extraterrestrials? — is that a significant fraction must be sitting on their
home planets.” It might seem hard to imagine that humans would invent rockets and then never use them to settle other worlds, but Dr. Gott notes
that past civilizations, notably China, abandoned exploration. He also notes that humans have been going into space for only 46 years — a
worrisomely low number when using Copernican logic to forecast the human spaceflight program’s longevity. Since there’s a 50 percent chance
that we’re already in the second half of the space program’s total lifespan, Dr. Gott figures there is a 50 percent chance it will not last more than
another 46 years. Maybe the reason civilizations don’t get around to colonizing other planets is that there’s a narrow window when they have the
tools, population and will to do so, and the window usually closes on them. “In 1970 everyone figured we’d have humans on Mars
by now, but we haven’t taken the opportunity,” Dr. Gott says. “We should it do soon, because colonizing other worlds is
our best chance to hedge our bets and improve the survival prospects of our species. Sooner or later something will get us if
we stay on one planet. By the time we’re in trouble and wish we had that colony on Mars, it may be too late.” You could argue that he’s being too
pessimistic about space exploration. The space program may be only 46 years old, but humans have been exploring new territory for
tens of thousands of years, so by Copernican logic perhaps they’ll keep it doing it far into the future. But given recent trends — after going
to the Moon, we now barely send humans into orbit — he’s right to be worried. If it’s true that civilizations normally go extinct
because they get stuck on their home planets, then the odds are against us, but there’s nothing inevitable about the Copernican
Principle. Earthlings could make themselves the statistical anomaly. When extinction is the norm, you may as well try to be special.
Baylor Debate Workshops 62
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules - Extinction (Version IV)


Space development key to the creation of weapons which solves extinction

David 2008 [Leonard, ”U.S. Air Force Plans for Future War in Space “, Space.com](7/8/08 SWG)
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/higher_ground_040222.html

The U.S. Air Force has filed a futuristic flight plan, one that spells out need for an armada of space weaponry and technology
for the near-term and in years to come. Called the Transformation Flight Plan, the 176-page document offers a sweeping look at how
best to expand America’s military space tool kit. The use of space is highlighted throughout the report, with the document stating that
space superiority combines the following three capabilities: protect space assets, deny adversaries’ access to space, and
quickly launch vehicles and operate payloads into space to quickly replace space assets that fail or are
damaged/destroyed. From space global laser engagement, air launched anti-satellite missiles, to space-based radio
frequency energy weapons and hypervelocity rod bundles heaved down to Earth from space – the U.S. Air Force
flight plan portrays how valued space operations has become for the warfighter and in protecting the nation from
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive attack. Now to far-term needs A number of space-related
transformational capabilities are described in the document. While some of these are seen as needed in the near-term (until 2010), others
are described as mid-term efforts in 2010-2015, while some efforts are viewed as far-term, beyond 2015. Among a roster of projected Air
Force space projects: Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missile: Small air-launched missile capable of intercepting satellites in low Earth orbit and
seen as a past 2015 development. Counter Satellite Communications System: Provides the capability by 2010 to deny and disrupt an
adversary's space-based communications and early warning. Counter Surveillance and Reconnaissance System: A near-term
program to deny, disrupt and degrade adversary space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems. Evolutionary Air
and Space Global Laser Engagement (EAGLE) Airship Relay Mirrors: Significantly extends the range of both the Airborne Laser and Ground-
Based Laser by using airborne, terrestrial or space-based lasers in conjunction with space-based relay mirrors to project different laser powers and
frequencies to achieve a broad range of effects from illumination to destruction. Ground-Based Laser: Propagates laser beams through the
atmosphere to Low-Earth Orbit satellites to provide robust, post-2015 defensive and offensive space control capability.
Hypervelocity Rod Bundles: Provides the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space. Orbital Deep Space Imager: A
mid-term predictive, near-real time common operating picture of space to enable space control operations. Orbital Transfer Vehicle:
Significantly adds flexibility and protection of U.S. space hardware in post-2015 while enabling on-orbit servicing
of those assets. Rapid Attack Identification Detection and Reporting System: A family of systems that will provide near-term capability to
automatically identify when a space system is under attack. Space-Based Radio Frequency Energy Weapon: A far-term constellation of satellites
containing high-power radio-frequency transmitters that possess the capability to disrupt/destroy/disable a wide variety of electronics and
national-level command and control systems. It would typically be used as a non-kinetic anti-satellite weapon. Space-Based Space
Surveillance System: A near-term constellation of optical sensing satellites to track and identify space forces in deep space to enable offensive
and defensive counterspace operations. Rapid launch needs The newly issued Air Force document makes the following point: "The U.S. space
capability rests on the foundation of assured access." There is need to deploy, replenish, sustain, and redeploy space-based forces in minimum
time to allow them to accomplish the missions assigned to them - through all phases of conflict. In this regard, the Air Force is exploring various
future system concepts to launch, operate, and maintain space assets responsively. These include the Air Launch System, a dedicated, weather
avoiding, on-demand (within 48 hours) system that can rocket into the sky at a wide variety of trajectories and can loft a Space Maneuver
Vehicle, Common Aero Vehicle, or a conventional payload. As explained in the Air Force document, a Space Operations Vehicle (SOV) enables
an on-demand spacelift capability with rapid turnaround. This SOV can be one of the vehicles that could deploy the Space Maneuver vehicle – a
rapidly reusable orbital vehicle capable of executing a range of space control missions. In addition, the SOV can be utilized to deploy the
Common Aero Vehicle, or CAV. The CAV is an unpowered, maneuverable, hypersonic glide vehicle deployed in the 2010-2015 time
period. The CAV could be delivered by a range of delivery vehicles such as an expendable or reusable small launch vehicle to a fully reusable
Space Operations Vehicle. It can guide and dispense conventional weapons, sensors or other payloads world wide from and through space within
one hour of tasking. It would be able to strike a spectrum of targets, including mobile targets, mobile time sensitive targets, strategic
relocatable targets, or fixed hard and deeply buried targets. The CAV’s speed and maneuverability would combine to make defenses against it
extremely difficult. Directed energy beams Given the growing number of nations that utilize space, Air Force strategists see
that trend as worrisome. "The ability to deny an adversary’s access to space services is essential so that future adversaries will be
unable to exploit space in the same way the United States and its allies can. It will require full spectrum, sea, air, land,
and space-based offensive counterspace systems capable of preventing unauthorized use of friendly space services
and negating adversarial space capabilities from low Earth up to geosynchronous orbits. The focus, when practical, will be
on denying adversary access to space on a temporary and reversible basis," the document states. Air Force scientists and technologists are busy
in the labs exploring the possibility of putting a warning energy "spot" on any target worldwide that could be rapidly followed with varying levels
of effects. A possible breakthrough, the document adds, deals with a solid-state directed energy beam systems, operating at 100-kilowatt
levels. "If the generation of large quantities of heat could be managed, the Air Force could develop highly effective, cheap, high power
energy weapons." For example, Air Force researchers are looking at ways to collect or generate large quantities of energy on orbit in order to
rely on space-based platforms for more missions and provide a greater degree of true global presence. "This would change many equations about
traditional ideas of rapid response," the document explains. Sensor-to-shooter The report emphasizes that space capabilities are integral to
modern war fighting forces, providing critical surveillance and reconnaissance information, especially over areas of
high risk or denied access for airborne craft. Space capabilities also provide weather and other Earth observation data, global
Baylor Debate Workshops 63
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

communications, precision position, navigation, and timing to troops on the ground, ships at sea, aircraft in flight, and weapons en route to
targets. Space assets are critical to achieving information superiority as they enable predictive and dominant
battlespace awareness. As a result there can be a reduction in the "sensor-to-shooter" cycle to minutes or even seconds, the
document explains. Real-time picture of the battlespace would involve an initial space-based Ground Moving Target Indicator capability.
This capacity provides U.S. global strike forces with the ability to identify and track moving targets anywhere on the surface of the Earth. Also
desirable is the ability to detect, locate, identify, and track a wide range of strategic and tactical targets that the United States currently has
minimal capability to detect. These include weapons of mass destruction, hidden targets, and air moving targets. A real-time
picture of the battlespace enables a commander to know where all friendly forces are, not only to better coordinate operations and avoid fratricide
-- accidentally injuring or killing your own troops. Roadmap to the future In a February 17 press statement issued from the office of the
Secretary of the Air Force, the public document on Air Force transformation is described as "a roadmap to the future". The Air Force flight plan
is a reporting document that enables the Secretary of Defense to evaluate and interpret the Air Force's progress toward transformation.
"Transformation is using new things and old things in new ways, and achieving truly transformational effects for the joint warfighter," said Lt.
Gen. Duncan McNabb, Air Force director of plans and programs. The newly issued, publicly releasable report is the one unclassified document
that presents an overarching picture of Air Force transformation, added Lt. Col. James McCaw, from the plans and programs directorate's
transformation branch. "It will help the reader understand where the Air Force is going, and why we chose this path,"
McCaw concluded.
Baylor Debate Workshops 64
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules – Hegemony / Leadership


Lack of U.S. space research is waning U.S. credibility—renewed space development is key to U.S. leadership.

DeFrank et al 2k6 [America’s Vision: The Case for Space Exploration. Failure Is Not an Option, James “Jay” DeFrank, Ph.D. Executive
Director, Research and Analysis Space Foundation, Elliot G. Pulham President and Chief Executive Officer of Space Foundation Space
Foundation,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:fYAU5QBmhMwJ:www.partnersforstennis.org/pdf/TheCaseForSpace.pdf+%22American+Strategic+Lead
ership+and+Manned+Spaceflight+%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us, DeFilippis]

In our view, the benefits of space exploration and development that permeate our daily lives have become so ubiquitous and transparent that most
of us have forgotten where they originated. We take for granted that the United States has the most advanced technology and
highest standard of living on the planet, without pausing to think about the history of investment in space research
and development that has driven us forward for the past 40 years. The United States did not cement its position of
world leadership by accident. It required thoughtful, and sometimes politically difficult, commitment to our national
investment in the future — space exploration and development. Nor will the decades ahead naturally unfold in a
manner that serendipitously assures the United States remains a leader among nations. Already, United States
leadership is challenged by emerging space-faring nations around the globe. The time for a serious, renewed
investment in our future is at hand.

U.S. leadership is key to solving Nuclear War and extinction


Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end
in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First,
the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such
a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as
nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership
would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid
another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be
more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Baylor Debate Workshops 65
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules Extension – Hegemony / Leadership


Space power is key to military dominance

CASE No date[“Why should we invest in space when there are so many problems on Earth?”, The Committee for the Advocacy of Space
Exploration, http://www.committee4spaceadvocacy.org/New_FAQ.html, DeFilippis]

The superiority of the American military largely stems from its use of space technology. Military reconnaissance satellites
not only allow unrivaled military advantage, but also allow us to validate our treaty agreements with other powers,
thus building confidence and reducing international tensions. Satellite-guided weapons enable our military to better
protect our troops while avoiding civilian casualties.

Space control is critical to US Hegemony

Dolman, 2003[Everett C. Professor of Comparative Military Studies, “Space Power and US Hegemony: Maintaining a Liberal World Order in
the 21st Century”, Space Debate, < http://www.gwu.edu/%7Espi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdf>, 7/9/08, WAC]

The goals here are to establish the most beneficial global conditions for an extended and robust era of peace and
prosperity – for all states. Requisite for the purpose is a maximization of the period of hegemony of the United
States. Control of space is critical to this need.
Baylor Debate Workshops 66
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules Extension – Hegemony / Leadership

Space Colonization is key to U.S. military dominance

Bender 2006 [Bryan, “Pentagon eyeing weapons in space”, The Boston Globe] (7/8/08 SWG)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/14/pentagon_eyeing_weapons_in_space/

The Pentagon is asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step toward creating a
space battlefield since President Reagan's long-defunct ''star wars" project during the Cold War, according to federal budget documents. The
Defense Department's budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 includes money for a variety of tests on offensive and defensive
weapons, including a missile launched at a small satellite in orbit, testing a small space vehicle that could disperse weapons while traveling at 20
times the speed of sound, and determining whether high-powered ground-based lasers can effectively destroy enemy satellites.
The military says that its aerospace technology, which has advanced exponentially during the last two decades, is worth the nine-figure
investment because it will have civilian applications as well, such as refueling or retrieving disabled satellites. But arms-control
specialists fear the tests will push the military closer to basing weapons in space than during Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-
1980s -- without a public debate of the potential consequences. ''Some of these things are going to be put up and tested and that is where you
have the potential to cross the line" into creating actual space-based weapons systems, said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense
Information in Washington and coauthor of a new analysis on space weapons spending. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control
Association, warned that any US move to position weapons in space ''will lead countries to pursue countermeasures. Before we cross that
threshold, the United States should explore with other countries some guidelines or limits on what is deployed in
space." The big-budget projects are spread across the Defense Department, but most are under the purview of the Missile Defense Agency,
which oversees the development of a national missile shield, a system heavily dependent on space-based hardware. The shield could also be used
to destroy those missiles or strike back at the adversaries who fired them. The descriptions included in the budget request mark only what is
publicly known about the military's space warfare plans. Specialists believe the classified portion of the $439 billion budget, blacked out for
national security reasons, almost certainly includes other space-related programs. Rick Lehner, an agency spokesman, said there are no plans to
base weapons in space, noting that out of $48 billion planned for missile defense over the next five years, just $570 million will fund
space-related activities. ''We just want to do some experiments" on weapons technology in space, he said. Under President Bush, the White
House has emphasized what's known as ''space dominance" -- the notion that the United States must command space to defend the nation, a
strategy that gained traction under Reagan. The military already has reconnaissance and communications satellites, but the Pentagon says
weapons systems in space can protect commercial satellites as well. In 2004, the Air Force published a paper outlining a long-term
vision for space weapons, including an air-launched antisatellite missile, a ground-based laser aimed at low-earth
orbit satellites, and a ''hypervelocity" weapon that could strike targets from space. The paper stated that it is essential for the
United States to deny its adversaries strategic access to space; success ''will require [the] full spectrum, sea, air, and space-based offensive
counterspace systems" that the military can muster. The Pentagon has always examined space as a possible battleground, but the budget request
marks a transition from laboratory theory to reality. And the Bush administration has sought to keep the military's options open despite
international opposition to weapons in space. Indeed, for the first time ever, the United States voted last fall to block a UN resolution
calling for a ban on weapons in space. In the past, the US delegation abstained from voting on similar measures.
''There is a very strong desire among most states to get a negotiation going," said Peggy Mason, Canada's former UN ambassador for
disarmament. But the UN Conference on Disarmament operates according to consensus and the United States has stymied talks on the issue,
Mason said. Arms-control advocates believe the space projects in the defense budget, which is under congressional review,
explains the opposition. According to a joint analysis by defense specialists at the Henry L. Stimson Center and the Center for Defense
Information, several of these space programs, if brought to fruition, will create ''facts in orbit" -- weapons in space before a public debate is
complete. One $207 million project by the Missile Defense Agency features experiments on micro-satellites, including using one
as a target for missiles. This experiment ''is particularly troublesome," according to the joint report, ''as it would be a de-facto antisatellite test."
The defense budget doesn't have a timetable for that test, but a Missile Defense Agency spokesman said the test is merely intended to study the
missile during flight. In another program, called Advanced Weapons Technology, the Air Force wants to spend $51 million for a series
of space-oriented experiments, according to budget documents. A project description says the Air Force would test a variety of
powerful laser beams ''for applications including antisatellite weapons." A Missile Defense Agency project set to begin in 2008, the
Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, would launch up to five satellites capable of shooting down missiles, according to budget documents. ''A
space layer helps protect the United States and our allies against asymmetric threats designed to exploit coverage and engagement gaps in our
terrestrial defenses," the agency says in its budget proposal, referring to the interceptor test. ''We believe that a mix of terrestrial and space-basing
offers the most effective global defense against ballistic missiles." The agency also has asked Congress for $220 million for ''Multiple
Kill Vehicles," a program that experts say could be proposed as a space-based missile interceptor. Meanwhile, the Air Force wants $33
million for the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle, envisioned as space vehicle capable of delivering a military payload anywhere on
earth within an hour, according to an official project description. Philip Coyle, who served as the Pentagon's top weapons tester from 1994 to
2001, said in an interview that he sees ''new emphasis on space weapons" even though ''there is no threat in space to justify a new arms race in
space." ''US missile defense is the first wave in which the United States could introduce attack weapons in space, that
is, weapons with strike capability," he said. ''Once you've got space-based interceptors up there, they can just as well be
used for offense as defense."
Baylor Debate Workshops 67
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SPS  Lunar Mining

SPS system will lead to lunar mining which will solve our energy consumption and our resource depletion.
Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59,
Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host, JDC)

In current times there is a greater concentration on pollution induced problems such as global
warming, however, earlier warnings of anthropogenic collapse tended to highlight rates of
resource depletion. The original global dynamic modelling work of Forrester [34] demonstrated that with only very small changes in the
modelling parameters collapse due to pollution effects could be interchanged with collapse due to resource depletion. In the later
high profile work by Meadows et al. [35], the “standard run” was a resource depletion collapse. Bond and Varvill [36] have
explored a concept for mining metal on the Moon on a scale that would meet the world's demand for
most common metals aluminium, silicon titanium, iron and possibly nickel. The argument made was not that there was a shortage of these
metals but that the energy used in refining metals from their ores is one of the highest contributors to
humanity's energy consumption. Therefore an extraterrestrial metal supply would have a
considerable impact on the Earth's total energy requirements. To produce hundreds of Mega-
tonnes of iron and tens of Mega-tonnes of aluminium an operation would require 100 GW on a continuous basis. Bond
and Varvill assumed this would be provided by SPSs in L4 or L5 Lagrange points—20 reference SPSs would be required to
supply this—allowing continuous mining and refining operations. The material would be sent to
Earth using a electromagnetic accelerator the energy required to do this is between 6% for steel and 1% for aluminium of the
energy required to mine and refine the metal. Thus the transport element is not a significant extra burden. The
overall concept is shown in Fig. 2. Bond and Varvill's solution to the final return to Earth was to shape the ingots into an aerodynamic disk
shown in Fig. 2. Each disk is 80 m diameter and 8 m deep with a mass of 3000 tonnes. The ballistic coefficient ensures heat loads at atmosphere
entry do not melt the ingot and that the final impact speed with the ground is 100 m/s slow enough to ensure the ingot stays in one piece for
salvage. Of course one of the first major users of lunar materials would be the SPS systems itself as
highlighted by O’Neil [37], so it is likely that the technology for lunar metal extraction would be part of
the SPS legacy and not require separate development.
Baylor Debate Workshops 68
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: Only Rich People Travel Space


Space travel will be cheap—everyone will be able to afford.

Collins 2006 [Patrick, Professor, Azabu University, “The Future of Lunar Tourism”, “Future Space Technology”,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tq8xz7ixIGsJ:www.koreAT050.net/unfforum/%3Fdoc%3Dbbs/gnuboard.php%26bo_table%3Dfuturet%26
sselect%3Dconcat(wr_subject%252Cwr_content)%26stext%3Djustice%26wr_id%3D287%26page%3D1+%22In+order+to+get+a+feel+for+why
+using+solar+energy+delivered%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us, DeFilippis]

Figure 1: Contrast between commercial investment and space agency expenditure MYTH 4: "SPACE TOURISM WILL BE JUST
FOR A FEW RICH PEOPLE." Market research in several countries over more than a decade shows that most people would like to take a
trip to space, as referenced in [8, DeFilippis]. Combined with studies of the potential for cost reduction through airline-like orbital flight
operations, this suggests strongly that the business could grow to millions of customers/year. Just as in passenger air travel,
as the scale of traffic grows, costs and prices will fall progressively. Based on the work of the Japanese Rocket Society and
others, we could have an orbital tourism industry of several million passengers per year by about 2030, as shown in Figure 2, first published in
1999 [11, DeFilippis]. The great majority of the investment needed would come from the private sector, as in the airline, hotel, cruising and
leisure industries today. However, unless some initial investment is provided by governments we will waste many more years waiting to start. The
position taken by heads of space agencies that this is the responsibility of the private sector is disingenuous. Space agencies' economic return on
their non-science activities is close to minus 100%. Private investment in a novel activity such as space tourism will require a compound return of
some 25% or more. Although the available evidence suggests that passenger space travel will have as great economic value as passenger air
travel, it cannot be confidently predicted that investments in the early stages will earn such a return, particularly while there are major regulatory
uncertainties due to governments' delay in this matter. Furthermore, it is economically irrational for governments to spend heavily on space
agencies' loss-making activities while refusing to invest in much more economically promising ones. Such a position is not only a "double
standard", but it is deeply flawed as economic policy, preventing the growth of a major new industry. Moreover, almost no major aerospace
developments are privately funded, as mentioned above, and governments have invested heavily for decades in aviation developments which
have had positive indirect benefits that greatly exceed the profits earned directly by airlines (which are quite limited).
Baylor Debate Workshops 69
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: Space Leadership  Backlash

U.S. space leadership won’t cause a backlash.


Lambakis 2001 (Steven, senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, “Space Weapons: Refuting the Critics”, Policy Review,
February & March, Number 105, http://www.policyreview.org/feb01/lambakis.html)

It is further assumed that deploying arms not possessed by other states in regions unexploited by
other states would put the United States in a position to coerce, even terrify, other nations. One
must note, however, that Washington already has the power to tyrannize and bully with its
current arsenal — but it does not. The United States deploys unparalleled — even "uncustomary" — nuclear and conventional military
forces and engages in peace and combat missions on a global basis. Yet the face of overwhelming American military
might neither alarms allies nor incites aggression. The U.S. retreat from several forward bases
and its positive global leadership, moreover, belie suspicions that, in this unipolar world,
Washington harbors imperialist ambitions.
Baylor Debate Workshops 70
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** 2AC Add On – Global Warming - Impact Extensions


******************
Baylor Debate Workshops 71
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Global Warming  Extinction


Unchecked warming will obliterate the ecosystem and kill billions
Lester Milbrath, The Futurist, Climate and Chaos: Societal Impacts of Sudden Weather Shifts, 94, p. 27-8

Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended period, perhaps a decade or two, when there is an oscillation-type chaos in the climate
system. Plants will be especially vulnerable to oscillating chaos, since they are injured or die when
climate is too hot or too cold, too dry or too wet. And since plants make food for all other creatures,
plant dieback would lead to severe declines in agricultural production. Farm animals and wildlife would die in
large numbers. Many humans would also starve. Several years of climate oscillations could kill billions of people.
The loss of the premise of continuity would also precipitate collapse of world financial markets. That
collapse would lead to a sharp decline in commodity markets, world trade, factory output, retail sales, research and development, tax income for
governments, and education. Such nonessential activities such as tourism, travel, hotel occupancy, restaurants, entertainment, and fashion would
be severely affected. Billions of unemployed people would drastically reduce their consumption, and modern society's vaulted economic
system would collapse like a house of cards.
Baylor Debate Workshops 72
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Global Warming  Extinction

Extinction
David Battisti – Prof Atmospheric Sciences – U Washington, Et al., Brief of Amici Curiae, 5-15-2006,
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/ Mass-v-EPAAmicusScientists.pdf
4. It is virtually certain that what has been observed so far is only the beginning, and that continued
greenhouse gas emissions
along current trajectories will cause additional warming of the earth system as a whole, and very likely that
such perturbation would cause the rate of surface warming and sea level rise in the 21st century to be
substantially larger and faster than that experienced in the 20th century and without precedent in the past
10,000 years. 5. Although the general link between increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and increased warming of the earth system
is virtually certain, the complexity of the climate system means that predictions of specific details that follow from this general link are subject to
varying degrees of certainty. Among the more certain future predictions are the following: a. It is likely, based on both models and on data from
the ice ages over the last 400,000 years, that if atmospheric carbon dioxide doubled from pre-industrial times, and then rose no further, the long-
term warming response of global average surface temperature (the "climate sensitivity") would be in the range of 1.5° to 4.5° C (2.7° - 8.1° F). b.
In the absence of emissions reductions, however, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are very likely to much more than double, and the consequent rise in global average temperature during the 21st
century, projected to be 2.5° to 10° C (4.5° to 18° F), will likely continue rising well beyond 2100. c. This amount of warming is very likely to
drive steady melting of arctic ice sheets and further increases in global average sea level, which is projected to reach an additional 0.1 - 0.9 meters
(1/3 - 1 foot) by 2100, and to continue rising to much higher levels in the decades to millennia following 2100. d. This amount of sea level rise,
especially when combined with likely increases in hurricane intensities, would exacerbate storm surges and have negative impacts on health and
welfare in the United States, and globally. These negative impacts would be concentrated in low-lying coastal regions, such as Boston or Cape
Cod, Massachusetts, the Louisiana/Mississippi Gulf coast, and southern Florida. e. Rising temperatures are also likely to lead to
increases in extreme weather events (e.g. heat waves) and altered patterns of rainfall (e.g. droughts) that will disrupt
natural and agricultural ecosystems, and increase the risk of extinction of animal and plant species. f. Ocean acidity is likely
to increase by several tenths of a pH unit due to continued uptake of carbon dioxide, and this acidification is likely to cause substantial stress to
key marine organisms, and hence to whole marine ecosystems, particularly in cold water regions. 6. The possibilities of the above-mentioned
climate changes have been carefully and extensively assessed, and there is a broad scientific consensus that these changes are likely or very
likely. The exact timing of the climate change and the exact magnitude of the impact are harder to determine, because the climate system has a
great deal of inertia (especially in the ice sheets and oceans), and greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue
to contribute to future warming. This inertia heightens the threat to human welfare because continuing
unregulated greenhouse gas emissions commit us to large-scale, long-term (centuries) climate change
consequences before the exact nature of those consequences can be known with greater certainty. 7. Apart from the likely, very likely, and
virtually certain gradual climate changes outlined in points 4 and 5, there is also an as yet unquantifiable probability that continued
greenhouse gas emissions will trigger abrupt climate change surprises that could very rapidly impose
large impacts on ecosystems and human societies.15 We know that such abrupt climate changes (e.g. large local cooling or
warming, widespread droughts, shifts in hurricane intensity or flood regimes that occur in only a decade or so) are possible because they have
happened in the past, before recorded human history began. Such abrupt shifts were triggered when gradual changes pushed the earth system
across a threshold, abruptly switching the climate system into a new state. We do not understand these switches very well, but it is very likely that
they exist within the climate system, and there is a significant but unknown risk that continued emission of greenhouse gases will trigger some
kind of climate change surprise.
Baylor Debate Workshops 73
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SSP solves Global Warming

SBSP key to stop fossil fuel use – it’s a better option than nuke power which leads to
widescale prolif.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: 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 arbon 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 resoures. 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 nd 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 nternal 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 74
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SSP solves Global Warming


SBSP key to prevent future CO2 emissions – it is 60 times more powerful than fossil fuel
plants.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that to the extent the United States decides it wishes to limit its carbon emissions,
SBSP offers a potential path for long‐term carbon mitigation. This study does not take a position on
anthropogenic climate change, which at this time still provoked significant debate among participants, but there is undeniable interest
Studies by Asakura et al in 2000 suggest that SBSP lifetime
in options that limit carbon emission.
carbon emissions (chiefly in construction) are even more attractive than nuclear power, and that
for the same amount of carbon emission, one could install 60 times the generating
capacity, or alternately, one could replace existing generating capacity with 1/60th the
lifetime carbon emission of a coal‐fired plant without CO2 sequestration.
Baylor Debate Workshops 75
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** 2AC Add On – Natural Disasters - Impact Extensions


******************
Baylor Debate Workshops 76
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP solves Natural Disasters


SBSP is key to military readiness and quick responding to natural and humanitarian
disasters.

NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:


As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the
potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield SBSP and its enabling
wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand”
for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing
dependence on vulnerable over‐land fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new
force structures and capabilities such as ultra long‐endurance airborne or terrestrial
surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP
could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a
disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation‐building activities. SBSP
could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate
independent of vulnerable ground‐based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American
and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st Century through more secure supply
lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due
to energy scarcity by providing access o a strategically secure energy supply.

SPS can ensure rapid reaction to natural disasters or humanitarian crises.


NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

Finding: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. o 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 77
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** 2AC Add On – Tech Leadership- Extensions


******************
Baylor Debate Workshops 78
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP Development solves Tech Leadership


US development of SPS is key to US technological leadership – It will lock in US
preeminence for the next century.
Farrar, 2008 (Lara, staff with CNN, “How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!,” May 30, lexis
nexis)

The study also concluded that solar


energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military
operations and deliver energy to disaster areas and developing nations. "The country that takes
the lead on space solar power will be the energy-exporting country for the entire planet for
the next few hundred years," Miller said. Russia, China, the European Union and India, according to the
Pentagon report, are interested in the concept. And Japan, which has been pouring millions of dollars into space power studies
for decades, is working toward testing a small-scale demonstration in the near future. But a number of obstacles still
remain before solar satellites actually get off the ground, said Jeff Keuter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington-based
research organization. "Like any activity in space, there are enormous engineering challenges," he said. One
major barrier is a lack of cheap and reliable access to space, a necessity for launching hundreds of components to build what will be miles-long
platforms. Developing robotic technology to piece the structures together high above Earth will also be a challenge. Then
there is the
issue of finding someone to foot what will be at least a billion-dollar bill. "It will take a great deal of effort, a great deal
of thought and unfortunately a great deal of money," Keutersaid. "But it is certainly possible." And Miller, of the Space
Frontier Foundation, said he thinks it will be possible in the next 10 years. "We could see the first
operational power satellite in about the 2020 time frame if we act now," he said.

SSP key to revitalize US tech leadership.


Whitesides, 2008 (George T., Executive Director National Space Society, Statement to Committee on Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences, “NASA
REAUTHORIZATION,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 7, lexis nexis)

One future option is Space Solar Power. SSP offers the potential for reliable, virtually unlimited, clean, baseload energy. The potential advantages
are clear: --SSP
can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace expertise to
expand employment opportunities. SSP's technologies are near-term and have multiple attractive
approaches. Many thousands of STEM jobs, on inspiring work that we understand how to do is needed to bring them to practical
fruition. --Unlike coal, oil, gas, ethanol, and bio-fuel engines, SSP emits very little CO2, only an antenna is on the Earth (the proper term is
rectenna, or "rectifying antenna"). --Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, SSP does not compete for increasingly valuable farm land or depend on
natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Corn and other foodstuffs can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider. --Unlike nuclear power
plants, SSP produces no hazardous waste or nuclear weapons-grade material. --Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, SSP is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, in endless quantities. SSP ignores cloud cover, night, storms, dust and wind. Our understanding of the magnetosphere
& solar wind interaction - SSP's GSO operating environment - has become highly mature since 1962. --Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, SSP does
not require environmentally problematic mining operations. --SSP may one day provide true energy independence for the nations that develop it,
eliminating a major source of national competition for limited Earth-based energy resources and dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil
providers. --SSP can be easily "exported" anywhere in the world, and its vast energy can be converted to local needs, from appliances in Asia to
SSP would revitalize America by showing that a multitude of
desalination of sea water in the American West.
space- development-related educational fields, from telerobotics to space transportation, from wireless
power transfer to photovoltaics and environmental sciences, are vitally relevant to these great problems.
Reduced launch costs, the key enabler, will provide unprecedented access to space and space operations beginning with clean, baseload SSP -
reliable power delivery and global energy security at greatly reduced environmental impact.
Baylor Debate Workshops 79
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** Answers to Case Args ******************


Baylor Debate Workshops 80
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: Solar Panel Rocket Deployment kills Environment

Rockets are fueled by hydrogen and oxygen—producing water. No environmental impact.

Catalyst 8 [March 13, “Solar Space Power”, Transcript produced by: Dr Graham Phillips and Dr Charley Lineweaver,
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2008/03/13/2187801.htm#transcript, DeFilippis]

Narration: And what will be the cost – not in dollar terms – but to the environment? Will launching all this stuff into space produce
huge amounts of CO2? Dr Lineweaver: When you launch solar panels … into outer space the rockets are burning
mostly hydrogen and oxygen and that produces as a waste gas water and so we’re not producing Co2 when we do that.
Baylor Debate Workshops 81
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: Technological Obstacles


The technology is already developed—incentives are key to production and deployment

Cho 2007 [October, Dan, New Scientist- Environment, “Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space”,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-power-from-
space.html, DeFilippis]

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.

Solar satellite tech exists now—just a question of deployment

Fabey 6 [August 29th, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report, “Air Force explores space-based solar power”, News; Pg. 1 Vol. 219 No. 40, lexis,
DeFilippis]

Officials from the U.S. Air Force Future Concepts Division have been meeting with national experts involved in space-based solar power to
discuss the feasibility of developing such a capability. The division - which sets up future war-gaming scenarios for the service and helps design
road maps for Air Force technology and interests - has been talking with the experts to determine what equipment, legislation and other changes
would be needed to make space-based solar power possible. Air Force officials won't comment on any outcomes from those talks. Harnessing
the sun's energy from space for earthbound use would involve putting an extremely large solar panel into space,
capturing the energy and then beaming the power back to the Earth's surface by microwaves or laser links. "The technology to build a
Space Solar Power System is available now," said Darel Preble, president of the Space Solar Power Institute, in briefing documents
reviewed recently by the Air Force.
Baylor Debate Workshops 82
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP bad for Environment


SSP is the most environmentally friendly energy possible— no emissions, no mining, and infinite energy.

Globus 7 [May 17th, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?”, Globus is on the National Space Society Board of
Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research
Center, AdAstra Online, DeFilippis]

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.

No environmental impact—studies confirm

Space Future 6 [2006-06-02,Space Future- “The Space Power Business”, http://www.spacefuture.com/power/business.shtml, DeFilippis]

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.

SPS Technology is beneficial to the environment and economy

Prado 2002 [Mark, Journalist for Permanent, “Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth” Permanent Website, http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-
bi.htm, Date Accessed: 7/8/08, TJD]

The sooner we embark on a SPS program, the better for Earth economies and the environment. The SPS produces:
no waste matter, no acid rain, no carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases. Even in the least developed
countries, the environment would benefit greatly if we bring in electricity from SPS for cooking. This relieves families of the
need for labor in collecting firewood miles away -- a major reason for deforestation and nomad migration. It also reduces
the practice of burning the dung of laboring animals instead of using it to refertilize the soil, which in turn will reduce soil depletion and
migrations.
Baylor Debate Workshops 83
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SPSP Weaponization


Space solar power cannot be turned into a weapon

NSSO 2007 [SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STRATEGIC SECURITY, National Security Space Office,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, Date Accessed: 7/9/08, TJD]

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 84
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP has Health Risks


No adverse health risks from SBSP

NSS 2007 [SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STRATEGIC SECURITY, National Security Office,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, Date
Accessed: 7/9/08, TJD]

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 85
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: The Sun will run out of Energy


The sun won’t run out of energy for 5 billion years

Masters 2k [Astronomer, “Is the Sun expanding? Will it ever explode?”, http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=232, DeFilippis]

When the Sun runs out of hydrogen in its core completely (which won't be for another 5 billion
years or so) nuclear reactions will stop there, but they will continue in a shell around the core. The core will contract
(since it is not generating energy) and as it contracts it will heat up. Eventually it will get hot enough to start burning helium into carbon (a
different nuclear reaction). While the core is contracting the hydrogen burning around it heats will heat up the outer layers which will expand, and
while they do that they will cool. The Sun will then become what is called a Red Giant and its radius will be large enough to envelop the Earth!
Baylor Debate Workshops 86
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP  Terrorism


SSP is useless to terrorists—too far away and no explosives.

Globus 7 [May 17th, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?”, Globus is on the National Space Society Board of
Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research
Center, AdAstra Online, DeFilippis]

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 87
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP expensive


Your arguments about cost and technological feasibility are outdated – recent
developments mean we could do a full SPS system more easily and cheaply than any other
alternate energy source.
Foust, 2007 (Jeff, publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space
Politics and Personal Spaceflight weblogs “A renaissance for space solar power?,” Space Review [online magazine
about space policy], http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1, accessed 7/8, JDC)

One obstacle facing space solar power is that most people have not heard of it, and many of
those who have associate it with the huge, expensive concepts studied back in the 1970s. Those
proposals featured arrays many kilometers long with massive trusses that required dozens or hundreds of astronauts
to assemble and maintain: Mankins joked that a giant Borg cube from Star Trek would have easily fit into one corner
of one of the solar power satellite designs. “You ended up with a capital investment—launchers, in-space
infrastructure, all of those things—on the order of $300 billion to $1 trillion in today’s dollars before you could build
the first solar power satellite and get any power out of it,” he said. Those concepts, he argued, are outdated
given the advancements in technology in the last three decades. The efficiency of photovoltaic
arrays has increased from 10 to over 40 percent, thus requiring far smaller arrays to generate the
same amount of power. Advances in robotics would allow assembly of “hypermodularized”
systems, launched piece by piece by smaller vehicles, with little or no astronaut labor. “We think
it’s now more technically feasible than ever before,” he said. “We think we have a path to knowing
whether or not it’s economically feasible.” Another big problem has been finding the right government
agency to support R&D work on space solar power. Space solar power doesn’t neatly fit into any
particular agency’s scope, and without anyone in NASA or DOE actively advocating it, it has
fallen through the cracks in recent years. “NASA does science, they do astronauts, and they do aeronautics, but
they don’t do energy for the Earth,” Mankins said. “On the other side, the Department of Energy doesn’t really do
energy for space.” That situation, at least in regards to those two agencies, shows little sign of
changing. Marty Hoffert, a New York University professor who has been a long-time advocate of space solar
power, contrasted the current plight with that of fusion, the one other energy source Hoffert believes could
provide energy security to the world. While space solar power goes virtually unrecognized by the US
and other governments, an international consortium is spending up to $20 billion on a test fusion
reactor, ITER, in France. “For half that money I think we could deliver a working solar power
satellite, whereas ITER is just going to show the proof of feasibility” of controlled nuclear fusion without
generating any power, he said. “Certain ideas just fall through the cracks because there isn’t a champion in the
agency,” in either the DOE or NASA, Hoffert said. Enter the DOD
Baylor Debate Workshops 88
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP expensive


Spending inevitable in the squo—plan would free up funds spent on gas and resource wars now.

Globus 7 [May 17th, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?”, Globus is on the National Space Society Board
of Directors and is a senior research associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research
Center, AdAstra Online, DeFilippis]

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.

Improved technology in SBSP will reduce cost

Eastlund et al, 2006 [Dr. Bernard J.; Lyle M. Jenkins, PH. D. physics Columbia University, Eastlund Scientific Enterprises,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/11012/34697/01656145.pdf?tp=&arnumber=1656145&isnumber=34697>, 7/10/08, WAC]

Much of the SSP technology will be common to many of the TSPS concepts. This commonality extends to the commercial space solar power
concepts. Current SSP studies provide a level of confidence that the TSPS can be designed, constructed and operated without requiring significant
technological break-through[11]. Still, improvements in technology will reduce the cost of SSP. Examples of these technologies are
solar cells(mass and efficiency), power management and distribution(superconductivity), microwave generation(solid-state)
space construction(robotics), flexible structure (control systems), high specific impulse propulsion(solar-electric thrusters), and
reusable launch vehicles(launch cost reduction).

Space solar power pays itself off.


Whittington 2005 [Mark R., “Power From the Sun: The Promise of Space Solar Power,” GoogoBits,
http://www.googobits.com/articles/2807-power-from-the-sun-the-promise-of-space-solar-power.html, July 8, BLS]
Space solar power does not require fuel for it to operate, unlike virtually every other form of energy production, including oil, coal, natural gas,
and even nuclear and fusion. Space solar power does not create air or water pollution nor does it create radioactive byproducts. Once the cost
of building a space solar power station is completed, the only expense is maintenance which can be amortized over
a long life cycle, lasting two or even more decades. There exists some economic analysis that suggests that space
solar power would be competitive with other, more conventional forms of energy, even leaving out the intangible
pollution and health costs associated with, for example, oil and coal. Space solar power can be one of the solutions
to meeting civilization’s energy needs in the future.
Baylor Debate Workshops 89
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP expensive


Plan saves 10 billion dollars in the long run

Sofge 2008 [Erik, Writer, Popular Mechanics, “Space-Based Solar Power Beams Become Next Energy Frontier”,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4230315.html , Date Accessed:7/7/08, CAK]
The idea of using satellites to beam solar power down from space is nothing new—the Department of Energy first studied it in the
1970s, and NASA took another look in the ’90s. The stumbling block has been less the engineering challenge than the cost. A
Pentagon report released in October could mean the stars are finally aligning for space-based solar power, or SBSP. According to the report,
SBSP is becoming more feasible, and eventually could help head off crises such as climate change and wars over diminishing
energy supplies. “The challenge is one of perception,” says John Mankins, president of the Space Power Association and the leader of
NASA’s mid-1990s SBSP study. “There are people in senior leadership positions who believe everything in space has to cost trillions.” The new
report imagines a market-based approach. Eventually, SBSP may become enormously profitable—and the Pentagon hopes it will lure the
growing private space industry. The government would fund launches to place initial arrays in orbit by 2016, with private firms
taking over operations from there. This plan could limit government costs to about $10 billion. As envisioned, massive
orbiting solar arrays, situated to remain in sunlight nearly continuously, will beam multiple megawatts of energy to Earth via microwave beams.
The energy will be transmitted to mesh receivers placed over open farmland and in strategic remote locations, then fed into the nation’s electrical
grid. The goal: To provide 10 percent of the United States’ base-load power supply by 2050. Ultimately, the report estimates,
a single kilometer-wide array could collect enough power in one year to rival the energy locked in the world’s oil reserves. While most
of the technology required for SBSP already exists, questions such as potential environmental impacts will take years to work out. “For some
time, solar panels on Earth are going to be much cheaper,” says Robert McConnell, a senior project leader at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Colorado. “This is a very long-range activity.”

SBSP is affordable—may be effective way to benefit military.

Deckard 2007. [Margo, SBSP Project Manager of SFF, “Meeting Humanity’s Energy, National Securtiy, Environmental and Economic
Development Needs”, SFF, http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViewsSBSPReport10Oct07.pdf, Google,
07/08/08, JCQ]

We urge the current White House, the existing Presidential candidates, the U.S. Congress, and U.S. industry to heed the NSSO-led study’s finding
that “space-based solar power presents a strategic opportunity” for America that “merits significant further attention
on the part of both the US Government and the private sector.” The NSSO-led study reports that the United States has
spent over $20 Billion on fusion energy research in a steady and sustained manner. In fact, the White House has
requested $418 million for fusion research in FY2008, which is 5 times the total amount this nation has invested in
SBSP over the last 40 years. The Space Frontier Foundation agrees that “SBSP requires a coordinated national program
with high-level leadership and resourcing commensurate with its promise, at least on the level of fusion energy research or
International Space Station construction and operations.” For the last 40 years, the biggest challenge to space-based
solar power has not been technology. The biggest challenge has been figuring out “How can SBSP ever become
economically affordable, compared to alternatives?” Perhaps the biggest news of the NSSO-led study is that the team uncovered
something new that might forever change the economic equation for space-based solar power. The report estimates that the Department of
Defense (DOD) is paying about $1 per kilowatt-hour for electricity in forward bases in Iraq, when all indirect costs are
included. This is an order of magnitude higher in price than what Americans pay for electricity in their homes. These
higher electricity prices are not caused by gouging, but by the realities of war and how electricity is generated for the
warfighter.
Baylor Debate Workshops 90
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP expensive


Senior vice president of National Space Society says are cheaper than before – and the price is still coming down, all that is needed is
funding.

Schirber, June 2008 [Michael, Journalist, “How Satellites Could Power the Future”, Live Science Magazine,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-solar.html, Google, Date Accessed: July 9, 2008, PRM]

The sun puts out more than 10 trillion times the energy currently being consumed by the whole world. "We would
only need to tap into a small fraction of that to get all our energy now and in many years to come," said Mark
Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society, which recently formed an alliance with other non-profits to promote
space-based solar. The advantage of going to space is that sunlight is constant up there and three to 13 times stronger
than the average down here on Earth, Smith said. The first suggestion of a solar power satellite was in 1968, but early estimates
put the price tag around $1 trillion, largely because astronauts would have had to construct the facility back then. Now
robots can do the job, installing improved-efficiency solar cells in a modular fashion, for 100 times cheaper than
before. "If you decide to go now with today's technology, you're talking about the same cost as ground-based solar,"
Hopkins said, which is around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's still too high, according to Hopkins, but he thinks costs will continue
to come down, especially if development dollars start coming in. The Pentagon-sponsored report offered a roadmap for how to
build a 10-megawatt test satellite over the next 10 years for $10 billion.

The DOD says that SBSP is an economically beneficial alternative power source.

Schirber, June 2008 [Michael, Journalist, “How Satellites Could Power the Future”, Live Science Magazine,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-solar.html, Google, Date Accessed: July 9, 2008, PRM]

Placing solar panels in space above both night and clouds was first considered 40 years ago. But the estimated cost was, in a
word, astronomical. The idea, however, has seen a resurgence, thanks to rising oil prices and advances in solar
technology. A report from U.S. Defense Department found that space-based solar is technically feasible and
economically viable. To help prove the point, the Air Force Academy recently announced plans for a small demonstration satellite that
would beam down a meager, but still significant, 0.1 watts of solar power. "Our vision is to build the world's first-ever space-based
solar power system to light a single bulb on Earth and in so doing light the path for business to follow," said Col.
Michael "Coyote" Smith of the Air Force. The type of transmission beam is still not decided, but the project may benefit from
separate research in Japan that has been studying the two most likely technologies: microwaves and lasers.

SBSP only costs a fraction of what we spend in Iraq and provides a limitless amount of clean power.

Roberts, June 2008 [David, Journalist, “Beam Me Down, Scotty”, CNN, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/2/104028/8055,
Google, Date Accessed: July 9, 2008, PRM]

CNN takes a look an energy long shot that could change the game on climate change: space-based solar power. The idea is to launch
satellites covered with solar panels up into geosynchronous orbit, where the sun is always shining, and beam the power
back down to land-based receivers. A 2007 Pentagon study concluded that "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.” The article focuses on the obvious problem: cost.
Back in the '70s when the U.S. was looking at this seriously, NASA concluded getting all the infrastructure up into
space would run about $1 trillion. That's a lot. It's only about a third of what we'll end up spending on the Iraq war,
though, and if it buys basically limitless clean electricity, it will be a bargain. But NASA has blown it before, and betting $1
trillion is a bit much.
Baylor Debate Workshops 91
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: Long Development Time


A Demonstration of SBSP is possible in the near future

David, 2007 [ Leonard, Special Correspondent: Space News, “Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security”, Space News,
<http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html>, 7/9/08, WAC]

A proposal is being vetted by U.S. military space strategists that 10


percent of the U.S. baseload of energy by 2050, perhaps
sooner, could be produced by space based solar power (SBSP). Furthermore, a demonstration of the concept is being eyed to
occur within the next five to seven years.

SBSP-New Architecture Makes Space Solar Power Developments More Feasible Than Ever

Mankins, 2008, [John, (NASA employee and agency manager for 25 years, the Sunsat Energy Council president),
‘Space-Based Solar Power-Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit’, The Magazine of the National Space Society,]
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, Date Accessed: 07/08/2008, TJG

A new remarkable architectural concept called intelligent modular systems makes space solar power development more
feasible than ever. The concept is a simple one: make very complex large systems by assembling a large number of smaller, intelligent, and
modular systems. This extremely simple idea finds numerous parallels in nature: beehives, ant colonies, etc. This has only become feasible for
space systems in the past decade or so.
Baylor Debate Workshops 92
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: DOD & NASA Not Want of R&D


SBSP gives the United States a reliable source of clean power that the DOD & NASA are willing to try.

Shachtman 2007. [Noah, Journalist Danger Room, “Military Target: Solar- Beaming Sats”, Danger Room,
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/06/post.html, Google, 07/08/08, JCQ]

Last month, a man at a bar introduced himself as "Coyote," and told me he was working on the Pentagon's plans to build a string of satellites that
beamed solar rays down to Earth. My first thought was to call my wife, the psychiatrist. I resisted, however. And I was glad I did. Turned out
the guy was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, "Coyote" was his call sign, and he was very serious and (mostly) sane. The government --
especially NASA -- has, for decades, toyed with the idea of collecting sunshine, and shooting it to power everything
from lunar bases to the terrestrial grid. The space agency [NASA] just backed a conference at MIT last month on this
very subject. But two problems always arose: the collecting "rectennas" would have to be massive (i.e. 10 square
kilometers, in one estimate), and the costs could soar even higher. 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. National Security Space
Office director Maj. Gen. James Armor has tasked Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith and others to make an official study into the feasibility of space-
based solar power by 2025 or 2030, and report back by September. (We first noted the possibility of this study in April.) Through the study,
officials are also trying to “identify all the collateral-type of technologies that go into building space-based solar
power so that we can break those down and perhaps identify those with additional emphasis as we press forward with budgeting and
programming over the next several years,” Smith said. Scientists who have considered this concept are either enthusiastic or
skeptical, Smith said. “We’re pretty confident that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.” He added that the study is not a way for DOD
[Department of Defense] to jump into a “new program with wild enthusiasm, but it is a time to take a look at a new concept with prudent caution
and step forward smartly.” But even as the Pentagon embarks on this study, Smith clarified that the Pentagon is not
interested in creating and deploying such an energy satellite network. “DOD does not want to do this,” Smith said.
But he figures there's enough promise -- imagine large bases in the desert, powered just by sunlight -- that it's worth a couple of
months of study. And a little bar talk.

SBSP-Today’s Solar Space Power Technology is Advanced Enough

Mankins, 2008 [John, (NASA employee and agency manager for 25 years, the Sunsat Energy Council president),
‘Space-Based Solar Power-Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit’, The Magazine of the National Space Society,]
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, Date Accessed: 07/08/2008, TJG

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 93
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: SBSP Not Sufficient Energy for US


SBSP is an effective way to provide large amounts of economically and environmentally-friendly energy.

Deckard 2007. [Margo, SBSP Project Manager of SFF, “Meeting Humanity’s Energy, National Securtiy, Environmental and Economic
Development Needs”, SFF, http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SFFViewsSBSPReport10Oct07.pdf, Google,
07/08/08, JCQ]

There are 6 billion human beings inhabiting this world. Six billion humans who place demands on this Earth. Humans who want
the Western standard-of-living and who justifiably want all the conveniences of modern life. A fundamental challenge in this
century is how to provide for the world's growing energy needs. While meeting this challenge, it is vital that we also protect the
Earth's fragile biosphere. Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP, may be part of a combined solution for both energy and the environment. SBSP
has the potential to produce renewable energy in very large amounts, in an economic and environmentally-
friendly manner. The Space Frontier Foundation commends the National Security Space Office (NSSO) for
requesting the study to examine SBSP and the appropriate roles of government and private industry in its
development. The Space Frontier Foundation agrees with 100% of the recommendations in the NSSO-led study
report. The Space Frontier Foundation, which has opposed many other federally-funded space programs as being
wasteful and/or ineffective — but strongly supports a new national initiative for the U.S. Government to finance and
incentivize the private industry development of SBSP.
Baylor Debate Workshops 94
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT – SPS  NMD

SPS can be the first step to developing NMD but technology will still be undeveloped.
Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global
catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host, JDC)

The use of space-based systems to intercept and nullify strategic missiles and thus prevent the
destruction caused by a nuclear war is the only seriously funded attempt to prevent global
catastrophe using space systems after President Regan established strategic defence initiative (SDI) in 1983
[14]. The history of this programme highlights the key problem with all potential space solutions to global
catastrophes. The SDI programme explored numerous different technologies and approaches. A simplistic history
would be the early period was characterised by an emphasis on directed energy weapons such as lasers and neutral
particle beams, and the later stages were characterised by an emphasis on kinetic weapons, in particular “Brilliant
Pebbles” [15]. The directed energy weapons typically would each have mass around 100 tonnes with tens required
in lower Earth orbit, both the mass and the launch rate required are well beyond the capabilities of the current launch
capability. This was addressed with a programme to produce a heavy launcher called the advanced launch vehicle
(ALV) [16]. Although a USAF programme with some NASA interest [17], it was initiated by SDI [18] and the
schedule seemed to driven by SDI requirements [19]. The change of SDI's emphasis to Brilliant Pebbles also raised
launch capability issues. While the kinetic systems are far smaller they are required to be deployed in thousands
[15]. So while the requirement for a heavy lift capability was lost, the required launch rate is much higher, and that
leads to a need for a reusable launcher with aircraft type operations. This requirement led to the single stage rocket
technology programme [20] that culminated in the DC-X experimental vehicle flight programme. The lesson that
can be drawn is that existing launch infrastructure systems cannot support any form of orbital
ballistic missile defence, however, in comparison with the launch requirements required for an
SPS system it would be two orders of magnitude lower. While the infrastructure requirements
would be met, the SPS would provide little of the technology development required for a viable
system.
Baylor Debate Workshops 95
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT – Politics/Elections DA

SBSP has bipartisan support and is popular with both candidates – plus powerful space
lobby will force through plan without link.
Techweb, 2008 (“Space Exploration Alliance Wants Congress To Boost NASA Funding,” February 19, lexis
nexis)

The Space Exploration Alliance wants Congress to fully fund NASA. Some of the group's 700,000
members went to congressional offices last week to protest a billion-dollar shortfall in the proposed
budget for fiscal year 2009. The funding falls short of levels proposed in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
The group also said it's trying to raise awareness about a five-year gap between the retirement of the space shuttle
and the first flights of the Constellation program. "Due to the budgetary constraints NASA has been operating
under for the last several years, America is facing an extended period of time where we will have no capacity to send
humans into space," SEA 's Rick Zucker said in a statement. "NASA will have to pay the Russians for American
astronauts to fly on the Soyuz during that gap, which will only get longer if funding levels stay below authorized
amounts." Members also discussed maintaining support for NASA's robotic science missions and
the importance of space exploration in addressing Earth's energy and environmental challenges.
The group said that several congressional offices asked for more information about the National
Security Space Office's recent study of space-based solar power systems. The study found possible sources of
solar power in space. SEA steering committee member Chris Carberry said that lobbying has proven effective
in encouraging support for space exploration. "We've already seen results with this year's
presidential election, where space policy issues have received more attention than they have in
decades," he said in a statement. "Now we're hoping to be able to do the same thing with Congress."
Baylor Debate Workshops 96
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT – Just Buy the Technology CP

1. This CP doesn’t solve our Space Advantage. Development of SBSP is key to space
leadership and space exploration – simply using or buying the technology is not enough.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: 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 co‐dependent, and advances in either will catalyze development in the other.
Baylor Debate Workshops 97
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT – We need new technology

No need for new tech development – we have all the technology we need to begin creating
SBSP
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that Space‐Based Solar Power is a complex engineering
challenge, but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to
become a reality. Space‐Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with substantial
challenges and a complex trade‐space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or
hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific
discoveries to work. While the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is very strong, this
does not automatically imply economic viability and affordability—this requires even more stringent
technical requirements. FINDING: 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 98
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT – Consult CP

There’s a solvency deficit. Consulting is unnecessary and would only add delays and
setbacks to development
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that although there was universal agreement that international
cooperation was highly desirable an necessary, there was significant disagreement on what form the
cooperation should take. There are multiple values to be balanced with respect to
international cooperation. The various goods to be optimized include efficiency, speed of
development, cost savings, existing alliances, new partnerships, general goodwill, American jobs and
business opportunities, cooperation, safety & assurance, commercial autonomy, and freedom of action.
Adding more and new partners may increase goodwill, but add additional layers of
approval and slow development. Starting with established alliances and shared values
fulfills some expectations and violates others. The spectrum of participation ranges from
beginning with a demarche before the UN General Assembly, to privately approaching America’s closest
allies, to arranging multi‐national corporate conferences. Many participants felt the International Space
Station (ISS) overvalued cooperation for cooperation’s sake, and took mutual dependency
too far.
Baylor Debate Workshops 99
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT – Private Actor CP

Private sector can’t do on own – government risk assessment and initiative are key.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 100
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** Solvency Extensions ******************


Baylor Debate Workshops 101
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency

Impetus for SPS now but businesses need a demonstration of interest from government to go forward with
development. Allocating money and resources for developing a pilot satellite project is enough to get
businesses on board with the R&D. The plan’s incentive will spur innovation in renewable energy that will
result in SPS.
Foust, 2007 (Jeff, publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and Personal Spaceflight
weblogs “A renaissance for space solar power?,” Space Review [online magazine about space policy],
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1, accessed 7/8, JDC)
In recent months, however, a new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhat unlikely quarter. Over the last
several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a study about the feasibility of space solar power, with an eye
towards military applications but also in broader terms of economic and national security. Air Force Lt. Col. Michael “Coyote”
Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session about space solar power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in
Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in a study last year that identified energy, and the competition for it, as the
pathway to “the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st century.” If the United States is
able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said, “that
will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal.” “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. At the same time, the
DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military’s voracious
appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—in getting that energy to troops
deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their
devices. The
total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places,
dangerous supply chain, can
run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death
benefits of soldiers killed in attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. “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
There was one problem with those
agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.
plans, Smith said: because this project was started outside of the budget cycle, there was no money available for
him to carry out a conventional study. “I’ve got no money,” he said, “but I’ve got the ability to go out there and make
friends, and friends are cheap.” So Smith and his cadre of friends have carried out the research for the study in the open, leveraging tools like
Google Groups and a blog that hosts discussions on the subject. Smith made it clear, though, that he’s not looking for a quick fix that
will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in the near term. “If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, it’s going to take a long
time,” he said. “The horizon we’re looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do something significant.” The first major milestone, he
said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years
that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various
technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved
in Jell-O.”The idea of a demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an entrepreneur and self-
described “cynic” who also participated on the NewSpace panel. “The first step in this case needs to be a cheap,
simple satellite, just to prove that we can beam power back down,” he said. A satellite that
generated just 10 kilowatts of power—less than some commercial GEO communications satellites—could be
developed for on the order of $100 million, he said. If space solar power is to become a reality, Smith said, it will have to be
because of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will play a small, but not leading, role. Ali said there needs to be a
“coalition of the willing” that includes the DOD and other government agencies like NASA and
DOE, as well as “the usual suspects” in the commercial space sector, to help advance space solar
power if it appears it can be feasible. That group, he said, should also include oil companies. “We like to think of ‘Big Oil’ as a big, ugly, evil
set of companies that are just taking our money at the gas tank,” he explained, “but the reality is that they are not idiots and they do take the long
view.” Smith agreed, and noted that his team had already met with some representatives off major oil companies, in part because “we realized we
didn’t want to get ‘Tuckered’ out of the business,” a reference to Preston Tucker, who clashed with the established Detroit automakers in the
1940s. If space solar power is to become a reality, he said, it will have to be because of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will
play a small, but not leading, role. “This is not the Department of Defense’s job. We do not want to be in the energy business, we don’t want to be
a producer of energy,” he said. “We just want to be a customer of a clean energy resource that’s out there.”
Baylor Debate Workshops 102
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency

Initial government program to set up system will act as incentive to a cheap, market-based approach. One
single SPS array can be deployed in decades and solve the world’s energy demands.
Sofge, 2008 (Erik, “Sun Beams: THE NEXT ENERGY FRONTIER: USING ORBITING SATELLITES TO BEAM SOLAR POWER DOWN
TO EARTH”, Popular Mechanics; Jan2008, Vol. 185 Issue 1, EBSCO host, JDC)

A Pentagon report released in October could mean the stars are finally aligning for space-based solar power, or SBSP. According to
the report, SBSP is becoming more feasible, and eventually could help head off crises such as
climate change and wars over diminishing energy supplies. "The challenge is one of perception," says John
Mankins, president of the Space Power Association and the leader of NASA's mid-1990s SBSP study. "There are people
in senior leadership positions who believe everything in space has to cost trillions." The new report imagines a market-
based approach. Eventually, SBSP may become enormously profitable — and the Pentagon hopes it will lure
the growing private space industry, "line government would fund launches to place initial
arrays in orbit by 2016, with private firms taking over operations from there. This plan
could limit government costs to about $10 billion. As envisioned, massive orbiting solar arrays, situated to remain in
sunlight nearly continuously, will beam multiple megawatts of energy to Earth via microwave beams. The energy will be transmitted to mesh
receivers placed over open farmland and in strategic remote locations, then fed into the nation's electrical grid. The
goal: To provide
10 percent of the United States' base-load power supply by 2050. Ultimately, the report estimates, a single
kilometer-wide array could collect enough power in one year to rival the energy locked in the
world's oil reserves. While most of the technology required for SBSP already exists, questions such as
potential environmental impacts will take years to work out. "For some time, solar panels on Earth are going to be much cheaper," says Robert
McConnell, a senior project leader at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "This is a very long-range activity."

Plan is key to create impetus for SBSP development within four years and full adoption in 10 years.

Simpson, 2007 (Jason, Energy Washington Week, “'Critical' Space-Based Solar Power Capability Could Cost $10 Billion,” 11/7, lexis nexis)

According to the study group's report, there


is enough solar flux in one year in a single kilometer-wide band
around the Earth's orbit to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known oil
reserves on the planet today. In addition, solar energy available in space is consistently twice that of
peak land-based energy -- roughly 1,400 watts available per square meter at any given time of day in space, compared to about 600 at
noon in June and less than 100 at noon in January on the ground, according to the report. However, SBSP cannot be constructed without "safe,
frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to space and ubiquitous in-space operations," the report states. "The sheer volume and number
of flights into space, and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game-changing." The group found that the initiative is a
complex engineering challenge, "but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or
new physics to become a reality," the report states. Currently, the United States initiates less than 15 space launches per year --
at 25 megatons or less -- and construction of a single SBSP satellite alone would require in excess of 120 such launches. The group
recommends that the United States pay for at least two independent, but coordinated,
contractor studies of updated SBSP reference designs in the one to 10 gigawatt range. Such an effort is
likely to cost approximately $10 million, according to the report. Individual SBSP technologies are
sufficiently mature to fly a basic proof-of-concept demonstration within four to six years and a
substantial power demonstration as early as 2017 to 2020, "though these are likely to cost between [$5 billion to $10
billion] in total," it adds. If the country were to go forward with this initiative, the study group developed
eight infrastructure phases to be implemented between 2009 and 2050: establishing routine access to Low
Earth Orbit (LEO); establishing LEO space logistics depots; extending routine transportation throughout the Earth-moon system; supporting the
initial space-based solar power satellite demonstrations, assembly and operations in geostationary orbit; supporting increased human and robotic
resource survey missions to the moon; expanding LEO capacity to support the increased assembly of SBSP satellites; establishing permanent
lunar surface capabilities to support the extraction of resources; and establishing Earth-moon Lagrangian logistics capabilities to support in-space
SBSP component manufacturing using extraterrestrial resources.
Baylor Debate Workshops 103
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency
The USFG should incentivize the development and deployment of Space-Based solar power – key to space
colonization and asteroid use.

NSS 7 [National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”,
Architecture Feasibility Study, the National Security Space Office,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, DeFilippis]
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.

Space-based solar power is key to economic development, environmental protection, and conflict resolution.

NSS 7 [National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”, Architecture Feasibility Study,
the National Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, DeFilippis]

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 104
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency
DOD can fund the space project which is key to military readiness

Dorneanu 7 [April 12th, Lucian, “Space Solar Power Plant to Transmit Energy to Earth”, Lucian Dorneanu, Science Editor, DeFilippis]

With the DoD's budget being estimated at "only" 443 billion dollars for 2007, I don't think money will be a
problem. Space-based solar power could offer a massive improvement over terrestrial solar collection devices because constant exposure
to the sun avoids the nighttime periods where terrestrial systems cannot collect solar energy. The ability to constantly gather solar energy
would allow a space-based system to avoid safety concerns to other satellites or people on the ground by constantly transmitting energy to
Earth at a level that is high enough to be useful but low enough so as not to cause any damage. Such a method of transmitting
energy from space to Earth could mean that a military applications base could deploy in a matter of days,
without hauling nuclear reactors or other bulky energy sources, discretely and with the ability of being sustained
indefinitely from outer space.

Financial incentives can spur technological advancement of space solar power

Cho 2007 [October, Dan, New Scientist- Environment, “Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space”,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-power-from-space.html

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 Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US.
Baylor Debate Workshops 105
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency
U.S. development of solar stations is key to solve energy crisis, prevent military conflict, and gain technological competitiveness.

Long 7 [Mark, “Pentagon Promotes Space-Based Solar Power Effort”, SciTech Today, http://www.sci-tech-
today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=003000B9JSLL, DeFilippis]

The study's authors are advising the U.S. government to inaugurate a coordinated national program for fostering the
technology's development, with the first step consisting of a proof-of-concept demonstration in outer space. The best way to convince the
public that the concept is viable is to show people that the technology actually works, said NSSO spokesperson Lt. Colonel Paul Damphousse.
"It's not a stretch to prepare equipment to put on the space station to demonstrate beaming" and to test other vital components, Damphousse
noted. A Flying Hoover Dam The new NSSO study, which includes input from more than 170 experts worldwide, might seem like science fiction
to some, but so did the article "Extra-Terrestrial Relays" published by mathematician and science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke in 1945. Today
the world derives incalculable benefits from Clarke's pioneering vision of how communication platforms in geostationary orbit over the earth's
equator could relay TV and radio programs to virtually every inhabitable place on the planet. The space station would give scientists
the ability to test a wide variety of devices and component technologies far more rapidly than you could anywhere
else in space right now, said the president of the Space Power Association and report contributor John Mankins. "We could use it to
validate key concepts of operations: automated assembly, repair, maintenance," Mankins explained. "And it could be a staging
point for larger-scale demonstrations" which are "achievable within a decade, not 50 years away." The first large-scale system could
plausibly be on the scale of the Hoover Dam, which would represent enough power to light a city, Mankins noted. But the power could also "be
directed to more than one ground location where the markets are. It will be a matter of identifying the new opportunities, project by project."
Extraterrestrial Power Relays According to the NSSO's Space-Based Study Group, 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. Huge solar arrays placed into a continuously and
intensely sunlit orbit around the earth would be able to generate gigawatts of electrical energy that could be
electromagnetically beamed back to earth. The receiving stations down on the ground would be designed to deliver
the power to the existing electrical grid, convert it into synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or even broadcast it directly to
consumers. "In the coming century we will need to find as much energy as the world uses today in green form, not just
once, but two, three, or more times over," Mankins noted. "And in technological competitiveness, we need to do ambitious
things as a nation to renew our technological strength in all areas." A U.S. funded demonstration would engage the
interest of foreign governments concerned about future energy demands, the report's authors noted. Moreover, full
deployment of the technology in space would help nations to avoid future military conflicts over increasingly
scarce energy resources, they said.
Baylor Debate Workshops 106
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Government Program  Incentives

Impetus for SPS now but businesses need a demonstration of interest from government to
go forward with development. Allocating money and resources for developing a pilot
satellite project is enough to get businesses on board with the R&D. The plan’s incentive
will spur innovation in renewable energy that will result in SPS.
Foust, 2007 (Jeff, publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space
Politics and Personal Spaceflight weblogs “A renaissance for space solar power?,” Space Review [online magazine
about space policy], http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1, accessed 7/8, JDC)

In recent months, however, a new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhat
unlikely quarter. Over the last several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a
study about the feasibility of space solar power, with an eye towards military applications but also in broader terms
of economic and national security. Air Force Lt. Col. Michael “Coyote” Smith, leading the NSSO study, said
during a session about space solar power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month
that the project had its origins in a study last year that identified energy, and the competition for it, as the
pathway to “the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st century.” If the United States is
able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said, “that
will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal.” “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. At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources,
given the military’s voracious appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—
in getting that energy to troops deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the
equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their devices. The total cost of a gallon of
fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply chain, can run
between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers
killed in attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. “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.
There was one problem with those plans, Smith said: because this project was started outside of the
budget cycle, there was no money available for him to carry out a conventional study. “I’ve got
no money,” he said, “but I’ve got the ability to go out there and make friends, and friends are cheap.” So Smith and
his cadre of friends have carried out the research for the study in the open, leveraging tools like Google Groups and
a blog that hosts discussions on the subject. Smith made it clear, though, that he’s not looking for a quick fix
that will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in the near term. “If I can close this deal on space-based solar
power, it’s going to take a long time,” he said. “The horizon we’re looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do
something significant.” The first major milestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite
that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO.
However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that could alter the
direction space solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in
Jell-O.” The idea of a demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an entrepreneur and
self-described “cynic” who also participated on the NewSpace panel. “The first step in this case needs to be
a cheap, simple satellite, just to prove that we can beam power back down,” he said. A satellite
that generated just 10 kilowatts of power—less than some commercial GEO communications satellites—
could be developed for on the order of $100 million, he said. If space solar power is to become a reality,
Smith said, it will have to be because of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will play a small, but not
leading, role. Ali said there needs to be a “coalition of the willing” that includes the DOD and other
Baylor Debate Workshops 107
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

government agencies like NASA and DOE, as well as “the usual suspects” in the commercial
space sector, to help advance space solar power if it appears it can be feasible. That group, he said, should
also include oil companies. “We like to think of ‘Big Oil’ as a big, ugly, evil set of companies that are just taking our
money at the gas tank,” he explained, “but the reality is that they are not idiots and they do take the long view.”
Smith agreed, and noted that his team had already met with some representatives off major oil companies, in part
because “we realized we didn’t want to get ‘Tuckered’ out of the business,” a reference to Preston Tucker, who
clashed with the established Detroit automakers in the 1940s. If space solar power is to become a reality, he said, it
will have to be because of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will play a small, but not leading, role.
“This is not the Department of Defense’s job. We do not want to be in the energy business, we don’t want to be a
producer of energy,” he said. “We just want to be a customer of a clean energy resource that’s out there.”
Baylor Debate Workshops 108
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Government Program  Incentives

Initial government program to set up system will act as incentive to a cheap, market-based
approach. One single SPS array can be deployed in decades and solve the world’s energy
demands.
Sofge, 2008 (Erik, “Sun Beams: THE NEXT ENERGY FRONTIER: USING ORBITING SATELLITES TO
BEAM SOLAR POWER DOWN TO EARTH”, Popular Mechanics; Jan2008, Vol. 185 Issue 1, EBSCO host, JDC)

A Pentagon report released in October could mean the stars are finally aligning for space-based solar power, or
SBSP. According to the report, SBSP is becoming more feasible, and eventually could help head off
crises such as climate change and wars over diminishing energy supplies. "The challenge is one of
perception," says John Mankins, president of the Space Power Association and the leader of NASA's
mid-1990s SBSP study. "There are people in senior leadership positions who believe everything in space has to cost
trillions." The new report imagines a market-based approach. Eventually, SBSP may become
enormously profitable — and the Pentagon hopes it will lure the growing private space industry,
"line government would fund launches to place initial arrays in orbit by 2016, with private
firms taking over operations from there. This plan could limit government costs to about $10
billion. As envisioned, massive orbiting solar arrays, situated to remain in sunlight nearly continuously, will beam
multiple megawatts of energy to Earth via microwave beams. The energy will be transmitted to mesh receivers
placed over open farmland and in strategic remote locations, then fed into the nation's electrical grid. The goal: To
provide 10 percent of the United States' base-load power supply by 2050. Ultimately, the report
estimates, a single kilometer-wide array could collect enough power in one year to rival the
energy locked in the world's oil reserves. While most of the technology required for SBSP
already exists, questions such as potential environmental impacts will take years to work out. "For some time,
solar panels on Earth are going to be much cheaper," says Robert McConnell, a senior project leader at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "This is a very long-range activity."

Plan is key to create impetus for SBSP development within four years and full adoption in
10 years.
Simpson, 2007 (Jason, Energy Washington Week, “'Critical' Space-Based Solar Power Capability Could Cost
$10 Billion,” 11/7, lexis nexis)

According to the study group's report, there


is enough solar flux in one year in a single kilometer-wide
band around the Earth's orbit to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known oil
reserves on the planet today. In addition, solar energy available in space is consistently twice that
of peak land-based energy -- roughly 1,400 watts available per square meter at any given time of day in space,
compared to about 600 at noon in June and less than 100 at noon in January on the ground, according to the
report. However, SBSP cannot be constructed without "safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to
space and ubiquitous in-space operations," the report states. "The sheer volume and number of flights into space,
and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game-changing." The group found that the initiative is a
complex engineering challenge, "but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or
new physics to become a reality," the report states. Currently, the United States initiates less than 15 space
launches per year -- at 25 megatons or less -- and construction of a single SBSP satellite alone would require in
excess of 120 such launches. The group recommends that the United States pay for at least two
independent, but coordinated, contractor studies of updated SBSP reference designs in the one
to 10 gigawatt range. Such an effort is likely to cost approximately $10 million, according to the report.
Individual SBSP technologies are sufficiently mature to fly a basic proof-of-concept demonstration
within four to six years and a substantial power demonstration as early as 2017 to 2020, "though
Baylor Debate Workshops 109
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

If the country were to go forward


these are likely to cost between [$5 billion to $10 billion] in total," it adds.
with this initiative, the study group developed eight infrastructure phases to be implemented
between 2009 and 2050: establishing routine access to Low Earth Orbit (LEO); establishing LEO space
logistics depots; extending routine transportation throughout the Earth-moon system; supporting the initial space-
based solar power satellite demonstrations, assembly and operations in geostationary orbit; supporting increased
human and robotic resource survey missions to the moon; expanding LEO capacity to support the increased
assembly of SBSP satellites; establishing permanent lunar surface capabilities to support the extraction of resources;
and establishing Earth-moon Lagrangian logistics capabilities to support in-space SBSP component manufacturing
using extraterrestrial resources.
Baylor Debate Workshops 110
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – R&D Key – Solves Warming/Oil

SSP can eliminate oil dependency and solve CO2 emissions – further R&D is key.
Cho and Cohen, 2007 (Dan and David, science writers, “Can solar power work in space?,” New Scientist;
11/24/2007, Vol. 196 Issue 2631, p42-45, EBSCOhost, JDC)

IF IT happens, it will be the space engineering feat that tops them all. Spanning several square
kilometres, a space power station would be by far the largest orbiting structure ever built, dwarfing the International
Space Station like a skyscraper towering over a tin shack. More importantly, it could be the answer to our
energy woes. While the engineering may be on a colossal scale, the idea behind space solar power is simple
enough. Lob giant solar panels into geostationary orbit, then use the electricity they generate to send an intense
beam of laser light or microwaves down to Earth where it will be converted back into electricity to be pumped into
the grid. In one fell swoop we could slash CO2 emissions and reduce our reliance on oil. The
beam could be used to deliver power to remote locations without the need for expensive
transmission lines, and even provide instant on-demand electricity to soldiers in the field. One
day the beams may even be used to power a new generation of spacecraft or help to control the
weather. The dream of generating our electricity in space has been around for decades, but so far it has always
proved too expensive to follow through. With a conference of space and energy specialists due to report in the
next few weeks, that may be about to change. Energy prices are soaring and the security of fuel
supplies is becoming a priority, so the conference, which took place in May at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, was convened to work out whether space solar power was an idea worth reviving. Meanwhile, a study
group put together by the Pentagon has been assessing its military benefits, and in Japan a $12
million 10-year programme to study space solar power has just been given an extra $2.3 million
to fund experiments. So has the concept's time finally come, or will sky-high costs and safety concerns over
powerful energy beams from space win out again?
Baylor Debate Workshops 111
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Funding Key

Solar power satellites can develop more energy than any other type of earth-based resource
but lack of funding and support doom its effectiveness. All that’s needed is the initiative
and political will to develop it.
Cho and Cohen, 2007 (Dan and David, science writers, “Can solar power work in space?,” New Scientist;
11/24/2007, Vol. 196 Issue 2631, p42-45, EBSCOhost, JDC)

If the mammoth project could be made to work, the benefits are clear. Put
a solar panel out beyond the
Earth's atmosphere and it can generate almost 20 times as much electricity as it could on average
at ground level, as it would not suffer losses due to atmospheric absorption, day-night cycles and
cloud cover. Factor in the energy storage systems needed on Earth to cover for periods of
darkness and that advantage could double. At the geostationary altitude of nearly 36,000 kilometres, every
square metre of a satellite facing the sun would receive 1360 watts of solar energy almost continuously, even when
the Earth below is blanketed by cloud. According to Masahiro Mori, director of the Advanced Mission
Research Centre at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in Tsukuba, these efficiencies
mean that even taking into account the energy needed for construction, a space-based solar power
station would still produce around 6 times as much energy as a solar power station of the same
surface area on Earth. When NASA and the US Department of Energy took a look at space-based
solar power in the 1970s, they concluded it was technically feasible, but the cost ruled it out. Just getting
the first satellite up and running would cost the equivalent of $1 trillion at today's prices -- and the scheme would
require dozens like it. "The capital cost was so great it boggled the mind," says Martin Hoffert, emeritus professor of
physics at New York University and a long-time supporter of space solar power. John Mankins, a former
NASA research manager who worked on space solar power, says a lot has changed since then.
Mankins now spends his days as a cheerleader for space solar power through his company Managed Energy
Technologies, based in Ashburn, Virginia. He points to three key developments that could bring down
the size and cost of a solar power satellite to realistic levels. First, solar cells are now four times
as efficient at converting solar energy to electricity as they were in the 1970s, and improving, so the
area of solar arrays required can be cut. Beaming technology has improved too. Solid-state devices can
now be used to point microwave beams electronically rather than relying on a swivelling antenna, so
small, easily assembled modular antennas could be used in place of the kilometre-high monolith originally called
for. Finally, robots are now capable enough to do much of the construction work. Some of these
advances were noted in 1995, in a feasibility study called "Fresh Look" commissioned by NASA. Though the
study found the prospects favourable, NASA did not pursue the project and cancelled its
funding in 2001. According to Mankins, the decision was influenced by officials' view that it was
not part of NASA's job to develop new energy sources. Similarly, the US Department of Energy
has shown little enthusiasm for space technology. No single agency is willing to take overall
responsibility, Mankins complains.
Baylor Debate Workshops 112
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Funding  Incentives

US research and development will create incentives for the corporate development of space
solar power
Cho and Cohen, 2007 (Dan and David, science writers, “Can solar power work in space?,” New Scientist;
11/24/2007, Vol. 196 Issue 2631, p42-45, EBSCOhost, JDC)

For the US National Security Space Office (NSSO), it is a different aspect of space solar power
that is the attraction: its possible military applications. This year, the office, which is part of the
Pentagon, charged air force lieutenant colonel Michael "Coyote" Smith with the task of
investigating the possibilities of space solar power. Though Smith had no funding for a formal
investigation, he was able to recruit a group of volunteer specialists from academia and industry to participate in an
online discussion through blogs and forums. This culminated in a conference in Colorado in September and a
report recommending that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to develop
a small satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of energy to Earth. If successful, this would
then entice private industry to become involved and develop the technology, the report suggests.
Solar-power satellites could bathe a narrow region in microwaves, allowing targeted
transmission to military bases anywhere within line of sight of the satellite. One possibility is
that soldiers in the field could wear a receiver antenna to absorb the microwaves and charge up
the batteries for their electronic equipment. Even if this application never materialised, beaming
down power could become a cost-effective alternative to generating electricity on some far-flung
military bases, where it can cost more than $1 per kilowatt-hour -- about 10 times the price domestic consumers
pay. "That's the first realistic application I've heard," says Olivier de Weck, an astronautics systems engineer at MIT.
The officers involved in drafting the NSSO report have repeatedly said that the military wants to
be a "customer" for space solar power, rather than develop it itself. The report did raise the possibility
of a new government agency to oversee such a project, but not how it might be funded.

Providing government funding is an incentive for development of the technology in the


private and public sector – contextual evidence.
Smith, 2007 (Colonel M.V. “Coyote” Smith, is a PhD student in the strategic studies program under Professor
Colin Gray at the University of Reading in the UK and an expert on spacepower, “Space Solar Power: Much More
Than Clean Energy,” Ju. 16, Space Solar Power, http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/space-solar-
power-much-more-than-clean-energy/#more-45, accessed 7/7, JDC)

Our goal is to make space-based solar power affordable by the customer and profitable for the company who trades
it. The National Security Space Office is working with our friends in the Office of Space
Commercialization in the Department of Commerce to develop space-based solar power in the commercial sector.
We seek to incentivize the pathway for the commercial sector to develop space-based solar
power–tapping into an industry of potentially trillions of dollars annually. We want to leverage off
of other space programs already in the pipeline to develop the infrastrucutre we require, and
make prudent investments in niche technologies to help close the business case for space-based
solar power. The last thing we want is a large government program that will invariably become a political hot
potato(e)!
Baylor Debate Workshops 113
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Fund NASA Key

Federal government should authorize and fund NASA pilot study in SSP to spur
development.
Whitesides, 2008 (George T. Whitesides, executive director, National Space Society, “sen. Bill nelson holds a
hearing on space exploration”, Political Transcript Wire, May 8, lexis nexis)

Finally, I would like to close with three areas in which NASA should make highly leveraged investments
that could generate significant return in economic utility, public support, and global health and
welfare. First, space-based solar power, in which solar energy is collected in space and beamed down to Earth, is a
strategic goal worthy of our imaginations and national spirit. While SSP is not a short-term solution for national
energy production, the nation must begin investing in such technologies now, if it is to meet the
energy needs of the future. Congress should authorize NASA to perform a new study of the
concept and to plan for space-based solar power demonstration.
Baylor Debate Workshops 114
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – DoD Key

DoD initial incentives will catalyze business investment and private sector development.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

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
an renewable power sources. o 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. Finding: 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
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.”
Baylor Debate Workshops 115
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Funding  Incentives

Government funding will create an incentive for private firms to develop SSP – it could
solve all energy needs in 10 years.
Morgan, 2007 (James, “Ray of hope on energy,” The Herald (Glasgow), 10/25, lexis nexis)
These dreams were always shot down by the costs - exorbitant when compared with the plentiful reserves
of fossil fuels. Now, with spiralling oil prices and the threat of runaway climate change, the balance
has tipped, according to the National Security Space Office, part of the Department of Defense. Its study claims
that space-based solar power (SBSP) could be economically competitive in the near future. In just a year,
it calculates, satellites orbiting in a continuous sunlight could generate energy nearly equivalent to all of
the energy available in the world's oil reserves. Not only might that put the brakes on global
warming, it says, it could help to stif le the wars and political tension that the oil trade creates. The
result - a peaceful world. "This is a solution for mankind, " said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman of the
spacef light advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation, at the unveiling of the report in Washington. The report
urges the US government to invest GBP 5bn in a pilot project, to spur private investment in the
concept. It argues that SBSP could generate so much power it could transform the gas guzzling
United States into an energy-exporting nation. The power plant would beam its energy in a microwave
beam, which would hit a receiving antenna complex, known as a "rectenna", which would convert it into electricity.
But the platforms would be much larger than anything yet constructed in space - requiring an enormous growth and
advancement in space transport. Then there's the timescale. It would take at least 10 years before energy
could be produced in significant quantities. Finally, what about the possibility that the beam could be
attacked, captured and used as a weapon?

Demonstration project key to get business interests on board development project.


NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

Despite this early interim review success, there are still many more questions that must be answered
before a full‐scale commercial development decision can be made. It is proposed that in the spirit of the
original collaborative SBSP Study Group charter, that this interim report becomes a living document to
collect, summarize, and recommend on the evolution of SBSP. The positive indicators observed to
surround SBSP by this review team suggest that it would be in the US Government’s and the
nation’s interest to sponsor an immediate proof-of-concept demonstration project and a
formally funded, follow-on architecture study conducted in full collaboration with
industry and willing international partners. The purpose of a follow‐on study will be to definitively
rather than speculatively answer the question of whether all of the barriers to SBSP
developmet can be retired within the next four decades and to create an actionable
business case and construction effort roadmap that will lead to the installation of utility‐
grade SBSP electric power plants. Considering the development timescales that are involved, and the
exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is
imperative that this work for “drilling up” vs. drilling down for energy security begins
immediately.
Baylor Debate Workshops 116
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Funding  Incentives

US should pay for small studies in solar power satellites to remove risk on investment.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that over a decade has elapsed since a systematic
study took a “fresh look” and clearly studied the current status of component technologies. This
results in a lack of precision of the true state of the art in component technologies for integrated
design trades requied to build a roadmap for systematic risk reduction. • The technical challenges
associated with construction of a Space Solar Power Satellite are well understood and can be identified
for systematic risk reduction and retirement. These include: demonstration of power beaming at significant
levels over significant distances; robotic & tele‐ operator construction of very large space structures; high
power / low mass in‐space solar power generation, management and storage; and ubiquitous space access
and operations. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the United
States should conduct a survey of state of the art component technologies, identify
major types of satellite designs that are feasible to build using known technology, and
generate a roadmap to inform further decisions for rational retirement of risk for full‐sized
SBSP systems. Such an effort is likely to cost approximately $500,000 to $2 million. FINDING: The
SBSP Study Group found that over two decades have elapsed since contractor‐led studies performed
detailed and integrated system designs. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the
United States should pay for at least two independent, but coordinated contractor studies of updated SBSP
reference designs in the 1‐10 GW range. Such an effort is likely to cost approximately $10 million.
Baylor Debate Workshops 117
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Incentives – Funding Creates Private Sector

Allocating resources to DoD and NASA to conduct a pilot study of SPS is key to create an
initiative for private development of the full technology – this could lead to full SPS in 20
years.
Singer, 2007 (Jeremy, “Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power,” April 12, Fox News,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html, accessed 7/7, JDC)

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin a study in the near future on the possibility of
using satellites to collect solar energy for use on Earth, according to Defense Department officials. The officials
said the study does not mean that the military plans to demonstrate or deploy a space-based solar power
constellation. However, as the Pentagon looks at a variety of alternative energy sources, this could be
one possible method of supplying energy to troops in bases or on the battlefield, they said. The military's
work in this area also could aid development of a system that could provide energy to non-military users as
well, according to Lt. Col. Michael Hornitschek, chief of rated force policy on the Air Force staff at the
Pentagon. Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based solar power in his spare time, recently
briefed the NSSO on the concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in conducting a formal study,
according to Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith, chief of future concepts at the NSSO. The NSSO
would need to find the financial resources and available manpower to conduct the study,
Smith said. Hornitschek would lead work on the study on behalf of the NSSO if the NSSO elects to pursue it, and
he said he hopes that a system could be deployed in roughly 20 years. John Mankins, president of
the Space Solar Power Association in Washington, said space-based solar power could offer a
massive improvement over terrestrial solar collection devices because constant exposure to the
sun avoids the nighttime periods where terrestrial systems cannot collect solar energy. The ability to constantly
gather solar energy would allow a space-based system to avoid safety concerns to other satellites or
people on the ground by constantly transmitting energy to Earth at a level that is high enough to
be useful but low enough so as not to cause any damage, said Mankins, a former NASA official who
previously served as manager of advanced concept studies at NASA headquarters before leaving the agency in
2005. Jeff Kueter, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank, said it is too early to
determine if space-based solar power is viable, but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a potential
"game changer" for energy use. The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign energy sources, as well as
liberals who are looking for an environmentally friendly source of energy, Kueter said. While
space-based solar power may sound like a high-risk proposal, it is worth investing several million
dollars in the near term to study the concept because of the potential high payoff, Kueter said. If the studies
indicated that the concept might be feasible, it would be worthwhile for the Pentagon to conduct flight
demonstrations to prove out the technology in space, he said. If the Pentagon chose to pursue flight
demonstrations or deployment of a space-based solar power system, it could share costs by partnering
with NASA, the Department of Energy and other government agencies, Kueter said. The concept of space-based
solar power might appear to threaten traditional energy industries, Kueter said. However, the rapidly increasing
demands for energy and diminishing supply of natural resources means that traditional energy
companies may need to find new ways of doing business in the future, and they could likely find a way to be
a part of the space-based solar power effort through ways like contributing expertise in areas like energy
distribution, he said. The NSSO would likely ask experts from industries like electrical power to be involved in
the study if it chooses to conduct it to draw on their experience with power distribution, Smith said. If the NSSO
initiates the study on space-based solar power, it would likely be the first time that the Pentagon has
looked at the concept, Hornitschek said. Smith said he hoped the study could create a repository of
information about space-based solar power that may have been conducted by other agencies, as well as any
that may have existed within the military.
Baylor Debate Workshops 118
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff
Baylor Debate Workshops 119
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – SBSP = Lots of Energy

SBSP = unlimited energy.


NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic
reservoir of renewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy
security and assurance. 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 contaied 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 treendous 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.

SPS is more effective and efficient than terrestrial forms of alternative energy in every way.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

If solar is considered “green” energy, then SBSP could be considered the ultimate green energy.
SBSP, if manufactured on Earth (and not in‐space using lunar or asteroidal material), will of course
have very similar manufacturing/pollution impacts as ground solar—except that per unit of delivered
energy, much less residual pollution needs to be produced because much less solar collection area
(and therefore solar collector materials) is required with SBSP. While the advantages of a distributed grid
of ground solar are clear, especially for peak power during the middle of the day, space solar has several
distinct advantages over ground solar, such as its appropriateness for base‐load power (the minimum power
required by the grid at all times). • SBSP’s primary environmental benefit is in the form of
nearly carbon‐free, renewable energy. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends
engagement with representatives of several well‐established national environmental organizations to
determine general support levels for SBSP. • 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
Baylor Debate Workshops 120
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

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 use vs.
terrestrial solar for an equivalent amount of delivered energy.
Baylor Debate Workshops 121
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Federal Pilot Program Key

Government pilot program is key to retire business risks, create a legal framework, and
provide an incentive for businesses to fully develop the technology.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

The study group determined that four overarching recommendations were most significant: •
Recommendation #1: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should organize
effectively to allow for the development of SBSP and conclude analyses to resolve
remaining unknows • Recommendation #2: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government
should retire a major portion of the technical risk for business development •
Recommendation #3: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should create a
facilitating policy, regulatory, and legal environment for the development of SBSP • Recommendation
#4: The study group recommends that the U.S. Government should become an early
demonstrator/adopter/customer of SBSP and incentivize its development 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 evelopment. 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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 122
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency – Federal Pilot Program Key


US should fund and implement a demonstration project of SBSP to spur development.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that individual SBSP technologies are sufficiently
mature to fly a basic proof‐of‐concept demonstration within 4‐6 years and a substantial
power demonstration as early as 2017‐2020, though these are likely to cost between $5B‐$10B in
total. This is a serious challenge for a capable agency with a transformational agenda. A proposed
spiral demonstration project can be found in Appendix B. • No government or private entity has
ever completed a significant space‐borne demonstration, understandable to the public, to provide
proof‐in‐principle and create strategic visibility for the concept (the study group did discover one European
commercial consortium that was attempting to build a MW‐class in‐space demonstration within the next 5
years). While a series of experiments for specific component selection, maturation, and space qualification
is also in order, a convincing in‐space demonstration is required to mature this concept and catalyze
actionable commercial interest and development. There are also critical concept unknowns that can only
be uncovered by flying actual hardware. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends
that the U.S. Government should sponsor a formally funded, follow‐on architecture study with
industry and international partners that could lead to a competition for an orbital
demonstration of the key underlying technologies and systems needed for an initial 5‐50 MWe
continuous SBSP system. • The physics of microwave power transmission at expected frequencies (2.45 –
5.8 GHz) require a very large transmitter (> 0.5 km diameter at full scale) regardless of the amount of
power transmitted, and this is a chief driver of system mass. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study
Group recommends that one minimum criterion for a meaningful demonstration must ensure it is not a
throw‐away system, and provides some significant leave‐behind capability that is clearly on the path to a
full system. Less expensive demos are possible but may be counter‐productive as they
would not meet all of the required criteria.
Baylor Debate Workshops 123
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

**************** The Negative ******************


Baylor Debate Workshops 124
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Status Quo Solves


Status Quo solves—universal interest in solar energy means the plan will eventually happen.

NSS 7 [National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”, Architecture Feasibility Study,
the National Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, DeFilippis]

The SBSP Study Group concluded that should the U.S. begin a coordinated national program to develop SBSP, it should expect to find that broad
interest in SBSP exists outside of the US Government, ranging from aerospace and energy industries; to foreign governments
such as Japan, the EU, Canada, India, China, Russia, and others; to many individual citizens who are increasingly
concerned about the preservation of energy security and environmental quality. While the best chances for development are likely to
occur with US Government support, it is entirely possible that SBSP development may be independently pursued
elsewhere without U.S. leadership.
Baylor Debate Workshops 125
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Inherency Frontline
There is already support for SPS

Foust 2007 [A renaissance for space solar power? Monday, August 13, 2007]

In recent months, however, a


new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhat unlikely
quarter. Over the last several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a study about
the feasibility of space solar power, with an eye towards military applications but also in broader terms of economic
and national security. Air Force Lt. Col. Michael “Coyote” Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session about space solar
power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in a study last year that identified
energy, and the competition for it, as the pathway to “the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st century.” If the United
States is able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said, “that will buy
us a form of security that would be phenomenal.” “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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 126
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Space Advantage Frontline


Plan causes space conflicts which lead to economic downturn

Myers 2008 [Steven Lee. "Look Out Below. The Arms Race in Space May Be On." New York Times. March 9, 2008.]

It doesn't take much imagination to realize how badly war in space could unfold. An enemy -- say, China in a confrontation
over Taiwan, or Iran staring down America over the Iranian nuclear program -- could knock out the American satellite system in a
barrage of antisatellite weapons, instantly paralyzing American troops, planes and ships around the world. Space
itself could be polluted for decades to come, rendered unusable. The global economic system would probably
collapse, along with air travel and communications. Your cellphone wouldn't work. Nor would your A.T.M. and that dashboard navigational
gizmo you got for Christmas. And preventing an accidental nuclear exchange could become much more difficult. "The
fallout, if you will, could be tremendous," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington.

Space based reliance technology will provoke war and violence

Chun 2k [Clayton K. S. Shooting Down a Star: Program 437, the U.S. Nuclear ASAT System and Present Day Copycat Killers. Maxwell AFB,
AL: USAF Air University, April 2000.]

The United States' reliance upon space systems for numerous military force applications is a tempting target to many
nations. The post-cold-war era has left the United States with a downsized military in terms of personnel, equipment, and bases. This situation
has forced our military to rely on a number of force multipliers such as space-based systems to overcome force size, enemy geographic
advantages, and distance concerns. For example, on 8 May 1998, the United States' National Reconnaissance Office launched an Orion signal
intelligence spacecraft that allows the nation to eavesdrop on military communications from Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea. The current
drive towards using asymmetric strategies to defeat an enemy has, in one sense, opened the opportunity for a foe to attack our very
strength through unconventional methods. The more capable the technology, the more our forces rely on it due to the
reduced costs and improved capabilities provided to a joint force commander. Unless the United States, and the Air
Force in particular, take precautions to defend vital space assets against such threats as ASATs, our forces likely will
become more vulnerable to foreign threats despite our technological and military superiority.

Space programs empirically fail

Chavanne 8 [March 10, “Space Acquisition Woes”, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, DeFilippis]

In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces March 4, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) noted that although DOD has made strides in addressing cost overruns and delays in space acquisitions, it continues to face
persistent problems. "The majority of major acquisition programs in DOD's space portfolio have experienced
problems, resulting in cost growth close to or exceeding 100 percent on some programs," Cristina Chaplain, GAO's
director of acquisition and sourcing management, said in her statement. GAO cited five notable programs that have incurred
"substantial cost growth and schedule delays": the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) communications satellite, the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), the Wideband Global
Satcom (WGS) and the Global Positioning System (GPS) IIF program. The causes of acquisition problems in space programs are
myriad and include the fact that weapons programs are "incentivized to produce and use optimistic cost and schedule
estimates in order to successfully compete for funding," the report said. "We have also found that DOD starts its space programs
too early ... before it has assurance that the capabilities it is pursuing can be achieved within available resources and time
constraints." Acquisition problems also can be linked to inadequate contracting strategy, contract and program management
weaknesses, the loss of technical expertise, capability gaps in the industrial base and divergent needs in users of space systems,
among others, GAO said. GAO acknowledged that DOD is operating in a challenging environment, pressured "to deliver new, transformational
capabilities" while managing "problematic, older satellite programs" that continue to cost money, constrain investment dollars and pose a risk to
capabilities.
Baylor Debate Workshops 127
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Warming Advantage Frontline

SPS can’t solve warming – it can’t remove existing CO2 which is a greater cause to warming than new
emissions.
Hempsella, 2006 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59,
Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host, JDC)

The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the
atmosphere would clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual production rate of around 30
Gtonnes a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To
remove a tonne of the gas over a year and split the
carbon from the oxygen would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a removal and processing
plant would remove 5 million tonnes a year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current production rate. Taking a scenario of the
expanded reference system with
around 200 SPS in place providing most of the world's energy needs
without any carbon dioxide being produced there would still be a need to remove the carbon
dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and dedicated to CO2
removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the current
production rate. Such a system (doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be
operational for a thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy dependence on energy from
fossil fuels.
Baylor Debate Workshops 128
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency Frontline
There aren’t enough rocket launches a year to make a SPS

Cho 2007, [Dan PENTAGON BACKS PLAN TO BEAM SOLAR POWER FROM SPACE;
Rachel's Democracy & Health News 10-18-2007 elibrary JSW]

Several technical challenges remain to be overcome, including the development of lower-cost space launches. A satellite
capable of supplying the same amount ofelectric power as a modern fossil-fuel plant would have a mass of about 3000
tons - 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.

Even advocates can’t explain away all the obvious problems with SPS

Jannot 2006 [Mark Generation Gaps; Popular Science 07-01-2006 elibrary JSW]

I just got back from the International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles, where I moderated a discussion around the question "Can
Space Help Solve Earth's Energy Crisis?" One of the panelists was John Mankins, the former manager of Advanced Concepts Studies for
NASA and an ardent proponent of deploying gargantuan solar-power satellites to beam energy down to Earth. The other was Brad Edwards,
chief advocate for the building of a space elevator, a 62,000-mile-long carbon-nanotube ribbon that is pretty much the only technology
imaginable (if just barely) that could get such a huge payload up to geostationary orbit cheaply enough.
Now, it happens that one of the images we rejected for this month's cover was a striking depiction of just such a satellite [check out the
illustration on page 54]. It's an awesome glimpse at a game-changing future--core POPSCI stuff. So why didn't it make the cut? Because it didn't
communicate the promise of our 10-step energy plan, which is that we have it within our grasp, leveraging
technologies available today, to slash our fossil-fuel use by more than 75 percent by 2025. Orbiting solar arrays the
size of 55 football fields seem too far-out to be taken seriously as a solution to our dependence on oil. My challenge
to the panelists was to convince me I was wrong about that. They failed.

SBSP takes forever to develop

ROUGE 2007 [Joseph D., Acting Director, “Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study”, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, Date accessed: 8/08, JFE]

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.
Baylor Debate Workshops 129
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Solvency Frontline
Many barriers prevent SBSP: cost, economic feasibility, not able to build, and not enough existing technology

Boswell 2004 [“Whatever happened to solar power satellites?” THE SPACE REVIEW Monday, August 30, 2004
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1 7/9/08 JSW]

High cost of launching Another barrier is that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment
would be needed to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was
produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before
generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has
been made? There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on
average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS
satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough to
launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy? In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy
has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they
realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own. From this perspective, the
barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the
money available for further development. There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space projects that
makes the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is not lack of
imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable economic
development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government intervention in the
capital market.” Competing with other options Even if a solar power system was built and launched there would still be the
economic problem of producing electricity at a cost that is comparable to other options. Government subsidies can help get
this new industry on its feet but it will need to compete in the market in order to survive. This is a challenge for all emerging
renewable energy solutions. Current non-renewable energy supplies are cheap. Even with the recent increases in the price of oil, it
is still historically low. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are still much lower than they were during the oil crisis in the
1970s. With current prices there is little incentive for customers or producers to pursue alternatives. Even if oil prices
continue to increase, it is not likely that this will be enough to drive demand for alternatives. Although we will
eventually run out of oil, coal, and other non-renewable energy sources, in the short term rising oil prices will
simply generate more oil. There are large amounts of known reserves that are too expensive to profitably develop
when oil is below a certain price. As soon as the price increases past a certain threshold, a given field can be
developed at a profit. From an economic standpoint, energy producers will take advantage of this and will make use of
their existing infrastructure to extract, refine, and distribute as much oil as possible regardless of how high the price
of a barrel of oil goes. Again the problem is more of a political one than an economic one. There will not be a financial reason to start
creating a solar power system in space unless we reach a decision to include the hidden environmental costs of our current non-renewable sources
of energy into the equation. In the near term we certainly can afford to keep burning more oil, but are we willing to start investing in alternatives
so we don’t have to? A very big problem A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous.
Some designs suggest creating rectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side. If we assume
that enough money could be found to build something like this and that it could be run competitively against other
energy options, there is the very real problem of figuring out how to get it into orbit or how to build it in orbit from
separate smaller pieces. The largest solar panels ever deployed in space are currently being used on the International Space Station. They
cover more than 830 square meters and are 73 meters long and 11 meters wide. These large panels make the ISS one of the brightest objects in the
night sky. Scaling up from there to something much larger would be challenging, but the good news is that we can take one thing at a time. For a
proof of concept satellite it makes sense to use the station’s solar panels as a baseline. By taking advantage of improvements in solar cell
technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of the same size that generates up to 3 times as much power. The station’s solar panels are
14% efficient, but recent advances with solar cells and solar concentrators could allow us to build panels that are up to 50% efficient. If this
demonstration system validated the theory behind generating power in space and beaming it down to Earth, the next step would be
figuring out how to put even bigger solar panels in space. It may be that with our current launch options it simply isn’t
possible to launch an operational solar power system into orbit. If that were the case, the concept would need to be
put on hold until other lift options, such as a space elevator, are available.
Baylor Debate Workshops 130
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Japan CP Solvency- Tech Capabilities


Japan has plans to build a SPS

Takahiro Fukada Japan Plans To Launch Solar Power Station In Space By 2040 Tokyo (AFP) Jan. 31, 2001

Undaunted by its less than glorious track record in space, Japan's ministry of economy, trade and industry (METI) has
ambitious plans
to launch a giant solar power station by 2040. "We are starting research for a solar power generation
satellite from fiscal year 2001 in April," Osamu Takenouchi, of METI's airplane, weapons and space industry division told AFP.
"We are planning to start operating the system in 2040," Takenouchi added.

Japanese space company already testing and developing SBSP.

Patel, February 7, 2008, [Nilay, Japan’s Space Agency Planning Space-Based Solar power Arrays, Engadget,
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/japans-space-agency-planning-space-based-solar-power-
arrays, July 9, 2008, KTM]

JAXA, the Japanese space agency, is about to get really far out with its latest project: a space-based solar
array that beams power back to Earth. The agency is set to begin testing on the microwave power transmission
system on February 20th, with an attempt to beam enough power over the 2.4GHz band to power a
household heater at 50 meters (164 feet). That's certainly not the sort of large-scale sci-fi power system we were hoping for, but
fret not -- if the tests are successful, JAXA's plan is to eventually launch a constellation of solar satellites, each beaming power to a 1.8-mile wide
receiving station that'll produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and power 500,000 homes.
Baylor Debate Workshops 131
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

General CP Solvency - US is not key


The United States is no longer a leader in environmentalism.

Jerald L. Schnoor Business & Education News – April 6, 2005,

So much has changed in 35 years. Now, Europe is much more proactive on the environment. Witness Germany’s green roofs,
take-back laws, wind power, and life-cycle labels on its products. The EU is embarking on an ambitious endeavor to
test 20,000–30,000 high-production-volume chemicals for toxicity, while the United States is slowly trying to
accomplish the same with a voluntary testing program. Voluntary programs can be very effective as long as there is strong
leadership and an administration that says, “Thou shalt volunteer—this is the way we want to do business in the future.” The United States
has relinquished the lead in environmental research and technologies that could provide manufacturing jobs for the
21st century. Denmark leads the world in wind turbine production, while creating 100,000 new jobs. The United
States has only one remaining manufacturer, General Electric, despite being blessed with enough wind in three states
alone—North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas—to power its entire base electricity demands. Moreover, wind power is
currently cost-competitive with new coal-fired plants. Japan is the leader in solar photovoltaic technologies and hybrid electric
engines. Yet, enough solar energy strikes the skins of buildings in every American city to provide all its electricity needs. Renewable sources
could play a major role in energy self-sufficiency by 2020, while solving our greenhouse gas emissions problem, ending the balance-of-payments
crisis and deficit, creating jobs, and providing energy security. If a terrorist organization hatched a plan to undermine the United States by making
it wholly dependent on foreign countries for energy and capital, its members would be hunted and destroyed.
Baylor Debate Workshops 132
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Generic Economy Turn


Turn: Emission cuts kill the global economy

Casey 2008 [Michael, April 03, “US: Emissions Cuts Would Hurt World Economy”, Associated Press,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080403-ap-us-gw.html, DeFilippis]

posted: 03 April 2008 10:44 am ET


BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — U.S. negotiators at a United Nations climate conference say steep emission cuts could further rattle
the world economy, especially in the developing world. The EU has proposed that industrialized countries slash emissions of
greenhouse gases by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 as part of global climate pact. The U.S., one of the world's top
polluters, has repeatedly rejected mandatory national reduction targets of the kind agreed to under the Kyoto
Protocol a decade ago. "If you push the globe into recession, it certainly isn't going to help the developing world,''
Harlan Watson, head of the U.S. delegation in Bangkok, told The Associated Press Wednesday. "Exports go down, and many of the
developing countries of course are heavily dependent on exports. So there's a lot of issues which need to be fleshed out ... so
people understand the real world.''
Baylor Debate Workshops 133
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

AT: Oil Dependence Bad


Oil key to military readiness.
Turse, 2008 (Nick, contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com, “The Military-
Petroleum Complex,” March 24, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5097, accessed 7/7, JDC)

Rumsfeld’s boss -- and a man who knows a thing or two about addiction – President George W. Bush,
proclaimed, in early 2006, that
“America is addicted to oil.” Later that year, Bush almost came clean about Iraq, admitting (after a fashion), according to Peter
Baker of the Washington Post, that “the war is about oil.” For the first time he used petroleum as a justification for continuing the occupation of
Iraq, saying, “You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources.” Bush’s acknowledgment was no
great revelation. After all, oil is not only a key driver of the U.S. economy but also a major source of the
nation’s energy. As a former oilman (with Dick Cheney, the former head of oil-services giant Halliburton, as his vice president), Bush
knew this all too well—hence an invasion of one of the Middle East’s key oil lands topped by an occupation where, initially, looters were allowed
But Rumsfeld’s military was more than
to tear almost every part of the Iraqi capital to pieces, save for the Oil Ministry.
just an armed occupier sent to lock down the planet’s oil lands. It was also a known petrol addict.
In his book Blood and Oil, Michael Klare laid out the little-acknowledged facts about the Pentagon’s oil obsession: The American
military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters, and armored vehicles to transport troops into battle
and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may boast of its ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the
fighting machines that form the backbone of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on
petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the Department of Defense could
neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there. And the
deployments DoD has “rushed its forces” to in recent years – in Afghanistan and Iraq – have
sucked up massive quantities of oil. According to Fuel Line, the official newsletter of the Pentagon’s fuel-buying component,
the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), from October 1, 2001, to August 9, 2004, the DESC supplied 1,897,272,714 gallons of jet fuel,
alone, for military operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, in less than a year and a half, from March 19, 2003, to August 9, 2004, the DESC
provided U.S. forces with 1,109,795,046 gallons of jet fuel for operations in Iraq. In 2005, Lana Hampton of the DoD’s Defense Logistics
Agency revealed that the military’s aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles were guzzling 10 to 11 million barrels of fuel each month in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, while the Pentagon reportedly burns through an astounding 365,000 barrels of oil every day (the equivalent of the entire
nation of Sweden’s daily consumption), Sohbet Karbuz, an expert on global oil markets, estimates that the number is really closer to 500,000
barrels. With such unconstrained consumption, recent
U.S. wars have been a boon for big oil and have seen the
Pentagon rise from the rank of hopeless addict to superjunkie. Prior to George Bush’s Global War on Terror, the
U.S. military admitted to guzzling 4.62 billion gallons of oil per year. With the Pentagon’s post-9/11 wars and occupations, annual oil
consumption has grown to an almost unfathomable 5.46 billion gallons, according to the Pentagon’s possibly low-ball statistics.

Oil is lynchpin of military readiness.


Turse, 2008 (Nick, contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus, is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com, “The Military-
Petroleum Complex,” March 24, Foreign Policy In Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5097, accessed 7/7, JDC)

The Pentagon needs two things to survive: war and oil. And it can’t make the first if it doesn’t
have the second. In fact, the Pentagon’s methods of mass destruction -- fighters, bombers, tanks,
Humvees, and other vehicles -- burn 75 percent of the fuel used by the DoD. For example, B-52 bombers
consume 47,000 gallons per mission over Afghanistan. But don’t expect big oil (or even smaller petroplayers) to turn off the tap for peace. Such
corporations are just as wedded to war as their most loyal junkie. After all, every time an F-16 fighter “kicks in its afterburners and blasts through
the sound barrier,” it burns through $300 worth of fuel a minute, while each of those B-52 missions means a $100,000 tax-funded
payout. According to retired lieutenant general Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., the president of the National Defense Industrial
Association (“America’s leading Defense Industry association promoting National Security”), the Pentagon is “the single largest
consumer of petroleum fuels in the United States.” In fact, it’s the world’s largest energy
consumer, according to Shachtman. That, alone, guarantees the military-petroleum complex isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon – just some
fuel for thought next time you head out to a Shell, BP, Exxon, or Mobil station to fill ’er up.
Baylor Debate Workshops 134
Cisneros / DeFilippis Space Based Solar Power Aff

Fun Fact

You might also like