Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

1 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

2 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

3 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

4 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

5 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

6 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

7 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

8 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

9 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

10 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

11 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%5C08%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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

12 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

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
astronomical compared to the Americas or Europe. All of this goes into making the business case. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

13 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

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
abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. 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 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
pabilities is increased.' This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

14 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

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
politics.

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

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

15 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

16 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

17 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 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.
free America from oil dependence. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

18 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

19 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

20 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

21 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

22 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 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 In order little imagination and envisage 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 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
satellites do today, though on a scale a million times larger; it 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,

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
we do know a number of things for certain:

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

23 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

24 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

25 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-cmankins/,
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 1950s1960s: 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

26 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 heattrapping 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 gigawatts of power, more than twice the output of a Hoover Dam. But how safe would those beams be?
6 miles in size, transmitting power to similarly sized rectennas on Earth. require precautionary no-go zones for aircraft and people on the ground, he said.

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

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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

27 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

28 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-planto-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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

29 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 skyrocketed over the past four years. In 2005, there were 38; in 2006, 67; and last year, 81. But
Sunday after a tornado hit his home. Watch devastation in Parkersburg, Iowa » experts caution against reading too much into those statistics.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

30 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

31 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 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
technical challenges of building and deploying a system can be overcome, profits would remain years - if not decades - away. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

32 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

33 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

34 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) FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that

SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over 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

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
would conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

35 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

36 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 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
explore the idea of placing millions of solar panels in orbit to beam immense amounts of clean power back to Earth. Seriously. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

37 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-forsolar-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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

38 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

39 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 strifetorn 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

40 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) FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that

the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical need for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war‐fighter. • When all indirect and the fully burdened average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon. • Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 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

support costs are included, it is estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon,

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

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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

41 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

42 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-interimassessment-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 ig
nite 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

43 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_T4131249351&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrl Key=29_T4131249354&cisb=22_T4131249353&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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

44 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

45 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

46 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

47 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

48 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

49 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

50 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

51 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, many

works considering current threats place the probability much higher than the historical natural Given the high probability of a global catastrophe, and 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
figures—for example, Rees [4] suggests a 0.5 probability. 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 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
potential threats. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

52 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 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
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. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

53 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. which stated: An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission,

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

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
defense during the Cold War…Government 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

54 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

55 Space Based Solar Power Aff

SBSP  Space Colonization
Space-based solar power is key to space colonization. Bonnici 2007 [Alex Michael Bonnici, The MZC]

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

56 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

57 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, videocassettes, 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

58 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 overpowered 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 and

will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

59 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]

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,
Carl Sagan Carl Sagan (1934–1996) was a professor of astronomy and space sciences at Cornell University. 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

60 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

61 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

62 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 GroundBased 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

63 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

64 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+Leadership+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

have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as 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
a world would nuclear proliferation, more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

65 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

66 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 mid1980s -- 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

67 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 Megatonnes 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

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.
salvage.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

68 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%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] 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

69 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

70 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

71 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

72 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 longterm 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

73 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 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. deserves significant attention.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

74 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.
in options that limit carbon emission.

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 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

75 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

76 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

77 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

78 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

SSP would revitalize America by showing that a multitude of 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,
appliances in Asia to desalination of sea water in the American West. baseload SSP - reliable power delivery and global energy security at greatly reduced environmental impact.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

79 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

80 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 huge amounts of CO2? Dr Lineweaver: When you launch solar panels … into outer space the

stuff into space produce 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

81 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-fromspace.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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

82 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-spsbi.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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

83 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

84 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

85 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

86 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

87 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

88 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

89 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

90 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 spacebased 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

91 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

92 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 spacebased 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

93 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 environmentallyfriendly 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

94 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

95 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

96 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

97 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

98 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

99 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

100 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

101 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

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
towards military applications but also in broader terms of economic and national security. 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, 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
dangerous supply chain, can 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 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
agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power. 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

The idea of a demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an entrepreneur and selfdescribed “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
in Jell-O.” 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

102 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 marketbased 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

103 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

104 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

105 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

106 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

107 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

108 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis these are likely to cost between [$5 billion to $10 billion] in total," it adds.

109 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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 spacebased 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

110 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

111 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

112 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-solarpower-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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

113 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

114 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

115 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

116 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

117 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

118 Space Based Solar Power Aff

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

119 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

120 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

121 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

122 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

123 Space Based Solar Power Aff

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

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

124 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

125 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

126 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

127 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

128 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 of electric 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

129 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

130 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-powerarrays, 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

131 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

132 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 Cisneros / DeFilippis

133 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 MilitaryPetroleum 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 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,
to tear almost every part of the Iraqi capital to pieces, save for the Oil Ministry. 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 MilitaryPetroleum 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

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
payout. fuel for thought next time you head out to a Shell, BP, Exxon, or Mobil station to fill ’er up.

Baylor Debate Workshops Cisneros / DeFilippis

134 Space Based Solar Power Aff

Fun Fact

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful