P. 1
Space Based Solar Power Aff

Space Based Solar Power Aff

|Views: 450|Likes:
Published by Christian Jones

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Christian Jones on Mar 15, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/15/2011

pdf

text

original

Sections

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

RD

T&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%26sselect
%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

Baylor Debate Workshops

58

Cisneros / DeFilippis

Space Based Solar Power Aff

Impact Modules – Economic Growth

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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->