Aff Sps Space

SOLAR POWER SATELLITES AFF Z’S SENIORS 2K8
ALEX, GREG, SEAN, TESS NORTHWESTERN

SOLAR POWER SATELLITES AFF
Solar Power Satellites Aff............................................................................................................................1
1AC “Inherency”.........................................................................................................................................4
“Inherency”..................................................................................................................................................5
Plan/Solvency advocate...............................................................................................................................6
SPS Solves Warming...................................................................................................................................7
SPS Solves Warming...................................................................................................................................8
SPS Key to Energy Supply..........................................................................................................................9
SPS Key to Energy Supply........................................................................................................................10
SPS Key to Energy Supply........................................................................................................................11
SPS Solves Resource Wars........................................................................................................................12
SPS Key to solve Oil/Warming.................................................................................................................15
1AC Space Colonization Adv....................................................................................................................19
SPS Key to Colonization...........................................................................................................................23
Colonization Solves Extinction..................................................................................................................26
1AC Military Procurement Adv.................................................................................................................27
SPS Increases Readiness............................................................................................................................31
SPS Increases Readiness............................................................................................................................32
Military Solves Conflict.............................................................................................................................33
1AC Space Control Adv............................................................................................................................34
Private Space Industry Uniqueness............................................................................................................41
Private Space Industry Uniqueness............................................................................................................42
SPS Key To Space Control........................................................................................................................43
Research Key To Space Control................................................................................................................44
Private Space Industry Key To Space Control..........................................................................................45
Space Infrastructure Solves Space Control................................................................................................49
ASATs → Nuke War.................................................................................................................................50
Weather control device detected…..

1
...................................................................................................................................................................50
Space Competition → Nuke WAr.............................................................................................................51
A2: Pena And Hidgins Card Says Nuclear ASATs...................................................................................52
Space Conflict Jacks All countries Space Assets......................................................................................53
China Mod → Nuke War...........................................................................................................................54
A2: We Cant Know china..........................................................................................................................55
Space Innovation Key to solve Asteroids..................................................................................................56
Space Innovation Key to solve Asteroids..................................................................................................57
Asteroids → Extinction..............................................................................................................................58
Space Commerce Solves Economy...........................................................................................................59
ASATs Impact- Israel................................................................................................................................60
Incentives Key to SPS................................................................................................................................61
2AC Hydrogen Cars Addon.......................................................................................................................62
2AC Chinese Pollution Addon...................................................................................................................63
2AC Chinese Pollution Addon...................................................................................................................64
2AC Launch Costs Addon.........................................................................................................................65
2AC Launch Costs Addon.........................................................................................................................66
large space projects decrease Cost.............................................................................................................67
large space projects decrease Cost.............................................................................................................68
Overview Effect.........................................................................................................................................69
Overview Effect.........................................................................................................................................70
Overview effect..........................................................................................................................................71
Overview Effect.........................................................................................................................................72
2AC Weather Control Addon....................................................................................................................74
2AC Weather Control Addon....................................................................................................................75
2AC Weather Control AddOn...................................................................................................................76
Air Power Impact.......................................................................................................................................77
Military Will Lease....................................................................................................................................78
Tornadoes Impact.......................................................................................................................................79
Tornadoes Impact.......................................................................................................................................80
Drug Trafficking Impact............................................................................................................................81
Cruise Missiles Impact...............................................................................................................................82
Weather Control Not Crazy.......................................................................................................................85
Chinese/Russia Weather War Scenario.....................................................................................................86
Weather Control Key To Heg....................................................................................................................87
Weather Control Key To Heg....................................................................................................................88
Weather Contol Key to Military Supply Lines..........................................................................................89
Heg Impact- Kagan 7’................................................................................................................................90
Heg Impact- Kagan 7’................................................................................................................................91
A2: You Make SPS Not TSPS...................................................................................................................92
A2: Not Good Enough Weather Predictions..............................................................................................93
Satellites Have Earth Monitoring Sensors.................................................................................................94
A2: Space Mil Bad.....................................................................................................................................95
A2: Not Possible........................................................................................................................................96
A2: Cant Connect To Grid.........................................................................................................................97
A2: Microwaves Fry People......................................................................................................................98
A: Microwaves Burn Holes In The Atmosphere.......................................................................................99
2
A2: Cant Aim Microwaves .....................................................................................................................100
A2: More Solar Power = More Warming................................................................................................101
A2: Microwaves Not Efficent..................................................................................................................102
A2: Recievers Not Efficent......................................................................................................................103
A2: Too Expensive..................................................................................................................................104
A2: Too Expensive..................................................................................................................................105
A2: Power Cuts off During Equinox.......................................................................................................106
A2: Groundbased Solar Counterplan.......................................................................................................107
A2: Groundbased Solar Counterplan.......................................................................................................108
A2: PIC Out of SPS or SBSP...................................................................................................................109
A2: Cloud Seeding CP.............................................................................................................................110
A2: States CP...........................................................................................................................................111
A2: DOD CP............................................................................................................................................112
AT: States CP...........................................................................................................................................113
Negative...................................................................................................................................................114
1NC DOD CP..........................................................................................................................................115
DOD Solves Space colonization..............................................................................................................116
SPS Expensive.........................................................................................................................................117
Politics-Plan Popular................................................................................................................................118

3
1AC “INHERENCY”
Demand for space solar power is increasing but people still remain ignorant of the current
practices.
Foust, aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher, BS in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and
a Ph.D in planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2K7 (August 13, Jeff, “A renaissance
for space solar power?” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1)
It’s easy to see why people are willing to give space solar power another look. High oil prices,
worries about the political stability of places like the Middle East that are key sources of
energy, and heightened concerns about climate change have created a mad scramble in the last
several years for alternative energy, from wind and terrestrial solar to biofuels like E85 ethanol. John Mankins, who managed the last major NASA space
solar power study, the “Fresh Look” study in the late 1990s, said during a Marshall Institute forum on space solar power in Washington last week that there was little interest at the time
One obstacle facing space solar power is that most people

because oil was $15 a barrel; now it’s about five times as expensive.
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,
The efficiency of photovoltaic arrays has increased from

are outdated given the advancements in technology in the last three decades.
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.”

4
“INHERENCY”
Current SPS efforts fail due to lack of leadership-Increased incentives would result in power that
prevents major wars and results in a more effective military.
Space Frontier Foundation, an organization composed of space activists, scientists, engineers, media and
political professionals, and entrepreneurs, 2K7 (Oct. 10, “The National Security Space Office Sponsored Study on
Space-Based Solar Power” http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SBSPreport.html)
A National Security Space Office (NSSO) led study group, has been investigating Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) as a way to
reduce American dependence on foreign-oil as well as a solution to the possibility of global warming for the
last several months. Today, the NSSO-sponsored group published the study results. The Space Frontier Foundation fully supports ALL of the recommendations of this SBSP study report. The
big news of this study is that the Pentagon may become an early and major customer for wireless power transmission from space at a much higher price than what the average American pays
the Pentagon is interested in SBSP for

for power in their homes. This totally changes the economic and business case for SBSP. The report indicates that
multiple reasons. Strategically, creating a new and totally renewable source of energy - that is available
to all people - could prevent major wars in the coming century over the planet's dwindling
energy resources. Tactically, in a decade or two, SBSP could save the lives of American men and women in
war zones. Right now, Americans are dying to protect fuel convoys in Iraq - convoys that are
delivering kerosene for electrical generators in forward bases. The study report, which was sponsored by and prepared for the
Director of the NSSO, concludes “space-based solar power presents a strategic opportunity” for America that
“merits significant further attention on the part of both the U.S. Government and the private sector.” The study report
also states “SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high-level leadership and resourcing
commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of fusion energy research or International Space Station construction and operations.”

5
PLAN/SOLVENCY ADVOCATE
The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives to the private
sector for the development of a comprehensive solar power satellite network
Incentive key to space innovation

Morring, Frank, Jr. 10/11/2K7 (Aerospace Daily & Defense Report “Pentagon Group Backs Space Solar
Power”)
"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 of Constellation Services International and director of the Space Frontier Foundation. By buying down the risk with a
demonstration at the tactical level, the U.S. government could spark a new industry able to
meet not just U.S. energy needs, but those of its allies and the developing world as well. The
technology essentially exists, and needs only to be matured. A risk buy-down by government
could make that happen, according to the NSSO report. "This is not a 50-year solution," said John Mankins, an expert in the field and
president of the Space Power Association. "The kinds of things that are possible today say a truly transformational demonstration at a large
scale is achievable within this decade." As an example, Mankins listed the rapid progress in boosting the efficiency of solar cells. While 20-25 percent
efficiency was once considered a long-term goal, efficiencies on the order of 40 percent already have been achieved. And the modularity and scalability of the systems needed to build an SSP
platform make testing relatively straightforward. Even from its perch in low-Earth orbit, for example, the International Space Station could be used as a test bed for SSP components and even
demonstrate low-level power transmission from orbit to Earth. The exposed facility on Japan's Kibo laboratory, due for launch in the first half of next year, could be used to test pointing and
transmitting hardware, Mankins said, as well as to conduct space-exposure experiments on materials that might be used in building the large structures needed to collect sunlight in meaningful
the NSSO recommended that the U.S. government

amounts. The Internet-based group of experts who prepared the report for
organize itself to tackle the problem of developing SSP; use its resources to "retire a major
portion of the technical risk for business development; establish tax and other policies to
encourage private development of SSP, and "become an early demonstrator/adopter/customer"
of SSP to spur its development. That, in turn, could spur development of space launch and other
industries. Damphousse said a functioning reusable launch vehicle - preferably single-stage-to-orbit -
probably would be required to develop a full-scale SSP infrastructure in geostationary orbit.
That, in turn, could enable utilization of the moon and exploration of Mars under NASA's vision for
space exploration.

6
SPS SOLVES WARMING
We solve warming two ways- reducing greenhouse gases and reflecting radiation away from
earth
Hooton, 2K6 (Tom, January 2, Solar power and the Space Elevator, page @ http://www.sprol.com/?p=322)
An array of solar cells, appropriately

There is an additional potential benefit that may make putting arrays of solar cells in outer worth the cost.
positioned between the earth and the sun, can absorb some of the incoming energy reducing the
earth's temperature and possibly contributing to relief from the greenhouse effect. However, if
we bring the energy down to the ground and use it there, we would help counter the greenhouse
effect indirectly, since we would use less fossil and petroleum fuels and thus generate less
carbon dioxide.

7
SPS SOLVES WARMING
Space based solar power reduces emissions

Globus 2K7, (Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University
at NASA Ames Research Center and research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory at the University of
California at Santa Cruz, Al, May 17, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy for America and the World?”
http://www.space.com/adastra/070517_adastra_solarpowersats.html)
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.
SPS reduces emissions averting global warming

Hempsell 2K5 (Senior Lecturer in Astronautics at the University of Bristol in England, Mark, June 14, “Space
Power as a Response to Global Catastrophe,” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1N-
4K9C55C&_user=1458830&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000052790&_version=1&_ur
lVersion=0&_userid=1458830&md5=b7e3493d587e09f4d431ea9fd91d6522)
(6) argued their role in overcoming many of the

In his seminal paper on Solar Power Satellites (SPSs), in which the “classic” space power concept was first technically outlined, Glasier
Glasier's original argument was more centred

potential anthropogenic threats by removing human dependence on energy from the carbon cycle.
on resource depletion limiting growth the more dominant concern of late 1960s environmental
movement. Since then the dominant concerns have altered and global warming is now
generally considered the most probable cause of global catastrophe in the 21st Century. If SPSs
were used as the main energy generation system then the production of carbon dioxide would
reduce to the extent anthropogenic warming would no longer be a major concern. This class of
argument has been made by many others, for example, Erb (7) who compares all possible terrestrial energy sources and
shows none can meet humanities projected energy requirements leaving space power as the
only long term solution. It was represented in this context in the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (8).

8
SPS KEY TO ENERGY SUPPLY
Collection of energy from space could change society by meeting the demand for energy,
increasing the demand for launch, and spilling over to other space services.
The ability to collect solar power in

For nearly four decades, one concept has tantalized space professionals and enthusiasts alike: space solar power.
space, continuously and in effectively limitless quantities, and then transmit that energy back to Earth, could radically reshape not only the
space industry but also society in general. That clean (or, in the current vernacular, carbon neutral) energy would, advocates
claim, help meet the growing energy needs of an increasingly developed world without relying on
sources that degrade the environment and/or come from politically unstable regions of the
globe. That demand for energy, in turn, would create tremendous demand for launch and other
space services, driving down costs that would, in turn, open other markets. Not everyone is sold, however, on the
viability or cost-effectiveness of space solar power, leading to long-running debates on the topic. Those disputes have remained largely academic, though, since there has been little support for
research in the field: after the original studies by NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) ended in the late 1970s, the only concerted effort, other than some isolated studies in Europe and
). Space solar power has withered

Japan, was NASA’s “Fresh Look” studies in the late 1990s in cooperation with the National Science Foundation (NSF
on the vine since then, but a confluence of events has provided proponents with a new
opportunity to reinvigorate the subject. Progress, but no champion

9
Solar power satellites solves energy scarcity

Rouge 7 (Acting Director of National Security Space Office, Joseph D., Oct. 9, “Space-Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-
01.pdf)
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
The
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.
amount of energy coursing through that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly
equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known recoverable oil reserves on Earth
(approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in
mid century. The energy output of the fusion powered Sun is billions of times beyond that, and
it will last for billions of years—orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources
combined. Space Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the
solar system. This is not to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing this resource or the tremendous time and effort it would take to do
so. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energy—clean, renewable energy—available to the human civilization if it can develop the means to
effectively capture it.

10
SPS can solve the world’s energy demand

The Britt 2K2 (Robert Roy, October 31, Senior Science Writer, “Space-Based Power System Needed to Store
Earth’s Energy Woes,” http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_power_021031.html)
Civilization faces an urgent need to develop space-based power generation systems that would
beam energy to the planet from satellites that would shine like "golden apples" in the night sky, a large team of scientists
said today. The researchers also recommend looking into deploying some cosmic Coppertone, giant sunscreens that would block solar energy
With energy demand expected to triple over the next 50 years while
and curb global warming.
traditional energy production fuels global warming, the diverse group of scientists said creative
but feasible technologies are needed to battle a growing "energy imbalance" that threatens
global prosperity. Among the remedies they suggest, in the Nov. 1 issue of the journal Science, are several space-based concepts. The
overall analysis is designed to accomplish three goals: Develop pollution-free energy Trim the growth in energy demand Intervene in the
global warming trend by "geoengineering" the planet Why space? Fossil fuels provide the bulk of Earth’s energy. Their conversion to useable
energy contributes, most scientists now agree, to a warming planet. Decades of efforts to harness solar power and other renewable, clean
resources have yielded only marginal benefit. But the
Sun’s energy is eight times greater in space, above Earth’s
atmosphere and clouds. Capturing it there could supply all the world’s power needs now and
for millennia to come, says Martin Hoffert, a physics professor at New York University and lead author of the report. " The potential is vast,"
Hoffert told SPACE.com. "From humankind's point of view most of the Sun's energy is wasted ." The evaluation of
myriad ideas was written by experts in atmospheric science, energy production, economics and biology from NASA, Exxon-Mobil Research
and Engineering Company, and about a dozen universities and research institutions.
SPS would result in more energy available to the population than current fossil fuel levels.
New Scientist Environment, 2K7 (Oct. 11, Dan Cho, “Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space”
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12774)
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. The NSSO report (pdf) recommends that the US government spend $10 billion over the next 10 years to
build a test satellite capable of beaming 10 megawatts of electric power down to Earth. Abundant energy source At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced
supporters of space-based solar power say the

a new alliance to promote space solar power – the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These
technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossil fuels, wind and nuclear power
combined. The NSSO report says that solar-power-generating satellites could also solve supply problems in
distant places such as Iraq, where fuel is currently trucked along in dangerous convoys and the cost of
electricity for some bases can exceed $1 per kilowatt-hour – about 10 times what it costs in the US. The report also touts the technology's
potential to provide a clean, abundant energy source and reduce global competition for oil. Space-
based solar power was first proposed in 1968 by Peter Glaser, an engineer at the consulting firm Arthur D. Little. Early designs involved solar panel arrays of 50 square kilometres, required
hundreds of astronauts in space to build and were estimated to cost as much as $1 trillion, says John Mankins, a former NASA research manager and active promoter of space solar power.
advances in
Economically unfeasible After conducting preliminary research, the US abandoned the idea as economically unfeasible in the 1970s. Since that time, says Mankins,
photovoltaics, electronics and robotics will bring the size and cost down to a fraction of the original schemes, and
eliminate the need for humans to assemble the equipment in space.

11
SPS SOLVES RESOURCE WARS
Competition for energy would create the worst nightmare war of the 21st century-development of
alternative energy forms, specifically SPS, is necessary to avoid conflict.
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 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.” 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.

12

An oil peak is coming and the transition away from it will be energy and resource wars—this
highlights the need for increased renewable energy
The Age, 2K8 (April 26, Australia, If you think the oil situation is bad, worse is to come,
http://business.theage.com.au/if-you-think-the-oil-situation-is-bad-worse-is-to-come/20080425-28ma.html)
OIL prices nearly broke through $US120 a barrel this week , setting another record for the world's most indispensable energy
commodity. What was striking was what did not happen: there was no shortage of oil, no sudden
embargo, no exporter turning off its spigot. Some attacks on oil pipelines in Nigeria was all it
took. The weak US dollar, worries about terrorism and speculation on commodity markets
certainly played a role. But, of course, so did demand. Producers are struggling to pump as much as they can to quench the thirst not only of the
developed world, but fast-growing developing nations such as China and India, the two most populous countries . To many experts, the steadily rising
price underscored longer-term fears about a system that has supplied cheap oil for more than a
century. "This is the market signalling there is a problem, that there is a growing difficulty to
meet demand with new supplies," said UBS global oil economist Jan Stuart. Today's tensions
are only likely to worsen in coming years. Consider a few numbers. The planet's population is expected to
grow by 50% to 9 billion by the middle of the century. The number of cars and trucks is
projected to double in 30 years — to more than 2 billion — as developing nations rapidly modernise. And twice as many
passenger planes, more than 36,000, will in all likelihood be flying in 20 years. All of that will require a lot more oil —
enough that global oil consumption will jump by 35% by 2030, according to the International
Energy Agency, a leading global energy forecaster for the US and other developed nations. Producers will have to
find and pump an additional 11 billion barrels every year. And that's only 22 years away, a heartbeat for the
petroleum industry, where the pace of finding and tapping supplies is measured in decades. The
pursuit of oil will be just part of the energy challenge . The world's energy demand — including oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, as well as
renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro power — is set to rise by 65% over the next two
decades, according to the IEA. But petroleum, the dominant fuel of the 20th century, will remain the top energy source. It accounts
for more than a third of energy needs, ahead of coal and natural gas. Refined into petrol, kerosene or diesel fuel, oil has no viable substitute as a transport fuel, and that is not likely to change
much in the next 30 years. The problem is that no one can say for sure where all this oil is going to come from . That might not
sound like such a bad thing for those concerned about carbon emissions and climate change. High prices might force people to conserve and
encourage development of alternatives. But the energy crunch might also result in a global
scramble for resources, energy wars, and much higher energy prices. Some oil executives are sounding the alarm bell. At
a recent energy conference, John Hess, chief executive of international oil company Hess Corp, warned that an
oil crisis was looming if the world did not deal with runaway demand and strained supplies.
Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Jeroen van der Veer said recently, with some
understatement, that "the energy outlook does not look rosy". The world's oil supplies are
already stretched. Countries outside the OPEC cartel — which have been the main source of discoveries and production since the 1970s — have
said they expect little to no growth in production this year. The North Sea and Alaska are slowly
running out, and producers there are struggling to keep production from falling. Russia's
phenomenal oil surge is coming to an end. A top executive of Lukoil, the country's second-largest oil group, said last week that Russia's production
was unlikely to increase much. Nigeria is battling a violent militancy. And Mexico, the third most important
supplier of crude to the US, has been stuck in a crippling political debate over keeping out
foreign investors while witnessing a dramatic production drop that some analysts say may be
irreversible. What about OPEC? The 13 members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries account for three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves.
But for various reasons, most of those countries are making it harder, if not impossible, for foreign oil companies to invest within
their borders. With energy prices rising, OPEC producers are reaping record revenue, which has reduced the incentive to dip into their supplies by boosting production. At the
same time, major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron are finding it harder to
compete worldwide, as national oil companies erode their once-dominant positions. Fourteen of the top 20 oil companies are state-owned giants, such as Saudi Aramco
and Russia's Gazprom. That leaves Western oil companies in control of less than 10% of oil and gas reserves. Facing higher costs, these companies
are also having greater difficulty finding new oil deposits. Despite spending more than $US100 billion on exploration last year, the
five largest international oil companies found less oil last year than they pumped.

13
SPS can prevent all energy wars

Rouge, Acting Director of National Security Space Office,2K7 (Joseph D., Oct. 9, “Space-Based Solar Power as an
01.pdf)
SBSP offers a long term route to alleviate the security challenges of energy
The SBSP Study Group found that
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.

14
SPS KEY TO SOLVE OIL/WARMING
Space-based solar power is key- 4 Reasons:

Limitless energy
Can be redirected to meet local peak needs
Is routed directly into electrical grid
Can be used in production of other carbon neutral fuel sources
Mankins, former manager of Advanced Concepts Studies at NASA, undergraduate (Harvey Mudd College) and
graduate (UCLA) degrees in Physics and an MBA in Public Policy Analysis (The Drucker School at Claremont
Graduate University), member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), the International Astronautical
Federation (IAF), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and the Sigma Xi Research
Society, President of ARTEMIS Innovation Management Solutions LLC, a research and development management
consulting start-up that solves tough innovation challenges for government, industry and not-for-profit clients, and
Co-founder of Managed Energy Technologies LLC, a new energy technology start-up that aspires to transform solar
energy solutions for terrestrial and space markets, 25-year career at NASA ranged from flight projects and space
mission operations, to systems-level innovation and advanced technology research and development management,,
2K8 (John C., Spring, ad Astra, Special Report: Space-based Solar Power Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, )
At an altitude of 22,240 miles above Earth, a great platform orbits, using vast, mirrored wings to collect a continuous torrent of
sunlight always available in space. With few moving parts, the platform redirects and focuses this solar energy onto concentrating photovoltaic arrays—
converting it into electrical power. In turn, the power is transmitted wirelessly— and with minimal losses—to highly-efficient
receivers the size of airports on the ground. It is a seamless, endless transfer: The platform constantly
gathers more than 5,000 megawatts of sunlight and delivers more than 2,000 megawatts of
clean, near-zero carbon electrical power to customers as needed anywhere within an area the
size of a continent. It can be routed directly into the electrical grid as base-load power—and
divided across a half dozen or more receivers to meet local peak power needs. It can be used as
well to power the annual production of hundreds of millions of gallons of carbon-neutral
synthetic fuels. In an era when new energy options are urgently needed, space solar power is an inexhaustible solution—and
the technologies now exist to make it a reality. The world cannot wait much longer. While the past century
has been one of the most remarkable periods in human history, it has also been dominated by the use of fossil fuels. Yet, the accelerating global consumption of affordable and available
coal reserves will be forever

energy sources will soon present fundamental challenges. In less time than has passed since the founding of Jamestown, today’s
gone. Also, most scientists agree that the use of fossil fuels is profoundly altering both local environments and the climate of the
world itself. Capturing solar power from space-based platforms can solve this crisis. This is energy
that is essentially carbon-free, endless and can be dispatched to best meet the dynamically changing
requirements of populations separated by thousands of miles.

15
SPS is the most reliable form of alternative energy-it lasts forever unlike other forms
Prado, a Physicist who works on the Pentagon’s American Space Program, and the author of Permanent, P rojects
to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term, 2K2 (Mark, “The Solar Power
Satellite Concept” http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm)
an economy can't be held

Unreliability and planning needs make conventional solar energy inconvenient and unattractive to responsible utility companies --
hostage to the whims of the weather. Reasons why "alternative energy" concepts like wind power and
ground-based solar cells have not caught on is because each concept suffers from one or more of the
following issues: abundance concentration of energy supply reliability cost per kilowatt.
Regarding reliability, an economy can't shut down because the wind stops blowing the wind power
generators as much, causing demand/supply fluctuations in energy prices, rationing or power

failures. Also, it takes a lot of wind generators in a windy place to power a small city, for example.
Geothermal energy, hydroelectric dams, and other renewable sources of energy exist, but there
is not nearly enough of it to power our economies, especially at costs nearly competitive to
fossil fuels. In contrast, the SPS is an abundant, reliable and a natural 24-hour supplier of energy, and
rectennas can be located within sufficient proximity to consumers everywhere.

16
The United States must take the lead to stave off climate change and avoid conflicts over oil
Berger, a writer at Space News, 2K7 (Brian, “Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power”
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071011-pentagon-space-solarpower.html)
A Pentagon-chartered report urges the United States to take the lead in developing space
platforms capable of capturing sunlight and beaming electrical power to Earth. Space-based
solar power, according to the report, has the potential to help the United States stave off climate change and
avoid future conflicts over oil by harnessing the Sun's power to provide an essentially
inexhaustible supply of clean energy. The report, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity
for Strategic Security," was undertaken by the Pentagon's National Security Space Office this
spring as a collaborative effort that relied heavily on Internet discussions by more than 170 scientific, legal, and business experts around the world. The Space
Frontier Foundation, an activist organization normally critical of government-led space programs, hosted the website used to collect input for the report. Speaking at a press conference held
Lt. Col. Paul Damphousse of the National Space Security Space Office said the six-month
here Oct. 10 to unveil the report, U.S. Marine Corps
study, while "done on the cheap," produced some very positive findings about the feasibility of space-based
solar power and its potential to strengthen U.S. national security. "One of the major findings
was that space-based solar power does present strategic opportunity for us in the 21st century ,"
Damphousse said. "It can advance our U.S. and partner security capability and freedom of action and merits significant additional study and demonstration on the part of the United States so
the report calls for the U.S. government to

we can help either the United State s develop this, or allow the commercial sector to step up." Specifically,
underwrite the development of space-based solar power by funding a progressively bigger and more expensive technology
demonstrations that would culminate with building a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the International Space Station and capable of beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a
Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in-depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept
receiving station on the ground.
to show that space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to

demonstrations
solution to the world's growing energy needs.

17
SPS is a feasible means to solve warming and oil dependence

Morgan, Writer for The Herald (Glasgow), 2K7 (October 25, “Science Notebook; Ray of Hope on Energy,” )
If I told you that the US military has just unveiled plans to fire a beam of high-energy microwaves to Earth from space, you might well hide under your bed. But this is no "death ray". In fact,
it's not even a weapon. It's a formula for world peace and the end of climate change. Now I know what you're thinking. "Hang on, I know what the US military really means when they talk
about 'bringing peace' to the world." True, I admit that if you were hoping to save the planet, the Pentagon might not be the first door you would knock on. So it comes as a pleasant surprise
that, from the offices of the US Department of Defense, an elegant and inspiring blueprint for peace on Earth has emerged,
in the form of a giant microwave beam. Ever since the Sputnik satellite was launched 50 years ago, scientists have dreamed of building "orbiting power
stations", by launching acres of solar panels and beaming electricity back to Earth. Putting "solar factories" in space would allow them to
operate 24 hours a day, offering a consistent, limitless supply of green energy. 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 stifle 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 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.

18
1AC SPACE COLONIZATION ADV
Contention ____: Space Colonization
Our comprehensive plan for Space development solves best- constructing SPS from lunar
bases is key to mining operations, avoids hurting the environment, saves money, and avoids
technical hurdles
Globus, Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at
NASA Ames Research Center. , former research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry
department of the University of California at Santa Cruz., member of the governing board of education for the Space
Colonization Training Center (SCTC), Member of the board of directors of the National Space Society, Chairman of
the National Space Society Space Settlement Advocacy Committee, Honorary Foreign Member (Scientist) of the
Romanian The Educational Society for Physics, Informatics, Chemistry and Mathematics in Biology, Member of the
program committee of the NASA/DoD Evolvable Hardware Conference EH-2005, Member of the program committee
for the 2002 and 2004 NASA Ames Research Center RoboSphere Workshops, Member of the program committee for
the 2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, Co-chair of the Fifth and Sixth Foresight Conferences on
Molecular Nanotechnology, and Chairman of the NAS workshop on computational molecular nanotechnology on
March 4-5, 1996., 2K8 (Al, Spring, ad Astra, “On the Moon,” Special Report: Space-based Solar Power
Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @ http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, )
Both the cost and environmental impact of launches can be massively reduced long-term through
the use of lunar materials. In that scenario, only the facilities to mine the moon and convert these
materials into solar power satellites need be launched from Earth. It’s the difference between
launching a car factory, which is large, versus the millions of cars it produces, which is a lot bigger.
SSP satellites can be made largely of silicon and metals: silicon to convert sunlight to energy, and
metals for structure, mirrors, and the antenna. The Apollo program proved conclusively that the
moon contains large quantities of both. Launch from the moon requires far less energy than
launch from Earth, because the moon is much smaller and therefore exerts a much weaker
gravitational pull. Also, geosynchronous orbit is 12,400 m/s from the Earth’s surface, but only 4,600
m/s from the surface of the moon. Of course, launch from the moon would also have no effect on the
Earth’s atmosphere. The Stanford/NASA summer studies (see references on page 36) closely examined
electromagnetic launch of materials from the moon, which requires no fuel, only energy. This
system, called a mass driver, could deliver millions of tons of material per year to orbit. A mass driver
works using electromagnetic forces to provide rapid acceleration, similar to the initial startup of
some roller coasters. On the moon magnetic buckets full of lunar materials ride an
electromagnetic wave generated by structures installed on the lunar surface . At just the right point, the
buckets vrelease their payload and return for reuse. The payload is sent into space at very high
speed with no fuel cost or terrestrial environmental impact. Lunar materials must be converted into satellite components, a difficult
materials processing and manufacturing problem in an unfamiliar, unique environment. Some of the work, such as mining, must be conducted on the
lunar surface. Other work, such as assembly and test of solar power satellites must be
conducted in orbit. The rest of the work, materials processing and component manufacture, will be divided optimally
between these locations. To minimize the mass launched from the moon, we may want to process the materials to eliminate the bits not needed in orbit. Because lunar
dust is small, sharp, and difficult to deal with, we may also wish to fuse the material to avoid launching lunar dust to the orbital work site. Conversion of the processed materials into satellite
Lunar and
components might best be done in orbit since bulk materials can take a great deal of shaking and acceleration on launch, but more complex components often cannot.
orbital SSP operations may require only a small staff because many of the operations may be
automated or remotely controlled from Earth, like unmanned aircraft, undersea robots, and
most of today’s spacecraft. Although there is a communications delay of about three seconds for the roundtrip to the moon and back, preliminary experiments
suggest that operators can easily accommodate this delay for at least some tasks (see references). It is clear that research and testing of remote
operations and automation on the moon and in orbit would help reduce the risk and cost of
future SSP operations. While SSP development has many, many problems, they are the kinds of problems we can solve. Although there is a lot

19
<Globus Continues>
of work to be done, there is a real pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: all the clean renewable
energy we could possibly want. Importantly, no other energy option offers the quantity and
environmental advantages of SSP from lunar materials. The vast majority of the work is done
on the moon and in orbit, thousands of kilometers from the Earth’s biosphere. If we were to
decide today to vigorously pursue SSP built from lunar materials, what should we do? While that is a
complex question, here’s a start: Build a series of increasingly capable SSP systems, starting with
something small and working up to a fully-operational satellite and ground system. Use the International Space Station (ISS) to develop the necessary
in-orbit processing, manufacturing and assembly technology . Use NASA’s lunar base to
develop the necessary mining and processing technology and infrastructure. Develop less-
expensive launch vehicles through research, funding prizes, granting private developers’ access
to unique government facilities, and guaranteeing government markets. Develop simulators to
conduct research on teleoperated and automated lunar and orbital mining, processing,
manufacturing and assembly. Develop closed-loop life support—recycling air and water, reclaiming waste, and growing food
—on the ground and on the ISS to reduce launch requirements . Conduct a major research effort
to determine the impact of high launch rates on the Earth’s atmosphere. Besides creating a
lasting and clean energy source, building SSP from lunar materials will develop lunar mining,
in-space materials processing, launch vehicles, closed-life-support systems, and large satellite
construction— much of what we need to create communities beyond Earth. SSP, particularly
built from lunar materials, would be a huge step towards realizing the NSS Vision.

20
Space based solar power and lunar mining are key to space colonization
NASA Ames Research Center, former visiting research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the
chemistry department of the University of California at Santa Cruz, co-recipient of the 1997 Feynman Prize in
Nanotechnology for Theoretical Work, member of the governing board of education for the Space Colonization
Training Center (SCTC), Member of the board of directors of the National Space Society, Chairman of the National
Space Society Space Settlement Advocacy Committee, Honorary Foreign Member (Scientist) of the Romanian The
Educational Society for Physics, Informatics, Chemistry and Mathematics in Biology, Member of the program
committee of the NASA/DoD Evolvable Hardware Conference EH-2005, Member of the program committee for the
2002 and 2004 NASA Ames Research Center RoboSphere Workshops, Member of the program committee for the
2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, Co-chair of the Fifth and Sixth Foresight Conferences on
Molecular Nanotechnology, and Chairman of the NAS workshop on computational molecular nanotechnology, and
Yager, 2K2 (Al and Bryan, July 10, Space settlements: A Design Study, page @
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Contents1.html)
Abundant solar energy and large amounts of matter from the Moon are keys to successfully
establishing a community in space. Not only does the sunshine foster agriculture of unusual
productivity, but also it provides energy for industries needed by the colony. Using solar energy
to generate electricity and to power solar furnaces the colonists refine aluminum, titanium, and
silicon from lunar ores shipped inexpensively into space. With these materials they are able to
manufacture satellite solar power stations and new colonies. The power stations are placed in
orbit around the Earth to which they deliver copious and valuable electrical energy. The economic
value of these power stations will go far to justify the existence of the colony and the
construction of more colonies . Principal components of the overall space colonization system and their interrelations are shown schematically in figure 1-2. DESIGN GOALS This system is intended to meet a set of specific
. The main goal is to design a permanent community in space

design goals established to guide the choice of the principal elements of a practicable colony in space
that is sufficiently productive to maintain itself, and to exploit actively the environment of
space to an extent that permits growth, replication, and the eventual creation of much larger
communities. This initial community is to be a first step in an expanding colonization of space.
To effect this main goal, the following subsidiary goals must be met using existing technology and at minimum cost: Design a habitat to meet all the physiological requirements of a
Obtain an adequate supply of raw materials and provide the capability to process
permanent population and to foster a viable social community.
them. Provide an adequate transport system to carry people, raw materials, and items of trade. Develop commercial activity
sufficient to attract capital and to produce goods and services for trade with Earth. Fortunately, the design study could draw on substantial earlier work. Active interest in space colonization as a practical possibility began in 1969 when
Gerard O'Neill and students at Princeton University undertook a detailed assessment of space colonization. They aimed at a model to show the feasibility of a space colony rather than an optimum configuration and they selected as a test case a rotating habitat in satellite orbit around the
They proposed a habitat constructed of processed lunar ore

Earth at the distance of the Moon, using solar energy to sustain a closed ecological system.
delivered by an electromagnetic accelerator and located at either the Lagrangian point L4 or L5 in order to make delivery of the ore as simple as possible. (The Lagrangian points are described in ch.
the Princeton
2.) The habitat was configured as a l-km long cylinder with hemispherical end-caps. It was to have an Earth-like internal environment on the inner surface and be supplied with sunlight reflected from mirrors (ref. 1). Subsequently,
group suggested that the L5 colony could construct solar power stations from lunar material.
They concluded that this would improve the economics of both the satellite solar power stations
and the colony itself (ref. 2).

21
Extinction
Oberg, Space Writer and former Space Flight Engineer, 99 (James, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf)
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this
period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon.
The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of
people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an
emotional argument thatour species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization.
While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing
outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash
into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for
mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space . He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that
humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan’s
vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set
If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the
with jeweled stars.
detriment of more than our country.

22
SPS KEY TO COLONIZATION
SSP is the only technology that generates enough capital for space colonization
2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, Co-chair of the\ Fifth and Sixth Foresight Conferences on
An important goal for the design for space colonization is that it be commercially productive to
an extent that it can attract capital. It is rather striking then that the study group has been able to envision only
one major economic enterprise sufficiently grand to meet that goal. No alternative to the
manufacture of solar power satellites was conceived, and although their manufacture is likely to be
extremely valuable and attractive to investors on Earth, it is a definite weakness of the design to depend entirely on this one particular
enterprise. A number of valuable smaller scale manufactures has already been mentioned in chapter 2 and, of course, new colonies will be built, but these do not promise to generate the
income necessary to sustain a growing space community.
Solar power is necessary for development of all forms of space development.

Notably,electricity will be needed for all sectors of space development, and thus the SPS can initially be
used for in-space power in the early years of space development, with power being beamed to Earth after space-based industry
grows. Thus, the SPS fits into a practical scale-up scenario. It may first be located at the site of major
factories. Adding a transmitter will allow it to off-peak power to other sites, i.e., sell excess power -- to
facilities in nearby orbit, or the lunar surface, or to Earth economies. Electric powered orbit transfer
vehicles could also use beamed power, replacing a heavy solar cell array with a lightweight
rectenna to increase vehicle performance and reduce damages by transporting a solar cell array
through the Van Allen radiation belt.

23
New developments in SPS are necessary to create the technology that would build
infrastructure on other planets
The Solar Power Satellite (SPS) system is a candidate solution to deliver power to space
vehicles or to elements on planetary surfaces. It relies on RF or laser power transmitting systems, depending on the type of application and
relevant constraints. The SPS system is characterized by the frequency of the power beam, its overall efficiency and mass. It is driven by user needs and SPS location relative to the user.
Several wavelengths can be considered for laser transmission systems. The visible and near infrared spectrum, allowing the use of photovoltaic cells as receiver surface, has been retained.
Different frequencies can be used for the RF transmission system. The 35 GHz frequency has been considered as a good compromise between transmission efficiency and available component
The utilisation of the SPS to deliver power to small rovers or human outpost on Mars,
performances.
and to an infrastructure on the Moon allows to assess different drivers in terms of user needs,
receiver surface, distance between SPS and target, and to perform a preliminary sizing, based
on current or reasonably achievable technologies, with respect to different sets of constraints. The SPS system appears
as an attractive solution for these applications. The use of advanced or new technologies would
drastically lower mass and increase the performances of the SPS system. Power generation is
one of the crucial elements of space vehicles and of future infrastructures on planets and
moons. The increased demand for power faces many constraints, in particular the sizing of the
power generation system, driven by eclipse periods and the solar intensity at the operational spot. In the medium term, Earth orbiting
platforms will require higher power levels. Interplanetary exploration vehicles face the problem
of distance to the Sun, especially when high power levels may be needed. Large infrastructures
on the Moon and planets, like Mars, are constrained by environment attenuation, long eclipse
or distance to the Sun. New systems and technologies have to be found, which go beyond simple improvements of the current technologies. Solar Power Satellite
(SPS) systems, based on wireless power transmission, are attractive candidate solutions to provide power to space
vehicles or to elements on planetary surfaces.
And SPS is necessary to deliver energy to planet surfaces

International Astronautical Congress 2K4 (“Solar Power Satellites for Space Applications, ln)
The SPS system appears as a promising solution for power delivery to elements on planet
surfaces. In both Mars and Moon cases, it could be a solution for users, which face the problem
of either low solar energy density and environment attenuation or long eclipse duration. It
appears as today’s only alternative to nuclear power sources.
SPS enables space exploration and solves asteroids

Rouge 2K7 (Acting Director of National Security Space Office, Joseph D., Oct. 9, “Space-Based Solar Power as an
01.pdf)
The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights
and expand the envelope for Earth and space based power beaming applications. A truly
developed Space Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration
and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the
section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable
concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de orbit of space debris, space to
space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far term concepts as a true
interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forward’s StarWisp Concept.

24
SPS enables the US to colonize space

Landis, Ph.D. in solid-state physics from Brown University, and a NASA researcher for the Glenn Research Center,
1999 (Geoffrey A., Nyma, Inc, Space Power, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 365-371)
An aggressive planetary exploration policy has additional long-term applications to SPS. The
projected cost of a SPS could be considerably reduced if extraterrestrial resources are employed
in the construction. One often-discussed road to lunar resource utilization is to start with the mining and refining of lunar oxygen, the most abundant element in the Moon's
crust, for use as a component of rocket fuel to support the lunar base as well as exploration missions. Once the mining and refining process is in place to produce oxygen, the next-most
Such lunar- manufactured solar arrays could have

abundant elements, aluminum and silicon, can be refined to produce solar arrays.
many applications (figure 2): not just to support growth of manufacturing capabilities on the
moon, but also in LEO, GEO, and to support planetary missions, as well as to support solar-
electric inter-orbital transportation and to serve as primary power supplies for the beamed
transportation systems discussed in the previous section. Thus, with the development of the
component parts of a mature photovoltaic technology, beamed power for in-space use, and a
space infrastructure, the implementation of a solar power satellite consists only of integrating
the pieces.
SPS is key to power for space exploration

Zwaniecki, 8/21/2K7 (Andrzej. , Staff writer for USINFO. Space Daily. “Space Solar Energy Has Future”)
Beam solar energy directly from space, and disaster relief expeditions could power all their
equipment with no more than a few portable antennas and converters. Campers could use such
energy to cook dinners using nothing more than a cell phone-like device. But the primary
beneficiaries of such a technological feat would be the many communities that would be able to
tap into space solar energy fed into power grids. Terrestrial solar power stations already exist
throughout the world. But sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its
geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently, ask U.S.
researchers. They have proposed putting in orbit mega-satellites -- giant, possibly inflatable structures of photovoltaic arrays and antennas -- that would do just that. At receiving stations on
Earth, the beam could be converted into electricity or synthetic fuels, which, in contrast to power from terrestrial solar power stations, would flow continuously to the grid independent of the
season, weather or location. The idea has been studied by the Energy Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In the mid-1990s, a NASA study headed by John
Mankins produced a road map for related research and development that was endorsed by the National Research Council. It envisioned several dozen solar power sactellites in geostationary
the program "has fallen through

orbit by the year 2050, sending between two gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to multiple locations on Earth. However,
the cracks because no organization is responsible for both space programs and energy security,"
Mankins says. In recent decades, the technologies essential to the concept have made "tremendous"
progress, he told USINFO. For example, efficiency of solar power generation and wireless
power transmission has more than quadrupled, allowing for significant reductions in the size,
mass and potential costs of the solar power systems. Martin Hoffert, former chair of the Department of Applied
Sciences at New York University, told members of the Capitol Hill Club in August that space solar power research and
development can proceed with existing technologies. Mankins believes the U.S. government is likely to
return to the space solar power idea because of its many potential benefits and applications,
including providing power for space exploration and commercial development of space
resources. In September 2006, the House of Representatives' science subcommittee reviewed the concept as part of a hearing on climate
change technologies. In addition, the Department of Defense is conducting a feasibility study of space-based solar power. The study is
scheduled to be completed in September. Nevertheless, Mankins admitted that his advocacy of the technology is somewhat romantic. "But
when you look at the kind of things we as a modern society spend billions of dollars on,
(supporting) the idea of limitless clean energy from space is not such a bad goal," he said.

25
COLONIZATION SOLVES EXTINCTION
Space colonization solves extinction

Maryniak, former Vice President of the Space Studies Institute, Chief Operating Officer for the XPRIZE
Foundation, Juris Doctor from Northwestern, winner of the Tsiolkovsky Medal, 1992 (Gregg, Christian Science
Monitor, “How Space Colonies Could Benefit From Earth”, ln)
Space can be colonized

Space colonization means much more than Antarctic-style research habitats on the moon or other planets for an elite group of astronauts.
and provide Earth with the equivalent of the New World that Columbus "discovered" in the 15th century.
Space colonies can supply clean energy necessary for human survival in the 21st century. In addition,
they can provide new homelands and an expanded ecological niche for our species. For many people, the
term "space colony" brings to mind visions of domed cities on the moon or the surface of a hostile planet. Since September 1974, however, the words have had a very different meaning. That
month's issue of Physics Today contained an article by Princeton University professor and nuclear physicist Gerard K. O'Neill entitled, "The Colonization of Space." Dr. O'Neill proposed
construction of large-scale habitats built in free space rather than on the surface of planets. (See interview, Page 17.) Building the structures in space would allow the inhabitants to select
whatever gravity level they desired by controlling the rate of rotation of the habitat. O'Neill showed that even if relatively simple materials such as steel cables were used in colony
construction, habitat cylinders of up to 20 miles (32 kilometers) in length and 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) in diameter could be built to house up to 1 million people under comfortable conditions.
Each habitat would have provisions for agriculture

Early habitats would be much smaller, with populations of hundreds or thousands.
and closed-cycle life support so that once a colony is established, very little outside material
would be required to sustain it.
Human race has no future if it doesn’t go to space

Florida Space Report, 2K7 (“May 31 News Items” http://spacereport.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html)
Hawking Concerned for Earth-Bound Humans (Source: The Independent) Professor Stephen Hawking has just completed a series of "zero-
gravity" flights and says he wants to see the Earth from space by going for a ride with Virgin Galactic, which is scheduled to offer tourist trips
into "space" in two years. Hawkingbelieves that travelling into space is the only way humans will be
able to survive in the long-term. He said in a statement: "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being
wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered
virus or other dangers...I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space."
Must colonize to prevent extinction

Boyle, 2K7 (Alan, 4/6, MSNBC Science Editor. “Hawking Goes Zero-G ‘Space, Here I Come’”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18334489/)
humanity's future depended on

Hawking said he hoped his flight would provide a boost for commercial spaceflight, in line with his oft-expressed belief that
moving beyond Earth. He said he believed "life on earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by
a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other
danger."As long as humanity is confined to one planet, the existence of our species will be in
question, he told NBC News during a preflight interview."I think that getting a portion of the human race permanently
off the planet is imperative for our future as a species. It will be difficult to do this with the
slow, expensive and risk-averse nature of government space programs," Hawking said, working in a veiled reference to
NASA. "We need to engage the entrepreneurial engine that has reduced the cost of everything from airline tickets to personal computers."

26
1AC MILITARY PROCUREMENT ADV
Contention _____: <Insert Whitty Name>
The military would become the anchor tenant for solar power from satellites and would tie
their activities in space together.
Boyle, Science Editor for MSNBC, winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society
Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the
Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, 2K7 (Alan, Oct. 12, MSNBC, “Power from space? Pentagon likes
the idea,” ln)
A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier
of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts' worth of solar power and beams it down to
Earth. The military itself could become the "anchor tenant" for such a power source, due to the
current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says. The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new
economic incentives would have to be put in place to "close the business case" for space-based
solar power systems - but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012. "I think we have found the killer
application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air
Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday.
Use of conventional fuel creates insurmountable tactical problems that destroy combat
effectiveness
Carns and Schlesinger, 2K8 (General Michael Carns, United States Air Force (Retired), Dr. James Schlesinger,
Former Secretary of Defense, “More Fight – Less Fuel,” Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD
Energy Strategy, February 2008 http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf)
The Task Force found that combat and combat related systems generally are inefficient in their use of fuel. This
represents a major constraint on the operational effectiveness of U.S. forces and translates
directly into poor endurance and persistence in the battlespace. Platforms are forced to use time
transiting to fuel sources instead of residing on station, and more of them are needed to
maintain a continuous presence. Improvements in the efficiency of platforms therefore would enable
U.S. forces to increase their in-theater effectiveness by spending more time on station relative
to transit, and by allocating fewer of their assets to sustain a given number at that station . Platform
inefficiency affects operational effectiveness in other ways as well. Moving and protecting fuel through a battlespace requires
significant resources. It constrains freedom of movement by combat forces, makes them more
vulnerable to attack, and compels them to redirect assets from combat operations to protection
of supply lines. Thus, the need to move and protect fuel detracts from combat effectiveness in two
ways; by adding to sustainment costs and by diverting and endangering in-theater force
capability. The payoff to DoD from reduced fuel demand in terms of mission effectiveness and
human lives is probably greater than for any other energy user in the world. More efficient
platforms would enhance range, persistence and endurance. They also would reduce the burden
of owning, employing, operating and protecting the people and equipment needed to move and
protect fuel from the point of commercial purchase to the point of use. An important
implication is that increased energy efficiency of deployed equipment and systems will have a
large multiplier effect. Not only will there be direct savings in fuel cost, but combat
effectiveness will be increased and resources otherwise needed for resupply and protection
redirected. Truck drivers and convoy protectors can become combat soldiers, increasing combat
capability while reducing vulnerabilities caused by extensive convoys. In short, more efficient
platforms increase warfighting capability.

27
SPS solves front line energy procurement and allows the military to shift to alternative
energies
NSSO, National Space Security Office Space-Based Solar Power Study Group, A.K.A. “The Caballeros”, 2K8
(Spring, Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth, ad Astra, Special Report: Space-based Solar
Power Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @ http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, )
Eager to share their epiphany, the Cabelleros set out to flesh out the SSP-DoD story by intensely researching military and dual-use energy applications for SSP. In addition to making large
the most obvious use of SSP was for military base power. An
quantities of orbital power available for a long list of space applications,
average requirement of 5-15 MW of 24/7 baseload electricity could be delivered inside most base perimeters with a one
km-wide or less rectenna—tremendously significant from a force-protection perspective for

minimizing vulnerable external overland lines of fuel and power transportation. Supporting the individual
soldier came next. Today the average GI on the ground consumes the equivalent of one AA battery per
hour to power his suite of electronic gear. Add to this the proliferation of other remote sensor
and electronic equipment. The logistic supply requirement of this reality is enormous and could
be significantly reduced by delivering low-intensity, wide-area broadcast power over an entire
area of operations. This same power could also be used to provide immediate relief in areas of humanitarian disaster or nation building. Finally, utilizing both decades-old c
hemistry and recently discovered technologies from U.S. national labs, SSP energy can be used as raw feedstock for the production
of any carbon-neutral synthetic fuel ranging from basic hydrogen to long-chain hydrocarbon
jet fuel. This is significant and potentially the most exciting of all applications because today
the DoD is the largest single consumer of petroleum in the U.S.

28
Matters will only get worse- oil prices gaurentee that military costs unravel our hegemony
Klare, 2K8 (Michael T Klare, Professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “An oil-addicted
ex-superpower,” Asia Times Online, 5-10-2008,http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JE10Dj05.html)
The fact is, America's wealth and power has long rested on the abundance of cheap petroleum . The United
States was, for a long time, the world's leading producer of oil, supplying its own needs while generating a healthy surplus for export. Oil was the basis for the rise of the first giant multinational
corporations in the US, notably John D Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company (now reconstituted as Exxon Mobil, the world's wealthiest publicly traded corporation). Abundant, exceedingly affordable
petroleum was also responsible for the emergence of the American automotive and trucking industries, the flourishing of the domestic airline industry, the development of the petrochemical and
plastics industries, the suburbanization of America, and the mechanization of its agriculture. Without cheap and abundant oil, the United States would never have experienced the historic economic
No less important was the role of abundant petroleum in fueling the global
expansion of the post-World War II era.
reach of US military power. For all the talk of America's growing reliance on computers, advanced
sensors, and stealth technology to prevail in warfare, it has been oil above all that gave the US
military its capacity to "project power" onto distant battlefields like Iraq and Afghanistan. Every
Humvee, tank, helicopter, and jet fighter requires its daily ration of petroleum, without which
America's technology-driven military would be forced to abandon the battlefield. No surprise, then, that the US
Department of Defense is the world's single-biggest consumer of petroleum, using more of it every day than the entire nation of Sweden. From the end of World War II through the height of the Cold
War, the US claim to superpower status rested on a vast sea of oil. As long as most of our oil came from domestic sources and the price remained reasonably low, the American economy thrived and
the annual cost of deploying vast armies abroad was relatively manageable. But that sea has been shrinking since the 1950s. Domestic oil production reached a peak in 1970 and has been in decline
ever since - with a growing dependency on imported oil as the result. When it came to reliance on imports, the United States crossed the 50% threshold in 1998 and now has passed 65%. Though few
fully realized it, this represented a significant erosion of sovereign independence even before the price of a barrel of crude soared above $110. By now, we are transferring such staggering sums yearly
to foreign oil producers, who are using it to gobble up valuable American assets, that, whether we know it or not, we have essentially abandoned our claim to superpowerdom. According to the latest
data from the US Department of Energy, the United States is importing 12-14 million barrels of oil per day. At a current price of about $115 per barrel, that's $1.5 billion per day, or $548 billion per
year. This represents the single largest contribution to America's balance-of-payments deficit, and is a leading cause for the dollar's ongoing drop in value. If oil prices rise any higher - in response,
perhaps, to a new crisis in the Middle East (as might be occasioned by US air strikes on Iran) - our annual import bill could quickly approach three-quarters of a trillion dollars or more per year. While
our economy is being depleted of these funds, at a moment when credit is scarce and economic growth has screeched to a halt, the oil regimes on which we depend for our daily fix are depositing their
mountains of accumulating petrodollars in "sovereign wealth funds" (SWFs) - state-controlled investment accounts that buy up prized foreign assets in order to secure non-oil-dependent sources of
wealth. At present, these funds are already believed to hold in excess of several trillion dollars; the richest, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), alone holds $875 billion. The ADIA first
made headlines in November 2007 when it acquired a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup, America's largest bank holding company. The fund has also made substantial investments in Advanced Micro
Systems, a major chip maker, and the Carlyle Group, the private equity giant. Another big SWF, the Kuwait Investment Authority, also acquired a multibillion-dollar stake in Citigroup, along with a
$6.6 billion chunk of Merrill Lynch. And these are but the first of a series of major SWF moves that will be aimed at acquiring stakes in top American banks and corporations. The managers of these
funds naturally insist that they have no intention of using their ownership of prime American properties to influence US policy. In time, however, a transfer of economic power of this magnitude cannot
help but translate into a transfer of political power as well. Indeed, this prospect has already stirred deep misgivings in Congress. "In the short run, that they (the Middle Eastern SWFs) are investing
here is good," Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) recently observed. "But in the long run it is unsustainable. Our power and authority is eroding because of the amounts we are sending abroad for
energy ..." Foreign ownership of key nodes of our economy is only one sign of
No summer tax holiday for the Pentagon
fading American superpower status. Oil's impact on the military is another. Every day, the average
GI in Iraq uses approximately 27 gallons of petroleum-based fuels. With some 160,000 American
troops in Iraq, that amounts to 4.37 million gallons in daily oil usage, including gasoline for vans
and light vehicles, diesel for trucks and armored vehicles, and aviation fuel for helicopters, drones,
and fixed-wing aircraft. With US forces paying, as of late April, an average of $3.23 per gallon for these
fuels, the Pentagon is already spending approximately $14 million per day on oil ($98 million per week,
$5.1 billion per year) to stay in Iraq. Meanwhile, our Iraqi allies, who are expected to receive a windfall of $70 billion this year from the rising price of their oil exports, charge
their citizens $1.36 per gallon for gasoline. When questioned about why Iraqis are paying almost a third less for oil than American forces in their country, senior Iraqi government officials scoff at any
suggestion of impropriety. "America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq," said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi
governmental expenditures. "This is an immoral request because we didn't ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn't have all these needs." Needless to say, this is not exactly
the way grateful clients are supposed to address superpower patrons. "It's totally unacceptable to me that we are spending tens of billions of dollars on rebuilding Iraq while they are putting tens of
billions of dollars in banks around the world from oil revenues," said Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan), chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "It doesn't compute as far as I'm concerned."
Certainly, however, our allies in the region, especially the Sunni kingdoms of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that presumably look to Washington to stabilize Iraq and curb
the growing power of Shi'ite Iran, are willing to help the Pentagon out by supplying US troops with free or deeply-discounted petroleum. No such luck. Except for some partially subsidized oil
supplied by Kuwait, all oil-producing US allies in the region charge us the market rate for petroleum. Take that as a striking reflection of how little credence even countries whose ruling elites have
traditionally looked to the US for protection now attach to our supposed superpower status. Think of this as a strikingly clear-eyed assessment of American power. As far as they're concerned, we're
now just another of those hopeless oil addicts driving a monster gas-guzzler up to the pump - and they're perfectly happy to collect our cash which they can then use to cherry-pick our prime assets. So
Worse yet, the US military will need even more oil for the
expect no summer tax holidays for the Pentagon, not in the Middle East, anyway.
future wars on which the Pentagon is now doing the planning. In this way, the US experience in Iraq has
especially worrisome implications. Under the military "transformation" initiated by Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld in 2001, the future US war machine will rely less on "boots on the ground" and ever more
on technology. But technology entails an ever-greater requirement for oil, as the newer weapons
sought by Rumsfeld (and now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) all consume many times more fuel than those they
will replace. To put this in perspective: The average GI in Iraq now uses about seven times as much
oil per day as GIs did in the first Gulf War less than two decades ago. And every sign indicates that the
same ratio of increase will apply to coming conflicts; that the daily cost of fighting will skyrocket;
and that the Pentagon's capacity to shoulder multiple foreign military burdens will unravel. Thus are
superpowers undone.

29
Global Nuke War

Zad, 95 (Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND analyst, “Losing the Moment,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995,
LN.)
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
a world in which the United States exercises

the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because
leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of
law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of
another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers,
including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

30
SPS INCREASES READINESS
Space based solar power boosts overall military effectiveness

01.pdf)
beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to
For the DoD specifically,
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 to a strategically secure energy supply.
SPS preserves military readiness

Morring 2K7 (Frank, Aerospace & Defense Report, “NSSO Backs Space Solar Power,” October 11
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/solar101107.xml&headline=NSSO%20Backs%20Space
%20Solar%20Power%20&channel=space)
Collecting solar power in space and beaming it back to Earth is a relatively nearterm 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.

31
SPS INCREASES READINESS
Solar power would enable the military to operate forward bases and an on the ground
presence
Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power down from space could also
enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far flung, hostile regions such as Iraq
without relying on vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators
needed to keep the lights on. As the report puts it, "beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the
potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. (Space-based solar power) and its
enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible 'energy on
demand' for combat units and installations across and entire theater, while significantly
reducing dependence on over-land fuel deliveries."

32
MILITARY SOLVES CONFLICT
An effective military preserves world order

Parameteres, 2K5 (Summer 2005 v35 i2 p149)
The Sheriff: America's Defense of the New World Order. Damon Coletta. .Kagan relished the irony of postmodern Europe, gasping from its gated community at brutish America on the
outside, even as the United States atavistically guaranteed security for Europe's liberal-democratic union. Gray further insists that, despite appearances of a historical transformation, the
the world--all the world for all of

Kantian paradise in Western Europe is not really a world apart. As Thucydides and Hobbes remarked before Kant,
recorded history--tends toward competition, strife, and disorder unless a coherent power
persuades, coerces, or compels people to behave in a civilized manner. The United States, in a
league apart from the European Union, China, or the United Nations, derives its political
influence from dominant military and economic power. For Gray, the United States is the only actor
that has a chance of preserving some semblance of world order from cancer-like regional chaos
in the coming decades.

33
1AC SPACE CONTROL ADV
Contention One: Fighting the Dragon
The U.S. Space industry is dramatically underperforming. The government has failed to
provide them with missions that guarantee their growth and competitiveness- Chinese ASATs
prove our space control is uniquely vulnerable now
ICAF, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 2K7 (National Defense University, Space Industry Study 2007, LtCol
Carmine Borrelli, U.S. Marine Corps Ms. Danielle Buckon, Dept. of the Navy Mr. Bruce Cogossi, Dept. of the Army
Ms. Cynthia Davidson, Defense Intelligence Agency Ms. Cristie Ditzler-Smith, Dept. of the Air Force Mr. August
Doddato Dept. of the Air Force COL Charles Gabrielson, U.S. Army LTC Kenneth Hubbard, U.S. Army COL Kent
Jacocks, U.S. Army COL Valerie Jircitano, U.S. Army Mr. Mark Jones, U.S. Coast Guard Col Jeffrey Koch, U.S. Air
Force CDR Brent Kyler, U.S. Navy Ms Lisa McCauley, Battelle Mr. Anthony Reardon, Dept. of the Air Force LtCol
Peter Yeager, U.S. Marine Corps CAPT Ken Buell, U.S. Navy, Faculty Dr. Scott Loomer, National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency, Faculty Mr. Tom Drake, National Security Agency, Faculty, page @
http://ensode.net/ensode/pdf-crack.jsf;jsessionid=3edbc0916fa9519557ea924314b3, )
An Industry in Decline Nascent industries are marked by growth, innovation, and competition among a large number of companies, which was representative of the space industry fifty years
ago. Todaythe industry reflects little innovation, little competition, low capacity, and high cost. As
U.S. reliance on space continues to increase, these industry conditions become cause for
concern. It is certainly worth asking why newer technologies have not emerged in the last forty years. In part,
this may be due to the very small market for space capabilities. Until new and different
technologies are developed, which is not likely to occur without an interest and investment by
government, the current dynamic will sustain a condition of limited innovation and capacity.
Government Goals & Roles The U.S. government has long understood that access to space and space
capabilities are essential to U.S. economic prosperity and national security . U.S. space policy from 1962 to 2006 served to ensure national
leadership in space and governance of space activities, including science, exploration, and international cooperation. The current Administration has issued five space-specific policies to provide goals and objectives for the U.S. Space Program. In addition to the National Space Policy,
these policies are Space Exploration; Commercial Remote Sensing; Space Transportation; and Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. Each policy endeavors to maintain U.S. space supremacy, reserving the right to defend assets in space, and to continue to exploit space for
national security America’s success in space is dependent on government involvement,

and economic prosperity. 9
motivation, and inspiration. It is significant that the Bush Administration has taken the time and effort to update all of the U.S. space policies. The
consolidation of the major space industry players and a general down-turn in the commercial
space market demand, coupled with export restrictions, has left the U.S. space industry reliant
on the government for revenue and technology development . Heretofore, the European Space Agency has focused exclusively on civil space. The imminent release of
a new European Space Policy includes important provisions to conform to the ESDP, suggesting the potential for a larger economic and political role for space in Europe. The EU is also providing an important economic stimulus, not just in terms of funding for research and programs,
The U.S. government’s attempt to revitalize a

but by increasingly using space as a tool in the implementation of its policy objectives, becoming a key institutional partner and customer.
declining space industry has met with some early success, but there are areas that need more
attention . For example, the U.S. Space Policy on Commercial Remote Sensing Capabilities has been a catalyst to advance and protect U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by maintaining the nation’s leadership in remote sensing space activities, and by
The Administration also revitalized the nation’s interest in manned space

enhancing the U.S. remote sensing industry. to the Moon and Mars with the issuance of The
President’s Vision for Space Exploration. Although the extent of technological benefits America received from its first successful foray to the Moon four decades ago may not be realized under this plan given the extensive use of existing technology to achieve its aims, it remains a
Space Policy initiatives fail to address key issues affecting the U.S.
laudable effort to foster enthusiasm in the manned space program. Several U.S.
space industry. The newly-issued space policy documents generally share the common themes
of maintaining space leadership, self-defense, and exploitation of space for national security and economic prosperity, but they all lack a
cohesive and specific plan to invigorate the commercial space market. There are also key factors that challenge U.S.
national security and economic prosperity with respect to its dependence on the space industry, and that should be addressed more fully by U.S. policy. These factors, as discussed below,
The Chinese test of a direct-ascent, kinetic

include external threats to U.S. space access and internationalization of space. External Threats to U.S. Space Access.
kill anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon in January 2007, raised legal, ethical, and policy questions regarding the merits of
‘weaponizing’ space. This test forces the U.S. to confront the possibility of a challenge to its
use of space. The 2006 U.S. Space Policy states the U.S. will “take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary,
adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests” (p. xx). Now that the potential for such attacks is manifest,
senior U.S. leadership must address the scope of a national response . Internationalization of Space The number of space-faring nations is on the rise.
Without natural or imposed borders, space is a fertile ground for international cooperation or conflict. Therefore, global space governance is essential to prevent national conflicts from extending to space. With increased space use and exploration, a number of related challenges remain
The U.S. Space Policy intends to pursue international

unsolved, such as the need to address space-based property rights, ownership and mining rights, or non-earth1 colonies .
cooperation but fails to address U.S. strategic goals for space relations with such countries as China or
Russia, who have the potential to rival U.S. space capabilities.

34
SSP is key to the industry for 3 Reasons:

1) Provides companies with external profits
2) Incentives key to program viability
3) Commercial space is most efficent
Collins, Chief Information Officer at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. He heads the Foundation’s IT
department, was the Director of Information and Communication Services at the University of California Office of
the President, 2K2 (Patrick, The Cost to Taxpayers of Governments' Anti-Space Tourism Policy and Prospects for
Improvement, page @
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_cost_to_taxpayers_of_governments_anti_space_tourism_policy_and_prospe
cts_for_improvement.shtml)
Government space agencies in the 'G7' countries spend some $22 billion/year on a range of
civilian space activities - USA $15 bn, Europe $5 bn, Japan $2 bn. About 20% of this expenditure is used for astronomy and other forms of space science. The
remainder, approximately $18 billion /year, is used for a variety of purposes, notably development and operation of expendable
launch vehicles and related technology development, development of the 'international space
station' ISS , and other space 'applications'. These activities are not profitable in the normal sense
of the word; if they were they would create new commercial space activities earning additional
turnover of $18 billion/year, as shown in Figure 1. However, whereas the total turnover of commercial launch
vehicle manufacture in 2000 was $2.9 billion, and satellite manufacture was some $15 billion (1), this activity is not
growing significantly -- indeed it is in a crisis of inadequate demand and excess supply (2). In addition to
technology development, G7 countries' government space agencies also have responsibility for commercialisation. For example, Nasa is required by law to
"..encourage to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commmercial use of space". Similarly, the
leaders of the British National Space Centre (BNSC) state that their objective is to "..help industry maximise profitable space
based business opportunities" (3). The European Space Agency (ESA ), the Japanese space agency (NASDA ) and other government space agencies have
similar responsibilities. However, none of these agencies is fulfilling this responsibility, even
approximately; they are all in fact deliberately acting to delay the development of what
promises to become the most important commercial activity in space, namely passenger space
travel, as Nasa, the AIAA and the Japanese 'Keidanren' all acknowledged in 1998 (4, 5, 6). As described below and elsewhere, G7 government space agencies continually ignore the
subject; they are starving the field of funding, thereby delaying its realisation; they are hiding valuable information about its potential; and they are making misleading and even untrue
statements, thereby delaying public understanding of its economic potential. Why are space agencies behaving in this way? It is because making them responsible for commercialisation gives
them a conflict of interest. In his pioneering work on the economics of bureaucracy, Niskanen described that the economic interests of government organisations and their political 'overseers'
are to obtain the maximum budget that they can (7). Commercial-isation of an activity, of which privatisation is the ultimate form, reduces space agencies' activities, and therefore goes against
their internal objective of expansion. As Niskanen describes, the efficiency of government organisations is maintained not by the 'oversight' performed by politicians (who typically have a
parallel interest in increasing public spending), but by 'continuous testing' by the public as consumers of the services they supply (7). Government space agencies are anomalous in that they do
not supply any significant service directly to the public, and so they face no such process of public 'testing'. As Niskanen explains further, in their workplaces government bureaucrats have no
incentive "..either to know or seek out the public interest or to act in the public interest" (7). In the absence of critical feedback from the general public, space agencies therefore experience
little or no pressure to work for their benefit. In order to avoid misunderstanding, and because the approach of 'public choice' economics is still not familiar to many people, it is perhaps worth
quoting Niskanen's sentence that follows the above quotation. "My impression is that government employees include a large proportion of the most honest people -- and least selfish people --
in any society" (7). That is, it is not bureaucrats' dishonesty that causes the economic inefficiency of
bureaucracy, but the structure of incentives that they face. Likewise, it is because the development of
space travel into a consumer service is against the interests of space agencies, whose staff face
insufficient pressure to do what the public want, that they are delaying it, with the costly consequences described
below. It should also be noted that government space agencies are also effectively mono-polies, which invariably
lead to high costs and inadequate innovation. It is not logically disputable that space agencies
responsible for commercialisation which are heavily loss-making should devote a substantial
part of their budgets to investigating the feasibility of passenger space travel, as a possibly
more economically valuable activity. That they are not doing this is profoundly against the
public's economic interest. The author has repeatedly criticised this behaviour, and the "double standard" that justifies spending $18 billion/year on space agency
activities with a rate of return close to minus 100%, while refusing funds to aid the development of passenger space travel on the grounds that it is uncertain whether it will be sufficiently
Space agencies make no attempt to defend themselves against these

profitable to be commercially attractive (8, 9, 10).
charges -- indeed they cannot, because this behaviour is patently against the public's economic interest, and
contrary to agencies' legal obligation to promote the commercial development of space --
instead they maintain what the author has called a 'conspiracy of silence' about the subject (11). It
35
<Collins Continues>
Correcting it requires a change in paradigm from the cold war
seems reasonable to describe this as an Anti-Space Tourism Policy.
pattern of using taxpayers' money to perform government 'missions' in space, to aiding the
growth of commercial passenger travel (12). If this change in policy is made soon, it would be
possible to realise the scenario shown in Figure 2, which is described elsewhere (13), and would
be of great economic benefit, at far lower cost to taxpayers than the continuation of existing
government space activities.
Must maintain the commercial sector for space control- its key to military procurement of
dual-use satellite technologies for satellite hardening
Moltz, Deputy Director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) and Professor of International Policy
Studies, both at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, worked for 20 years on U.S. and Russian nuclear,
missile defense, and space issues, as well as proliferation problems in Northeast Asia, Ph.D. in Political Science from
the University of California at Berkeley. He worked previously as a staff member in the U.S. Senate and has served as
a consultant to the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense. , 2K2 (James Clay, Future Security in Space:
Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs, Occasional Paper No. 10, page @
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op10/op10.pdf, )
Control of space is at the crux of the debate about the future of U.S. military space policy. It is
important to point out that the issue is not whether the United States should militarize space. The militarization
of space has already occurred and will continue. Space assets are currently used to great effect to support terrestrial (ground, sea, and air) military operations. The more immediate issue is
whether the United States should weaponize space, at least in the near- or mid-term, and more important, whether military uses and requirements in space should be the driving force behind
how we think about space and space policy. Advocates of a more aggressive U.S. military policy for space argue that the United States is more reliant on the use of space than is any other
U.S. space systems are thus an attractive candidate for a “space

nation, that space systems are vulnerable to attack, and that
Pearl Harbor.” Critics of such a policy shift are concerned that weaponizing space could trigger a dangerous arms race. They are quick to point out that no country currently has
an operational anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon that threatens U.S. satellites or weapons in space and that a U.S. move to deploy weapons (either offensive or defensive) would only provide
unneeded impetus for other countries to follow suit. Regardless of how one views the need to weaponize space, one thing is abundantly clear: the U.S. military greatly benefits from using
commercial space systems. Former vice chief of staff of the Air Force, General Thomas S. Moorman, asserts thatby making maximum use of
commercial satellites, “military satellite communications will benefit in terms of access to
additional capacity (tremendous increases in available bandwidth and flexibility, as well as multiplicity of alternative communications paths).”1 In all likelihood, in
the future, the military will be even more reliant on commercial space systems. As General Moorman has also
stated: On the one hand, commercialization is not a total panacea.... On the other hand, the commercial space industry is expanding at such a rate and with such marvelous capabilities that it
We can also
seems reasonable if not inevitable that a number of missions— heretofore the exclusive province of the government—can be satisfied or augmented commercially.
realize significant efficiencies by taking advantage of commercial space.2 Therefore, as U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter
Hays and Karl Mueller (both former professors at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies) argue: “It is no longer clear that the relationship
between space and national security is, or should be, shaped primarily by international military
competition.”3 Indeed, space as it relates to national security may be shaped and influenced more by the future of commercial space activities. If there are significant military and
national security advantages to be gained via commercial space, then it is important to recognize that there is the potential for great harm by placing military requirements at the forefront of
how we think about space. While the January 2001 Space Commission report (and others) focus on the vulnerability of U.S. space assets and the potential for a “space Pearl Harbor,” there is a
“flip side” that must also be considered. John Newhouse, senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, states: The (Space Commission) report does not call for but implies a U.S. need
to accelerate development of antisatellite weapons, some of them space-based. But deploying such weapons will press other countries to develop and deploy countermeasures. And in any such
tit for tat, the United States has the most to lose, since it is far more dependent on satellites for commercial communications and data-gathering operations than any other country. Among the
effects could be a sharp rise in the cost of insuring commercial satellites and an outcry from industry. 4 And, as John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at the George Washington
University points out: “There appears to be no demand from the operators of commercial communication satellites for defense of their multibillion-dollar assets. If there were to be active
military operations in space, it could be difficult not to interfere with the functioning of civilian space systems.” 5 In other words, weaponizing space could be costly to an American industry
Ultimately, a vibrant commercial space industry

that has great promise to grow and increase its contribution to the U.S. (and world) economy.
will support and enhance U.S. military capabilities far better than letting military requirements
dominate space policy. Therefore, the government should avoid overregulating commercial space activities and imposing costly military requirements. Certainly, there
are some uses of space that are unique to the military – such as integrated tactical warning and attack assessment (ITW&AA). This is an area where military needs and requirements cannot be
the military will be the sole user for systems such as DSP (Defense Support
met by commercial systems. That is,
Program) satellites, which monitor missile launches worldwide. But virtually all other applications of space are “dual
use.” To be sure, military needs and requirements must be recognized. For example, the military and
intelligence agencies may have unique requirements for surveillance and reconnaissance that
can be met only with their own dedicated satellites—either for reasons of security of data or
technical requirements (e.g., resolution, processing time). A similar situation exists with regard to
36
<Moltz Continues>
communications. For example, MILSTAR (Military Strategic and Tactical Relay) is a dedicated military satellite communications system that
provides secure, jam-resistant, nuclear-hardened communications for all U.S. forces. But,
wherever possible, the Department of Defense (DOD) should make use of commercial assets rather than
spend needlessly on unique military assets. For example, the military should use existing
communications satellites for its nonsecure communications capability. Communications
probably represents the single biggest use of space for both the military and
civilian/commercial sectors. According to General Moorman: “Space-based communications is the giant in space
commerce. The giant clearly will be even more dominant in the future, and the information
revolution will be the driver.”6 Although the DOD operates several communications satellites (or payloads on other military satellites to provide communications
services)—for example, the Defense Satellite Communications System, Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM), Leasat, UHF Follow-On (UFO), and MILSTAR—this
segment is largely commercially driven. According to a RAND report: “ The technology for new satellite communications, especially high-
speed mobile services, is evolving so rapidly that the DOD is planning to make greater use of commercial
systems rather than fielding/g its own systems.”7 Another area where the military can also make greater
use of commercial assets is in satellite imaging, such as Earth Watch’s EarlyBird 1, Space Imaging’s Ikonos (which offers one-meter resolution,
the highest resolution of any commercially available system), and Orbiting Image’s OrbView. According to RAND: “ Commercial remote sensing offers
the U.S. military potential new sources of remote-sensing data without requiring it to pay for
the development of the space system.”8 And General Moorman believes “that these new commercial capabilities will
both complement and reduce the numbers of military and intelligence systems required. The
resulting savings could be substantial.”9 Indeed, during the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, the U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency
(NIMA) purchased exclusive rights to pictures taken of the war zone by Space Imaging’s Ikonos satellite, which has 1-meter black and white resolution and 4-meter color resolution. This
“buy to deny” policy is an example that demonstrates the importance of and demand for commercial space assets by the military. Somewhat ironically, these high-tech, highresolution images
were initially delivered via “pony express.” Ikonos imagery was recorded on the satellite and downloaded to Space Imaging ground stations in the United States. From there, it was delivered
to NIMA’s Commercial Satellite Imagery Library at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. The Air Force had to send someone to the library to manually transfer the data to compact
The military should also consider using distributed and redundant

discs, which were then delivered by aircraft to Saudi
commercial satellite systems as a means to reduce vulnerability to attack rather than deploying
unique military systems that are likely to be more expensive and take longer to deploy . For example, it
may be more cost-effective to develop and deploy smaller satellites in a distributed system
configuration designed to operate at low-Earth orbit and medium-Earth orbit than larger,
heavier satellites operating in geosynchronous (stationary) orbit. That approach is especially meritorious if there is a potential shortage of
heavy-lift launch capability. It is also important that military requirements should not be imposed on shared nonmilitary satellites. For example, the military should not require hardening
against electromagnetic pulse on commercial satellites that are also used by the military. To the extent that such requirements are absolute needs, the military should deploy its own dedicated
systems to meet those requirements. Neither commercial satellite operators nor the other users of commercial satellites should shoulder any cost burdens imposed by the military (and clearly,
the military must be more realistic about its requirements). Even if commercial space is not a panacea for the military, it
should be the driving force of space and shape space policy. Indeed, commercial space efforts
often lead those of the government and the DOD and usually have lower costs, due to market
influences and competition. Therefore, defense and national security need to be one component
of overall U.S. space policy, but certainly not the primary component. In the post–Cold War environment—with no immediate threat from another great power and
none on the horizon (at least in the near- to mid-term)—the U.S. government must avoid establishing inflated and costly military requirements for space-based resources. U.S. space
policy should strive to foster an environment that allows commercial space activity to grow and
flourish rather than create a new area for costly military competition . Arabia. Eventually, the data was transmitted via the
Pentagon’s satellite-based Global Broadcast Service. So not only is there a commercial opportunity in imaging itself, but also possibly in how those images are transmitted—especially
securely—to the customer.

37
Sustainable space control that is virtually unchallengeable- the U.S. can use its space assets to
deny other countries acess to space hegemony
Dolman, 2K2 (Everett Dolman, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, “Space Power and US Hegemony:
Maintaining a Liberal World Order in the 21st Century,” http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper
%5B1%5D.pdf, )
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. Space has the unique
capacity of being the ‘unflankable’ high ground. So tactically advantageous is the high ground position that has both line of site over and defensive
domination of the battlefield that commanders have always sought it. Space control is not only tactically advantageous on the
battlefield, it is strategically so in diplomacy. The entity in control of space has real-time presence and persistence over the globe. So strong
is the fortified position at the top of the Earth’s gravity well that should any nations seize it, it
could effectively deny access to space to any other state that should attempt to put assets there. A
simple argument could be made that the United States has an imperative to seize control of space on this point alone, to
prevent a dangerous enemy from taking it, but such a case could be made for any state that desired domination over the world. My point is that not only is
the United States the sole country with the capacity to seize space (currently), it is the only great power that has a history of benign intervention and overall disdain of empire that it is morally
important

38
Competition in space causes global wars that result in extinction

Krepon, Co-Founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center and Heller, Research Assistant at Stimson Center’s Space
Security Project, 2K4 (Michael and Michael, May/June, “A Model Code of Conduct for Space Assurance”
Disarmament Diplomact No 77, http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd77/77mkmh.htm)
The flight testing and prospective deployment of anti-satellite (ASAT) and other space
weapons would have significantly adverse consequences for national security, global
commerce, and scientific endeavour. If the United States took the lead in such efforts, other
nations would surely respond in kind. Similarly, the flight testing and deployment of space weapons by other countries would prompt a vigorous response
by the United States. A situation in which satellites orbiting the earth are trailed by objects designed to
destroy or disable them is inherently destabilising, given the vulnerability of satellites and the
ease with which they could be harmed. Potential adversaries in space would be faced with the
dilemma of shooting first or risking the loss of critical satellites. The quest to secure dominion
over space would therefore elevate into the heavens the hair-trigger postures that plagued
humankind during the Cold War. The flight testing and deployment of ASATs would also
poison relations between major powers and further weaken America's ties with its allies. If advocates of
space power are right, and if military conflict follows commerce, then there would be no sanctuary in deep space for revenue-
generating satellites. Debris resulting from warfare in space would exponentially increase
hazards to satellites. Subsequently, insurance rates would skyrocket, and consumers would pay
more for services that could easily be disrupted. Satellite warfare would not change the outcome of battle with the United States. Given the
preponderant military dominance Washington enjoys, US forces will still prevail in war. But the devastating effects of warfare would rise on
all sides. Conflict in space would impose even heavier burdens on soldiers on the ground, who
depend on the unfettered use of satellites to win quickly, and with minimum collateral damage.
All states that derive benefits from satellites stand to be punished by space warfare, but none
more so than the United States, which is the primary beneficiary of the twin revolutions of
military affairs and space-aided commerce. No satellite has been destroyed in the multitude of wars that have been waged over the last four and one-
half decades since Sputnik was launched. The first loss of a satellite in warfare would therefore be an historic act,
and could have catastrophic effects in space, as well as on the ground. It is essential, therefore, to ask whether the flight
testing and deployment of ASAT weapons would make space warfare more or less likely. During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States flight tested rudimentary ASATs
fifty three times. During short periods of time, both superpowers actually deployed a small number of ASAT launchers. The strategic balance was not affected by these modest activities, nor
did they lead to an arms race in space. Mutual deterrence between the superpowers had a chastening effect in space, as with the avoidance of direct confrontation on the ground. These two
Both superpowers knew that to engage in space warfare would unleash

realms were, of course, inextricably linked:
devastating, assured destruction from nuclear arsenals that depended on space assets for the
execution of war-fighting plans. Today, advocates of space warfare capabilities in the United States believe in dominance, not mutual deterrence. The rejection
of mutual deterrence in space has profoundly destabilising prospects. In order to seize dominion in space, those who deploy
ASAT weapons or weapons designed to strike targets on earth would need to prevent potential
adversaries from responding in kind. This would require preemptive strikes against the facilities of a state believed
to be preparing an ASAT launch, or killing the launch vehicle or its payload en route to space. This hard logic is driven by cold facts: Dominion in space cannot be achieved if a potential
adversary's ASATs are trailing satellites that are essential for the execution of war plans. Nor can dominion be established if anti-satellite warfare produces debris fields.
Consequently, choices become rather stark: The rejection of mutual deterrence in space and the
pursuit of dominion require not only the initiation of ASAT flight tests and deployments, but
also the initiation of acts of war. The alternative of accepting the mutual deployment of space weapons would be to risk losing dominion in space. Space
warriors cannot have it both ways: If they choose space weapons, they cannot retain assurance
that satellites required for national security and commerce will be available when needed. The
fundamental choice is between space weapons and space assurance.

39
Put away your arms race DA’s- race has already begun. Our only choice is to harden our
space assets. Geopolitical competition for military advantages and natural events will destroy
our space control
Boston Globe, 2K7 (October 3, Protecting our future in space, Nexis, )
we need to figure out how to protect these space assets. And to do that, we must recognize that
So, in looking forward,
the space environment has changed dramatically since the Soviets launched a 2-foot-wide metal ball back in October 1957. First, space
is now multinational. For decades, the United States and Soviet Union dominated space, but today
more than 50 countries own satellites or a share in one, and nine countries have successfully
launched satellites. People in nearly every corner of the globe now depend on the services
satellites provide. As a result, space is getting crowded. Over the last five decades, the number of objects in
space has increased dramatically. Today, more than 850 operating satellites and nearly 700,000 pieces of debris
larger than a marble orbit the Earth. A collision with such a piece of debris could damage or
destroy a satellite. Laws and "rules of the road" to guide operations in space, and controls on the production of space debris are increasingly necessary. Meanwhile, some
resources are at a premium: Slots in the highly sought-after "geostationary band," the part of space where satellites can remain over a given point on Earth, are assigned by the International
space is
Telecommunications Union on a first-come, first-served basis. Many developing countries are concerned that slots won't be available when they are ready to use one. Second,
in danger of becoming weaponized. While space has long supported military forces through
reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites, there currently are no weapons based
in space. The Bush administration, however, has been pushing to develop weapons to deny other countries the use of space; these include space-based interceptors, which could be
used to attack satellites. Meanwhile, China's successful test of an antisatellite weapon last January dramatically
demonstrated that satellites are already at risk. Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may
afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger a space arms race. That would divert
economic and political resources from other pressing issues, and hinder international
cooperation necessary to make progress on such problems as nuclear nonproliferation and
terrorism. In addition, increasing reliance on satellites for crucial military functions could cause
instability in a crisis. Military war games suggest that the loss of important satellites, such as
reconnaissance satellites, could spark a quick escalation in a conflict. Increased congestion and
the threat of weaponization pose an important challenge: How do we continue to reap the
benefits of space and avoid conflict? That requires a new model for space . Long over are the "Wild West" days when
most viewed space as sparsely populated with little need for laws and rules, and so vast that no one was worried about degrading the environment. This new model must reflect our modern,
interconnected world. It requires a legal framework to regulate space traffic, allocate limited resources equitably, and provide ways to resolve disputes. Particularly important are limits on
potentially harmful or destabilizing technologies, such as a ban on testing and use of weapons that destroy satellites, and verification measures to instill confidence in and strengthen adherence
to the regime.

40
PRIVATE SPACE INDUSTRY UNIQUENESS
The commercial space industry is dramatically underperforming- increasing government

assistance to the sector is key to the U.S. capacity to develop space technologies
The market presents a challenge for competition given the widespread government subsidies or
national ownership in each launch-capable country. In the U.S., government launches are projected to account for 50% of the world launch
demand through 2020, with the Department of Defense (DoD) responsible for 63% of those launches (Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 2006, p.4). In terms of heavy lifting for
geosynchronous orbits (GEO) or geosynchronous transfer orbits (GTO), 81% of all launches use one of three government-sponsored boosters: Ariane, Atlas, and Delta (Futron, 2002, p. 5).
Hardly by coincidence, both the Ariane under ESA in Europe
and the Atlas/Delta team under ULA in the U.S., enjoy substantial government subsidies and national policy protection.This highlights the need for a
commercially developed heavy-lift booster that can compete against the government sponsored
programs, but high barriers to entry, such as government certification, research and development costs, capital outlays well in advance of launch, and the requirement to provide
alternatives for launch failures, provide a strong disincentive to new launch programs (CBO, 2006, p. 4). Thus the launch market is not
driven by cost, but rather by reliability and schedule, and risk aversion becomes another barrier to entry. Since the government is the principal consumer of launch and since it is performance-
oriented rather than cost-oriented, it tends to avoid alternatives like SpaceX in favor of providers with a demonstrated track record. Market Segments Segments define the market across three
dimensions: Commercial, Civil Government and Military. Each segment is interdependent with substantial overlap in function and technology. Commercial. The commercial segment is
characterized by a rising demand in communications and satellite to home television services. Commercial insurance is included in our study of the commercial segment. Key players include
Intelsat, Eutelsat, Echostar, DirecTV, Sirius, and XM satellite radio. Civil Government. The civil segment principally includes science, exploration, and remote sensing. While the United
States dominates the civil government segment, the French, German, Indian, Italian, Japanese, and Russian space agencies are also key players. Military. Satellites are a cornerstone of the
U.S. plan to ensure battlefield dominance and unparalleled communications reach-back from the battlefield to the U.S. The military space mission is central to battlefield success and includes
such fundamental capabilities as surveillance, early warning, communications, and navigation. French, British, Russian, and Chinese activity in this segment is important, though small relative
to the U.S. Industry Outlook U.S. national security is dependent upon space, and thus must be able to assure access to it as well as operate critical assets within it. Key space industry
elements supporting these national security requirements are shown in the table below. It has been widely reported that U.S. aerospace and
defense companies underperform when compared with other high-tech industries. Overall, U.S.
aerospace and defense companies showed profit margins of 4.2% and 5.2% in 2004 and 2005. The space prime
contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin performed worse, and space suppliers worse still. A number of
factors are responsible for this performance, including limited government demand for large and
technologically complex satellites , industry consolidation and divestiture of redundant business units, customers’ push for lower prices, global competition,
and the communication satellite market collapse in 2001. (DeFrank, 2006, pp. 1-2). There also has been a trend to push risk, and
especially cost risk, down to the lowest possible level in the contracting chain, which has hurt subcontractors in particular. These trends have the potential to
prevent U.S. industry from meeting future national security requirements . At least one source suggests that half
of the current space suppliers may not be in business by the end of the decade (DeFrank, 2006, p. 2). Further,
long development times and the cyclical nature of the business may poorly position the U.S.
space industry to meet a full-up surge requirement. U.S. national security interests would be
met if the forecasts of space industry consultants Futron and Euroconsult pan out, and if U.S. industry, aided by the government, takes
steps to assure its own competitiveness.

41
PRIVATE SPACE INDUSTRY UNIQUENESS
Space Industy innovation and competitiveness is down- only government investment can
sustain our dominance
Carmine Borrelli, U.S. Marine Corps Ms. Danielle Buckon, Dept. of the Navy Mr. Bruce Cogossi, Dept. of the Army Ms. Cynthia
Davidson, Defense Intelligence Agency Ms. Cristie Ditzler-Smith, Dept. of the Air Force Mr. August Doddato Dept. of the Air
Force COL Charles Gabrielson, U.S. Army LTC Kenneth Hubbard, U.S. Army COL Kent Jacocks, U.S. Army COL Valerie
Jircitano, U.S. Army Mr. Mark Jones, U.S. Coast Guard Col Jeffrey Koch, U.S. Air Force CDR Brent Kyler, U.S. Navy Ms Lisa
McCauley, Battelle Mr. Anthony Reardon, Dept. of the Air Force LtCol Peter Yeager, U.S. Marine Corps CAPT Ken Buell, U.S.
Navy, Faculty Dr. Scott Loomer, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Faculty Mr. Tom Drake, National Security Agency,
Faculty, page @ http://ensode.net/ensode/pdf-crack.jsf;jsessionid=3edbc0916fa9519557ea924314b3, )
The Troubled Industry The sectors of the space industry span the industry lifecycle, though the elements that most directly support the national
security, launch and satellite manufacturing, have matured over the last 50 years and today reflect little
innovation, little competition, low capacity, and high cost. U.S. policies governing the
acquisition and export of space technologies have hastened the maturation, concentration, and
decline of the industry by limiting the ability of foreign countries to purchase U.S. space
technology or preventing foreign companies from competing for U.S. space contracts. One stark result,
for example, is that of the 24 comsats ordered globally in 2005, U.S. companies secured only half (Lardier, 2006, p. 43).
By comparison, U.S. companies provided 83% of the global commercial satellite market in 1999 (Zelnio, 2006). Should these trends continue, they will
limit the ability of the U.S. to exploit the medium of space and may erode its asymmetric
advantage. To sustain its space-related advantages, therefore, the U.S. must address these challenges
by transforming the space industry through increased competition, and by so doing lower costs,
increase capacity, and improve innovation. Limited competition. In 1933 Congress passed the Buy American Act. While this policy, as amended in
1979, admits foreign competition for all government acquisition over $169,000, more practically the acquisition process is governed by the constituent interests of the Congress (Aaserud,
n.d.). Accordingly, a de facto “Buy American” provision influences every major federal acquisition in the U.S. Since there are only five major satellite manufacturers worldwide and two are
foreign, domestic political pressures limit the competitive arena by nearly half (Zelnio, 2006). A more explicitly troubling U.S. government policy is the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations (ITAR). ITAR embodies the legislative restrictions on the export of certain U.S. munitions, including satellites. The logic for ITAR is to sustain a military advantage by
preventing the spread of key, dual-use technologies to third parties. While the provision is meant to enhance the security of the nation, its implementation has limited the ability of U.S.
manufacturers to compete in the global market (Zelnio, 2006). Collectively, natural barriers and governmental regulation have eroded U.S. market share and competitiveness in the industry,
Though the space industry is one of the most advanced and

yielding, among other things, a lack of innovation. Limited innovation.
technologically complex industries in the world, the developmental pathways along which
launch vehicles and satellite manufacturing have progressed have changed little in the last 40 to
50 years (Furniss, 2001). The industry continues to use massive liquid fuel rockets that are
extraordinarily expensive, costing approximately $90 million to $200 million each to deliver a payload of 6,000 to 13,000 kg to
geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO), or approximately $15,000 per kg, depending on the device (FIAG, 2006, pp. EELV-1-2 and p. Sea Launch-1). Further, a liquid fuel
rocket is only about 1.6% efficient to GTO, insofar as it uses 98.4% of its thrust to propel itself along its ascent trajectory and into position to release its payload (FIAG, 2006, p. Atlas V-2).
Additionally, the chemical reaction that generates the thrust necessary to accelerate the rocket and its payload to 11.2 kilometers per second is also prone to catastrophe nearly one time in ten
satellites have followed a developmental pathway that exploits the most

(Newell, 1979, pp. 170-171). Similarly,
advanced technologies. This pathway incurs a good bit of risk because immature technologies
are more prone to fail. Cutting edge technologies are also quite expensive. Developmentally, they result in one-off devices or devices from a limited production run of
two, three, or four in most cases (Mehuron, 2006, pp. 81-83). These risks and their attendant costs are understandable in light of the fact that a satellite cannot be upgraded on orbit. Still, the
implications of this risk and the opportunities lost through unexpected expense are detailed in a series of General Accountability Office (GAO) investigations (Chaplain, 2006). Limited
capacity. There are only five companies that build the great majority of satellites today: Boeing, Loral, Lockheed Martin, Alcatel, and EADS-Astrium. Another nine companies participate in
market dynamics
the market, though in a much smaller role (SIA, n.d., p. 9). While Futron reported in 2004 that the satellite manufacturing industry had overcapacity, the
actually reflected diminished demand as a function of price rather than oversupply (p. 15). The cost
to produce a satellite is extraordinary, ranging between $200 million to $500 million, and is probably the single greatest
barrier to companies or states as they consider exploiting the medium of space (Zelnio, 2006). This cost must
then be evaluated in terms of the attendant risks to launch it into space. While risk may be managed to some extent through insurance, it is never eliminated. The launch
industry is smaller yet, wherein only Boeing and Lockheed Martin have a commercially viable
launch capability in the U.S. China, the European Space Agency, France, Israel, Japan, Russia, and India each have governmental or commercial capabilities as well
(Morring, 2007, p. 52). Space-X, a new U.S. company, is working hard to develop a launch capability that will offer lower costs relative to the two domestic majors. It recently tested its
Falcon 1 launch vehicle, and while the second stage did not perform fully to specifications, the company claimed the launch as a success (Bergin and Lowe, 2007). This is an important
Boeing and Lockheed Martin have merged their launch capabilities into a single
development since
company, the ULA, effectively eliminating any competition for government payloads within the U.S.
Recommendations.

42
SPS KEY TO SPACE CONTROL
SPS development is key to U.S. space dominance- spin-off technologies and a huge
infrastructure are necessary for space control
Because the NRC had already verified NASA’s “Fresh Look Study” conclusion that SSP was not science fiction but instead just a very massive engineering challenge to solve, the Caballeros
focused on how to demonstrate that SSP could in fact be economically feasible. While DOE and NASA had previously failed to close the SSP business case by examining energy as the only
delivered revenue stream, DoD has a voracious demand for many different capabilities beyond just energy.
These capabilities include command and control, persistent surveillance, operationally-
responsive space access, space control, orbital debris removal, and in-space construction and
maintenance of large structures. Recognizing that technical advances are occurring exponentially around the globe, and that history has shown time and again
that deliberate and sustained innovation is the engine that drives true economic and political power, the “Eureka!” moment came with the realization that all of the previous
business case analyses failed to include the economic and national security benefits of sure
spin-off technologies and ancillary capabilities associated with deployment of a major SSP
system. This list included not only the capabilities previously described, but also space
infrastructure, low-cost reusable space access, orbital maneuver capabilities, broad-area space
radar surveillance and telecommunication, and space-to-space and ground-to-ground power
beaming. The ancillary benefit list was so remarkably large that it became nearly as important
as the actual energy SSP could provide— no one in the DoD had ever viewed SSP through this lens before.

43
RESEARCH KEY TO SPACE CONTROL
New research and investment is key to space leadership

Rouge, 2K7 (Acting Director of National Security Space Office, Joseph D., Oct. 9, “Space-Based Solar Power as an
01.pdf)
The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the
global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive
government policies and sustained public investments in long term research and RDT&E
infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities . Over the last several decades,
the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for
defense during the Cold War…Government policies and investments in long term research
have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace
technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments.
The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead
the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long term enabling research and related RDT&E
infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an
environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk
taking and rapid introduction of new products and services.

44
PRIVATE SPACE INDUSTRY KEY TO SPACE CONTROL
Commercial space is the key internal link to space control- key to innovation and
infrastructure for all U.S. space activities
Aerospace America, 2K7 (February, Space: The Next Battlefield?, Nexis, )
space assets have become indispensable to the

Defense officials say the policy shift has come about for the simple reason that U.S.
nation's security and economic health, and must be defended at all costs. Those assets include weather, communications, early-warning, navigation, and
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance satellites. All are linked in one way or another to U.S. forces and weapons in the air and on land and sea, and make the firepower of the forces
Congress recommended the creation of a

more efficient and effective. The new policy has been taking shape for some time in several venues. In 1999,
space control program to defend U.S. satellites. Two years later, the independent U.S. Space
Commission called attention to the nation's increasing reliance on military, civil, and
commercial space systems, warned of a "Pearl Harbor in space" if they were left unprotected
and undefended, and urgently advocated the development of weapons and other military means
of safeguarding U.S. space systems. The space commission was chaired by Donald Rumsfeld prior to his appointment as the Bush administration's
secretary of defense. Rumsfeld was an early proponent of preparing for warfighting operations in space, and of formulating a space policy that would officially condone them. In short order,
the Air Force followed up on the space commission's findings with its report, "The Aerospace Force: Defending America in the 21st Century," which called U.S. space assets "an economic
The document predicted that the potential for threats to the U.S.
and military center of gravity--a vulnerability" for the nation.
in and from space are bound to increase as spacefaring nations become more numerous, and as
their technologies advance. THE NEW POLICY The Bush administration's space policy, made public last October, reflects those cautionary outlooks and runs
counter to the long-standing and widely held notion that space should remain forbidden territory for combat operations. It is much the same in many respects as the space policy of the Clinton
administration, but is more assertive from a military standpoint. The new policy differs most markedly from the previous one in its unilateral approach to taking military action in space. It
flatly serves notice that the U.S. will not be deterred by international treaties from taking action in space to defend U.S. and allied assets and to project military force in and through space. The
previous policy stopped short of that, even while noting that one of its prime purposes was to "strengthen and maintain the national security of the United States." The current policy says,
"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space." It further states, "Proposed arms control
agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests."
Among the "fundamental goals" of the current policy are maintaining "the freedom and ability to conduct unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there,"
strengthening U.S. leadership in space, and ensuring that "space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives." "The
The United States

United States considers space capabilities--including the ground and space segments and supporting links--vital to its national interests," the policy paper asserts. "
will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space, dissuade or deter others
from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities to do so, take those actions
necessary to protect its space capabilities, respond to interference, and deny, if necessary,
adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests. " Moreover, the U.S. "will oppose the
development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights
of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests," the space document states. CRITICS' OBJECTIONS
Critics of the new space policy contend that it is overly warlike in tone and purpose. They maintain that it opens the gates to unilateral deployment of weapons in space to attack targets there
and anywhere around the globe, and that internationally it may well create or heighten suspicions that the U.S. fully intends to go its own way in doing just that. One such critic, the
nonpartisan Center for Defense Information (CDI), describes it as "a declaratory policy" that "makes all satellites fair targets" for potential adversaries. The policy sends signals that "the U.S.
intends to pursue space-based applications against terrestrial targets" and "to hold satellites at risk in peacetime and in war," the CDI maintains. Moreover, claims the CDI, the policy "tempts
fate" and could have "negative consequences," such as giving potential adversaries "incentives...to consider space-based weapons for global power projection." The CDI also contends that the
space policy has paper-tiger implications, because, it says, the Pentagon lacks the capability and the funding that would be needed to put the policy into effect if the U.S. were challenged.
THE U.S. SIDE OF THE STORY U.S. space officials contest all this. They cite key provisions of the new policy as evidence that
the U.S. continues to favor international cooperation, treaties, and agreements in dealing with
space matters, and that the global community must certainly be aware of that . They also claim that there is no need
for new agreements or treaties outlawing the use of weapons in space. The current space policy is nonmilitary in many respects. It
commits the U.S. to "encouraging and facilitating a growing and entrepreneurial U.S.
commercial space sector," and to "using commercial space capabilities to the maximum
practical extent, consistent with national security."
ther fundamental goals of the policy include the following: * Encouraging international cooperation with other nations or groups of nations in activities
that "further the peaceful exploration and use of space" and the objectives of U.S. national and homeland security and U.S. foreign policy. * Fostering a "robust
science and technology base" in support of national security, homeland security, and civil space activities. * Implementing and sustaining an "innovative human
and robotic exploration program" to extend "human presence across the solar system." * Increasing the benefits of civil exploration,
scientific discovery, and environmental activities. * Opening the way to "a dynamic, globally competitive
domestic commercial space sector" that will "promote innovation, strengthen U.S. leadership, and
protect national, homeland, and economic security." "The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all
nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity," notes the space policy document. It also declares that "U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national
interests" come under the heading of "peaceful purposes," and are consistent with the policy's principles. The policy paper notes that the U.S. intends to cooperate with other nations in
"enhancing space exploration, extending the benefits of space, and protecting and promoting freedom around the world." The U.S. rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer
space, and "rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space," the paper asserts. A presidential directive to the national security
council in 2002 also gave rise to the current space policy. It called for a full-scale review of military and civil activities and goals in space. This led to a change of direction at NASA, with
more emphasis on manned, and less on unmanned, exploration of space. Central to this switch was president Bush's goal of returning Americans to the Moon and then sending them on to
Mars. Under current policy, NASA is responsible for conducting research "to advance scientific knowledge of the Earth through space-based observation and development and deployment of

45
<Aerospace America continues>

enabling technologies." FOCUS ON COMMERCIAL SPACE Commercial space comes in for considerable attention in the space policy
document, which declares that "it is in the interest of the United States to foster the use of U.S. commercial space capabilities around the globe, and to
enable a dynamic, domestic commercial space sector." NASA and other government agencies involved in
space are instructed to "include and increase U.S. private sector participation in the design and
development of U.S. government space systems and infrastructures," and to "refrain from
conducting activities that preclude, deter, or compete with U.S. commercial space activities, unless
required by national security or public safety." The new policy requires that "United States government space activities, technology, and
infrastructure are made available for private use on a reimbursable, noninterference basis to the
maximum practical extent, consistent with national security."

46
The private secotr is vital to U.S. space control- it provides key components to our situational
awareness that is key to preventing a miscalculation
Satellites Today, 2K6 (6/26, Experts: U.S. Military, Commercial Space Assets Vulnerable To Attack, page @
http://www.viasatellite.com/analystsassociations/associations/16/13226.html)
U.S. military and commercial satellites, long considered out of harm's way, are vulnerable to multiple types of
attack, an assault a determined enemy someday will attempt, according to military, government, industry and think tank experts testifying before the House Armed Services Committee
strategic forces subcommittee June 21. "It would be imprudent for us to not assume that a determined adversary
would try to eliminate what is one of our greatest warfighting advantages," said Air Force Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler,
deputy commander of the U.S. Strategic Command. Space assets are critical, because they "enable the American way of war," reported sister publication Defense Daily. Some
adversaries already are trying to develop ways to jam the U.S. GPS satellite system, and other
examples that may conceivably occur include a country detonating a nuclear weapon in space
to knock out satellites. An enemy lacking the advanced sophistication of the U.S. space
program also could loft microsatellites equipped with an explosive charge, and then maneuver
them close to a U.S. satellite before detonating the charge. Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, a
moderate Washington think tank, said potential adversary nations currently do not have the ability to launch a
major attack on U.S. space assets but may some day. Protecting space assets can be
accomplished, O'Hanlon said. Satellite manufacturers could reduce the vulnerability of their spacecraft
by having backups in orbit, developing the ability to replace damaged satellites more quickly or
harden satellites to make them less vulnerable to radiation , a practice that has been reduced since the end of the Cold War. All of
these options would be expensive for satellite operators, he said. As far as the greater expense of satellite makers hardening the
satellites, "If our customers ask for that and are willing to pay for it, we can do that (at)
substantial additional cost," said David Cavossa, executive director of the Satellite Industries Association. Non-space redundancy also can be provided, O'Hanlon
said. For example, airborne platforms can be used in addition to satellite networks, or fiber optic landlines can provide a backup to communications satellites. O'Hanlon also said some smart
moves might include minimizing U.S. use of space bandwidth capacity in event a satellite or other asset is lost, such as jettisoning use of video in videoconferences and retaining only the
satellites must be equipped with systems capable of recognizing potential hostile

audio transmission. But
nations from space and comprehending potential threats, Kehler said. "The number one thing we need
to do is improve our space situational awareness," he said. The United States must comprehend "who's on orbit, and what are they doing
there," he said. If something unusual occurs, the United States must be able to determine whether it is a
harmless anomaly, or whether it is "a hostile attack" on an American satellite. Subcommittee members and
witnesses also discussed whether there should be military rules of engagement that would apply in space. Kehler observed there already are some rules on locations of spacecraft, adding that
there currently are some 9,000 objects in space. U.S. officials need to know where they are and will be. "We have to work this very carefully," he said. While there should be limitation on
debris in space, the U.S. military may not wish to tell other nations where it is shifting space assets, such as those which can scan the Earth to track movements of people, vehicles, ships and
other items. "We don't want to be obliged to tell people where we're moving" satellites, he said.

47
Private space industry provides U.S. with strategic advantages that are key to space control
In 1924, noted industrialist Bernard Baruch commented, “the military minded man who has to devise the machines of destruction should keep in touch with the man of industry” (Thompson,
2006, p. xi). No industry exemplifies this better than space, where industry and government are fused to a common goal of space leadership as a means to ensure the continuation of American
The U.S. space industry serves as the basis for

prosperity and guarantee its strategic, political, scientific, and economic leadership.
American primacy in space and provides the foundation for a distinct technological advantage.
But the solar winds of change are blowing. America’s dominance in this important domain can
no longer be taken for granted. Space represents an asymmetrical advantage for those countries
that have both the technological ability to pursue national interests in space and the financial
power to overcome significant industry costs. The U.S. and other space-faring nations clearly
understand the security advantages that accrue from the ability to exploit the space domain and,
accordingly, have created national policies that emphasize the development and preservation of such
abilities. As a result, national policies focus on developing indigenous assets to assure access to
space, often independent of cost. At the strategic level, assured access to space describes the development
of achievable national policies that foster the use and exploitation of space and the development
of the requisite industrial and technological base to implement those polices. At the operational level, it
translates into a need to develop and maintain a launch booster for reliable placement of high
value, national assets in orbit, and the ability to control those assets once in place. A review of
the industry illustrates that many developing nations see a need to build assured access to space
through the use of national programs that will establish and preserve their ability to
independently use and exploit the space domain. The requirement to maintain an organic space
capability at a national level creates a symbiotic relationship between industry and government.
Governments see the need to preserve robust and reliable capabilities within the industry to
guarantee the ability to use space in ways that support national objectives. In return, industry
depends heavily on government orders and subsidies to ensure their production capabilities
remain intact.

48
SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE SOLVES SPACE CONTROL
Space infrastructure is key to space control

Krepon, et al., 2K7 (Michael Krepon, Theresa Hitchens, and Michael Katz-Hyman, Stimson Center Report No. 66,
“Preserving Freedom Of Action In Space: Realizing The Potential And Limits Of U.S. Spacepower,” May 2007,
http://www.stimson.org/space/pdf/SpacePower-051007.pdf, )
Our working definition of spacepower is the sum total of capabilities that contribute to a
nation’s ability to benefit from the use of space. Spacepower, like other types of power, can wax or wane
depending on a country’s choices and the choices of its potential adversaries. Wise choices can lead to cumulative
increases in spacepower, but even wise national choices can be negated, in part, by poor choices by other space-faring nations. For example, significant debris increasing events in space could
impair spacepower for all nations. There is widespread agreement on what most of the key elements of
spacepower are, but not all key elements are equal. Key elements would surely include
possessing the relevant technology base, physical infrastructure, and workforce necessary to
excel in space. Space prowess is also measured by how purposefully and successfully these
essential elements are applied to specific missions. Many missions increase the sum total of a
nation’s capability in space. Uncontroversial metrics would include the utilization of space for
the advancement of knowledge and for exploration; the facilitation of commercial transactions, resource planning, and
terrestrial economic development; monitoring planetary health; mapping; telecommunications and broadcasting; assisting first responders, search and rescue
operations, and disaster relief; and providing early warning of consequential events.
Maintaining our space assets is key to space control- infrastructure makes us strategically
invincible
Dolman, 2K2 (Everett Dolman, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, “Space Power and US Hegemony:
Maintaining a Liberal World Order in the 21st Century,”
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdf, )
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 . Space has the unique
capacity of being the ‘unflankable’ high ground. So tactically advantageous is the high ground position that has both line of site over and
defensive domination of the battlefield that commanders have always sought it. Space control is not only tactically advantageous on the
battlefield, it is strategically so in diplomacy. The entity in control of space has real-time

presence and persistence over the globe. So strong is the fortified position at the top of the
Earth’s gravity well that should any nations seize it, it could effectively deny access to space to
any other state that should attempt to put assets there . A simple argument could be made that the United States has
an imperative to seize control of space on this point alone, to prevent a dangerous enemy from taking it, but
such a case could be made for any state that desired domination over the world. My point is that not only is the United States the sole country with the capacity to seize space (currently), it is
the only great power that has a history of benign intervention and overall disdain of empire that it is morally important

49
ASATS → NUKE WAR
Near-term loss of our space control breaks down nuclear deterrence on Earth- satellites are
uniquely vital to major powers- makes space miscalc the most likely scenario for nuclear war
Krepon, et al., 2K7 (Michael Krepon, Theresa Hitchens, and Michael Katz-Hyman, Stimson Center Report No. 66,
http://www.stimson.org/space/pdf/SpacePower-051007.pdf, )
All countries would be victimized if a new precedent is set and satellites are targeted in warfare. As
the preeminent space power, the United States has the most to lose if space were to become a shooting gallery. The
best offense can serve as an effective defense in combat at sea, but this nostrum doesn’t apply in space, since essential satellites remain extremely
vulnerable to rudimentary forms of attack. The introduction of dedicated and deployed weapons in space by one nation would be replicated by others that feel threatened by such actions.
The first attack against a satellite in warfare is therefore unlikely to be a stand-alone event, and nations may choose
different rules of engagement for space warfare, and different means of attack once this threshold has been crossed. Our analysis thus leads to the conclusion that the introduction
and repeated flight-testing of dedicated space weapons would greatly subtract from U.S. spacepower,
placing at greater risk the military, commercial, civil, and life-saving benefits that satellites
provide. Instead, we propose a space assurance strategy that seeks to preserve and grow the advantages the United States now enjoys as the preeminent spacepower, while hedging against
hostile acts by other space-faring nations. We argue that realizing the benefits of spacepower requires acknowledgement of four related and unavoidable dilemmas. First, the satellites upon which
spacepower rests are extremely vulnerable. To be sure, advanced space-faring nations can take various steps to reduce satellite vulnerability, but the limits of protection will surely pale besides
The dilemma of the profound

available means of disruption and destruction, especially in low Earth orbit (LEO). Vulnerabilities can be mitigated, but not escaped.
vulnerability of essential satellites has been reinforced by another dilemma of the space age: satellites have
been joined at the hip with the nuclear forces of major powers. Nuclear deterrence has long
depended on satellites that provide early warning, communication, and targeting information to national
command authorities. To mess with the satellites of major powers has meant – and continues to mean – the possible use of
nuclear weapons since major powers could view attacks on satellites as precursors to attacks on
their nuclear forces. Even nuclear powers that do not rely on satellites for ballistic missile warning
still rely on them for communications and targeting. Preemptive attacks on these satellites could
be interpreted as a precursor to nuclear strikes.
Anti-Satellite competition escalates to a full-scale war between the United States and China
Peña and Hudgins, 2K2 (Charles V. Peña, senior defense policy analyst, and Edward L. Hudgins, former director
of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute, “Should the United States “Weaponize” Space? Military and Commercial
Implications,” 3/18/02, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa427.pdf, )
Moreover, the ASAT threat that is postulated is a nuclear threat. According to noted defense analyst James Kitfield, “The U.S. military has
long worried that an adversary might detonate a crude nuclear weapon in space, frying the delicate
electronics of all satellites, and disproportionately hamstringing U.S. troops who rely on satellites
for missile and bomb guidance and for communications.”43 If such a detonation were to occur, even though not directed at a terrestrial target,
the nuclear threshold would have been crossed. Even a socalled “irrational” adversary would have to think twice before using a nuclear weapon. And,
certainly, the United States would view such an attack differently than if a conventional weapon had
been used and would respond accordingly. During the Cold War, a distinct demarcation between conventional and nuclear weapons existed. Even if
lower yield battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons had been used (e.g., in a scenario involving a Warsaw Pact invasion of a NATO country),
escalation to a larger-scale retaliation using the United States’ strategic nuclear arsenal was a very
real possibility. Although a “doctrine” may not be in place to respond to a lowyield nuclear ASAT scenario, the United States would probably go beyond the use of conventional
weapons to retaliate. Potential adversaries know this. For example, the United States made clear to Iraq that use of chemical or biological weapons would trigger an appropriate U.S. response,
including the possibility of nuclear weapons.44

50
SPACE COMPETITION → NUKE WAR
Competition in space causes nuclear war and the collapse of satellites would crush the
economy
New York Times, 2K8 (Steven Lee Myers, March 9 “Look Out Below. The Arms Race in Space May Be On.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/weekinreview/09myers.html)
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. The consequences of war in space are in fact so cataclysmic that arms control
advocates like Mr. Kimball would like simply to prohibit the use of weapons beyond the earth’s
atmosphere. But it may already be too late for that. In the weeks since an American rocket
slammed into an out-of-control satellite over the Pacific Ocean, officials and experts have made
it clear that the United States, for better or worse, is already committed to having the capacity
to wage war in space. And that, it seems likely, will prompt others to keep pace. What makes
people want to ban war in space is exactly what keeps the Pentagon’s war planners busy
preparing for it: The United States has become so dependent on space that it has become the
country’s Achilles’ heel. “Our adversaries understand our dependence upon space-based
capabilities,” Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, commander of the United States Strategic Command, wrote in Congressional testimony on Feb. 27, “ and we must be
ready to detect, track, characterize, attribute, predict and respond to any threat to our space
infrastructure.” Whatever Pentagon assurances there have been to the contrary, the destruction of a satellite more than 130 miles above the Pacific Ocean a week earlier, on Feb.
20, was an extraordinary display of what General Chilton had in mind — a capacity that the Pentagon under President Bush has tenaciously sought to protect and enlarge. Is war in space
inevitable? The idea or such a war has been around since Sputnik, but for most of the cold war it remained safely within the realm of science fiction and the carefully proscribed American-
A dozen countries now can reach space with satellites — and, therefore, with
Soviet arms race. That is changing.
weapons. China strutted its stuff in January 2007 by shooting down one of its own weather satellites 530 miles above the planet. “ The first era of the space
age was one of experimentation and discovery,” a Congressional commission reported just before President Bush took office in 2001.
“We are now on the threshold of a new era of the space age, devoted to mastering operations in
space.” One of the authors of that report was Mr. Bush’s first defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the policy it recommended became a tenet of American policy: The
United States should develop “new military capabilities for operation to, from, in and through
space.” Technology, too, has become an enemy of peace in space . Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative was
considered so fantastical by its critics 25 years ago that it was known as “Star Wars.” But the programs Mr. Reagan began were the ancestors of the weaponry that brought down the American
satellite.

51
A2: PENA AND HIDGINS CARD SAYS NUCLEAR ASATS
China’s ASATs are nuclear

David, 2K5 (Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “U.S. Defense Report: China Working on Anti-Satellite
Systems,” space.com, 6/27/05, )
In the arena of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, China is making headway, the report claims. "China is working on,
and plans to field, ASAT systems. Beijing has and will continue to enhance its satellite tracking and
identification network - the first step in establishing a credible ASAT capability. China can
currently destroy or disable satellites only by launching a ballistic missile or space-launch vehicle
armed with a nuclear weapon. However, there are many risks associated with this method, and
consequences from use of nuclear weapons," the report says.

52
SPACE CONFLICT JACKS ALL COUNTRIES SPACE ASSETS
Space wars create lethal debris that last for thousands of years- destroys all nations’ space assets
Kreponm et. al. (Michael Krepon, Theresa Hitchens, and Michael Katz-Hyman, Stimson Center Report No. 66,
http://www.stimson.org/space/pdf/SpacePower-051007.pdf)
The interconnectedness of hard

The misapplication of hard power here on Earth could also adversely affect relations between major powers, friends, and allies.
and soft spacepower means that poor decisions by one space-faring nation are more likely to
negatively affect all other spacefaring nations, a situation that does not arise in non-nuclear, terrestrial
conflict. The length of recovery from poor decisions in space is also far longer than from non-nuclear, terrestrial
conflict. For example, when conventional battles take place on the ground, sea and air, debris is a temporary
and geographically limited phenomenon. Minefields can be marked or cleared and chemical warfare can be contained or cleaned up – although this may
take large amounts of both time and money. Battlefield debris in space, however, can last for decades, centuries, or even millennia,
thereby constituting an indiscriminate lethal hazard to space operations. Debris generated in space
also tends to spread to other orbits over time, and environmental clean-up technologies in space do not appear promising at present.2 In
gravity-based warfare, the victor’s spoils are gained through unhindered access. But unhindered
access is likely to be lost in the event that weapons are used in or from space, even for the “victor.”

53
CHINA MOD → NUKE WAR
China Mod cuases nuke war

Fuerth, 2K1 (vis. prof., elliot school of int’l affairs, gwu, Leon, Washington Quarterly, Autumn, LN)
As for China, its resources may limit it only to modernization in forms it was already pursuing.
In that case, China may deploy road-mobile ICBMs that are harder to target, and push forward until it has the technology to MIRV these, to maximize the chance of overwhelming a U.S.
one should
defensive shield. China is, however, a country whose gross domestic product (GDP) grows at about 8 percent a year and will not lack for means for much longer. Thus,
not ignore the possibility of a major expansion of Chinese ballistic missile forces. Meanwhile,
the United States will have built into the Chinese political system a deepening conviction that
the United States is an implacable enemy. The United States will therefore be building
momentum toward confrontation that could unleash the nuclear war it was fortunate enough to
avoid with the Soviet Union.

54
A2: WE CANT KNOW CHINA
Wrong!- release of Chinese military documents prove their intentions are modernization and
hegemony
Fravel, assistant professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2K8 (M. Taylor,
Summer, Washigton Quarterly, China's Search for Military Power, Nexis, )
Over the past decade, China has been engaged in a sustained drive to create a modern and
professional military. How much military power does China ultimately desire? Although the
answer is unclear, the ambiguity that surrounds China's motivations for the modernization of the People's
Liberation Army (PLA) generates concern and even anxiety about the future of peace and stability in East
Asia. A recent Pentagon report notes, for example, that "much uncertainty surrounds \China's future course, in particular in the area of its expanding military power and how that power
might be used.... China's leaders have yet to explain in detail the purposes and objectives of the PLA's
modernizing military capabilities." Looking toward the future, several approaches might be used
to determine how much military power China seeks to acquire. One option is simply to focus
on the worst case and assume that all states, including China, want to develop as much military
power as domestic resources and external constraints permit. The study of threat perceptions offers another approach, tracking
changes in China's security environment to identify core drivers of military modernization and possible force structures. This article explores a third method, one grounded in Chinese texts on
military doctrine.Analysts have always faced limitations on access to data with which to study China's
armed forces. Over the past decade, however, the availability of sources on China's military
doctrine, including textbooks on strategy and operations used to train PLA officers, has grown . 2
These sources, which are part of the PLA's "revolution in doctrinal affairs," permit a
preliminary assessment of China's national strategic goals as well as the capabilities and force
structure required to achieve them. Such an approach naturally risks taking China's declaratory objectives at face value. Nevertheless, it offers
several advantages for assessing the implications of China's ongoing military modernization
effort. This approach allows analysts to assess the congruence of strategic goals reflected in
PLA writings and the military means necessary for achieving them. In this way, progress toward
modernization can be tracked and charted. It also provides a baseline with which to identify
potential changes in the trajectory of China's military reforms, either through a shift in goals or
a change in the capabilities and forces being developed and deployed. Examination of these
writings suggests that China's objectives for the use of military power are more certain than
many policy analysts maintain. These sources indicate that China's strategic goals are keyed to
the defense of a continental power with growing maritime interests as well as to Taiwan's
unification and are largely conservative, not expansionist. China is developing internal control ,
peripheral denial, and limited force-projection capabilities consistent with these objectives . Yet, as China
shifts its force structure, especially its navy, to acquire these capabilities, it may nevertheless
spark a new security dilemma in East Asia, increasing regional instability and undermining
China's current diplomacy of reassurance.

55
SPACE INNOVATION KEY TO SOLVE ASTEROIDS
Our space assets are critical to preventing asteroid collisions- lets us monitor them and change
their course to avoid catastrophe
Space.com, 2K7 (November 29, Study: Still a Chance Asteroid May Hit Earth in 2036, page @
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313561,00.html)
Using limited observations and lots of high-end computer modeling, astronomers have gotten a better handle on the
limitations of asteroid-track forecasting in a new study of a potentially threatening asteroid called 99942 Apophis. In this high-stakes game of Whack-
a-Cosmic-Mole, just knowing exactly what it is you don't know can be useful. Apophis' chance of hitting
our planet in its first pass in 2029 is now slim to none, but astronomers will have to wait four to
six years before they can predict what it might do during a second pass in 2036. A team of scientists arrived at
the conclusion after accounting for small influences like the solar wind, gravitational drag of smaller asteroids and human error. The rock is between 690 and 1080 feet (210 and
330 meters) wide. That's much smaller than the 6-mile-wide rock that likely wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but it's enough to take out a large city
or create a tsunami. Until better measurements lower the uncertainties, its predicted path could
be severely off, potentially thwarting proactive efforts to change its course. Uncertain future In 2004,
astronomers gave Apophis a frightening one-in-37 chance of striking the Earth in 2029, which later measurements from Puerto Rico's giant Arecibo radio observatory knocked down to a one
in 45,000 likelihood. Apophis is expected to make a comfortably distant encounter of about 30 million miles (47.9 million kilometers) with Earth in 2036. But its first path-bending pass in
2029 — about three Earth diameters away from our home — and other unknowns could greatly alter the asteroid's second
approach seven years later. In their study, to be detailed in an upcoming edition of the journal Icarus, astronomers examined hundreds of potential courses with
computer simulations, then hashed out course-altering uncertainties after the first encounter. The largest such source of error is the sun's ability to push small asteroids around with solar
radiation; in Apophis' case, up to 18.6 million miles (30 million kilometers) or about 2,350 Earth diameters off-course. Other sources of course prediction error include: — Small uncertainties
in planetary masses and position, up to 11.5 Earth diameters of error. — Earth's imperfect spherical shape, up to 1.5 Earth diameters of error. — Gravitational influence of small asteroids, up
Astronomers said looking at the rock via telescope is necessary to cut out most
to 1.7 Earth diameters of error.
of the error, but won't be possible until 2011 or 2013, when Apophis comes out of hiding from
behind the Sun. Noting the shape, colors and rotation, not just current position, should cut out up to 97 percent of the uncertainty about the asteroid's future track. A little
goes a long way Until then, scientists are dreaming up of cost-effective ways to redirect Apophis
before 2029, should the need arise. One simple solution calls for strapping on a small reflective patch to the rogue body. By adding a 130-by-
130 foot (40-by-40 meter) section of material that acts like a solar sail, Apophis could be pushed away by at
least one Earth radius, or about 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometers) — more than enough to avoid cataclysm. Another solution calls for
distributing just 550 pounds (250 kilograms) of weight around the asteroid, perhaps as a mesh of carbon fibers. By adding weight to Apophis before its first Earthly encounter, its course could
But a lack of good observations, astronomers warn,

be altered enough to gravitationally sling it away from Earth's path for good.
could turn such proactive deflections into disaster. "Without such performance margin," the authors
said, "the deflection action would instead create an unpredicted outcome or a new hazard."

56
SPACE INNOVATION KEY TO SOLVE ASTEROIDS
Space control prevents incoming asteroids which cause nuclear war

Zabarenko, Environmental Correspondent for Reuters,2K7 (Deborah, October 3, “Small asteroid could be
mistaken for nuclear blast,” http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=sciencenews&StoryID=1531650)
Even small asteroids that never hit Earth could have deadly consequences, because they might
be mistaken for nuclear blasts by nations that lack the equipment to tell the difference, scientists said on
Thursday. One such asteroid event occurred June 6, when U.S. early warning satellites detected a flash over the Mediterranean that indicated an energy release comparable to the atomic bomb
dropped on Hiroshima, U.S. Brig. Gen. Simon Worden told a congressional hearing. The flash occurred when an asteroid perhaps 10 yards in diameter slammed into Earth's atmosphere,
producing a shock wave that would have rattled any vessels in the area and might have caused minor damage, Worden said. Little notice was taken of the event at the time, but Worden
suggested that if it had occurred a few hours earlier and taken place over India and Pakistan, the outcome might have been horrifying. "To our knowledge, neither of those nations have the
"The resulting
sophisticated sensors that can determine the difference between a natural NEO (Near Earth Object, such as an asteroid) and a nuclear detonation," Worden said.
panic in the nuclear-armed and hair-triggered opposing forces could have been the spark that
ignited a nuclear horror we have avoided for over half a century," he told a committee investigating the risk posed by
asteroids and other objects that might collide with Earth. SHOCK WAVES AND TSUNAMIS Astronomers have long been concerned about
damage from asteroids, meteors and comets, and since 1998 NASA has worked to identify 90 percent of all large near-Earth objects -- those with a diameter of .6 miles
or more -- by 2008. NASA's head of space science, Ed Weiler, told the committee that scientists have identified 619 of the suspected big,
dangerous asteroids, which is about half the number astronomers believe are out there. This
kind of large asteroid hits Earth a few times every million years, and when it does, causes
regional calamity. By contrast, a so-called doomsday asteroid 3 miles across -- like the one believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs -- hits once every 10 million years or so.
The one that caused the flash over the Mediterranean in June was probably about the size of a car, and was harmless to Earth. Such asteroids hit the atmosphere twice a month. However,
asteroids ranging from about 100 feet to hundreds of yards can cause serious damage, including spawning a powerful shock wave or a
tsunami if it lands in an ocean, causing widespread catastrophe if the tsunami occurs near a
populated shore. These smaller bodies are not part of NASA's survey, and Worden suggested there might be an Air Force role in tracking these smaller objects, and also the
potential for sharing early warning of incoming celestial objects with other countries that lack the technology. Worden said the United States is unique in the
world in being able to determine whether an incoming object is an asteroid or a bomb in less
than a minute. The United States spends about $4 million a year to track asteroids and comets,
but very little on strategies to get them out of Earth's way, scientists said last month.

57
ASTEROIDS → EXTINCTION
Extinction
Seamone, 2K2 (Evan R., “When Wishing on a Star Just Won’t Do It: The Legal Basis for International cooperation
in the Mitigation of Asteroid Impacts and Similar Transboundary Disasters,” Iowa Law Review, March, LN//dch)
Even though collisions with space bodies could potentially extinguish all life on Earth, scientists were slow to
Thousands of objects from space descend to our planet's terra firma each
appreciate the significance of the threat.
year. n44 Space bodies typically disintegrate before entering the Earth's atmosphere, which is protected by a "gaseous shroud" that annually withstands several interplanetary strikes. n45
But some projectiles can be so big and move so fast that the atmosphere cannot absorb their force ,
at which point damage occurs based on the size and velocity of the impacting object. n46 The destruction of the dinosaurs demonstrates the
seriousness of asteroid or comet collision , as opposed to commonplace disasters. n47 Even if (*1102) an impact would not cause the end of life,
the resulting damage would be unlike any disaster the modern international community has
seen. A serious collision could lead to the eventual "poisoning of the atmosphere through the
production of various oxides of nitrogen ... (and to) global fires, pyrotoxin production, giant
tsunamis, earthquakes, severe greenhouse warming and acidic rain." n48 Even smaller objects (less than 2/3-
mile or one kilometer in diameter) could cause damage equivalent to a nuclear detonation. n49
A deadly asteroid is coming for the earth by 2036

Kislyakov, 2K8 (Andrei, June 10, “How to Deal with Asteroid Terrorism?” The Moscow News)
If we, the people living on Earth, are unlucky, then Apophis, a 390-meter asteroid flying
toward the Earth, "will smack right into us in 2036," according to Andrei Filkenshtein, a Russian astronomer from St Petersburg. But if we
are lucky, the asteroid, already dubbed a space terrorist, will fly by at a distance of 40,000 km, the orbit of a communications satellite, in 2029. Reading tealeaves and hoping for the best is
If it
not, of course, the ideal way of avoiding a disaster, which is certain to occur should such a large space body collide with the Earth. It would change the climate all over the globe .
fell into the ocean, it would produce huge tsunamis and evaporate billions of tons of water
vapor that would prevent sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface for a long time. In other
words, it would be the end of the world. Unfortunately, methods to protect our planet against
bombardment by asteroids and other space objects are still in their infancy and have yet to be
integrated into an effective global anti-asteroid system.

58
SPACE COMMERCE SOLVES ECONOMY
Space commerce is key to growth- prevents government spending

Collins, Chief Information Officer at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. He heads the Foundation’s IT
department, was the Director of Information and Communication Services at the University of California Office of
the President, 2K2 (Patrick, The Cost to Taxpayers of Governments' Anti-Space Tourism Policy and Prospects for
Improvement, page @
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_cost_to_taxpayers_of_governments_anti_space_tourism_policy_and_prospe
cts_for_improvement.shtml)
G7 governments' continuing refusal to allow even the smallest investment in the development
of what is known to be the only promising field for commercial space development imposes four major costs on taxpayers: 2.1
Direct cost of uneconomic space activities The continuing expenditure of some $18 billion/year on non-science space
activities which have little economic value is a serious cost to taxpayers -- amounting to $ 1/4 trillion since the end of
the cold war alone. If invested commercially, this amount could have created assets of equal or greater
economic value, together with the several million permanents jobs which these could have
supported. Instead this capital has been lost, while the aerospace industry has been shrinking
rapidly, leading to its present critical condition. 2.2 Cost of delaying commercial space travel Taxpayers suffer the
additional cost of the lost employment, lost revenues and lost profits that could have been
earned by a commercial passenger space travel industry. This loss is caused not only by the
refusal of initial government funding, but also by the strong negative influence of the public
relations activities of government monopoly space agencies on popular opinion, the media,
politicians and the investment world (14). The present-day cost of the delay in earning profits from
the commercial space travel industry has been estimated as several billion dollars/year (14), though it is
not yet possible to estimate it accurately. The greater the scale to which the industry grows in future, the greater the present-day cost of this delay. 2.3 Cost of global recession The
global economy is in its most precarious state since 1929, with powerful deflationary forces spreading
from Japan and China, and already high levels of unemployment in Europe, the USA, Russia,
Asia and elsewhere. The only cure for this condition is the development of new industries , as the
growth of new industries such as passenger air travel during the 20th century created employment for millions of people no longer needed in older industries such as agriculture and mining.
The scale of the costs arising from the continuing unnecessary deterioration of the world economic situation has yet to become clear, but if could be very high. What fraction of this cost
should be attributed to governments' anti-space tourism policy is difficult to estimate yet. However, this too could be high: delaying the development of passenger space travel and the many
new opportunities for economic growth to which it will lead, is not a trivial cost.

59
ASATS IMPACT- ISRAEL
Denying space control to our enemies prevents Iran-Israel arms race

Defense News, 2K7 (2/5, Israel Wary of China ASAT Test, Nexis, )
In an indirect rebuke of Chinese muscle-flexing in space, Israel's defense minister and Air
Force chief warned that emerging anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities in the hands of regional adversaries would require
Israel to deploy its own defenses against anti-satellite threats. The potential proliferation of
technologies demonstrated in Beijing's Jan. 11 ASAT test underscores the need for Israel to protect
its growing space arsenal, said Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, commander of Israel's Air and Space Force. "We are well
aware of attempts by hostile states, especially by Iran, to acquire an independent space launch
capability," Peretz said of Tehran's plans to convert its Shahab-3 ballistic missile into a satellite launch
vehicle. "We're also aware that ... only recently a nation like China proved its ability to physically strike
orbiting satellites. This capability compels us to prepare for the most difficult scenarios , in the event
that, in future, enemy states will be able to harm Israeli space assets." And while experts here admit that China is unlikely to transfer full-
up ASAT interceptors to Israel's adversaries, they noted that Beijing has been a leading supplier of ballistic missile and
related technologies to Iran and other regional states. "We're not concerned about direct
Chinese sales of complete ASAT systems, but their proliferation history over the past decade has shown that if the
Iranians are willing to pay, they would be willing to provide the relevant technological
assistance," said Uzi Rubin, a former director of the Israeli MoD's Missile Defense Organization.
Global Nuke War

Steinbach, 2K2 (John, DC Iraq Coalition, Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace, March 2002,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/03/00_steinbach_israeli-wmd.htm, accessed 4/19/04.
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications
for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out
in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as
a last resort, would now be a strong probability ."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the)
next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of
Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own
satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least,
the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of
Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening
Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)

60
INCENTIVES KEY TO SPS
Congressionally approved loan based incentives are necessary to spark the private industry to
develop SPS technology
Space Frontier Foundation, an organization composed of space activists, scientists, engineers, media and
political professionals, and entrepreneurs, 2K7 (Oct. 10, “The National Security Space Office Sponsored Study on
Space-Based Solar Power” http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SBSPreport.html)
The Space Frontier Foundation, which has opposed many other federally-funded space programs as being wasteful and/or ineffective - strongly supports a
new national SBSP initiative for the U.S. Government to finance and to incentivize the private
industry investment SBSP. The Foundation is calling on the U.S. Congress to finance SBSP at
least at the level of fusion energy research, and to give American SBSP companies the same
loan guarantees that it currently gives to the nuclear power industry in order to close the SBSP
business case.”
The government must first take the lead to develop a solar power satellites approach
Damphousse, however, cautioned that the private sector will not invest in space-based solar power
until the United States buys down some of the risk through a technology development and
demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusion
research and perhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space
station. "Demonstrations are key here," he said. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the Space Frontier Foundation's directors,
agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground . Miller told reporters here that the
space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House and Congress embrace the
report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kind of incentives it offers the nuclear
power industry.

61
2AC HYDROGEN CARS ADDON
SPS retennas are key to Hydrogen powered auto industry

Space Island Group Inc., 2K6 (Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space, page
@ http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/solarsat.html, )
The auto industry will begin mass producing its first cars powered by fuel cells during the next decade.
They’ll run on pollution-free hydrogen, but critics point out that creating this hydrogen from
natural gas or oil, as is done today, will still produce greenhouse gases. Using electricity from
power plants fueled by coal, oil or gas to split water into hydrogen and oxygen will have the
same problem. And the cost of carbon fuels will double over the next decade, further driving up the cost of electrically-produced hydrogen. If p solar satellite
receiving antennas were built to float on the ocean off the East, West and Gulf Coasts of the
U.S., this low-cost electricity could produce all the hydrogen needed for the nation’s fuel celled
cars. East Coast and Gulf Coast solar satellites could become hurricane deflectors as needed
with only minor disruptions in hydrogen production.

62
2AC CHINESE POLLUTION ADDON
China would buy space based solar energy- key to pollution reductions
Most of the world’s industrialized nations signed this agreement to cut their carbon dioxide
emissions below their 1990 levels by 2012. They were supposed to have their plans ready by February 16, 2004, but many have asked for
extensions. The U.S. didn’t sign the agreement when it was drafted in 1997, and has refused every year since. This is because of the expected large impact to our economy. Beyond
that, many scientists from 1997 until today have told the government that carbon dioxide may not be the main cause of global warming.According to the International Energy Agency, the
U.S. generates 23.5% of the Earth’s industry-produced carbon dioxide. China now produces
about 14%, and will likely pass the U.S. production rate during the next decade. China signed the
Kyoto agreement, but since they were considered a “developing country” in 1997, they’re exempt from
the controls. They’re now building more new fossil fuel power plants than most of the rest of the world combined. Most use coal as their fuel, and they’re being sharply criticized
by environmental groups world wide. China has signed agreements totaling over $100 billion with oil-producing and coal-producing nations around the world to supply its energy needs over
The Space Island Group believes that China may be the first nation on Earth to
the next 20-30 years.
purchase clean electrical power from solar satellites during the next decade, and that other
Kyoto nations will follow their example. It’s very likely that signed contracts for this power can
be applied to Kyoto reduction goals long before 2012.
That collapses the CCP

Pacific News Service, 2K6 (January 9, China’s pollution poses security threat in Asia, page @
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=fd2421fbe9b4fe1ac727e145f8719b4e, )
As pollution and environmental degradation in China worsens, the Communist government has
been unable or unwilling to prescribe measures needed to address the problem. This inability
carries grave consequences for China and Asia, threatening stability not only in China but throughout the region.
There is little disagreement that China’s environment is a mounting problem for Beijing. China produces as many sulfur emissions as Tokyo and Los Angeles combined; China is home to 16
of the world’s 20 most polluted cities; water pollution reduces crop returns; air pollution is blamed for the premature death of some 400,000 Chinese annually; and solid waste production is
In spite of greater awareness, pollution and

expected to more than double over the next decade, pushing China ahead of the U.S.
environmental degradation are likely to worsen. Chinese consumers are expected to purchase
hundreds of millions of automobiles. Despite pledges to put the environment first, national planners still aim to double
per capita GDP by 2010. Cities will grow, leading to the creation of slums and stressing urban
sanitation and delivery systems. The nation lacks a powerful national body able to coordinate,
monitor, and enforce environmental legislation: the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is under-staffed, has few resources, and
must compete with other bureaucracies for attention. To address the problems, it will take an aggressive effort by the central government to eliminate corruption, establish the rule of law and
transparency, incentives and investment. As it stands, decision-making falls to local officials who are more concerned with economic growth than the environment. The deficiency of capital
and the lack of will to promote massive spending on environmental repair make it difficult to be optimistic. Estimates on the final cost of environmental repair range into the tens of billions of
dollars.As the impact of pollution on human health becomes more obvious and widespread, it is
leading to greater political mobilization and social unrest of affected citizens. There were more
than 74,000 incidents of protest and unrest recorded in China in 2004, up from 58,000 the year before. Pollution issues
unite communities. The effects, though not equally felt by each person within a community, affect rich and poor, farmers and
businessmen, families and individuals alike. As local communities respond to pollution issues
through united opposition, it is leaving Beijing with no easy target upon which to blame unrest,
and no simple option for how to quell whole communities with a common grievance. Moreover, protests
serve as a venue for the politically disaffected unhappy with the current state of governance and may be open to other forms of political rule. For the Communist Chinese Party
(CCP), social unrest has the potential to challenge the CCP’s total political control, thus
potentially destabilizing a state with a huge military arsenal and a history of violent, internal
conflict that cannot be downplayed or ignored. A further key challenge is trying to contain protests once they begin. The steady introduction of
new media like cell phones, email, and text messaging prevent China’s authorities from silencing and hiding unrest. Domestic and international observers will be aware of unrest, making it far
While many would treat political change in China, especially

more difficult for local authorities to employ state-sanctioned force.
the implosion of the Party, as a welcome development, it must be noted that any slippage of the
Party’s dominance would most likely be accompanied by a period of transitional violence. Though

63
2AC CHINESE POLLUTION ADDON
<Space Island Group Continues>

most violence would be directed toward dissident Chinese, regional security would be affected through immigration, impediments to trade, and an increased military presence along the
environmental
Chinese border. While unrest presents the most obvious example of a security threat related to pollution, several other key concerns are worth noting. The cost of
destruction could, for example, begin to reverse the blistering rate of economic growth in China that is
the foundation of CCP legitimacy. Estimates maintain that 7 percent annual growth is required to preserve social stability. Yet the costs of pollution are
already taxing the economy between 8 and 12 percent of GDP per year. As environmental problems mount, this percentage will increase, reducing annual growth. As a result, the CCP
could be challenged to legitimize its continued control.
Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological War

Renxin, 2K5 (“CCP Gambles Insanely to Avoid Death,” EPOCH TIMES, August 3, 2005,
www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-3/30931.html)
the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of
Since
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to postpone its life. The CCP, that disregards
human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, coupled with seven or eight
hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. The “speech,” free of all disguises, lets the public see the CCP for what it really is: with evil filling its every cell, the
CCP intends to fight all of mankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. And that is the theme of the “speech.”
The theme is murderous and utterly evil. We did witness in China beggars who demanded money from people by threatening to stab themselves with knives or prick their throats on long nails.
But we have never, until now, seen a rogue who blackmails the world to die with it by wielding biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Anyhow, the bloody confession affirmed the CCP’s
bloodiness: a monstrous murderer, who has killed 80 million Chinese people, now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives. As the CCP is known to be a clique
with a closed system, it is extraordinary for it to reveal its top secret on its own. One might ask: what is the CCP’s purpose to make public its gambling plan on its deathbed? The answer is: the
“speech” would have the effect of killing three birds with one stone. Its intentions are the following: Expressing the CCP’s resolve that it “not be buried by either heaven or earth” (direct quote
from the “speech”). But then, isn’t the CCP opposed to the universe if it claims not to be buried by heaven and earth? Feeling the urgent need to harden its image as a soft egg in the face of the
Nine Commentaries. Preparing publicity for its final battle with mankind by threatening war and trumpeting violence. So, strictly speaking, what the CCP has leaked out is more of an attempt
to clutch at straws to save its life rather than to launch a trial balloon. Of course, the way the “speech” was presented had been carefully prepared. It did not have a usual opening or ending,
and the audience, time, place, and background related to the “speech” were all kept unidentified. One may speculate or imagine as one may, but never verify. The aim was obviously to create
a mysterious setting. In short, the “speech” came out as something one finds difficult to tell whether it is false or true.

64
2AC LAUNCH COSTS ADDON
The plan fundamentally changes the space program- new payload carrying capacity will be
developed, lowers launch costs
URSI, International Union of Radio Science Inter-commission Working Group on SPS, 2K6 (July, Supporting
Document for the URSI White Paper on Solar Power Satellite Systems,
http://www.ursi.org/WP/SupportingDocument1.pdf, )
The SPS is a gigantic space power station of ten thousand tons orbiting in Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO).
This is one hundred times larger than the present international space station in Low-Earth Orbit (LEO).
Therefore, economical launch and transportation vehicles for massive material , such as the commercially available Falcon 9
from SpaceX, or other private commercial transportation providers, are required in order to realize an SPS that could provide power from space at a reasonable cost. Ariane 5
(Europe) can lift 18 tons; H-IIA (Japan), 10 tons; and Atlas IIAS (USA), 8.64 tons to LEO. The launch cost (FY’94) of the Ariane 5 is 118 to 130 M$ (million dollars), and that of Atlas IIAS
is 110 to 142 M$. A Chinese rocket “Long March” is more economical. However, the SPS will be constructed for a long period and its cost cannot be estimated with these present rockets.
For the launch and construction of SPS, the following two vehicles are to be developed. One is
a Reusable Transport Vehicle to transport heavy materials, at a reasonably low cost, to a LEO
where assembly will be conducted. The other is an Orbital Transport Vehicle to lift the SPS
from the LEO to the final orbit (GEO). These two rocket technologies are essential for realization of
the SPS system. Two transport systems are considered in the NASA's reference system:12 (1) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) and (2) Personnel Launch Vehicle (PLV).
NASA is considering the use of methane (CH4) and oxygen (O2). They assume that the gross lift-off weight of the HLLV is 11,040 tons with a payload to the LEO of 424 tons. A
Japanese research group assumed two kinds of transport systems and simulated a launch
cycle.13 One is a transport system with a 50-ton payload to LEO, the other is a 500-ton payload to LEO. As the weight of the first Japanese SPS model was 29,000 tons, 58
launches will be needed in one year to launch all materials for the SPS construction. A new
rocket to launch heavier materials to LEO is necessary for the realization of SPS. Future
generations of transport systems have been studied14 without consideration of the SPS project
(Fig.2.3.1). The SPS requires the 2nd or 3rd generation of RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicle) for supplying power from space at a reasonably
low cost.
Space tourism opens up new markets solving resource wars and economic collapse
Collins, 2K6 (Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 59, p. 400-410, Patrick, “The Economic Benefits of
Space Tourism”)
In view of the poor state of the world economy today, the creation of a major new industry of
passenger space travel would be highly beneficial. Moreover, catching up nearly half a century
of technological development that has yet to be used commercially could lead to a vigorous
space-based "boom" creating many new business activities. However, very valuable though such a development promises to be, it
may not be the most important benefit of space tourism. This is that, in growing to large scale, space tourism has the unique potential, which
other smaller-scale space activities do not, to reduce the cost of space travel by two orders of
magnitude below space agencies' expendable launch vehicles. Such low costs will in turn make
many other activities in space profitable. The most important among these would appear to be
to eliminate any concern about possible future shortages of resources, both environmentally
benign energy and raw materials, for use on Earth. To understand how important to humans'
future this may be, we need only recall the ominous phrase used by Jacques Delors when he was President of the EU: "..the coming
21st century resource wars" (20). Since that time, the concept of "resource wars" has become a common
topic of articles and even books (21). What may be called the "cold war generation" of political leaders seem to
have the basic outlook that humans are trapped on a small planet which is running out of
natural resources, and so with ever-growing population, we are inevitably going to fight over
the remaining resources. Hard-nosed "realpolitik" is rarely stated openly, but it seems to lead to the following viewpoint: "Yes, it's tough on the weak - but
human life has always been harsh. Indeed it's going to be hellish. But of course the powerful
countries will win against the weak, hundreds of millions of whom will die." This is surely the thinking that
underlies the plethora of articles, reports and books published in OECD countries about the threat to the rich countries from China, India, "militant Islam" and others, and the need to control
future supplies of oil and other natural resources. However, there is another, very different view of the future: this is that humans live in a
65
2AC LAUNCH COSTS ADDON
<Collins Continues>
cornucopia, where unlimited resources are available to us in space if we make the small effort required to
access them – clean energy, raw materials, living space, waste sink and others. In this view,
making the modest effort required to realise low-cost space travel - which space agencies have
never done - offers a clear prospect of limitless resources which will enable rising living
standards for everyone forever. This idea of extending economic activities out into space has been called "The Space Option" (22, 23, 24). The prospect which it
offers is the exact opposite of the previous view: Humans' future can be heaven rather than hell on Earth.
Extinction
Beardon, Fellow of the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study & Director of the Association of
Distinguished American Scientists, 6-12-2K (T.E., “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” ADAS
Position Paper: Solution to the Energy Crisis, www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc)
economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final
conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25
intensity and number of their
nations, are almost certain to be released . As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {2} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea,
including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to
the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into
immediate responses,
the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are
launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD
coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed .
The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.

66
LARGE SPACE PROJECTS DECREASE COST
The plan sustains NASA reliance on reusable space vehicles- keeps costs low
Mankins, President of ARTEMIS Innovation Management Solutions LLC, a research and development
management consulting start-up that solves tough innovation challenges for government, industry and not-for-profit
clients, and Co-founder of Managed Energy Technologies LLC, a new energy technology start-up that aspires to
transform solar energy solutions for terrestrial and space markets, 2K8 (John C., Spring, ad Astra, Special Report:
Space-based Solar Power Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @ http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-
2008.pdf, )
Space launch is a well-known and classic case of the “chicken-and-egg” problem, and one that has proven
extremely hard to overcome. For many concepts, very low recurring costs per pound of payload can be achieved only
with high launch rates (so that the cost of fixed initial investments and annual overhead costs can be spread across many launches). Achieving high
launch rates depends upon the actual revenue-generating traffic to be carried, which depends
significantly on earlier investments in space-utilizing enterprises (for example, investments related to in-space manufacturing
capacity). And, as a result, increased investments in space-utilizing enterprises (government or commercial) will depend
upon the prior existence of assured availability of reliable launch services at the lower prices. So,
in order to make space solar power possible, what has to be done about space transportation? In the case of conventional transportation infrastructures, low cost has always
been achieved through reuse of vehicles and the deployment of general-purpose infrastructures
that can be used many times by multiple customers, such as canals, railways, roads, and airports. It is hard to imagine
how automobiles, aircraft, ships, or any other modern transportation system might somehow be
produced so cheaply that the transport could somehow be “disposable” after each use. In order
for space solar power systems to be economically viable, reusable Earth-to-orbit launchers will
be essential. In-space transportation advances are also needed. In-space transportation systems must be very fuel-efficient. Also, transport hardware costs
must be dramatically reduced through the development of reusable, rather than expendable,
systems. Finally, the personnel costs for the transport infrastructure must be drastically reduced: the system must be largely autonomous, involving neither “marching armies” of
operators or maintenance engineers.

67
LARGE SPACE PROJECTS DECREASE COST
The plan’s dramatic increase in space missions lowers launch costs

NASA Ames Research Center. , former research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry
department of the University of California at Santa Cruz., member of the governing board of education for the Space
Colonization Training Center (SCTC), Member of the board of directors of the National Space Society, Chairman of
the National Space Society Space Settlement Advocacy Committee, Honorary Foreign Member (Scientist) of the
Romanian The Educational Society for Physics, Informatics, Chemistry and Mathematics in Biology, Member of the
program committee of the NASA/DoD Evolvable Hardware Conference EH-2005, Member of the program committee
for the 2002 and 2004 NASA Ames Research Center RoboSphere Workshops, Member of the program committee for
the 2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, Co-chair of the Fifth and Sixth Foresight Conferences on
Molecular Nanotechnology, and Chairman of the NAS workshop on computational molecular nanotechnology on
March 4-5, 1996., 2K8 (Al, Spring, ad Astra, “On the Moon,” Special Report: Space-based Solar Power
Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @ http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, )
The cost issue is obvious: the cheapest launches today run thousands of dollars per kilogram to
low Earth orbit (LEO), and we need to get the materials all the way to geosynchronous Earth orbit
(GEO), which is significantly more expensive. The cost of launch goes up very quickly with the change in velocity, which is measured in meters per
second (m/s). For each increase in velocity, additional fuel is needed, and even more fuel to lift the additional fuel, and heavier structures to hold the increased fuel, and even more fuel to lift
the heavier structures … you get the idea. In any case, the velocity change from the ground to LEO is 8,600 m/s, but to GEO it’s 12,400 m/s. Paul Werbos (see references on page 36)
estimates thatlaunch costs must come down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $450/kg for SSP to
deliver energy near current prices (5-10 cents/kw-h). Fortunately, a high launch rate drives prices down, just as the mass-
produced Ford Model-T was far cheaper than the previous generations of automobiles.

68
OVERVIEW EFFECT
Space travel triggers the overview effect- reconstructs our connection to the Earth
O’Neill, PhD in solar physics, 2K8 (Ian, May 22, The Human Brain in Space: Euphoria and the "Overview Effect"
Experienced by Astronauts, page @ http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/22/the-human-brain-in-space-euphoria-
and-the-overview-effect-experienced-by-astronauts)
Could be the best example yet of being "spaced out"? When in space, astronauts have repeatedly reported inexplicable
euphoria, a "cosmic connection" or an increased sensitivity to their place in the Universe. The
experience sounds like the ultimate high, or the ultimate enlightening; it would appear that without trying,
astronauts are able to attain a similar mental state as meditating Buddhist monks . So what is
happening when the human body is in space? Does zero-gravity create new connections in the brain? Or is it a natural human response to the
vastness of space and realizing just how small we are in comparison? What ever the reason, it looks like even when astronauts are
back on solid ground, they have changed profoundly…On March 6th, 1969, Rusty Schweikart experienced a feeling that the whole
universe was profoundly connected. At the time, he was on a postponed space walk outside his Apollo 9 Lunar Module, carrying out tests for the forthcoming Moon landings. Already having
When you go around the Earth in an hour and a half,

suffered from space sickness (hence delaying the EVA) he felt a euphoric sensation: "
you begin to recognize that your identity is with that whole thing. That makes a change… it
comes through to you so powerfully that you're the sensing element for Man." - Russell "Rusty" Schweikart. Two
years later, Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell (joint record holder with Alan Shepard for longest ever Moon walk of 9 hours and 17 minutes) reported experiencing an "Overview Effect".
He became
He described the sensation gave him a profound sense of connectedness, with a feeling of bliss and timelessness. He was overwhelmed by the experience.
profoundly aware that each and every atom in the Universe was connected in some way, and on
seeing Earth from space he had an understanding that all the humans, animals and systems were
a part of the same thing, a synergistic whole. It was an interconnected euphoria . Schweikart and Mitchell's
experiences are not isolated anomalies, many other astronauts since the 1970's have reported this
Overview Effect. Andy Newberg, a neuroscientist/physician with experience in space medicine, hopes to find out whether this is an actual psychological phenomenon.
Perhaps there is a medical reason for an actual change in an astronaut's brain function when in space. What's more, he's noticed a psychological change in the men and women that have come
back from space: "You can often tell when you’re with someone who has flown in space, its palpable." - Andy Newberg Newberg has scanned many brains
to try to understand how humans reach this euphoric state on Earth. The religious communities,
transcendental mediators and others around the world are able to experience similar states and
have been the focus of interest to neuroscientists. In some cases, the meditation leads some
people to view the whole cosmos as an interconnected quantum web, where consciousness is
not separate, but a part of the Universe. Now Newberg hopes to monitor the brain of one of the
first space tourists so a better grasp of the brain function of a human in zero-G can be
understood. Edgar Mitchell has said that his personal event has changed his life, revealing a
Universe that had remained hidden until he experienced the Overview Effect on that Apollo 14
mission in 1971. Whether this effect is a physical change in the brain, or a deeper, yet to be discovered event, Newberg hopes to find some answers.
Environmental Decay Risks Collapse Of Civilization

Dernbach, 98 )John C. Associate Professor, Law, Widener University, “Sustainable Development as a Framework
for National Governance,” CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 49, Fall 1998, p. 16.)
The global scale and severity of environmental degradation and poverty are unprecedented in human history. Major
adverse consequences are not inevitable, but they are likely if these problems are not addressed. Many
civilizations collapsed or were severely weakened because they exhausted or degraded the
natural resource base on which they depended. n76 In addition, substantial economic and social inequalities have caused or contributed to many
wars and revolutions. n77 These problems are intensified by the speed at which they have occurred and are worsening, making it difficult for natural systems to adapt. The complexity of
natural and human systems also means that the effects of these problems are difficult to anticipate. The potential impact of global warming on the transmission of tropical diseases in a time of
substantial international travel and commerce is but one example.

69
OVERVIEW EFFECT
Hundredth monkey phenomenon cause overview effect to spread to all people

Keyes, personal growth leader and longtime peace advocate, 81’ (Ken Jr., The Hundredth Monkey, page @
http://www.wowzone.com/100th.htm, )
The Japanese monkey, Macaca Fuscata, had been observed in the wild for a period of over 30 years. In 1952, on the island of Koshima,
scientists were providing monkeys with sweet potatoes dropped in the sand. The monkey liked the taste of the raw sweet potatoes, but they
found the dirt unpleasant. An 18-month-old female named Imo found she could solve the problem by washing the
potatoes in a nearby stream. She taught this trick to her mother . Her playmates also learned this new way and they taught their
mothers too. This cultural innovation was gradually picked up by various monkeys before the eyes of
the scientists. Between 1952 and 1958 all the young monkeys learned to wash the sandy sweet
potatoes to make them more palatable. Only the adults who imitated their children learned this social improvement. Other adults kept eating the dirty
sweet potatoes. Then something startling took place. In the autumn of 1958, a certain number of Koshima monkeys were
washing sweet potatoes -- the exact number is not known. Let us suppose that when the sun
rose one morning there were 99 monkeys on Koshima Island who had learned to wash their
sweet potatoes. Let's further suppose that later that morning, the hundredth monkey learned to
wash potatoes. THEN IT HAPPENED! By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was
washing sweet potatoes before eating them. The added energy of this hundredth monkey
somehow created an ideological breakthrough! But notice: A most surprising thing observed by these
scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea...Colonies of
monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their
sweet potatoes. Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new awareness
may be communicated from mind to mind. Although the exact number may vary, this
Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know of a
new way, it may remain the conscious property of these people. But there is a point at which if
only one more person tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this
awareness is picked up by almost everyone! Your awareness is needed in saving the world
from nuclear war. You may be the "Hundredth Monkey" . . . . You may furnish the added
consciousness energy to create the shared awareness of the urgent necessity to rapidly achieve a
nuclear-free world. "If I knew then what I know now, I never would have helped to develop the bomb," spoke George Kistiakowsky, an advisor to President Eisenhower
who worked on the Manhattan Project. Let's look at the almost incredible nuclear monster we have created in the last forty years on planet Earth . . . . Herbert Scoville, Jr., former deputy for
we are moving—sliding downhill—toward the probability or

research of the Central Intelligence Agency warns, The unfortunate situation is that today
the likelihood that a nuclear conflict will actually break out—and that somebody will use one
of these nuclear weapons in a conflict or perhaps even by accident. The only result of a
substantial nuclear exchange would be a hollow victory in which the "winners' would be no
better off than the losers. An all-out nuclear war could make our planet uninhabitable for a
million years! A nuclear war can end the way we live. It cannot be won — it can only be lost.
Winning equals losing. The word "war" is too mild to apply to this nuclear craziness. Carl Sagan at the
Conference on the Long-Term Biological Consequences of Nuclear War stated: We have an excellent chance that if Nation A attacks Nation B with an effective first strike, counter-force
only, then Nation A has thereby committed suicide, even if Nation B has not lifted a finger to retaliate.*

70
OVERVIEW EFFECT
Overview effect makes humanity more environmentally conscious

Space.com, 2K6 (August 5, Space Tourism: Face Time With Earth, page @
http://www.space.com/news/060805_space_ecotourism.html, )
Ask anybody that has blasted off Earth and shot into space...the view out the window is
tremendous. Given the promise of privately built spaceships routinely skyrocketing from spaceports
around the globe, rubbernecking customers will be afforded exceptional looks at Mother Earth and
deep space. For some, it's flat out thrill. There's also the magic of microgravity as keepsake moments. And handheld photographs taken out windows can freeze-frame your
personal space trek for later show-and-tell parties. But by all accounts, face time with Earth from space is a bonding experience.
Author Frank White coined it the "Overview Effect" in his 1987 book, The Overview Effect - Space Exploration and Human Evolution. The book's pages capture the comments from space
travelers about how viewing Earth from space affected perceptions of themselves, their planet of origin, and their own place in space and time. In love with our world The scenery from Earth
orbit stirs up many thoughts, observed space traveler, Tom Jones, a veteran shuttle flyer and spacewalker, as well as author of the acclaimed book, Sky Walking: An Astronaut's Memoir
(Smithsonian Books - Collins, February 2006). "On nearly every one of my 52 days in orbit, my most enjoyable time was spent viewing and photographing Earth from space," Jones told
it was impossible not to be struck

SPACE.com. Trained as a planetary scientist, he was most interested in the varied geologic provinces of the globe. "But
by the sheer beauty of the scene laid out before me. The delicate appearance of the atmosphere,
its clouds and storms, and the incredible palette of colors exhibited by the landscape and
vegetation made me vividly aware of Earth's interrelated complexity, in a way that is
impossible to gain by mere classroom study," Jones explained. Jones said that he launched spaceward prepared to study the planet...and
returned truly in love with our world. "My overwhelming sense was of Earth's uniqueness as a
harbor for life. As a resident of this world, it's impossible not to see it now as a place both graced and
threatened by mankind," Jones said. "Becoming a space traveler nearly inescapably makes one
an advocate for careful stewardship of our environment ." Universal demand for windows The role of space
ecotourism as a marketing theme has not gone unnoticed by spaceline operators. "We as a
species couldn't survive on this planet now without space," said Will Whitehorn, President of Virgin Galactic - the Sir Richard
Branson group that's busy selling seats on passenger-carrying suborbital SpaceShipTwo rocket planes. Look for a fleet of these spaceships to roll out the hangar doors at Scaled Composites of
Mojave, California. The work is led by aerospace designer, Burt Rutan, and his team. First toted to high altitude for release by a huge carrier plane, a SpaceShipTwo will transport paying
passengers - at $200,000 a seat - up to the edge of space and back down to terra firma. "Space is absolutely crucial to the survival of
humankind given the level of population we have got," Whitehorn told SPACE.com. From monitoring Earth's
weather and crop production to gauging climate change and helping to move goods and
services around the globe - satellites have proven of colossal value, he added. "We wouldn't know
about issues of the planet's safety if it wasn't for space," Whitehorn suggested. "From our point of view, the ecotourism
fits well with suborbital space tourism flights. Many of the people who want to fly with us are very environmentally conscious." Whitehorn said
there is a universal demand by customers for windows. " Being able to see the Earth from a viewing port is absolutely
crucial." And in true "keep the customer satisfied" fashion, SpaceShipTwo designs will have loads of windows, even in the floor of the spacecraft, Whitehorn said. "You can view
forwards, backwards and outwards in every direction." Environmentally friendly: air-launch The ecotourism theme also plays well when considering the role of air-launched spaceships - for
Not only have you got an economic breakthrough in launch costs, but also
both suborbital and eventual orbital trips. "
we have to look at the environmental constraints that will be put upon the space industry, long-
term," Whitehorn said. Given the projected launch rates of people and payloads, he added, ground-based
rocketry and the effluents spewed into the air by those liftoffs - especially by solid fuel motors -
will likely not be environmentally and politically acceptable within a generation, he predicted. Air-launched
spaceships are "environmental breakthrough technology," said Stephen Attenborough, head of Astronaut Relations for Virgin Galactic. "It's environmentally thousands of times cleaner than
any other system in the past," he told SPACE.com. Attenborough said that the tempo of the environmental debate can be enhanced by flying passengers into space. "In reading the accounts of
astronauts, it's evidently a life-changing experience," Attenborough said. "They do come back with very firm views about the environment, the fragility of the atmosphere, our place in space,
and ways of better managing the planet." The technology of SpaceShipTwo and its derivates, Attenborough noted, "may well be the key to actually exploiting space for the benefit of
mankind...to a far greater degree than we've been able to do in the past, but without destroying the planet in the meantime."

71
OVERVIEW EFFECT
Morphogenic fields prove the Hundreth Monkey phenomenon
Sheldrake, worked in developmental biology at Cambridge University, and is currently Director of the Perrott-
Warrick project aresearch project on unexplained human and animal abilities, former Fellow of Clare College,
Cambridge University, PhD in biochemistry, and Campbell, holds degrees from the Sorbonne, Yale
College (where he was a Scholar of the House), and Harvard Law School., lecturer at
Harvard and John F. Kennedy School of Politics, 2K7 (Rupert Sheldrake, Morphic Fields and The
Sense of Being Stared At, Personal Life Media, page @ http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/212-living-
dialogues/episodes/2734-rupert-sheldrake-morphic-fields-sense, )
through the work of Plato, Galileo and quantum
Duncan Campbell: From time immemorial, beginning with indigenous councils and ancient wisdom traditions, Western visionaries such as
physicist David Bohm participatory dialogue has been seen as the key to evolving and
, mutually
transforming consciousness, evoking a flow of meaning beyond what any one , a dia – flow of logos – meaning,
individual can bring through alone. So join us now as together with you, the active deep listener, we evoke and engage in Living Dialogues. (Music) Duncan Campbell: I'm your host, Duncan Campbell, welcoming
you to Living Dialogues. For this particular program I am really delighted to have as my guest Rupert Sheldrake. He is known to many of you for his numerous books and for his pioneering work in creating the notion of morphic fields, which we will get into. His most recent work,
talking about the existence of a seventh sense and how our mind is much more extended out into the universe than we may think in terms of conventional science. He is married to the great sound healing pioneer Jill Purce and they have two sons. So with that extensive bio Rupert, let's
just dive in to talk about your early life and how you came to the work that we have just described in your adult life. Perhaps there is an incident from your childhood that might come to mind here spontaneously that in some way was a harbinger of things to come. Rupert Sheldrake:
Well, there are two that I can think of that are relevant I think. One is that I was very keen on animals. I kept lots of pets. My father was a biologist and the herbalist and a pharmacist. He had an amateur laboratory at home with microscopes and things. He used to take me to our local
railway station where every Saturday baskets of pigeons came from all over England. The porters released these pigeons for pigeon races. I helped them. I was about five. I used to open these wicker baskets and out would burst the pigeons. They would fly up into the air, circle around
and groups of them would all head off in different directions to different parts of England. I was fascinated by pigeons and I kept some myself and found that they did indeed home. So that was one thing that got me very intrigued by animal behavior and the things we don't understand
about it. No one understood it then and no one understands it now. Duncan Campbell: Really? Rupert Sheldrake: So that is an enduring preoccupation of mine, the unexplained abilities of animals. I think the other incident, which was to do with plants that had a big influence was when
I was around the same age. I was at our family farm in a village near my hometown in Nottinghamshire. I saw a row of willow trees with rusty barbed wire hanging between them. I asked why there was barbed wire there. My uncle, who was standing behind me, said, “Oh well, we
made a fence out of those willow stakes and they came to life.” I looked at it and I could see that yes, it was a fence. They had made a fence out of willow stakes. They had taken root and sprouted and they turned into willow trees and the barbed wire was still there between them. This,
I think, influenced my view on the regenerative power of plants and indeed of morphogenesis. I didn't think about this incident until much later. When I was at Cambridge doing research on plants, I was working on regeneration of cuttings. I even worked on willow cuttings, formation
of roots and shoots and the development of form. So I think that these two incidents, one with plants, the other with animals, in some ways foreshadowed a lot of my later work. Duncan Campbell: It’s very interesting that you put it that way because what could be more basic in a sense
than plants and animals. Of course we have the mineral world itself. But we have also in the indigenous beginnings, we might say of our species, this very intimate relationship not only with sense of place that would be interacting with the mineral world but also very sensitive and
enormously complex embeddedness in a world of plants and animals. Some of the things to which you have brought our attention and begun to offer a modern scientific framework for, with respect to the powers and the wisdom, you might say, of plants and animals, are
things that have been known for millennia by the indigenous world . But they have been , in a sense, forgotten
and obliterated by our modern materialistic, scientific education . When I say scientific, I might say scientisms. The understanding of pre-modern peoples was
very scientific in its own way because it was based on observation and deduction although we seem to think in the modern world that we have a monopoly on science as a term. But with that caveat, we might say institutional science has not really answered some of the big questions as
you put it in the introduction to your most recent book ‘ The Sense of Being Stared At’. We have a sense of superiority or arrogance in our materialistic science as if somehow all the ‘big questions’ have been answered. And yet there are many things right under our noses in our ordinary
lives in our own behavior as well as the behavior of companion animals and nature that we simply take for granted or literally overlook and to which we do not pay attention because science really doesn't have the ability to explain them. So they in a sense regard them as inconsequential.
So perhaps we could give an example or two of those kinds of things in your early days Rupert that you were inquisitive about, that when you got your formal education in Cambridge as a biologist, you realized that science really had overlooked some very basic things. Rupert
However much we understand the

Sheldrake: Oh yes, definitely. Well, I mean this pigeon homing thing was one of the things that stayed with me all through my time at Cambridge and through my science education.
biochemistry of proteins, enzymes, etcetera, it doesn't really explain things like that, things that
we actually see and experience with our own eyes. So I was actually aware all the time I was studying at Cambridge and doing research there of this huge gulf between what we do
we have a very detailed understanding of certain kinds of things

understand - what , mostly of things at the molecular level within cells - and
we don't understand which is largely to do with behavior and form. In fact, the things that strike us most immediately about animals and plants are the
the greatest unsolved mystery of all is our own consciousness. Consciousness

things that we don't understand. Of course,
itself is quite unexplained in scientific terms . Duncan Campbell: Here is where I think your own work has been so seminal and pioneering. You are using what we might say ‘scientific
methodology’, from our modern science to explore questions that have long been relegated to the realm of superstition or mysticism and therefore not worthy of scientific inquiry. We could take telepathy as an example. Your book ‘Dogs Who Know When Their Owners Are Coming
Home’, right there the title grabs our attention because many of us have had the experience that our dogs somehow mystically seem to know when we are coming home, telepathically we might say. You have a very graphic example of this where a particular man would be getting on the
train in London to go to his home, maybe 35 or 40 minutes away. He would get on the train at a different time each day, unpredictably because of the nature of his work. His spouse began to notice that at a particular time every day the dog would get up out of its bed and go to the door
to await his arrival. They began to correlate the time that the dog would get up to go to the door with the times that he would get on the train. They were quite struck by that because it was not as if the dog got up at the same time every day. These are experiences that are common in our
everyday life but have not been thought worthy of discussion. So perhaps you could talk a bit about that and other experiences in the animal realm that you have encountered that really illustrate your sense of morphic fields. Perhaps we could use that as a lead-in to how you began to
develop the notion of morphic fields, which has such wide applicability at this point to so many different things. Yet it is still considered on the frontier of science. It is not entirely accepted by conventional science. Rupert Sheldrake: Hmm. Well, my work on companion animals, dogs,
cats, parrots, horses and others really starts from people's observations. I think that all science has to begin from empirical data. The most basic empirical data is what people notice. Sometimes my colleagues just dismiss what people notice. They say it's anecdotal and not scientific. I
think that's completely the wrong attitude. All science starts from experience and anecdotes are simply unpublished experiences. So what I have done is build up a huge database with thousands of cases of stories from people who keep animals about what they have noticed. The animals
There are many forms of behavior shown by ordinary

we know best are the ones we live with. People have a chance to observe them day and night, year after year.
animals like dogs and cats that don't fit into the present scientific worldview . This example of dogs and cats, for that matter, that know
when their owners are coming home is a very good one. It happens when a person is many miles away in some cases. It happens quite reliably and repeatedly. It is an objective thing. We filmed the place where the dog or cat goes to wait by the window. So we have a film from the
whole time that the person is out. So we know what the animal is doing. It is an objective record. We can test the various possible theories of this scientifically. Some people say, “Well, maybe it is just routine.” We have people go away at least 5 miles from home and then I page them
on the telephone pager at randomly chosen times. They go home. We know it is not routine because we have chosen random times quite different from the normal ones. The people at home don't know when they are coming so it's not the people at home telling them. People say, “Well,
maybe they can just hear the car engine from miles away.” Actually, dogs can't hear much further away than we can. They can hear higher pitches. But to rule out that theory what we did was have people come home in taxis or other unfamiliar vehicles. The dogs still know and they
still wait there. We found that in cases we studied most intensively, the dogs are responding to the owner's intention to go home before they have even gotten into the taxi. It's when they decide to go home that the dog starts waiting. So they seem to be responding to their thoughts or
intentions at a distance. This is quite a repeatable phenomenon. It has even been tested by skeptics who were convinced it wasn't true. They did experiments with one of the dogs with whom I worked using their own car, their own randomization system and so on. They got exactly the
same results we did. So it seems to be a repeatable and robust phenomenon. Millions of people who keep dogs and cats have noticed this kind of behavior. But to the usual response of scientists is to dismiss it, saying that it is just coincidence and that people only remember when they
are right and the dog is right and forget all the times they are wrong and so forth. There are many ways of brushing it away or pretending it doesn't really happen. But the fact is that the only scientific tests that have ever been done are the ones that we've done and the ones that the
skeptics did on the dogs that we worked with. They showed that it is a real phenomenon. It supports what lots and lots of pet owners have always claimed. Science in this case supports the ordinary observations. There are many other things pets do that haven't been explained
Why I think this relates to the

scientifically and we have investigated a number of these other things as well. Of course, there are unexplained human powers, which is the theme of my new book ‘The Sense of Being Stared At’.
idea of morphic fields is that morphic fields are fields that connect together parts of self-
organizing systems, giving them the wholeness that makes them more than the sum of their
parts. In relation to social animals, a flock of birds or a school of fish behaves kind of like a
super organism or a termite's nest for that matter. The individual animals respond to the others
in such a way that they can move directions and change and behave in a way that makes sense
and is integrated. I think these are field phenomena social groups have . There is a field of the flock and a field of the school of the fish. I think
fields in general If they are separated in distance, the field isn't broken. It's
. When dogs bond to their owners, there is a field between them.
stretched. They remain connected as if by an invisible elastic band. A change in one will
affect the other. This is actually quite similar to quantum non-locality in quantum theory where
particles that have been part of the same system, when they move apart, retain what's called a
non-local or non-separable connection such as a change in one can affect the other at a distance.

72
So, I think that morphic fields rather naturally provide an explanation for telepathy. Telepathy
interestingly occurs by far the most with people who know each other well, with members of
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CARD CONTINUES>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
families, best friends, between dogs and their people or the person to whom they are most
attached It is something to do with social bonds
. It doesn't happen with strangers or mere acquaintances or at least if it does it is very, very rare. . I think that's a key feature about telepathy.

73
2AC WEATHER CONTROL ADDON
Plan allows weather modification capabilites- key to air power

Eastlund, physicist who received his B.S. in physics from MIT and his Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University.
He led a team of scientists and engineers working for Advanced Power Technologies, Inc, and Jenkins, retired from
NASA after 38 years of systems engineering activity. Major projects included Apollo and Space Shuttle, design
engineer on the Atlas ICBM and the Centaur, first liquid hydrogen upper stage, 2K5 (Bernard J. and Lyle M.,
Eastlund Scientific Enterprises, Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Issues Dealing with Weather Modification, page
@ http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/11012/34697/01656145.pdf?tp=&isnumber=34697&arnumber=1656145, )
Over the course of the next century, the weather will be our most powerful weapon. So says Weather as a
Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 , part of a 1996 Air Force-commissioned report forecasting the technology
required to maintain US air and space leadership into the next century. "Current technologies that will mature over the
next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary resources the ability to modify weather patterns, at least on the local scale," the study says. "Weather modification
can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. By 2025 it will be within the realm of possibility."
Sound like hyperbole? Ironically, three years after the report was issued, that's what Air Force
officials would have you think. "We have no plans to try and modify the weather. It's just too much of a crapshoot in terms of the complex dynamics and huge
energy involved," says Brigadier General Fred P. Lewis, the Air Force's director of weather. "How will you guarantee the outcome? How will you create what you want yet avoid kicking off
Made-to-order thunderstorms, says the military, "can provide battlespace

an undesirable or even dangerous weather system?"
dominance to a degree never before imagined." Whatever the truth about the military's attitude toward weather
modification, the private sector won't wait for Lewis to answer his own questions. One sign of real-world
progress has come in a rather ancient-sounding technology: cloud seeding. Introduced in the 1940s, the tactic has made huge leaps of late thanks to a new method known as hydroscopic seeding. In the early '90s, South African researchers began using
flares shot from planes to inject water-attracting salts into clouds. In these and other tests, hydroscopic seeding has shown evidence of increasing not only the amount of rainfall, but also the duration and vertical concentration of individual storms. The most extensive hydroscopic test to
date, being conducted in Mexico by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, has been running for three years. So far, 99 seeding missions have shown rainfall increases of as much as 40 percent, according to head researcher Brant Foote.
Another 50 tests with the same results, Foote says, and he'll consider the evidence conclusive. While Foote and the military talk of weather enhancement, some of the most important developments are coming in weather suppression. One factor pushing those developments is the ever
increasing density of Earth's population. Not only does it amplify the need to move water to drought-afflicted areas, it also intensifies the amount of damage natural disasters wreak. Weather-related catastrophes caused $92 billion in damage worldwide during 1998 and displaced more
than 300 million people from their homes, according to the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, DC. Top priority: Mother Nature's ultimate terror, the hurricane. Hurricanes are fueled by the evaporation of warm ocean water. One way to kill a storm would be to cool the ocean. Given
the huge energy investment of, say, towing icebergs, however, researchers have made little progress in this regard. Pushing a hurricane toward land would also kill the storm by eliminating its energy source - but also threaten people and property. That's not an option, of course. But can
we make a hurricane think it's over land? A team of MIT scientists believes so. Led by professor Kerry Emanuel, the scientists are hoping that by applying a chemical coat one molecule thick to the ocean's surface, they can retard the natural heat-transfer process that occurs during
evaporation, which would slow the storm. Team member Moshe Alamaro tests materials by pouring tiny amounts of various biodegradable, oily substances into a special test rig filled with seawater. To see how this monolayer material would stand up in the ocean, he agitates the water
with a paddle wheel. It's an arduous process. "There are 10,000 types of oil, all with different properties," he says. "We need to have something with a diffusion rate faster than the rate at which waves break, a film that will repair itself quickly." Using oil to suppress evaporation could
also help protect reservoirs. That prospect has attracted attention from Chevron, which has supplied a number of possible monolayer materials and shown an interest in giving the MIT group startup funding. But the team's real hope is one day to spread a monolayer over several hundred
miles of ocean in the path of a hurricane, stopping it before it can reach land. Getting to that point will require a lot more research. The ways ocean spray and wind fuel hurricanes are not fully understood, and some think that smoothing the sea with oil might reduce surface drag and
actually intensify the storm. The MIT researchers are constructing a second test rig, incorporating a wind tunnel, to investigate these phenomena. Their work to date has attracted the interest of Vladimir Pudov, a leading weather-modification scientist from Russia who has expressed
interest in joining forces with MIT. According to the recently declassified results of Soviet experiments during the 1980s, Pudov made significant progress in evaporation suppression in the South Pacific. Rather than coating the ocean surface, Pudov sought a substance that would
dissolve in it - and he claims to have developed the ideal compound: a low-cost, ecologically safe, fine white powder called carmidol. "Carmidol suppresses evaporation by no less than 65 percent," he says. "This leads to a decrease of water-air temperature difference and a decrease of the
energy flow into the hurricane." While Alamaro is guarded in his optimism about Pudov's claims, he's excited about the prospect of working with someone committed enough to navigate a ship into a tropical cyclone for the sake of research. "He is a brave man. He gathered crucial data
on a storm's thermodynamics and physics, and on ocean spray," says Alamaro of Pudov's trip to the Sulawesi Sea. "But the storm had only 70-mile-per-hour winds. Someone has to go into a real hurricane. When you have money, you can do a lot of things that are otherwise not possible.
A standard tropical storm has the energy of 10,000 one-megaton hydrogen

We're working on a shoestring, and it's getting short."
bombs. Unlike the MIT crew, Bernard Eastlund, a former research manager at the US Atomic Energy
Commission, wants to fight power with power. Eastlund researched the construction of a missile shield for the Department of Defense during
the '80s as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative, aka Star Wars. His plan was to superheat the atmosphere at an altitude of 70 kilometers with an array of microwave transmitters, creating a
Weather modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting

shield of electrons that would prove lethal to incoming missiles. "
of the atom. Even if we have no intention of using it, others will." The death of the Cold War
squelched interest in that project, but in 1998 the European Space Agency asked Eastlund to consider potential applications for solar-power satellites -
orbiting power stations that would absorb energy from the sun and deliver it via microwave
beams to receiving stations on Earth. He immediately thought of weather modification and
devised a plan for the Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite, which would be used primarily to
snuff out tornadoes, but could also zap hurricanes and even nudge the atmospheric polar jet
stream in an effort to prevent flood rains. Here's how it would work: Suppose an embryonic
tornado is spotted somewhere in America's heartland. A couple of satellites with suitable orbits
would be instructed to break off power transmission and switch their microwave transmitters
from the usual operating frequency of 2.5 GHz - which allows microwaves to pass unimpeded
through clouds and rain, delivering electrical power in any weather - to at least 30 GHz. At
these frequencies, Eastlund says, clouds and rain absorb microwaves and heat up. As he envisions it, the
satellites would wheel around to warm an area of the storm, suppressing the downdrafts that
drive tornado formation.

74
Air power is key to power projection in Asia- solves prolif

Khalilzad and Lesser , 98 [Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand, Sources of Conflict in
the 21st Century, page online @ http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/...R897.chap3.pdf)
This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent
American air and space power will continue to

regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that
remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of
the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most
conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the
South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and,
therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for
operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U .S. air power would be at the forefront of an American
politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse
range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any
other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity,
particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried
by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are
secured. The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat
support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional
contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of
which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional
combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the
Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear
capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare
threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are
increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with
existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during
air and space power will

the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that
function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional
conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and
Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed
it would
the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend,
behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional
areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity be the primary instruments
constituting the American response. Such responses would be necessitated by three general classes of contingencies. The first involves the politico-military
collapse of a key regional actor, as might occur in the case of North Korea, Myanmar, Indonesia, or Pakistan. The second involves acute politicalmilitary crises that
have a potential for rapid escalation, as may occur in the Taiwan Strait, the Spratlys, the Indian
subcontinent, or on the Korean peninsula. The third involves cases of prolonged domestic instability that may have either spillover or contagion effects, as in China,
Indonesia, Myanmar, or North Korea. In each of these cases, U.S. responses may vary from simply being a concerned onlooker to prosecuting the whole range of military operations to providing post-conflict assistance in a
permissive environment. Depending on the political choices made, Air Force contributions would obviously vary. If the first response is selected, contributions would consist predominantly of vital, specialized, airbreathing
platforms such as AWACS, JSTARS, and Rivet Joint—in tandem with controlled space assets—that would be necessary for assessment of political crises erupting in the region. The second response, in contrast, would burden the
entire range of U.S. Air Force capabilities, in the manner witnessed in Operation Desert Storm. The third response, like the first, would call for specialized capabilities, mostly in the areas of strategic lift and airborne tanker
U.S. Air Force assets will be required

support. The third key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that despite increasing regional air capabilities ,
to fill gaps in critical warfighting areas. The capabilities of the Asian states , including those of U.S. allies and
neutral states, have been steadily increasing in the last two decades . These increases have occurred largely through the acquisition of late-
generation, advanced combat aircraft such as the MiG-29, and the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 together with short-range infrared and medium-range semi-active air-to-air missiles. Despite
such acquisitions, however, the states that possess these aircraft have not become truly effective
users of air power, in part because acquiring advanced combat aircraft and their associated technologies is a small part of ensuring overall proficiency in the exploitation of
air power. The latter includes incorporating effective training regimes, maintaining large and diverse logistics networks, developing an indigenous industrial infrastructure capable of
supporting the variegated air assets, and integrating specific subspecialties such as air-to-air refueling, electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defenses, airspace surveillance and battle
management capabilities in a hostile environment, and night and adverse weather operations. Most of the Asian air forces lack full air-power
capabilities of the sort described above. The Japanese and South Korean air forces are, as a rule, optimized mostly for air defense operations. Both air forces are generally
proficient in all-weather defensive counterair operations, and they possess relatively modest day ground-attack capabilities as well. Because of their specific operating environments, however,

75
<Khalilzad and Lesser Continue>
the Japanese air force is particularly proficient in maritime air operations, whereas the South Korean air force has some close air support (CAS) experience as well. The Chinese air force
(People’s Liberation Army Air Force, [PLAAF]) is still a predominantly daylight defensive counterair force with limited daylight attack capabilities, as are most of the Southeast Asian air <
forces, but the PLAAF has recently demonstrated an impressive ability to integrate its new weapon systems (e.g., the Su-27) much faster than most observers expected. The air forces of the
Indian subcontinent have somewhat greater capabilities. Most squadrons of the Indian and Pakistani air forces are capable of daylight defensive counterair, a few are capable of all-weather
defensive counterair, and several Indian units are capable of battlefield air interdiction and deep penetration-interdiction strike. None of these air forces, however, is particularly proficient at
night and all-weather ground attack, especially at operational ranges. They lack advanced munitions, especially in the air-to-surface regime. With the exception of Japan and Singapore, they
lack battle management command, control and communications (BMC3) platforms as well as the logistics and training levels required for successful, extended, high-tempo operations.
The brittle quality of Asian air forces implies that U.S. Air Force assets will be required to fill
critical gaps in allied air capabilities as well as to counter both the growing capabilities of
potential adversaries such as China and the new nontraditional threats emerging in the form of ballistic
and cruise missiles, information warfare, WMD, and possibly even the revolution in military
affairs. The fourth key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that there will be increasing political constraints
on en-route and in-theater access. Problems of basing for en-route and in-theater access will become of concern as the Asian states grow in confidence and
capability. For the moment, however, such problems have been held in check because of the continuing threats on the Korean peninsula and recent revitalization of the U.S.-Japanese security
Even if these and the

treaty. But these developments constitute only a reprieve, not an enduring solution. The availability of the Korean bases after unification is an open question.
Japanese bases continue to be available, their use will be increasingly restricted by the host
countries for routine training operations and especially for nontraditional out-of-area
operations. The recent difficulties caused by the refusal of the Gulf states to permit U.S. air
operations against Saddam Hussein will become the norm in the Asia-Pacific region as well. There
are already some indicators to this effect. For example, constitutional and legal restraints in the form of Article 9 could prevent Japan from providing access, logistical support, and
reinforcements in the context of crises in Asia. There is also relatively weak political support for all but the most narrow range of contingencies, as became evident in Japanese, Korean, and
Southeast Asian reluctance to support U.S. gunboat diplomacy during the recent (1995–1996) China-Taiwan face-off. Even the Southeast states, which benefit most from U.S. presence and
deterrent capabilities in the region, were conspicuously silent—and in some cases even undercut American efforts at restraining Chinese intimidation of Taiwan. Besides these growing
political constraints, the fact remains that in some feasible contingencies the U.S. Air Force will have little or no access whatsoever to some regions in Asia. The absence of air bases in
Southeast Asia and the northern Indian Ocean, for example, could threaten the execution of contingency plans involving either South Asia or Myanmar. The vast distances in the Asia-Pacific
region could come to haunt Air Force operations, because existing facilities at Diego Garcia and in the Persian Gulf are too far away for any but the most minimal operations. Increasing
political constrictions coupled with the sparse number of operating facilities available imply that even such potentially innovative U.S. Air Force solutions as the “air expeditionary force” and
“composite air wings” could run into show-stopping impediments beyond U.S. Air Force control. This, in turn, has four consequences. First, American policymakers should investigate the
possibility of securing additional air base access in Asia. The most attractive candidate, especially in the context of a rising China, is Cam Ran Bay in Vietnam. Other alternatives, especially
for contingencies in the Persian Gulf and the greater South Asian region, could include transit rights in India or Pakistan. Second, U.S. Air Force planners will have to devote relatively greater
resources to mobility assets and support platforms such as airborne tankers to keep a smaller combat force capable of long-distance operations. Third, planners must begin to give some
thought to novel technologies capable of mitigating the access and staging problem. These technologies can include, at the more radical end, floating air bases of the kind proposed by RAND
several decades ago, or at the more conservative technical end, more-efficient engines, longer-range aircraft, and the like. Fourth, U.S. Air Force planners must increasingly think in terms of
joint operations not merely at the cosmetic level, as in the cruise missile strikes against Iraq, but in terms of a true division of labor, especially in the early stages of a distant contingency. The
fifth key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that WMD-shadowed environments will pose new
operational challenges to air power. There is little doubt that the number of states possessing
different kinds of WMD will increase during the time frames examined in this report. While Russia,
China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan are the only nuclear-capable states in Asia at the moment, several other states likely are virtual nuclear
powers (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan), with Iran and Iraq in the wings. All these states are threatened by nuclear capabilities in some form, and
many will be able to mount nuclear threats of their own at some point. Although nuclear capabilities concentrate the mind in a way
that few other weapons do, chemical and biological weapons will also come in to their own,
and their use for either operations or terror may be even more probable. All three forms of
WMD, as well as radiological weapons, could be delivered by either ballistic or cruise missiles, advanced
combat aircraft, or unconventional means of delivery. These regional operating environments will thus become more complicated over
time. In this context, the U.S. Air Force will require both new capabilities and new concepts of operations for successful combat in such environments. These new capabilities include better
means of localizing WMD holdings at long range; better means of interdicting storage facilities, especially those relying on depth or dispersal for survival; and better means of effectively
intercepting WMD carriers if their prelaunch destruction is not possible. New concepts of operations involve devising and using better ways to continue combat operations amidst a WMD
environment, new forms of warfare including information warfare to subvert an adversary’s combat ca pability rather than physically destroying it, and, finally, new “nonlethal” weapons to
attain results previously attainable by lethal means alone.

76
AIR POWER IMPACT
Prolif in Asia causes big nuclear wars
Friedburg, 94 (Princeton University, Aaron, International Security, Winter, p. 8)
Assuming, for the moment that an Asia with more nuclear powers would be more stable than
one with fewer, there would still be serious difficulties involved in negotiating the transition to
such a world. As in other regions, small, nascent nuclear forces will be especially vulnerable to
preemption. In Japan the prevailing “nuclear allergy” could lead first to delays in acquiring
deterrent forces and then to a desperate and dangerous scramble for nuclear weapons. In Asia,
the prospects for a peaceful transition may be further complicated by the fact that the present
and potential nuclear powers are both numerous and strategically intertwined. The
nuclearization of Korea (North, South or, whether through reunification or competitive arms programs, both together) could lead to a similar
development in Japan, which might cause China to accelerate and expand its nuclear programs,
which could then have an impact on the defense policies of Taiwan, India (and through it,
Pakistan) and Russia (which would also be affected by events in Japan and Korea). All of this would influence the behavior of the United States. Similar
shockwaves could also travel through the system in different directions (for example, from India to China to Japan to
Korea). A rapid, multifaceted expansion in nuclear capabilities could increase the dangers of
misperception, miscalculation, and war.

77
MILITARY WILL LEASE
The military would become the anchor tenant for solar power from satellites and would tie
their activities in space together.
Boyle, Science Editor for MSNBC, winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society
Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the
Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, 2K7 (Alan, Oct. 12, MSNBC, “Power from space? Pentagon likes
the idea,” ln)
A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier
of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts' worth of solar power and beams it down to
Earth. The military itself could become the "anchor tenant" for such a power source, due to the
current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says. The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new
economic incentives would have to be put in place to "close the business case" for space-based
solar power systems - but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012. "I think we have found the killer
application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air
Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday.

78
TORNADOES IMPACT
Space based systems are key stop tornadoes- comparatively better than cloud seeding
The TSPS
The WSR-88D Doppler radar system has a beam width of 9 o and a typical resolution of 1km to 10 km. This would be adequate to locate a candidate mesocyclone.
would be designed with a Doppler radar imaging systems to identify and quantify the velocity
of the rain downdraft(2). The TSPS system must be able to distinguish rainwater densities of between 2 and 6 g/Kg. Spatial resolution of 10- 50 meters will be desirable.
At geosynchronous orbit, a 13.5GHz Doppler Radar with an aperture radius of about 3.1km
would give a focal spot radius of about 50 meters. For a 350-km altitude orbit, an aperture radius about 75 meters would give a focal spot
radius about 50 meters at 13.5 GHz. These dimensions are consistent with the required dimensions of the power
beam; therefore, the power beam antenna could have a diagnostic dual use. Microwave Doppler
radiometers with response time of less than 1 second could take real-time measurement of the
actual heating patterns. The information would be fed in real time into the numerical code to predict heating results. The beam direction and
intensity would be continuously corrected with the input data from the diagnostics. 8. SPACE SOLAR
POWER SYSTEMS A fundamental source of the microwave beam to interact with the cold rain
downdraft is expected to be a version of the solar power satellite invented by Dr. Peter Glaser (3,
). The overview capability of an orbiting system is an effective approach to locate, track and
direct energy into the sensitive region of the mesocyclone. Ground-based alternative systems
have little chance to be in an optimum position to interact with a threatening storm. Even so,
there are a number of potential design concepts that can be evaluated (6, ). 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
The TSPS development program might be

reduction). An initial version of TSPS could be much smaller than a commercial SPS.
integrated with that defined for commercial space solar power. For example, experiments for diagnostic purposes as described
above could be performed with the present International Space Station. One or two payloads of energy storage devices, such as batteries, could be trickle charged from the station's solar
panels. Heating times of 10 minutes could be provided by such a system, which is consistent with the orbit altitude of the space station. The demonstration problem
will be to find a suitable storm for interaction.

79
TORNADOES IMPACT
Tornadoes cause nuclear meltdowns

The Ecologist, 2K3 (Annie Birdsong, “re: what if the world trade centre had been a nuclear power station?” pg.
online @ www.theecologist.org/forumViewMessage.html?id=72)
Not only do we need to worry about terrorists attacking nuclear power plants, we must also
worry about tornados that cross their paths. Imagine what would have happened if the nuclear reactor on
campus at the University of Maryland, College Park, had been in the path of the deadly tornado that
ripped through the campus April 28, 2002, dashing a car into a dormitory, killing two students; damaging or destroying 12 buildings; damaging 600
cars; and ripping up 30 acres of trees. The tornado, which was the strongest in Maryland's history, came within
two miles of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Calvert County and destroyed a total of 861 homes, 561 vehicles and 23 businesses
in Prince George's and Howard counties.(1a) The Department of Nuclear Engineering's reactor is surrounded by a seven foot concrete wall, but perhaps the powerful winds
of the tornado could have dashed it or the control room into a building or rammed a telephone
pole into one of them. This could have caused the water that keeps the core cool to leak out,
making the uranium fuel turn molten white hot. The intense heat could have caused the steam
to build up pressure and explode the containment around the reactor. The core would have melted through the vessel several feet into the ground.(1b)
Plumes of radioactivity could have wafted across the surrounding cities spreading cancer to
people's bones, leukemia to their blood and poison to their lungs . Radioactive fallout particles, called isotopes, would have
fallen in the water. Some particles would have settled on the grass to be eaten by cows and other
animals, and made their way up and down the food chain. Radioactivity would then have shown up in the cows milk, as happened
after explosions of nuclear bombs during 700 or so weapons tests.(2),(3)
Extinction
Wasserman, 2K2 (Harvey, enior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service
“Nuclear Power and Terrorism,” Earth island Journal Spring 2002 Vol. 17, No.1)
at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps , natural
As
ecosystems would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially and
ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on
September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of
the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption
by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the
Are we
Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously?
committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate
the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

80
DRUG TRAFFICKING IMPACT
Weather Control solves drug trafficking

Standage, technology editor of the Economist and the author of A History of the World in Six Glasses (Walker &
Company), 2K3 (Tom, Activate Cloud Shield! Zap a Twister!, Starting now, lightning strikes - on demand, page @
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/weather_pr.html, )
illegal drugs aren't going away anytime soon. In fact, in the future they'll
If the US Air Force is to be believed,
only cause more problems, because the distributing cartels will have consolidated. They'll have
wealth, political power, and, instead of a few guys with submachine guns, entire armies. Picture,
then, a South American cartel of the mid-2090's. It maintains hundreds of fighter planes, thwarting attacks by
launching a dozen Russian- and Chinese-made aircraft for every one of ours. Our sole
advantage comes from a piece of military intelligence: Cartel pilots won't fly in harsh weather.
But this doesn't mean waiting around for the skies to turn - because by then, thunderstorms will
be made to order. First we launch uninhabited aerospace vehicles (UAVs), which, through advanced cloud-generation technology, disseminate cirrus clouds to
block enemy surveillance. Next we seed any one of the daily rain showers passing through the
region, intensifying it precisely over the target. Then we snuff out our blinded enemy.
Terrorism
Gray, co-chairman of Common Sense for Drug Policy, 2K1 (Mike, Drugs & Terrorism, page @
http://www.narcoterror.org/mike_oped.htm)
With the laudable goal of knocking the props out from under international terrorism, House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced last month that he has formed a task force to combat drug
The illegal drug trade," says Hastert, "is the financial engine that fuels many terrorist
trafficking. "
organizations around the world, including Osama Bin Laden." Unfortunately, the 48-member "Speaker's Task Force for a Drug
Free America" will be led by drug war hawks whose instincts are almost certain to make matters worse. Hastert and his co-chairmen are staunch supporters of current drug policy even though
three out of four Americans believe that policy has failed. Ironically, most of these lawmakers are champions of free-market capitalism and they'd be the first to admit that you can't mess with
the law of supply and demand. But in this one arena – drugs – they believe they can somehow repeal the most basic law of economics. History, logic, and recent experience suggest otherwise.
If, for example, we were somehow able to actually dent the drug supply -- something we have not managed so far with a $50-billion annual effort -- the price will just go up and so will the
profits. For 80 years we have been trying to wipe out illegal drugs by eliminating the supply, and year by year we have compounded the problem. When we began this crusade in 1914 we set
out to rid the world of the scourge of addiction, and after an incalculable expenditure of money and lives we have managed to increase the rate of addiction by 1500 percent. It turns out you
cannot alter the fundamental equation of economics, no matter how much money, force, or firepower you throw at it. Daredevil entrepreneurs, attracted by unimaginable profits, will find ways
to corrupt the system and expand their markets. It will be fairly easy, however, for Mr. Hastert and his colleagues to make things worse. Consider Colombia, one of our major partners in the
war on drugs, a country that is literally going down the drain right in front of us as revolutionaries, death squads, and corrupt army officers fight for control of the drug trade. Back in the 1980s
Colombia went through a horrifying bout with terrorism when the U.S. was chasing the notorious drug lord,
Pablo Escobar. Like Osama Bin Laden, Escobar considered human life expendable and he liked to blow
people up to get our attention. In his time, he killed hundreds of innocent people before the U.S. put together a secret Colombian commando force to track him
down. But the men in charge were so terrified of Escobar that they invited his underworld competitors to join the hunt -- another classic example of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
drug
When Escobar was finally gunned down, these other traffickers simply replaced him and they proved to be much more efficient. Today, despite our best efforts,
production in that luckless country is raging out of control. Colombian High Court Justice Gomez Hurtado has some shrapnel in his leg from
one of Escobar's bombs and he has something to tell us about terrorism. At a drug policy conference in Baltimore nearly a decade ago, Gomez Hurtado gave a chilling snapshot of the trouble
The income of the drug barons is greater than the American defense budget. With this
we're in. He said, "
financial power they can suborn the institutions of the State and, if the State resists... they can
purchase the firepower to outgun it. We are threatened with a return to the Dark Ages."
Extinction
Alexander, 2K (Yonah, Professor and Director, Inter-University Center for Terrorism, “Terrorism in the Twenty-
First Century: Threats and Responses,” DEPAUL BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Fall 1999/Spring 2000, p. 66-
67.)
More specifically, present-day terrorists have introduced into contemporary life a new scale of terror violence in terms of both threats and responses that has made clear that we have entered
Perhaps the most significant dangers

into an Age of Terrorism with all of its serious implications to national, regional, and global security concerns. n25
that evolve from modern day terrorism are those relating to the safety, welfare, and rights of
ordinary people; the stability of the state system; the health of economic (*67) development; the
expansion of democracy; and possibly the survival of civilization itself.

81
CRUISE MISSILES IMPACT
Weather control lets us control the ionosphere- increases intelligence, disrupts enemy
communications and space systems, and is key to cruise missile detection
House Et. Al, 96’ (Col Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr. LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj Ronald J.
Celentano, Maj David M. Husband, Maj Ann E. Mercer, Maj James E. Pugh, August, Weather as a Force
Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, A Research Paper Presented To Air Force 2025, page @
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm, )
Ionospheric mirrors for pinpoint communication or over-the-horizon (OTH) radar transmission. The properties and limitations of the ionosphere as a reflecting medium for high-frequency
radiation are described in appendix A. The major disadvantage in depending on the ionosphere to reflect radio waves is its variability, which is due to normal space weather and events such as
solar flares and geomagnetic storms. The ionosphere has been described as a crinkled sheet of wax paper whose relative position rises and sinks
depending on weather conditions. The surface topography of the crinkled paper also constantly changes,
leading to variability in its reflective, refractive, and transmissive properties. Creation of an artificial uniform ionosphere was first
proposed by Soviet researcher A. V. Gurevich in the mid-1970s. An artificial ionospheric mirror (AIM) would serve as a precise
mirror for electromagnetic radiation of a selected frequency or a range of frequencies. It would

thereby be useful for both pinpoint control of friendly communications and interception of
enemy transmissions. This concept has been described in detail by Paul A. Kossey, et al. in a paper entitled "Artificial Ionospheric Mirrors (AIM)." The authors describe
how one could precisely control the location and height of the region of artificially produced
ionization using crossed microwave (MW) beams, which produce atmospheric breakdown (ionization) of neutral species. The
implications of such control are enormous: one would no longer be subject to the vagaries of
the natural ionosphere but would instead have direct control of the propagation environment .
Ideally, the AIM could be rapidly created and then would be maintained only for a brief operational period. A schematic depicting the crossed-beam approach for generation of an AIM is
shown in figure 4-1. An AIM could theoretically reflect radio waves with frequencies up to 2 GHz,
which is nearly two orders of magnitude higher than those waves reflected by the natural
ionosphere. The MW radiator power requirements for such a system are roughly an order of magnitude greater than 1992 state-of-the-art systems; however, by 2025 such a power
capability is expected to be easily achievable. Besides providing pinpoint communication control and potential interception capability, this
technology would also provide communication capability at specified frequencies, as desired. Figure 4-2
shows how a ground-based radiator might generate a series of AIMs, each of which would be tailored to reflect a selected transmission frequency. Such an arrangement would greatly expand
the available bandwidth for communications and also eliminate the problem of interference and crosstalk (by allowing one to use the requisite power level). Kossey et al. also describe how
AIMs could be used to improve the capability of OTH radar: AIM based radar could be operated at a
frequency chosen to optimize target detection, rather than be limited by prevailing ionospheric conditions. This, combined with the
possibility of controlling the radar's wave polarization to mitigate clutter effects, could result in reliable detection of cruise missiles and
other low observable targets. A schematic depicting this concept is shown in figure 4-3. Potential advantages over conventional OTH radars include frequency
control, mitigation of auroral effects, short range operation, and detection of a smaller cross-section target. Disruption of communications and radar via ionospheric control. A variation of the
Because HF communications are

capability proposed above is ionospheric modification to disrupt an enemy's communication or radar transmissions.
controlled directly by the ionosphere's properties, an artificially created ionization region could
conceivably disrupt an enemy's electromagnetic transmissions. Even in the absence of an artificial ionization patch, high-
frequency modification produces large-scale ionospheric variations which alter HF propagation characteristics. The payoff of research aimed at understanding how to control these variations
could be high as both HF communication enhancement and degradation are possible. Offensive interference
of this kind would likely be indistinguishable from naturally occurring space weather. This capability
could also be employed to precisely locate the source of enemy electromagnetic transmissions. VHF, UHF, and super-high frequency (SHF) satellite communications
could be disrupted by creating artificial ionospheric scintillation. This phenomenon causes fluctuations in the phase and
amplitude of radio waves over a very wide band (30 MHz to 30 GHz). HF modification produces electron density irregularities that cause scintillation over a wide-range of frequencies. The
size of the irregularities determines which frequency band will be affected. Understanding how to control the spectrum of the artificial irregularities generated in the HF modification process
it may be possible to suppress the growth of natural

should be a primary goal of research in this area. Additionally,
irregularities resulting in reduced levels of natural scintillation. Creating artificial scintillation

would allow us to disrupt satellite transmissions over selected regions. Like the HF disruption described above, such
actions would likely be indistinguishable from naturally occurring environmental events. Figure 4-4 shows how artificially ionized regions might be used to disrupt HF communications via
The
attenuation, scatter, or absorption (fig. 4.4a) or degrade satellite communications via scintillation or energy loss (fig. 4-4b). Exploding/disabling space assets traversing near-space.
ionosphere could potentially be artificially charged or injected with radiation at a certain point
so that it becomes inhospitable to satellites or other space structures. The result could range
from temporarily disabling the target to its complete destruction via an induced explosion. Of course,
effectively employing such a capability depends on the ability to apply it selectively to chosen regions in space.

82
Cruise Missile defense solves WMD war and terrorism

Kueter, President, The George C. Marshall Institute, and Kier, Vice President, Lockheed Martin Corporation,
2K7 (Jeff and David, July 9, The Cruise Missile Challenge, Marshall Institute, page @
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/557.pdf, )
So what is a cruise missile? There are two broad categories of cruise missiles. One is the anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) and the other is the land-attack cruise missile (LACM). Anti-ship cruise missiles use radar and other heat-seeking sensors to find and strike their targets. Land-attack
cruise missiles, on the other hand, are a greater worry because they are equipped with much more precise
navigational equipment, including Global Positioning System capabilities and ground map
terrain following systems, which allow them to fly at much lower altitudes, follow the terrain-following path and
accurately strike land targets ranging from individual buildings to entire cities . The ability to strike at a distance of twenty-five
2,200 miles is more than enough for a cruise missile to fly from
miles allows them to attack virtually any ship that can be seen on the horizon. But in contrast,
Tehran to Moscow or from Moscow to Paris. Further compounding the range variability is the fact that these
terrain-hugging, air-breathing vehicles, take circuitous routes to their target, allowing them to slip around and
behind defenses. They employ virtually every form of guidance technology available, which increases the accuracy of their systems and that accuracy rating has increased
markedly in recent years. The commercial availability of GPS and the Russian GLONASS as well as the
future European Galileo and now even a Chinese plan to deploy a navigation system, reduce
the barriers to entry to accessing more accurate navigational aids. One estimate is that the
widespread availability of these satellite navigation systems will allow Third World countries
to leapfrog fifteen years of development to deploy these fairly accurate cruise missiles.
Integration of these capabilities can also be done cheaply. Estimates suggest that you can put these
capabilities on a cruise missile for $50 to $150 thousand per missile using capabilities that are
drawn from the commercial market.
A U.S. Army estimate from the mid-1990s suggested that for an investment of about $50 million, a country could purchase at least 100 cruise missiles. That estimate is now more than ten
years old and has undoubtedly changed, but with the entrance of new players into the marketplace , there is without question a robust and cost-
competitive market place for buyers , whole systems as well as the component technology and manufacturing capability needed to indigenously produce these systems. The knowledge of what is necessary to modify
you can even download some instructions off the

existing stocks of anti-ship cruise missiles into the more accurate land-attack cruise missiles is widely available. In fact
internet. Importantly, the greatest barriers to LACM proliferation, the detailed mapping databases, the sophisticated computers and memory
required to accurately designate and home in land targets, has all but disappeared with the recent advent of GPS guidance, GPS-based
maps, GoogleEarth and the latest generation of commercial off-the-shelf computers and memory
technology. Cruise missile arsenals are growing quickly. The National Air and Space Intelligence Center concludes, “The
cruise missile threat to U.S. forces will increase over the next decade.” That is from their most recent assessment
published just a few years ago. That is based on the fact that indigenous manufacturing capability had expanded rapidly in recent years. Seventy countries possess
75,000 anti-ship cruise missiles; nineteen countries can manufacture them indigenously and
eleven countries provide them for export, including Iran, China, North Korea and Russia. The
knowledge to refit an anti-ship cruise missile into the more accurate land-attack cruise missile
has expanded rapidly, allowing the proliferation rate for land-attack cruise missiles to increase
quite dramatically. Twelve countries can produce them indigenously today and that is up from only three in 1998.
The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded spending on research and development and production of these more accurate land-attack cruise missiles is outpacing the anti-ship variety,
which means that those nations that are able to produce LACMS are shifting most of their resources into the production of those systems and away from the less accurate anti-ship missiles.
The DIA concludes thatChina will have hundreds of LACMS in their arsenal by 2030; advanced Russian missiles
are now in Iran; France is exporting variants of its Apache; and Pakistan is developing the
Babur. cruise missiles may become the weapon of choice for our peer competitors as well
In my view,
as for terrorist groups. cruise missiles offer air power without having an air force by
For peer competitors,
providing a strategic reach, meaning reach at a distance at relatively low cost with great likelihood of success. Given the limited availability and immaturity of
defenses against them, it becomes highly attractive for a peer competitor to invest in cruise missile
capability to not only provide national security functions that otherwise would be provided by
aircraft, but also to restrict the freedom of access for U.S. forces that might be operating in a
particular theater. If cruise missiles continue to serve their traditional naval suppression role, which is why they were developed first during the Cold War, they are
a continuing threat to our

83
<Kueter and Kier Continue>

naval operations. For terrorists, cruise missiles can hold cities and overseas bases at risk. I think
they are an effective instrument of terror. Why? Because they can deliver both conventional
warheads as well as weapons of mass destruction. Now while their weapons of mass destruction
capability fall below the threshold of most ballistic missiles, the fact that they are more accurate
and easier to hide may make them more attractive to terrorists. They are much more effective
delivery devices for chemical and biological weapons, according to some analyses, because they take a flat
flight path as opposed to the more ballistic trajectory. Additionally the ability to put even a low-grade
conventional warhead on one of these systems and strike anywhere along the eastern seaboard
of the U S provides nited tates terrorists with a great terror weapon against the United States. Whether they actually strike a city like Washington or New York or they land one on a beach on a sunny holiday afternoon during the summertime, I think a
cruise missile attack would be enough to show the vulnerability of the United States and strike terror into the hearts and minds of our population. They are also an instrument for changing political calculations here and abroad. By holding allied populations at risk, terrorists or other
adversaries can use the threat of cruise missile attack as a means to blackmail or coerce otherwise friendly nations to withhold or restrict support to the United States by denying access to bases or airspace, for example. Strategically placed systems at key choke points such as the Panama
Ca-nal or the Straits of Hormuz could paralyze international commerce and raise appre-hensions worldwide. And finally, the use or threatened use against the U.S. homeland or military bases overseas is an all-too-real consideration. Let’s talk about the homeland defense problem,
acquistion of these systems by terrorists or their supporting states is

specifically the wide area of homeland defense problem. The
inevitable. Indeed, it is already a reality, as was proven by Hezbollah’s use of anti-ship cruise
missiles in the July 2006 war in Lebanon. There was no return address to go after. A successful terrorist leadership cadre
could view cruise missiles launched from a container ship at an American city as a very
successful strategy. Figure 2 shows you that most standard varieties of anti-ship cruise missiles can easily fit into a standard
cargo container placed on any of hundreds, if not thousands, of commerical vessels that lie in
the waters around the U.S. every day. The use of commercial vessels to serve as a launch base platform for cruise missiles is widely discussed in the
national security community. Cargo vessels equipped with cruise mis-sile launchers hidden inside standard
shipping containers or from within the cargo hold itself, are considered possible by the intelligence community. In 2002,
then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld warned of the possibility of terrorists using a rudimentary cruise missile against homeland targets. A 2004 Defense Science Board study examining the
roles of the Defense Department in homeland se-curity concluded, “ocean vessels, cruise missiles, and low-flying aircraft are credible de-livery systems available to adversaries” and urged the
the United States Air Force issued a request for

DOD to undertake more ad-vanced defensive efforts to counter those threats. Just last year,
information to address “high priority capability gaps” includ-ing how to respond to “a rogue
maritime platform” that fires a cruise missile off the coast of Maryland “targeting major
metropolitan areas.” In 2003, two former Na-tional Security Council staffers wrote of such a scenario, noting that Al Qaeda is re-ported to have
fifteen freighters at its disposal for use as possible launch platforms. There are a thousand
commercial vessels within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coast every twenty-four hours. Each
ship contains hundreds of containers and tons of material. Even if the missiles were not hidden,
finding a ship carrying a cruise missile is a daunting task. The scope of the search for such equipment close to the United States is
problematic. My colleague David Kiers has noted that locating a vessel 500 nautical miles off the coast of the U.S. requires
searching three million square miles of ocean. Even if we relied on our intelligence capabilities to detect when an adversary might want to engage
in this scenario, finding the particular vessel with the particular cargo container is a daunting challenge. Figure 3 is a rough approximation of what a cruise missile with a 250-mile at-tack
A missile carrying a nuclear, biological or even conventional

radius might be able to hit along the coast of the United States.
warhead would bring devastating physical as well as psychological damage to the U nited States
population. So what do you do about it? In our view, there are four basic approaches to re-sponding to the cruise missile challenge: Non-proliferation, Pre-emption, Passive De-fense and
active defense needs

Active Defense. All have their limitations; any comprehensive strategy needs to take advantage of all four. I will run through why we believe that an
to become a larger part of U.S. strategy, while listing the one major limitation for each of the first three. Our principal response strategy against cruise
missiles today and their proliferation is, of course, the non-proliferation regime. But as the earlier data that I put up demonstrated, the widespread availability of
completed systems as well as component technology in the international marketplace has

rendered our ability to rely on a non-proliferation regime exclusively a moot point . Pre-emption is an op-tion
as well. If we knew which cargo ship was carrying the cruise missiles, we would be able to deploy
our naval forces or aircraft to interdict that vessel , but understanding where those systems are at a particular point in time is a problematic strategy, particu-larly if the rate of proliferation
continues as we have seen them. Passive defense offers the opportunity to protect critical assets along the coastline, but we can’t protect every-thing. If our adversaries begin to use these systems as weapons of terror rather than as instruments of strategic power projection, then the ability
to defend passive targets be-comes much more difficult. So in our view, only the construction of an active defense ensures the ability to intercept and destroy cruise missiles after they have been
There are no plans in progress to deploy

launched. So where are these defenses? The United States is principally focused on de-fending points in space.
wide-area cruise missile defenses, nor are there any plans or budget to do so. The concerns
remain fo-cused on point defenses. Again in the most recent issue of Inside Missile Defense dated July 4, there is a discussion of a provision in the new
defense bill that continues that focus on fleet defense. It goes so far as to say that the Navy and others haven’t been focusing enough on fleet defense against advanced cruise missile systems.
Prob-lematic in its own right, but it also indicates that there doesn’t appear to be an appre-ciation of the asymmetric scenario or the more expanded proliferation of land-attack cruise missiles.
In short, no one in the U.S. defense establishment appears to “have the ball,” nor is there budget for it. Thank you for your time.

84
WEATHER CONTROL NOT CRAZY
Weather control is not crazy
Fitrakis, Professor of Political Science in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at Columbus State
Community College, as well as the Editor of The Free Press, Ph.D in political science from Wayne State University
and a J.D. from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, 2K2 (Fitrakis, February 5, When the Army owns
the Weather, Columbus Alive, page @ http://www.alternet.org/story/12342/, )
Humans have long sought to control the weather. Early people learned how to make fire and
modify their micro-environments; rain dances and other rituals to alleviate droughts are part of
our folklore. So news that the government is engaged in secret experiments to control the
weather should come as no surprise -- especially after a long history of "cloud seeding," "atom
splitting" and cloning revelations. In fact, a vast majority of people would be shocked to learn that this orphan of the cold war
is still in practice. As the U.S. and former Soviet Union spent trillions of dollars on their militaries, their commitment to mutually
assured destruction led to extensive experimentation with the use of weather as a weapon. In 1977, the
Saturday Review cited a CIA report hinting that the U.S. government already had the power to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, a 1993
Isvestia article suggested the U.S. might want to partner with the Russians in peddling their top-secret technology to the world. Oleg Klugin, a high-ranking KGB officer, bragged of his
involvement in geophysical weapons research to a London newspaper. The grid patterns of jet chemtrails now spotted throughout
the Western world are likely the application of these technologies to new military and civilian
uses. The military is not attempting to hide its long-term goals. "Weather is a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" is
a white paper that can be found on a Pentagon-sponsored website. The paper's abstract reads: "In 2025, U.S. aerospace forces can 'own the weather'
by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies

towards fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighters tools to shape the battle
space in ways never before possible In the U.S., weather modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and
international applications."

85
CHINESE/RUSSIA WEATHER WAR SCENARIO
The world is on the brink of the biggest strategic conflict in history! Supposed U.S. weather
control operations from Alaska have ignited a miscalcalutated weather conflict between the
U.S., Russis, and China
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, 6/21/2K8 (‘Stop Now Or We’ll Bury You’, China Warns US As
Weather War Intensifies, page @
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/new_world_order/news.php?q=1214102097, )
the head of China’s Central Military Commission, General Guo Boxiong,

Russian Military Analysts are reporting to the Kremlin today that
has ‘warned’ the United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to ‘immediately stop targeting China or
we will bury you’. As we had previously reported on in our June 17 report, ‘Weather Wars’ Pummel US-China Heartlands, India In Total Chaos, the United States and
th
China have been pummeling each other from their respective billion watt over-the-horizon radar systems located in China’s Lop Nor and the US’ Alaskan tundra. Such catastrophic damage
has occurred due to this conflict that China has reported over 176 deaths due to massive flooding, and the United States has reported over 24 deaths with billions more in crop damage to their
China’s latest warnings, however, these reports state, are due to

most vital growing regions threatening Global food price rises of unprecedented amounts.
what the Chinese Military is saying is the United States ‘deliberate steering’ of Typhoon Fengshen
towards the South China Sea after its deadly rampage through the Philippines. Both Russian and Chinese scientists have
long stated that the United States has ‘perfected’ its abilities to direct the paths of cyclonic storms and
give as the latest example the ‘steering’ of Typhoon Nargis into Myanmar, and which left nearly 200,000 dead in that embattled oil rich Nation, and which ‘conveniently’ both US and French
Of the greatest fears, however, of China’s warning to the US is that like

warships were ‘positioned’ near its coast to provide ‘aid’.
they blame the Americans for doing to them, and as we had previously reported on in our May 30 report “China Orders Strike Against US For th
Catastrophic Earthquake”, the Chinese by increasing the wattage of their attack radar are able to, also, inflict
a catastrophic earthquake upon the North American Continent. Canadian researcher, and former Asia-
Pacific Bureau Chief of Forbes Magazine, Benjamin Fulford, and as we had, also, previously reported on, has warned of these attacks, and
based upon the strange multicoloured clouds that form in the ionosphere preceding the
‘heating’ of our Earth’s ionosphere by these radar weapons, Russian President Medvedev has
ordered Russia’s Strategic Bombers to begin patrols of the Arctic Regions where the first
evidence of an attack will be spotted.

86
WEATHER CONTROL KEY TO HEG
Weather mod is key to readiness- multiplies U.S. forces and degrades opponents
In 2025, US aerospace forces can "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and
focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability
offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides
opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all
possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a
detailed technical road map. A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom . While some segments
of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-

modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at
our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-
scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications
and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible
options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander
in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1. Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling
techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and
others may be developed and refined in the future. Table 1 - Operational Capabilities Matrix
DEGRADE ENEMY FORCES

Precipitation Enhancement ENHANCE FRIENDLY FORCES
Precipitation Avoidance
- Flood Lines of Communication
- Maintain/Improve LOC
- Reduce PGM/Recce Effectiveness
- Maintain Visibility
- Decrease Comfort Level/Morale
Storm Enhancement - Maintain Comfort Level/Morale
Storm Modification
- Deny Operations
Precipitation Denial - Choose Battlespace Environment
Space Weather
- Deny Fresh Water
-Improve Communication Reliability
- Induce Drought
Space Weather - Intercept Enemy Transmissions
- Disrupt Communications/Radar - Revitalize Space Assets
Fog and Cloud Generation
- Disable/Destroy Space Assets
Fog and Cloud Removal - Increase Concealment
Fog and Cloud Removal
- Deny Concealment
- Maintain Airfield Operations
-Increase Vulnerability to
PGM/Recce - Enhance PGM Effectiveness
Detect Hostile Weather Activities Defend against Enemy Capabilities
Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the
necessary resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects , at least on
the local scale. Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses
that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-
modification ability into a capability. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic
and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. These levels could include unilateral actions, participation in a security
framework such as NATO, membership in an international organization such as the UN, or participation in a coalition. Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes weather-
Besides the significant benefits an operational capability

modification, its use in our national military strategy will naturally follow.
would provide, another motivation to pursue weather-modification is to deter and counter

potential adversaries. In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined.
In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness. "The technology is there, waiting for us to pull
it all together;" in 2025 we can "Own the Weather."

87
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
WEATHER CONTROL KEY TO HEG
Weather control is the MOST IMPORTANT factor is military readiness- it multiplies ground
AND air forces
As we leap technology into the 21st century, we will be able to
According to Gen Gordon Sullivan, former Army chief of staff, "
see the enemy day or night, in any weather- and go after him relentlessly." A global, precise, real-time, robust, systematic
weather-modification capability would provide war-fighting CINCs with a powerful force
multiplier to achieve military objectives. Since weather will be common to all possible futures,
a weather-modification capability would be universally applicable and have utility across the
entire spectrum of conflict. The capability of influencing the weather even on a small scale
could change it from a force degrader to a force multiplier. People have always wanted to be able to do something about the
weather. In the US, as early as 1839, newspaper archives tell of people with serious and creative ideas on how to make rain. In 1957, the president's advisory committee on weather control
weather-modification, warning in their report that it could become a more important

explicitly recognized the military potential of
weapon than the atom bomb. However, controversy since 1947 concerning the possible legal consequences arising from the deliberate alteration of large
storm systems meant that little future experimentation could be conducted on storms which had the potential to reach land. In 1977, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution prohibiting
the hostile use of environmental modification techniques. The resulting "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Technique
(ENMOD)" committed the signatories to refrain from any military or other hostile use of weather-modification which could result in widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. While these
two events have not halted the pursuit of weather-modification research, they have significantly inhibited its pace and the development of associated technologies, while producing a primary
The influence of the weather on military operations has long been

focus on suppressive versus intensification activities.
recognized. During World War II, Eisenhower said, in Europe bad weather is the worst enemy of the air (operations ). Some
soldier once said, "The weather is always neutral." Nothing could be more untrue. Bad weather is obviously the enemy of the side that seeks to launch projects requiring good weather, or of
strong air forces, which depend upon good weather for effective operations.
the side possessing great assets, such as
If really bad weather should endure permanently, the Nazis would need nothing else to defend the Normandy coast! The impact of weather has also been
important in more recent military operations. A significant number of the air sorties into Tuzla
during the initial deployment supporting the Bosnian peace operation aborted due to weather.
During Operation Desert Storm, Gen Buster C. Glosson asked his weather officer to tell him which
targets would be clear in 48 hours for inclusion in the air tasking order (ATO). But current
forecasting capability is only 85 percent accurate for no more than 24 hours, which doesn't
adequately meet the needs of the ATO planning cycle. Over 50 percent of the F-117 sorties
weather aborted over their targets and A-10s only flew 75 of 200 scheduled close air support
(CAS) missions due to low cloud cover during \he first two days of the campaign. The application of weather-
modification technology to clear a hole over the targets long enough for F-117s to attack and
place bombs on target or clear the fog from the runway at Tuzla would have been a very effective
force multiplier. Weather-modification clearly has potential for military use at the operational
level to reduce the elements of fog and friction for friendly operations and to significantly
increase them for the enemy.
88
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
WEATHER CONTOL KEY TO MILITARY SUPPLY LINES
Weather control provides unique strategic advantages to our forces- interrupt enemy supply
lines while maintaining our own
a new
For centuries man has desired the ability to influence precipitation at the time and place of his choosing. Until recently, success in achieving this goal has been minimal; however,
window of opportunity may exist resulting from development of new technologies and an increasing
world interest in relieving water shortages through precipitation enhancement. Consequently, we advocate that the DOD
explore the many opportunities (and also the ramifications) resulting from development of a capability to influence
precipitation or conducting "selective precipitation modification." Although the capability to influence precipitation over the long term (i.e., for more than several days) is still not
fully understood. By 2025 we will certainly be capable of increasing or decreasing precipitation over the short term in a localized area. Before discussing research
in this area, it is important to describe the benefits of such a capability. While many military
operations may be influenced by precipitation, ground mobility is most affected. Influencing
precipitation could prove useful in two ways. First, enhancing precipitation could decrease the
enemy's trafficability by muddying terrain, while also affecting their morale. Second,
suppressing precipitation could increase friendly trafficability by drying out an otherwise
muddied area.
89
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
HEG IMPACT- KAGAN 7’
American leadership is vital to preventing global nuclear conflicts in every region of the world
Kagan, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2K7 (Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of
History”, 7/19, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html, )
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with
the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other
nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the
the
ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world's powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law,
unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real
world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great
powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others
value. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way of regression
toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a
world that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by
those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. The
return of great powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of
the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for
wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably
could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of
competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other.
the
National ambition drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world,
Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional
position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is passé; hence their now two-
decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less.
Japan, meanwhile,
Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation.
now appears embarked on

which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -- with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending --
a more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and
concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not
to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to
predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy
history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian
Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth
future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past.
is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and
century. It
ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU
and NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's
international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations,
including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States,
the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons
system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world;
India
indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations.
's regional ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly
engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great
power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much
about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition
to play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction.
Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and
economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. Islam is not a nation, but many
Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam, including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass
a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity
has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of humiliation."
Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor
fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which
implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic
and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and
now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the
Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as
is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East

the predominant global power, it
and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern
Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to
acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are
remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left
alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second
Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is

defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system.
international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance
prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance.
90
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
HEG IMPACT- KAGAN 7’
<Kagan Continues>
Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest
power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past:
sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One
novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear
weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also
dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant
naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of
international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of
Conflict
the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond.
between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of
the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that
is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union,
that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most
Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that
Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today
the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely
multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who
believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today
exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that
's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of
power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United
States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that
international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The
Even under the umbrella of

current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world's great powers.
unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between
China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and
its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does
conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states . These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States.
Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the U nited States
weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance . This is especially true in East Asia, where
most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the
region. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the
dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the
scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more
overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its peripher y. Although some realist theorists
seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American
If the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it

role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism.
adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -- this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict
involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable
circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the
Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater
stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that
American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the
magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American
commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of
In the Middle East, competition for influence

American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation.
among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise
of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening
dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq
would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further
competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be
followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by
both China and Russia , if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily
take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new
instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations
and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
91
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: YOU MAKE SPS NOT TSPS
Their argument is just semantics- it’s the same technology

A solar power satellite is proposed as the source of the microwave beam for interaction with the
thunderstorm(8, 10It is envisioned as a small version of a Solar Power Satellite as proposed by Dr.
Peter Glaser. The name Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite (TSPS) focuses on the weather
modification aspect. Initial concept requirements were presented at the "Workshop on Space Exploration and Resource Exploitation-Explospace, 20-22 October, 1998,
)
Cagliari, Sardinia(1 . This limited systems analysis indicates that power levels on the order of 5 x 10 8 to 1010 watts might prevent tornado formation in smaller mesocyclones. These results
are based on numerical simulation of mesocyclones using the Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS) code at the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms Center (CAPS) at the
University of Oklahoma. The ARPS simulation indicated the potential to interact with the super cell cyclone. The cold rain downdraft was effectively dissolved in the computer simulation.
92
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: NOT GOOD ENOUGH WEATHER PREDICTIONS
They’re evidence isn’t looking forward- status quo research dramatically improves our
prediction capabilities
The GWN is envisioned to be an evolutionary expansion of the current military and civilian
worldwide weather data network. By 2025, it will be a super high-speed, expanded bandwidth,
communication network filled with near-real-time weather observations taken from a denser
and more accurate worldwide observation network resulting from highly improved ground, air,
maritime, and space sensors. The network will also provide access to forecast centers around
the world where sophisticated, tailored forecast and data products, generated from weather
prediction models (global, regional, local, specialized, etc.) based on the latest nonlinear mathematical techniques
are made available to GWN customers for near-real-time use. By 2025, we envision that weather prediction models, in general,
and mesoscale weather-modification models, in particular, will be able to emulate all-weather producing variables , along with
their interrelated dynamics, and prove to be highly accurate in stringent measurement trials against empirical
data. The brains of these models will be advanced software and hardware capabilities which
can rapidly ingest trillions of environmental data points, merge them into usable data bases,
process the data through the weather prediction models, and disseminate the weather
information over the GWN in near-real-time. This network is depicted schematically in figure 3-1. Evidence of the
evolving future weather modeling and prediction capability as well as the GWN can be seen in the
national oceanic and atmospheric administration's (NOAA) 1995-2005 strategic plan. It includes
program elements to "advance short-term warning and forecast services, implement seasonal to
inter-annual climate forecasts, and predict and assess decadal to centennial change;" it does not,
however, include plans for weather-modification modeling or modification technology
development. NOAA's plans include extensive data gathering programs such as Next Generation Radar
(NEXRAD) and Doppler weather surveillance systems deployed throughout the US. Data from these sensing
systems feed into over 100 forecast centers for processing by the Advanced Weather Interactive
Processing System (AWIPS), which will provide data communication, processing, and display
capabilities for extensive forecasting. In addition, NOAA has leased a Cray C90 supercomputer capable of performing over 1.5x1010 operations per
second that has already been used to run a Hurricane Prediction System.
93
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
SATELLITES HAVE EARTH MONITORING SENSORS
SPS would maintain the same sensors as other satellites- communications, direct TV, and
earth sensing
2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware, Co-chair of the Fifth and Sixth Foresight Conferences on
It is desirable to do as little maintenance of solar power satellites as possible with people because the structure is
not designed to provide life support for them. Also, the huge size of the satellite makes the amount of work one person can do negligible compared to a machine. For maintenance of a 5-20
GW photovoltaic power satellite a crew of less than 6 people is projected. For a thermal conversion power satellite more people are needed since there are more moving parts, but a crew of
less than 50 is enough for a 10 GW satellite. The repair crew is housed in a small shack or "caboose" near the center of the satellite and rotated periodically to the habitat.
Because the satellite is a cheap stable orbital platform in sight of Earth all the time it also has
on it packages of Earth-sensing instruments, direct broadcast TV stations, and communications
links. Most of this equipment is located near the "caboose," so that the maintenance crew can take care of these units as well.
The major force on an SSPS is the gravity gradient torque. The amount of propellant required for station keeping depends upon the satellite's mass distribution and upon the station-keeping
strategy adopted.
94
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: SPACE MIL BAD
DoD wont use as a weapon and it wouldn’t work anyway. Their fear mongering makes our
impacts inevitable
When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a
spacebased solar power (SBSP) satellite, people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful
weapon?” Depending on their bias that could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to space. But the
NSSO is not interested in spacebased solar power as a weapon. 1. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments
capabilities. Its motivation for studying SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a reasonable
cost anywhere in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of infrastructure
needed to support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current
sources become increasingly costly. 2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does
not already exist in much less expensive options. For example, the nation already has working ICBMs
with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy large enemy targets. 3. SBSP is
not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that
reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sunlight; a worker could safely walk in the
center of the beam. The physics of microwave transmission and deliberate safe-design of the
transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre-determined maximum intensity
level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam
can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted . 4. SBSP
would not be a precision weapon. Today’s militaries are looking for more precise and lower
collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth
orbit is just too wide to shoot individual targets—even if the intensity were sufficient to cause
harm. 5. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing technical expertise in its military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict
between great powers over energy scarcity, lessens the need to intervene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty to prevent the spawn of
Solving the long-term energy scarcity problem is too

terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change.
vital to the world’s future to have it derailed by a misconception that space solar power might
somehow be used as a weapon. That is why it is so important to educate people about this
technology and to continue to conduct the research in an open environment.
95
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: NOT POSSIBLE
Solar power in space is now feasible

Foust, 2K7 (Jeff, editor of Space Review, August 13, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1)
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
Those concepts, he
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.
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.”
SPS is feasible and can solve current energy demand

Spies, 2K7(October 15, “Pentagon researching feasibility of space-based, strategic solar power array,”
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/7234-pentagon-researching-feasibility-of-space-based-strategic-solar-power-array/)
The National Security Space Office (a division of the Pentagon) released a report recently looking at the feasibility of building a massive solar array in Earth's orbit, that could beam power to
the planet. The primary motivation for this research seems to be the general uneasiness military commanders have with relying solely on fossil fuels for the power and fuel requirements.
"Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the
21st century is a high priority for the Department of Defense. All solution options to these
challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space," the publicly released report begins. The feasibility
analysis suggests building a giant space-based solar collector may be a good way to deliver power to
the Earth. Echoing ideas put forth in science fiction (first by Asimov over 50 years ago), the solar array is now a much better looking
proposition as new solar power technology has raised efficiency of solar cells to around the
%40 mark (%40 of the solar energy striking recent photovoltaic cells can be converted to usable energy). The energy potential is huge, as this
following graphic shows, in one year's worth of orbit, an array of the magnitude proposed by
the report would be able to collect as much energy potential as there is available in the entire
world's supply of recoverable oil. The array is technically feasible, the report states. It does not require any massive breakthroughs in
science -- this could be built within 10 years. "The Sun is a giant fusion reactor, conveniently located some 150 million km from the Earth, radiating 2.3 billion times more energy than what
strikes the disk of the Earth, which itself is more energy in a hour than all human civilization directly uses in a year, and it will continue to produce energy for billions of years," says the
weakness of relying on foreign energy reserves is reiterated: "the U.S Department of

report. And again, further on the report, the
Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical need for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery
to the war-fighter." While the idea seems to make so much practical sense that it would probably not be undertaken in regular circumstances, because the expense
could be justified as the price required for securing near limitless energy for the military might
of the U.S armed forces, maybe -- just maybe -- politicians may actually consider embarking on such a monumental project.
96
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: CANT CONNECT TO GRID
They’re wrong
Shinohara, PhD in engineering, Associate Professor Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere (RISH) ,
Kyoto University, 2K5 (N., Wireless Power Transmission for Solar Power Satellite (SPS), page @
http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/wptshinohara.pdf, )
SPS will be on the order of GW. It delivers significant electric power, and can
It is widely assumed that a commercially feasible
contribute to any national power grid. The technology for connection to the grid already exists,
although the output of the SPS is a direct current. The output of thermal or nuclear power plant is an AC, because they must first drive a kind
of turbine-generators. The SPS will be steady state base power system without CO2 emission. Its output is
predictable. We have no problems economically and technologically with connecting the SPS
to an existent power grid. Moreover, a GW class power plant is similar to a nuclear power plant or
large hydropower plant. Most of the grid connection issues, therefore, are the same.
97
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: MICROWAVES FRY PEOPLE
SPS microwaves are low intensity

Buisiness Wire, 2K8 (7/11, Microwave Power Transmission Market Potential - Available Now, Nexis, )
Microwave power transmission (MPT) is the use of microwaves to transmit power through outer
space or the atmosphere without the need for wires. It is a sub-type of the more general wireless energy transfer methods, and is the most
interesting because microwave devices offer the highest efficiency of conversion between DC electricity
and microwave radiative power. Following World War II, which saw the development of high-power microwave emitters known as cavity magnetrons, the
idea of using microwaves to transmit power was researched. In 1964, William C. Brown demonstrated a miniature helicopter equipped with a combination antenna and rectifier device called a
rectenna. The rectenna converted microwave power into electricity, allowing the helicopter to fly. In principle, the rectenna is capable of very high conversion efficiencies - over 90% in
The common reaction to microwave transmission is one of concern, as microwaves

optimal circumstances.
are generally perceived by the public as dangerous forms of radiation - stemming from the fact
that they are used in microwave ovens. While high power microwaves can be painful and
dangerous as in the United States Military's Active Denial System, MPT systems are generally proposed
to have only low intensity at the rectenna. MPT is the most commonly proposed method for
transferring energy to the surface of the Earth from solar power satellites or other in-orbit
power sources.
No heat- SPS systems have special heat reduction systems

Heat reduction is most important problem in space. All lost power converts to heat. We need
special heat reduction system in space. If we use high efficient microwave transmitters, we can
reduce weight of heat reduction system. We should aim for over 80 % efficiency for the
microwave transmitter, which must include all loss in phase shifters, isolators, antennas, power
circuits. Especially, the SPS is a power station in space, therefore, heat reduction will be a serious problem(28).
98
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A: MICROWAVES BURN HOLES IN THE ATMOSPHERE
Less that 10 GHz wont affect the atmosphere

effect of atmosphere to microwave is quite small. There are absorption and scatter by air,
In general,
rain, and irregularity of air refraction ratio. In 2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHz, the absorption by water
vapor and oxygen dominate the effect in the air . Especially, it is enough to consider only absorption
by the oxygen in the microwave frequency. It is approximately 0.007 dB/km(27). In the SPS case, the amount of
total absorption through the air from space is approximately 0.035 dB(28). When elevation is 47
degree in the middle latitude, for example, in Japan, the total absorption is approximately 0.05
dB. Attenuation factor by rain is shown in Fig.4.3(29). The attenuation factor by rain whose intensity is 50 mm/h and 150 mm/h is 0.01 dB/km and 0.03 dB/km in 2.45 GHz and 0.3 dB/km
and 1.2 dB/km in 5.8 GHz, respectively. In assumption that rain cell size is 5km at 50 mm/h and 3km at 150 mm/h, respectively, and that the elevation is 47 degree in the Japanese SPS case,
we calculate the rain attenuation as follows; When rain intensity is 50 mm/h and 150 mm/h, the attenuation is 0.01 (dB/km) x 5 (km) x sec 47 (degree) = 0.07 (dB), 0.13 (dB) in 2.45 GHz, and
1.3 (dB) and 5.2 (dB) in 5.8 GHz, respectively. Scatter by irregularity of air refraction ratio is quite smaller than the
absorption and scatter by air and rain. It was estimated below 0.0013 dB in the 2.45 GHz SPS(30).
Total attenuation of the 2.45 GHz SPS is 0.05 + 0.13 + 0.0013 = 0.1813 dB. Total attenuation of the 5.8 GHz SPS is over 5 dB in hard rain circumstance. In the 2.45 GHz SPS, we can
neglect the attenuation by air and rain. We have to consider a counterplan the attenuation by rain in the 5.8 GHz SPS.
99
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: CANT AIM MICROWAVES
Advanced transmitters ensure accuracy

A microwave power transmission is suitable for a power transmission from/to moving

transmitters/targets. Therefore, accurate target detection and high efficient beam forming are important. Retrodirective system is always
used for SPS. A corner reflector is most basic retrodirective system(1). The corner reflectors
consist of perpendicular metal sheets, which meet at an apex (Fig.4.1(a)). Incoming signals are reflected back
in the direction of arrival through multiple reflections off the wall of the reflector . Van Atta array is also a
basic technique of the retrodirective system(2). This array is made up of pairs of antennas spaced equidistant from the center of the array, and connected with equal length transmission lines
The signal received by an antenna is re-radiated by its pair, thus the order of re-radiating
(Fig.4.1(b)).
elements are inverted with respect to the center of the array, achieving the proper phasing for
retrodirectivity. Usual retrodirective system have phase conjugate circuits in each receiving/transmitting antenna, (Fig.4.1(c)) which play a same role as pairs of antennas
spaced equidistant from the center of the array in Van Atta array. A signal transmitted from the target is received and re-radiated
through the phase conjugate circuit to the direction of the target. The signal is called a pilot signal. We do not
need any phase shifters for beam forming. The retrodirective system is usually used for satellite
communication, wireless LAN, military, etc. There are many researches of the retrodirective
system for these applications (Fig.4.2)(3)-(11). They use the almost same frequency for the pilot signal
and returned signal with a local oscillator (LO) signal at a frequency twice as high as the pilot
signal frequency in the typical retrodirective systems (Fig.4.1(c)). Accuracy depends on stability of
the frequency of the pilot signal and the LO signal. Prof. Itoh’s group proposed the pilot signal
instead of the LO signal(12).
100
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: MORE SOLAR POWER = MORE WARMING
Net-effect on warming is negative- this evidence is comparative

All power plants, including those using nuclear fuel, oil, natural gas, or coal, generate their electricity by producing heat.
About 1/3 of this heat produces the electricity. The rest, called waste heat, is dumped into the atmosphere
through “cooling towers”. The carbon dioxide from all fossil fuels used in power plants (and cars ) is also released into the atmosphere.
Scientists believe that it captures additional heat from sunlight, raising the atmosphere’s
temperature. Solar reflectors and solar satellites will bring more heat into the atmosphere, but the amount
will be far less than the waste heat generated by today’s power plants. And they’ll eventually
end the production of carbon dioxide from power plants and autos. The heat they cause will be
only about 1% of the waste heat and carbon dioxide generated heat they’ll eliminate. Solar reflectors could
also be used as “sunshields” parked over hot cities in the summertime. This could lower urban temperatures by up to 20 degrees, cutting the need for electricity to run air conditioners.
California’s “energy crisis” occurred in July and August, when air conditioning needs peaked.
Any heat waste from SPS occurs outside of the biosphere

01.pdf)
While it may seem intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat

The final global effect is not obvious, but also important.
into the biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the opposite. All energy
put into the electrical grid will eventually be spent as heat, but the methods of generating
electricity are of significant impact for determining which approach produces the least total
global warming effect. Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and greenhouse
gases, while terrestrial solar and wind power also emit significant amounts of waste heat via
inefficient conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is
that the most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the biosphere to be radiated into space. The losses in the
atmosphere are very small, on the order of a couple percent for the wavelengths considered.
Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with the exception of initial manufacturing and launch fuel emissions), it does not
contribute to the trapping action and retention of heat in the biosphere.
101
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: MICROWAVES NOT EFFICENT
Our microwaves are 100% efficient

For the WPT, we had better concentrate power to receiver. It was

Typical WPT is a point-to-point power transmission.
proved that the power transmission efficiency can approach close to 100%. We can more
concentrate the transmitted microwave power to the receiver aperture areas with taper method
of the transmitting antenna power distribution. Famous power tapers of the transmitting antenna are Gaussian taper, Taylor distribution, and
Chebychev distribution. These taper of the transmitting antenna is commonly used for suppression of sidelobes. It corresponds to increase the power transmission efficiency. Concerning the
Future suitable and largest application of the

power transmission efficiency of the WPT, there are some good optical approaches in Russia(5)(6).
WPT via microwave is a Space Solar Power Satellite (SPS). The SPS is a gigantic satellite
designed as an electric power plant orbiting in the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO). It consists of mainly three segments; solar energy
collector to convert the solar energy into DC (direct current) electricity, DC-to-microwave converter, and large antenna array to beam down the microwave power to the ground. The first solar
collector can be either photovoltaic cells or solar thermal turbine. The second DC-to-microwave converter of the SPS can be either microwave tube system and/or semiconductor system. It
may be their combination. The third segment is a gigantic antenna array. Table 1.1 shows some typical parameters of the transmitting antenna of the SPS. An amplitude taper on the
transmitting antenna is adopted in order to increase the beam collection efficiency and to decrease sidelobe level in almost all SPS design. A typical amplitude taper is called 10 dB Gaussian
in which the power density in the center of the transmitting antenna is ten times larger than that on the edge of the transmitting antenna.
102
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: RECIEVERS NOT EFFICENT
Recievers are 90% efficient

The rectenna can

The word “rectenna” is composed of “rectifying circuit” and “antenna”. The rectenna and its word were invented by W. C. Brown in 1960’s(1)(2)(3).
receive and rectify a microwave power to DC. The rectenna is passive element with a rectifying
diode, operated without any power source. There are many researches of the rectenna elements (Fig.5.1). Famous research groups of the rectenna are
Texas A&M University in USA(5)(9)(14)(18), NICT(National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, past CRL) in Japan(8)(10)(11)(17), and Kyoto University in Japan(7)
(12)(23). The antenna of rectenna can be any type such as dipole (1)-(5), Yagi-Uda antenna(6)(7), microstrip antenna(8)-(12),
). The rectenna can also take any type of
monopole(13), loop antenna(14)(15), coplanar patch(16), spiral antenna(17), or even parabolic antenna(18
rectifying circuit such as single shunt full-wave rectifier(4)(9)(10)(11)(13)(14)(16), full-wave bridge rectifier(1)(7)(12)(15), or other
hybrid rectifiers(8). The circuit, especially diode, mainly determines the RF-DC conversion efficiency. Silicon Schottky barrier
diodes were usually used for the previous rectennas. New diode devices like SiC and GaN are expected to increase the efficiency. The
rectennas with FET(19) or HEMT(20) appear in recent years. The rectenna using the active devices is not passive element. The single shunt full-wave rectifier is always used for the rectenna.
It consists of a diode inserted to the circuit in parallel, a λ/4 distributed line, and a capacitor inserted in parallel. In an ideal situation, 100% of the received microwave power should be
converted into DC power(21). Its operation can be explained theoretically by the same way of a F-class microwave amplifier. The λ/4 distributed line and the capacitor allow only even
The world
harmonics to flow to the load. As a result, the wave form on the λ/4 distributed line has a π cycle, which means the wave form is a full-wave rectified sine form.
record of the RF-DC conversion efficiency among developed rectennas is approximately 90% at
4W input of 2.45 GHz microwave(1). Other rectennas in the world have approximately 70 – 90 % at 2.45GHz or 5.8GHz microwave
input. The RF-DC conversion efficiency of the rectenna with a diode depends on the microwave power input intensity and the connected load. It has the optimum
microwave power input intensity and the optimum load to achieve maximum efficiency. When the
power or load is not matched the optimum, the efficiency becomes quite low (Fig.5.2). The characteristic is determined by the
characteristic of the diode. The diode has its own junction voltage and breakdown voltage. If the
input voltage to the diode is lower than the junction voltage or is higher than the breakdown voltage, the diode does not show a rectifying characteristic. As a result, the RF-DC conversion
efficiency drops with a lower or higher input than the optimum.
103
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: TOO EXPENSIVE
Lunar construction reduces costs by 90%

space colonists use low-cost space resources to construct large solar platforms to
O'Neill proposed that the
collect the sun's energy and convert it into electricity. This electrical power would be
transmitted to Earth's surface in the form of a high-frequency radio beam. The beam would be
received by a special antenna and rectifier array, which would convert it back into electricity
with an efficiency of about 90 percent. Solar-power satellites would provide electricity without
the air pollution and atmospheric heating caused by burning fossil fuels. The use of space resources
would enable these satellites to be built at less than 10 percent of the cost of launching
construction materials from Earth.
The use of lunar materials reduces cost

space colonists use low-cost space resources to construct large solar platforms to
O'Neill proposed that the
collect the sun's energy and convert it into electricity. This electrical power would be
transmitted to Earth's surface in the form of a high-frequency radio beam. The beam would be
received by a special antenna and rectifier array, which would convert it back into electricity
with an efficiency of about 90 percent. Solar-power satellites would provide electricity without
the air pollution and atmospheric heating caused by burning fossil fuels. The use of space resources
would enable these satellites to be built at less than 10 percent of the cost of launching
construction materials from Earth.
SPS can be created with materials from the moon reducing costs
The solar power satellite fits into an asteroidal and lunar materials utilization scenario very well
-- it is composed of materials most abundant in asteroids near Earth and/or from the Moon, and it is made up
of a small variety of simple parts mass produced in large quantity. The industry required in
space to produce SPS components is relatively modest. Some design studies claim that more
than 99% of an SPS can be made from asteroidal and/or lunar material.
104
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: TOO EXPENSIVE
Plan is economically beneficial- helps service industries, decreases launch costs, and attracts
commercial investment for space projects
By providing tornado-mitigation services to the insurance industry, the revenue from the
service decreases the net cost of power delivery. The TSPS application could provide additional
revenue for a 1 GW SPS of about $500 million per year. This could decrease the net cost of
electricity generation and increase the potential for near term economic competition of space
solar power with fossil fuels(7). The potential for saving lives with TSPS supports government investment in initial development and deployment. A value per life
saved might be used to make an economic justification for the TSPS. Furthermore, a project such as the TSPS provides a significant
market for launch services and faster development of economical launch vehicles. Nearly all of
the elements of a commercial SSP system are required in the TSPS program. Demonstrated
engineering and operations allows credible projection of efficiency for commercial SSP's. The
tornado taming project provides a level of risk reduction needed to attract commercial
investment in power from space. The larger commercial space solar power systems will provide clean, renewable energy to benefit the Earth's environment. In
addition, the potential application of SSP’s to the steering of hurricanes (17) is a huge economic
benefit.
Control over SPS boosts the economy through energy trading

O’Neill, Solar Physics Doctor involved with Mars Homestead project, 2K8 (June 1, “Harvesting Solar Power from
Space,” http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/01/harvesting-solar-power-from-space/)
the nation who leads the way in solar power satellites

So how could this plan work? Construction will clearly be the biggest expense, but
will bolster their economy for decades through energy trading. The energy collected by highly
efficient solar panels could be beamed down to Earth (although it is not clear from the source what technology will go into "beaming" energy to
Earth) where it is fed into the national grid of the country maintaining the system. Ground based
receivers would distribute gigawatts of energy from the uninterrupted orbital supply. This will
have obvious implications for the future high demand for electricity in the huge nations in Asia
and will wean the international community off carbon-rich non-renewable resources such as oil
and coal. There is also the benefit of the flexible nature of this system being able to supply
emergency energy to disaster (and war-) zones.
105
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: POWER CUTS OFF DURING EQUINOX
No Impact: Its only for an hour and 12 minutes, twice a year, on known days, at midnight-
preferable to current solar power systems
Permanent, Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term, 99 (The Solar
Power Satellite (SPS) Concept, page @ http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm, )
The SPS is not eclipsed by the Earth but is in sunlight continuously, 24 hours a day, due to its
high orbit. The only exceptions are several days around the seasonal equinoxes, March 21 and September 22, when
the satellite will be eclipsed briefly around midnite, for up to an hour and 12 minutes.
Turn- SPS solves peak power crises

Permanent, Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term, 99 (The Solar
Power Satellite (SPS) Concept, page @ http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ps.htm, )
Earth based consumers have energy demands which vary between day and nite. Daytime power
demand is typically twice nitetime power demand. "Peak" power is typically satisfied by power plants powered by natural gas and oil,
whereas "baseload" is provided by coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. If we want to replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it
may be possible to store power at the satellite at nitetime for beaming extra power in the
daytime, e.g., by spinning up flywheels in the zero gravity of space (floating in zero gravity for practically no friction, thus very
emergy efficient). Alternatively, we could scale the SPS for peak daily demand and at nite beam extra
energy to other space based facilities equiped with energy storage devices for their own peak
and varying consumption. The drop in power demand at nite could also be accomodated by
shifting the consumption load of space based industry, e.g., operating the most energy intensive
processes when it is nitetime below, as well as electric interorbital transport services. (If electric cars and
buses take off in popularity on Earth, part of the nitetime shift could be in recharging of car and bus batteries, e.g., if rates are lower at nite.) The key is, of course, in the pricing structure. (The
relative cost of SPS power is discussed in a moment.)
106
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: GROUNDBASED SOLAR COUNTERPLAN
No Solvency- numerous obstacles to groundbased solar power- our evidence is comparative

between collection in space and on the surface
Mankins, President of ARTEMIS Innovation Management Solutions LLC, a research and development
management consulting start-up that solves tough innovation challenges for government, industry and not-for-profit
clients, and Co-founder of Managed Energy Technologies LLC, a new energy technology start-up that aspires to
transform solar energy solutions for terrestrial and space markets, 2K8 (John C., Spring, ad Astra, Special Report:
Space-based Solar Power Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @ http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-
2008.pdf, )
To be economically viable in a particular location on Earth, groundbased solar power must overcome three
hurdles. First, it must be daytime. Second, the solar array must be able to see the sun. Finally, the sunlight
must pass through the bulk of the atmosphere itself. The sky must be clear. Even on a seemingly
clear day, high level clouds in the atmosphere may reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches
the ground. Also various local obstacles such as mountains, buildings or trees may block incoming
sunlight. The longer the path traveled, the more sunlight is absorbed or scattered by the air so
that less of it reaches the surface. Altogether, these factors reduce the average energy produced
by a conventional ground-based solar array by as much as a factor of 75 to 80 percent. And
ground solar arrays may be subjected to hours, days, or even weeks of cloud cover—periods
when the array produces no energy at all. By comparison, the sun shines continuously in space.
And in space, sunlight carries about 35 percent more energy than sunlight attenuated by the air
before it reaches the Earth’s surface. No weather, no nighttime, no seasonal changes; space is an
obvious place to collect energy for use on Earth. The concept of space solar power first emerged in the late 1960s, invented by visionary Peter
Glaser and then studied in some detail by the U.S. Department of Energy, and NASA in the mid-to-late 1970s. However, at that time neither the technology nor the market were ready for this
transformational new energy option. Today, that has all changed.
SPS is more reliable

SPS would supply solar energy 24 hours per day. It would be reliable , too. Unlike
Unlike other solar energy concepts, the
the SPS, ground-based solar energy can't supply power at night unless it has expensive storage
equipment plus extra generating capacity during the day. Further, power from terrestrial solar power
plants requires backup power for cloudy days, and power generated and stored varies with the
seasons. Unreliability and planning needs make conventional solar energy inconvenient and
unattractive to responsible utility companies -- an economy can't be held hostage to the whims
of the weather.
107
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: GROUNDBASED SOLAR COUNTERPLAN
Land based solar power jacks ag production

Rouge, 2K7 (Acting Director of National Security Space Office, Joseph D., Oct. 9, “Space-Based Solar Power as an
01.pdf)
Unlike terrestrial solar facilities, microwave receiving rectennas allow greater than 90% of
ambient light to pass through, but absorb almost all of the beamed energy, generating less
waste heat than terrestrial solar systems because of greater coupling efficiency. This means that
the area underneath the rectenna can continue to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes.
To deliver any reasonably significant amount of base load power, ground solar would need to
cover huge regions of land with solar cells, which are major sources of waste heat. As a result,
these ground solar farms would produce significant environmental impacts to their regions. The
simultaneous major increases to the regional temperature, plus the blockage of sunlight from
the ground, will likely kill off local plants, animals and insects that might inhabit the ground
below or around these ground solar farms. This means that that a SBSP rectenna has less
impact on the albedo or reflectivity of the Earth than a terrestrial solar plant of equivalent
generating capacity. Moreover, the energy provided could facilitate water purification and
irrigation, prevent frosts, extend growing seasons (if a little of the energy were used locally)
etc. In the plains of the U.S. (e.g., South Dakota, etc), in sub Saharan Africa, etc. etc. there are
vast areas of arable land that could be both productive farm land and sites for SBSP rectennas.
Key to Economyt
Chalk, 2K1 (Peter, analyst, RAND Corporation, “Terrorism Infrastructure Protection and the U.S. Food and
Agriculture Sector, RAND CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, October 2001, npg.)
Agriculture and the general food industry remain absolutely critical to the social, economic
and, arguably, political stability of the US, indirectly constituting roughly two percent of the country’s overall domestic gross domestic product
(GDP). One in eight people work in some component of agriculture – more if food production is included – making the industry one of the US’ largest employers. 1Cattle and dairy farmers
alone earn between US$50 and US$54 billion a year through meat and milk sales, while roughly US$50 billion is raised every year through agricultural exports. The share of produce sold
overseas is more Comments made by Noreen Hynes during the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases (ICIED), Atlanta, Georgia, July 16-19 2000. than double that of
2These figures represent only a fraction of the total value of agriculture to the
other US industries, which gives agriculture major importance in terms of the American balance of trade.
3The down stream effect of

country, as they do not take into account allied services and industries such as suppliers, transporters, distributors and restaurant chains.
any deliberate act of sabotage/destruction to this highly valuable industry would be enormous,
creating a tidal wave effect that would be felt by all these sectors, impacting, ultimately, on the ordinary citizen him/herself.
Extinction
Beardon, Fellow of the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study & Director of the Association of
Distinguished American Scientists, 6-12-2K (T.E., “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” ADAS
Position Paper: Solution to the Energy Crisis, www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy%20Crisis.doc)
economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final
intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25
nations, are almost certain to be released . As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {2} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea,
including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to
the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into
immediate responses,
the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are
launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD
coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed .
The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.
108
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: PIC OUT OF SPS OR SBSP
Perm do the CP
They’re the same thing
One of the more amusing anecdotes of constructing the Phase 0 SBSP Architecture Study is the influence of modern information technology systems on our language. Many
people familiar with the concept of space solar power (SSP), or solar power satellites (SPS) wondered where and why after 40
years of consistency, the Pentagon would decide to rechristen it “space-based solar power,” or SBSP. If one is
trading many e-mails, typing space solar power gets tedious. So like any good military
organization, abbreviations become the language of choice. But in the early stages, one of the
core study members had a firewall that would kick-back or “disappear” any e-mail with “SSP”
in it. Apparently some monetary, provocative, or medical scam had used the acronym, and it
was thus blocked by a spam filter. Despite pleadings to allow these official e-mails, the IT
powers-that-be would not relent. Therefore the recipient begged for a re-title of “SSP” to
“SBSP” so the e-mails could get through. So, a four-decade history of common nomenclature
was replaced because of IT inflexibility, or alternately, because of some illicit spammer that
had an alternate definition of SSP. As Paul Harvey would say, “Now you know the rest of the story.”
109
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: CLOUD SEEDING CP
Cloud seeding doesn’t solve- cant effect storms like hurricanes and tornadoes and empirically
ineffective
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. The concept was evaluated using a numerical
simulation with the Advanced Regional Prediction System Code at the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms
(CAPS).u7 Conditions critical to tornado formation were examined in the simulation . Limitations on the code's ability
to predict tornadogenesis includes the lack of comprehensive microphysical assumptions, i.e. rain drop size. The simulation has since been improved and can show tornadogenesis. The
potential interaction with TSPS has not yet been tried in the latest simulation. Other numerical simulations are being used for tornadogenesis studies and may be practical for further computer
analysis of interaction. Benefits from preventing tornadoes are measured in hundreds of lives saved and billions of dollars in reduced property damage. The potential benefits are balanced by
reservations about the safety and the risks inherent in weather modification. Other weather modification ideas are examined to relate critical issues to the TSPS. When weather modification is
cloud seeding is the usual paradigm that is examined. This process has been tried for over fifty years and it still does
a subject,
not produce unquestionable results. Steering hurricanes is a subject of computer simulations

and is early stage of analysis. Analysis of the TSPS implementation is expected to rely on
previous studies of space solar power(6,7). Demonstration of technology and operations of TSPS
may lead to commercial investment in a clean, renewable energy source. 1 0-7803-9546-8/06/$20.00© 2006 1
IEEE 2 IEEEAC paper #1063, Version 5, Updated Dec. 12, 2005 It is believed that the TSPS concept merits additional analysis, numerical simulation and demonstration
testing.
110
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: STATES CP
The federal government is critical to space industry- investment and facilitation

FAA, 2K8 (Federal Aviation Administration “The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the
U.S. Economy,” April, http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/EcoImpactReport2008.pdf)
The U.S. federal government has a critical role sustaining commercial space transportation as a
customer, investor, and facilitator. As a customer, government purchases of launch services provide a
key source of revenue for launch vehicle companies. This action complements revenue from
commercial customers and helps maintain industrial capability. In 2006, 13 of the 15 launches of U.S.-built
expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) carried U.S. government payloads: eight for the Defense Department and five for NASA. The total
estimated value of those launches was over $600 million . Many
of these launches took place using launch vehicles
also available for commercial launches. As an investor, the government helped develop the
current generation of commercial launch vehicles. The Defense Department’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
(EELV) program led to the development of two launch vehicles, the Delta IV and Atlas V, which have been used for both commercial and
government customers. To aid in the initial development of these vehicles, the Air Force provided $500 million to each vehicle developer
involved when it awarded the initial EELV launch contracts in 1998. The Air Force has provided additional money to support engineering and
New small launch vehicles that
reliability projects for the EELVs to help compensate for low commercial launch revenue.
could serve the commercial market are also being supported by the Defense Department
through investment and customer roles. The government also supports the launch industry by
building and maintaining launch facilities that are used for both government and commercial
launches. Another role of the federal government is facilitating and promoting private and
commercial launch and reentry operations. Facilitation and promotion, along with regulatory,
tasks are performed by the FAA/AST to allow for a safe and sustained commercial launch
industry in the United States.
111
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
A2: DOD CP
The DOD would be a willing early adapter but would resist taking the lead
Although the U.S. military would reap tremendous benefits from space-based solar power, Damphousse said the Pentagon is unlikely to fund
development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said, would be more appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy,
both of which have studied space-based solar power in the past. The Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new
technology, Damphousse said, and provide a potentially robust market for firms trying to build a business
around space-based solar power. "While challenges do remain and the business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based
solar power is closer than ever," he said. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this."
Military detests idea of energy production- they are a customer

Boyle, Alan 10/12/07 (Space News. “Power from Space? Pentagon Likes the Idea”)
Those factors still don't make space solar power attractive for commercial users, but a better
case could be made for the Defense Department. The U.S. military pays a premium for its
power in the battlefield, when you consider the cost of shipping oil out of the Middle East, refining it, then shipping the fuel back to the combat zone and burning it in
electrical generators, Miller said. All that brings the current power price tag to $1 or more per killowatt-hour, compared with 5 to 10 cents on the domestic market, the report says. Even then,
the economic equation still doesn't add up, due primarily to the high cost of launching payloads to orbit. But in the near future, the U.S. military could become a potential "anchor tenant
customer" for space-generated power, the report says. "The business case may close in the near future with appropriate technology investment and risk-reduction efforts by the U.S.
Smith said the military would prefer to buy its power

government, and with appropriate financial incentives to industry," the report says.
from a commercial space provider, rather than operating the system itself. "It is our goal to
move this entire project out of DOD (the Department of Defense) as quickly as possible," he
said. "Energy is not our business. We want to be a customer."
112
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
AT: STATES CP
Centralization is best for space
Merges, Wilson Sonsini Professor of Law University of California, Berkeley - School of Law, and Reynolds,
professor of law at the University of Tennessee, 97 [Robert P, Glenn H., Space Resources, Common Property, and the
Collective Action Problem, page @ http://www.space-settlement-
institute.org/Articles/research_library/spaceresources/SpaceResources.html]
A large and important literature has extensively documented the difficulties involved in organizing any
large group to cooperate. 1 This is known as the collective action problem--a problem that is ubiquitous in social and
economic life. Consider, for example, legislation that subsidizes only one small group, such as a group of sheep farmers whose sheep
produce a certain rare type of wool. While the subsidy is expensive in general, its *108 high cost is spread over a
broad group of taxpayers. It is easy for the sheep farmers to identify each other, form a lobbying group, and articulate a clear goal--maximizing the subsidy for this
type of wool. In contrast, taxpayers in general each suffer only a slight economic harm due to the special wool- protecting
legislation. As a consequence, although it is rational for taxpayers to oppose the legislation in principle, as not cost-justified, they almost surely will fail to do so because it is simply not worth
The same process

the cost of organizing such opposition. The taxpayers, in other words, are likely to be unable to overcome the collective action problem facing them. 2
has already been documented in the brief history of the U.S. space program. 3 Difficulties have
arisen in efforts to acquire funding and garner legislative support and encouragement for
important space initiatives, such as the space telescope. Because the benefits of advances in
space technology and information are spread thinly over a broad constituency, marshalling
forces to achieve these goals has been problematic. 4II Institutional Centralization of Resource
Allocation In an attempt to overcome the collective action problems facing the space program,
mechanisms have been proposed that attempt to allocate space resources and coordinate
interests through a centralized agency. 5 Centralization solves a number of problems, most
notably eliminating the transaction costs of locating rights owners and determining the rules of
ownership and transfer. These proposals, however, overlook a difficult question--how to rouse the various nations and fractious forces within them to organize into a
unified group. These proposals assume an international organization to administer space rights *109 and proceed directly to a discussion of how best to structure the organization without
considering how such an organization might actually come into existence.
No Link- Space policies don’t affect the States

Pelton, Director, Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute
George Washington University, 2K7 [March, Dr. Joseph N., Space Planes and Space Tourism: The industry and the
regulation of its safety, page @ http://www.spacesafety.org/SpacePlaneTourismStudyMarch07.pdf]
The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132,
Federalism. We have determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and
therefore will not have federalism implications.
113
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
NEGATIVE
114
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
1NC DOD CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase incentives to the
Department of Defense for the development of a comprehensive solar power satellite network
DOD solves all the military advantages better- 3 Reasons:

1) Strategic Interest
2) Avoid Organizational Gaps
3) Don’t dismiss it as science fiction
So why do we not have SSP satellites in orbit today when the NRC validated the concept as scientifically sound and on a healthy path
toward technical feasibility as recently as five years ago? Over the course of 40 years the answer has always centered around
“the business case” in the face of less-expensive competing conventional terrestrial energy sources. But that calculus is about to change. The very real
risks of climate change, energy nationalism and scarcity, unconstrained technology explosion,
and potential resource conflicts weigh heavily on the futurist minds of the action officers of the Air Force Future Concepts
and Transformations Office and National Security Space Office (NSSO) “Dreamworks.” These officers are charged with visualizing the world 25-or-more years from now, and informing and
For a military that is fundamentally dependent on high-energy

guiding Air Force and space strategy development.
capabilities to protect its nation and the international commons for the good of all humanity,
not only are the strategic risks associated with energy scarcity that lie ahead great, but so too
are the operational and tactical vulnerabilities for the finest war-fighting and peacekeeping
machine humans have ever known. It was from within this Air Force policy incubator and the
NSSO that the spark to reexamine SSP as a strategic, operational, and tactical energy solution
was struck. Beginning in the 1970s through 2001, the SSP was examined on multiple previous
occasions by the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA, but failed to find a champion in large part
because SSP fell between organizational gaps (DOE does energy but not space, and NASA does
space, not energy). On the other hand, because of its unique mission, DoD is the first government agency that will have to
deal with the harsh realities of a coming energy peak. Self-developed, complex modern weapon
systems spend two decades in pre-production and another five in operation— a 70-year life
cycle that clearly places any new platforms (and our entire war-fighting doctrine) squarely on the backside of peak
oil, and permanently in a hangar unless DoD can reinvent itself to remain relevant in an
energyscarce world. Therefore, DoD is in a position of greatest need for examining all alternate
energy options. On a more tactical level, the very real high cost in dollars and lives lost to
deliver large quantities of fuel and energy supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has
informed the military that energy logistics is a reality that begs for a paradigm change.
115
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
DOD SOLVES SPACE COLONIZATION
The DOD solves space colonization

Day, American space historian and policy analyst, PhD in Poli Sci , specifically in space policy and national security,
from The George Washington University, and author of several books about space policy, 2K8 (Dwayne, June 9,
“Knights In Shining Armor”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)
The reason that SSP has gained nearly religious fervor in the activist community can be
attributed to two things, neither having to do with technical viability. The first reason is increased public and media
attention on environmentalism and energy coupled with the high price of gasoline. When even Reese’s
Peanut Butter Cups are advertised with a global warming message, it’s clear that the issue has reached the saturation point and everybody wants to link their pet project to the global warming
discussion.SSP, its advocates point out, is “green” energy, with no emissions—other than the hundreds, or probably thousands, of rocket launches
needed to build solar power satellites. The second reason is a 2007 study produced by the National Security Space
Office (NSSO) on SSP. The space activist community has determined that the Department of
Defense is the knight in shining armor that will deliver them to their shining castles in the sky.
Space activists, who are motivated by the desire to personally live and work in space, do not care about SSP per se. Although all of them are impacted by high gasoline prices, many of them
they have latched on to SSP

do not believe that global climate change is occurring; or if they do believe it, they doubt that humans contribute to it. Instead,
because it is expedient. Environmental and energy issues provide the general backdrop to their
new enthusiasm, and the NSSO study serves as their focal point.
116
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
SPS EXPENSIVE
SPS expensive and has problems

Spacce Island Group, 2K6 (Dedicated to the development of Commerce, Research, Manufacturing and
Tourism in Space. “Clean Energy, Cheap Hydrogen, and Weather Control From Space”
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/solarsat.html ).
a lot will
Solar satellites will generate about one kilowatt hour of electricity for each kilogram (2.2 pounds) of the satellite’s weight. A lot of this weight will be low cost frames, but
also be higher cost solar cells, electronics and guidance systems. If solar satellite components
cost an average of $100 per pound to manufacture and (optimistically) $1000 per pound to
carry to orbit, they’d have to sell their power for 30-50 cents per kilowatt hour to pay off these
costs in 30 years. That doesn’t include the cost of launching the assembly and maintenance
crews into space at much higher rates, and launching and operating the living quarters for these
crews. Even if solar satellite assembly robots were used, you’d need people in orbit to maintain,
repair and refuel the robots. The launch costs and maintenance costs for these crews could add
another $200 per pound to solar satellite costs over a 30-year period. Several innovative designs have been proposed which
unfurl sheets of solar cells like umbrellas after they’re launched, then allow them to automatically connect themselves piece by piece into huge structures in orbit. These designs will reduce -
20% of communications satellites fail in orbit because of

but certainly not eliminate - the solar satellite manpower needs. Some
electrical problems, fuel shortages or because their solar panels fail to open as planned, even
though this industry has 40 years of experience behind it.
117
S. (K.L) HERNANDEZ
POLITICS-PLAN POPULAR
SPS is popular with Congress and Bush

Sietzen Jr., UPI Science News Writer and president of the Space Transportation Administration, 2K1 (United
Press International, March 1, Frank, Congress urged to demo solar power satellite)
The chairman of the House Space Subcommittee said Wednesday both Congress and the Bush administration will
make development of a energy producing satellite project a priority for the U.S. space program.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) predicted that accelerated development of the concept of space solar power satellites would
be supported by the Bush administration and a Congress searching for alternative means of
developing energy. "We need to take positive steps to move this forward in a step-by-step
manner," said Rohrabacher, speaking to a Capitol Hill panel promoting the concept. "As chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I am taking this idea seriously," he added. "I believe
that the administration will be supportive of the development of this technology."
Congress is pushing for solar power satellites

The Miami Herald, 2-3-2K8 (“Nuclear Power Risks,” ln)
We should pursue energy efficiency, conservation and renewable resources. Americans and
Congress are pressing for research in these areas. If we invest in space wisely, solar-power satellites can be developed that will beam
safe and clean solar energy to Earth. Let's invest in energy that can improve our environment, security and independence while protecting future generations
118

Aff Sps Space

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aff Sps Space

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOLAR POWER SATELLITES AFF Z’S SENIORS 2K8

ALEX, GREG, SEAN, TESS NORTHWESTERN

Weather control device detected…..

Weather control device detected…..

One obstacle facing space solar power is that most people

The efficiency of photovoltaic arrays has increased from

Weather control device detected…..

the Pentagon is interested in SBSP for

Weather control device detected…..

Incentive key to space innovation

the NSSO recommended that the U.S. government

Weather control device detected…..

SPS SOLVES WARMING

An array of solar cells, appropriately

Weather control device detected…..

Space based solar power reduces emissions

SPS reduces emissions averting global warming

(6) argued their role in overcoming many of the

Glasier's original argument was more centred

Weather control device detected…..

The ability to collect solar power in

). Space solar power has withered

Weather control device detected…..

SPS KEY TO ENERGY SUPPLY

Solar power satellites solves energy scarcity

Weather control device detected…..

SPS KEY TO ENERGY SUPPLY

SPS can solve the world’s energy demand

supporters of space-based solar power say the

Weather control device detected…..

SPS SOLVES RESOURCE WARS

Weather control device detected…..

SPS SOLVES RESOURCE WARS

Weather control device detected…..

SPS SOLVES RESOURCE WARS

SPS can prevent all energy wars

Weather control device detected…..

SPS KEY TO SOLVE OIL/WARMING

Space-based solar power is key- 4 Reasons:

coal reserves will be forever

Weather control device detected…..

SPS KEY TO SOLVE OIL/WARMING

an economy can't be held

generators as much, causing demand/supply fluctuations in energy prices, rationing or power

Weather control device detected…..

SPS KEY TO SOLVE OIL/WARMING

the report calls for the U.S. government to

to show that space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to

solution to the world's growing energy needs.

Weather control device detected…..

SPS KEY TO SOLVE OIL/WARMING

SPS is a feasible means to solve warming and oil dependence

Weather control device detected…..

1AC SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

Contention ____: Space Colonization

Weather control device detected…..

1AC SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

Weather control device detected…..

1AC SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

. The main goal is to design a permanent community in space

They proposed a habitat constructed of processed lunar ore

Weather control device detected…..

1AC SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

detriment of more than our country.