Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

SBSP Negative
DOD – Air Force.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 DOD – Renewable Development....................................................................................................................................................................................................3 DOD – A2 Generic Solvency Deficit..............................................................................................................................................................................................4 DOD – A2 Military Opposes...........................................................................................................................................................................................................5 DOD – A2 CP Links to Russia DA.................................................................................................................................................................................................6 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 DOD – Power Needs.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 DOD – Modular Innovation............................................................................................................................................................................................................8 DOD – RLVs...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Competitiveness – Domination Now.............................................................................................................................................................................................10 Competitiveness Turn – Kills Basic Research..............................................................................................................................................................................11 Competitiveness Alt Cause – Private R&D, Foreign Workers.....................................................................................................................................................12 Competitiveness Alt Cause – Science Funding, Education, Labor...............................................................................................................................................13 Competitiveness – Can’t Measure.................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Competitiveness – Free-riding Good.............................................................................................................................................................................................15 Competitiveness – Tech Leaks Inevitable.....................................................................................................................................................................................16 Competitiveness – A2 Worker Shortage.......................................................................................................................................................................................17 Competitiveness – New Tech Not Key.........................................................................................................................................................................................18 Competitiveness Turn – Restricting Tech Bad..............................................................................................................................................................................19 Space Colonization Alt Cause – Transportation & Biosphere......................................................................................................................................................20 Space Colonization – Diseases Into Space....................................................................................................................................................................................22 Space Colonization – New Diseases.............................................................................................................................................................................................23 Solvency – Launch........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Solvency – Timeframe...................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Solvency – Tech Fails....................................................................................................................................................................................................................26 Space Colonization – Exploration Now........................................................................................................................................................................................27 Space Colonization – Outer Space Treaty.....................................................................................................................................................................................28 Space Colonization – Plant / Human Reproduction......................................................................................................................................................................29 Space Colonization – Asteroids.....................................................................................................................................................................................................30 Space Colonization – Can’t Colonize Mars..................................................................................................................................................................................31 Space Colonization – Can’t Colonize Moon.................................................................................................................................................................................32 Space Colonization – Timeframe / Alt Cause...............................................................................................................................................................................33 Space Colonization – Radiation, Nutrients....................................................................................................................................................................................34 Space Colonization – International Cooperation Key...................................................................................................................................................................35 Solar Power Satellites –International Backlash and War..............................................................................................................................................................36 Space Militarization Bad – Heg, War, Terror................................................................................................................................................................................37 Space Militarization – Turns Competitiveness..............................................................................................................................................................................38 Russia DA – 1NC.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 Russia DA – Satellite Coop...........................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Russia DA – Coop Now................................................................................................................................................................................................................41 Russia DA – Laser Link................................................................................................................................................................................................................42 NASA Tradeoff DA - Overwhelmed.............................................................................................................................................................................................43

1

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – Air Force
DoD development best – Air Force can take the lead
Leonard David, Special Correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07 Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html "There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

2

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – Renewable Development
DoD is leading in renewable innovation – already has private support mechanisms
Eli Kintish, August 2007 News of the Week SOLAR POWER: Light-Splitting Trick Squeezes More Electricity Out of Sun's Rays, Science 3 Vol. 317. no. 5838, pp. 583 - 584 DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5838.583a, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5838/583a?rss=1 At a meeting in 2005, DARPA program manager Douglas Kirkpatrick, a physicist with experience in the lighting industry, suggested that the research team's talented optics unit use recent advances in so-called dichroic materials, which separate light into specific wavelengths. ("Where have you been all my life?" says Kirkpatrick of the eureka moment.) The research team, which included industrial as well as academic partners, took that approach and achieved with optics a 93% efficiency in processing and splitting the light in as-yet-unpublished tests. Independent officials with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, measured the overall solar-cell efficiency under simulated conditions; a separate NREL team built several of the cells used in the device. The device is based on well-known semiconductors tuned to respond to specific wavelengths using doping and other physical tweaks the researchers won't reveal. New electronics allowing parallel power generation gave them additional freedom, as cells within modules connected in series produce as much electricity as their weakest link. Each of those advances, however, although promising in the lab, could be pricey to build. Most recent commercial solar efforts have focused on making cells cheaper to manufacture, not on increasing efficiency. Kirkpatrick says the manufactured cost goal for the program is $2 per peak watt, 45% under the current industry standard. "That's the key to success," says solar energy manager Craig Cornelius of the Department of Energy, who says it can take up to 15 years for new solar-cell architectures to make it into the marketplace. But DARPA is hoping for faster results. With the early proof of concept in the bag, research partner DuPont has announced a 3-year commercialization effort with the Delaware team to spend up to $100 million to build prototype devices. Meanwhile, the researchers are continuing work with advanced kinds of cells, including nanotech and bioinspired varieties, hoping later to use better performing materials in what Kirkpatrick calls a "plug and play" approach. "The building blocks are all in place," says Delaware physicist Robert Birkmire.

3

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – A2 Generic Solvency Deficit
Lack of money is the only reason the DoD can’t do the plan – fiat solves
Leonard David, Special Correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07 Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html Rouge said that moving out on the proposed SBSP effort would be the largest space venture yet, making the Apollo Moon landing project "look like just a small little program." As a caveat, however, he noted that the U.S. Department of Defense is cash-strapped and is not the financial backer for such an endeavor. "But do look to us to help you develop the technologies and developing a lot of the other infrastructure," Rouge advised, seeing SBSP, for instance, as helping to spur a significant reduction in the cost of routine access to space for the U.S. and its allies.

4

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – A2 Military Opposes
Military wants to take the lead New Scientist, 10-11-07
Pentagon backs plan to beam solar power from space, http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-power-fromspace.html A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions. "We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul Damphousse of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US. 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.

5

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – A2 CP Links to Russia DA
DoD shares the tech – solves suspicions of militarization NPR, 10-13-07
Alternative Energy from Space Solar Panels, All Things Considered, NPR correspondent: Nell Greenfieldboyce, Lexis-Nexis Lieutenant Colonel PAUL DAMPHOUSSE (National Security Space Office): The question comes up, I mean, when we start talking about beaming power from space: Is this is going to be a space weapon. And that's - they are really valid questions and it's something that we're very transparent on. And the answer is no, not at all. GREENFIELDBOYCE: He says the beam would be coming back at very low power - less than the intensity of sunlight at noon so it couldn't incinerate things. The report says the biological effect would be similar to the heat you feel sitting some distance from a campfire. Still, the report recommends developing the technology openly. Lt. Col. DAMPHOUSSE: We actually want to share this technology. We want this to be not only for American security and our allies but for the world.

Russia accepts military space development – just not weaponization
Pavel Podvig, a research associate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, 2008 Russia and Military Uses of Space, American Academy of Arts and Sciences This does not mean that Russia opposes any military use of space. On the contrary, military and political leaders emphasize the importance of developing systems that would support military operations from space—navigation, communication, and reconnaissance.11Deployment of these systems would eventually require a means of protecting them, which could in theory bring Russia to reconsider its current opposition to space weapons.12 The possibility that Russia will develop its own capability to deploy weapons in space or to build an anti-satellite system seems to be even more remote. First, Russia would certainly not become the first country to develop and deploy a space-related weapons system, as this would contradict its longstanding policy on the weaponization of space and its practice of following the United States in most technological developments. Besides, it is unlikely that without the United States committing itself to space-weapons development Russia would be able to make a decision to initiate any substantial effort of its own.

Russia doesn’t oppose dual-use military systems
Vitaly A. Lukiantsev, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russian Federation, 2002 Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs Occasional Paper No. 10 Mountbatten Centre for International Studies James Clay Moltz, ed., Monterey Insitute, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op10/op10.pdf Certain space-based systems in existence today are in fact of dual use. This concerns communication satellites, remote sensing equipment, space navigation systems, and national technical means to verify arms control treaties and agreements. Having said this, it would not be entirely correct to speak of banning completely any military uses of space, Enhancing Global Security through Improved Space Management: A Russian Perspective 45 but rather of keeping outer space as a weaponfree zone and of preventing an arms race in outer space. In concrete terms, essentially it is a question of putting a ban on the placement of weapon systems in space and prohibiting warfare in space and from space. Obviously, the existing legal structure is not adequate to save outer space from weapons considering its present use for certain military purposes. But it is the prevailing view of the world community that space should not become another sphere of military confrontation or theatre of operations. One can hardly agree with a commonplace argument that space—just like the land, the sea, and the world’s airspace—with its gradual conquest by man should inevitably become a sphere of military activity. With the advent of weapons in outer space, the entire planet will be endangered, as will space assets in orbit.

6

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – Power Needs
Commercial solar designs are inadequate for the military – more power is needed
Alan Boyle, Science editor, 10-12-07 Power from space? Pentagon likes the idea, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/ The commercial systems discussed in the past would deliver 5 to 10 gigawatts of power. In contrast, the Pentagon study calls for military systems providing 5 to 50 megawatts of continuous power — roughly a thousandth as much. The report's roadmap calls for ground-based technology development over the next few years, leading up to a demonstration in low Earth orbit in the 2012-2013 time frame, and in geosynchronous orbit by 2017. However, the report makes no commitment for funding such a demonstration. Smith said that would be up to other agencies — such as the Pentagon's own Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or NASA, or the proposed Advanced Research Projects Energy. Damphousse said the program could use an "incremental approach," starting with experiments to transmit power wirelessly between ground stations placed miles apart. "If you can do that, then you're well on your way to proving you can do it from space," he said.

7

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – Modular Innovation
Modular innovation critical to space solar power – NASA opposes
Linda Shiner, editor Air & Space magazine, 7-1-08 Where the Sun Does Shine, Air & Space Magazine, http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html?c=y&page=1 The “modular” in modular systems represents tens of thousands of identical, mass-produced (and therefore cheap) parts. Each part, because of advances in solid-state electronics, could serve as both collector and transmitter. “Think of an Iridium satellite,” says Mankins. The Iridium network uses 66 satellites to provide wireless communication worldwide. “It has integrated into [a satellite] the size of a VW Bug power generation, intelligence, attitude control, and microwave phased arrays.” Now imagine that satellite flattened into a tiny hexagon, one of 10,000 collecting-transmitting hexagons on a single satellite. That’s the kind of innovation Mankins wants to see funded. But to which federal agency should he apply? Neither NASA nor the Department of Energy has ever shown much interest in nurturing sunsat technology.

8

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

DOD – RLVs
DoD is key to SBSP – only the DoD can develop launch vehicles which are the prerequisite to SBSP
Taylor Dinerman, freelance space journalist, 11-19-07 The chicken and the egg: RLVs and space-based solar power http://thespacereview.com/article/1004/1 The report does point out, in one of its most important findings, that “The SBSP Study Group universally acknowledged that a necessary pre-requisite for the technical and economic viability of SBSP was inexpensive and reliable access to orbit. However, participants were strongly divided on whether to recommend immediate, all-out attack on this problem or not.” We are back to the old question: is the technology ready or nearly ready to allow for the development of a successful reusable launch vehicle (RLV)? For the last three or four years the answer from NASA and from the US military has been “No”. They are waiting for a breakthrough similar to the one that shifted most aircraft propulsion from piston engines to jet turbine ones. For those experts who want to gain a good understand of where things stand, Appendix D of the SBSP study provides an interesting look at where the NSSO’s experts think the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) now stand. In order to have routine access to low Earth orbit (LEO) to achieve this goal the study examines a threephased approach. Phase one proposes a strategy that will “Develop new, fully-reusable two-stage, rocket-powered space access systems (aerospaceplanes) for passengers and cargo transport.” The mission is to “Transport passengers and cargo with ‘aircraft-like’ safety and operability.” The report claims that for such systems the TRL is 6–9 for a vehicle with a gross weight of 1400 tonnes with the capability of delivering a bit more than 11 tonnes of payload to LEO. A TRL of 6 to 9 leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Do the authors of the study think that we are closer to 6 or to 9? If we are close to 9 for the overall system then it would be worth it for the US government to go ahead and begin work on such a system. If the answer is closer to TRL 6, though, then a more prudent approach would be wise. The DoD (NASA is in no position to fund such work) should conduct wide-ranging science and technology development work on structural materials, new propulsion, and on ultra-efficient control systems. Investments in RLV sub-components and technology will invariably pay off in other areas, but non-space technology research programs should be mined for useful applications in space. The Defense Department is making major funds available to develop new types of lightweight armor for vehicles that will be exposed to enemy fire and to IEDs. The Air Force should not hesitate to join with the Army in working on any of these new materials that would fit into a future RLV program. This will require leaders who not only can get beyond any “not invented here” problems, but that can push the Air Force or DARPA to spend money on projects that would otherwise just be funded out of the Army’s R&D budget. The need for low-cost reliable access to space has not gone away. The slow pace of the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program is not going to change any time soon. Money is short and the Air Force is losing many of its best people due to the draw down. This is all the more reason to find ways to leverage as many interesting outside technology projects as possible. Investments in RLV sub-components and technology will invariably pay off in other areas, but non-space technology research programs should be mined for useful applications in space. SBSP is one of the most promising medium- and long-term concepts out there. The need for a large-scale, clean new source of electricity is evident. Therefore, the need for RLV should also be obvious. Air Force Space Command should appoint an RLV Czar and give him or her a modest budget and the support staff to help promising technology efforts both within the Air Force and in other parts of the department. Private sector RLV programs are already underway and there is a strong possibility that they may reach orbit before any government-supported one does. The DoD should be intellectually ready for this and have a well thought-out procedure for integrating such a system into their operational thinking.

9

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness – Domination Now
US dominates space now The Economist, 4-10-08
Space competitiveness, http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11019607 Russia may have won the initial race into space with Sputnik but half a century on, America has forged a big lead. A report by Futron, a technology consultancy, confirms America's dominance of space. On its space-competitiveness index—which comprises 40 measures, including government spending, numbers of spacecraft built, numbers of spaceports and corporate revenue from space ventures—America is light years ahead of its closest rivals in Europe. Russia, which still dominates the orbital-launch industry, is ranked third. China is an emerging space power with ambitious goals backed by heavy government investment. Its launch industry is now challenging America's. India is ranked just behind China.

The US leads in science and technology
Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008 U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf We find that the United States continues to lead the world in science and technology. The United States grew faster in many measures of S&T capability than did Japan and Europe, and developing nations such as China, India, and South Korea showed rapid growth in S&T output measures, but they are starting from a small base. These developing nations do not yet account for a large share of world innovation and scientific output, which continues to be dominated by the United States, Europe, and Japan. The United States accounts for 40 percent of total world R&D spending and 38 percent of patented new technology inventions by the industrialized nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), employs 37 percent (1.3 million) of OECD researchers (FTE), produces 35 percent, 49 percent, and 63 percent, respectively, of total world publications, citations, and highly cited publications, employs 70 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners and 66 percent of its most-cited individuals, and is the home to 75 percent of both the world’s top 20 and top 40 universities and 58 percent of the top 100. A comparison of S&T indicators for the United States with those of other nations/regions reveals the following: Other nations/regions are not significantly outpacing the United States in R&D expenditures. China and South Korea, which are showing rapid growth in R&D expenditures, are starting from a small base, and the EU-15 and Japan are growing slower than the United States. Other nations/regions are not outpacing the United States in S&T employment, as growth in researchers in the EU-15 was comparable to, and that of Japan considerably lower than, that of the United States. China, however, added about the same number of researchers as the United States did and overtook Japan during the period 1995 to 2002. Other nations/regions are rapidly educating their populations in S&T, with the EU-15 and China graduating more scientists and engineers than the United States. China, India, and South Korea are starting to account for a significant portion of the world’s S&T inputs and activities (R&D funding in dollars at purchasing power parity, research jobs, S&T education, etc.) and are showing rapid growth in outputs and outcomes, yet they account for a very small share of patents, S&T publications, and citations.

US growth in science and technology is high – outsourcing doesn’t affect
Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008 U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf On measures such as additions to the S&T workforce and patented innovations, U.S. growth in S&T was on par with, or above, world average trends. By comparison, Japan grew more slowly in additions to the S&T workforce, and both the EU-15 and Japan had slower growth in patented innovations. High growth in R&D expenditures, patents, and S&E employment, combined with continuing low unemployment of S&E workers, suggest that U.S. S&E has remained vibrant. These signs do not support the notion that jobs are being lost at substantial rates as a result of the outsourcing and offshoring of S&T. U.S. gains in S&T occur against a backdrop in which R&D expenditures, S&E employment, and patents are also increasing in the EU-15, Japan, China, Korea, and many other nations/regions. Studies of the offshoring of high-skill work suggest that it does not result in job losses in the originating country, as it is increasingly driven by the need to access scarce talent, but rather that the overall number of jobs is increasing.

10

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness Turn – Kills Basic Research
Space R&D kills competitiveness – focus on basic research is key to innovation
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 These strengths, however, should not obscure the existence of new threats to the long-term health of science and innovation in the United States. A record $422 billion budget deficit, for example, may undermine future government support for R&D. Recent shifts in federal spending will leave basic researchthat driven by scientific curiosity rather than specific commercial applications-underfunded, depriving the economy of the building blocks of future innovation. Although federal expenditures on R&D are expected to reach $132 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $137.5 billion in 2009, new spending will be concentrated in the fields of defense, homeland security, and the space program. Funding for all other R&D programs, meanwhile, will remain flat this year and decline in real terms over the next five years.

Singular research focus kills competitiveness – diverse innovation system is vital
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 At home, Washington should not strive to identify the next big thing. Rather, policymakers should ensure that the United States remains the most dynamic innovation system. Funding for science and education must be maintained. Although it might be tempting to shrink the budget deficit by reducing discretionary funding for the sciences, this would weaken one of the pillars of the country's future economic and technological health. Money for basic research, especially in the physical sciences and engineering, and support for the National Science Foundation should therefore be maintained at current levels or increased.

11

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness Alt Cause – Private R&D, Foreign Workers
Plan can’t solve competitiveness – doesn’t increase private R&D on basic research or solve the labor shortage
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 Privately funded industrial R&D, meanwhile-which accounts for over 60 percent of the U.S. total-is also starting to slip as a result of the current economic slowdown. Private industry cut R&D spending by 1.7 percent in 2001, 4.5 percent in 2002, and 0.7 percent in 2003. This year, R&D spending is expected to increase-but by less than one percent, which is less than the inflation rate. Furthermore, with less than 10 percent of its R&D spending dedicated to basic research, industry will not be able to fill in the gaps created by the government's shift of funding to defense and homeland security-related research. These funding decreases may be exacerbated by a coming labor shortage. The number of Americans pursuing advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering is declining, and university science and engineering programs are growing more dependent on foreign-born talent. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's scientists and engineers with doctorates were born outside the country. And of the Ph.D.'s in science and engineering awarded to foreign students in the United States from 1985 to 2000, more than half went to students from China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan. Such dependence on foreign talent could become a critical weakness for the United States in the future, especially as foreign applications to U.S. science and engineering graduate programs decline. With booming economies and improving educational opportunities in their countries, staying at home is an increasingly attractive option for Chinese and Indian scientists. In addition, visa restrictions put in place after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have created new barriers for foreign students trying to enter the United States. Surveys conducted by the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and other education groups have blamed repetitive security checks, inefficient visa-renewal processes, and a lack of transparency for significant drops in applications to U.S. graduate programs this year.

12

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness Alt Cause – Science Funding, Education, Labor
Science funding, education system, and labor markets are key to competitiveness
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 Of equal importance, policymakers must also reinforce the United States' entrepreneurial climate, its greatest asset. The building blocks of American innovation-flexible capital and labor markets, transparent government regulation, and a business environment that rewards risk-need to be strengthened. Making the R&D tax credit permanent and expanding it to include more types of collaborative research, for example, would help provide incentives for innovation in as many technological sectors as possible. With innovative capacity rapidly spreading across the Pacific, the United States cannot simply assume that it will remain the epicenter of scientific research and technological innovation. Instead, it should meet the challenge from Asia head-on. The United States must actively engage with new centers of innovation and prepare itself to integrate rapidly and build on new ideas emerging in China, India, and South Korea. Above all, it must not assume that future innovation will occur automatically. Only through renewed attention to science funding, educational reform, the health of labor and capital markets, and the vitality of the business environment can the United States maintain its edge-and the most innovative economy in the world.

13

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness – Can’t Measure
Don’t vote on a risk of improving competitiveness – can’t accurately measure
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 Before rushing to address these challenges, Washington should understand the limits of the data used to describe S&T trends. Predictions of labor shortages in the sciences have been frequently wrong before, graduate school enrollment can change from year to year, and other data can counterbalance bad news. Although the number of Ph.D. students coming to the United States has dropped, for example, the proportion of those choosing to remain after their studies has increased substantially. Moreover, a bachelor's degree may now be more relevant to innovation than before, and the number of American students getting such degrees in science and engineering has increased over the last decade. Policymakers should therefore be careful not to focus too much on any particular statistic. Dollars spent on R&D or research papers published are easy to measure, but innovation involves many other factors. The speed at which new technologies such as broadband are adopted and diffused, the flexibility of labor markets, and the ease with which new companies can enter and exit technology markets all affect the ability of innovators to flourish in a particular economy-yet such factors usually fall outside the parameters of traditional S&T policy.

14

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness – Free-riding Good
US free-riding boosts growth and increases outside investment
Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008 U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf A future in which a significant share of new technologies is invented elsewhere will benefit the United States as long as it maintains the capability to acquire and implement technologies invented abroad. Technology is an essential factor of productivity, and the use of new technology (whether it was invented in the United States or elsewhere) can result in greater efficiency, economic growth, and higher living standards. The impact of globalization on U.S. innovative activity is less clear. On the one hand, significant innovation and R&D elsewhere may increase foreign and domestic demand for U.S. research and innovation if the United States keeps its comparative advantage in R&D. On the other hand, the rise of populous, low-income countries may threaten this comparative advantage in R&D in certain areas if such countries develop the capacity and institutions necessary to apply new technologies and have a well-educated, low-wage S&T labor force. Looking only at federal expenditures on R&D a few years ago might have left the impression that the United States was underinvesting in R&D at the end of the Cold War: Total federal R&D spending grew at 2.5 percent per year from 1994 to 2004, much lower than its long-term average of 3.5 percent per year from 1953 to 2004 (in real terms, i.e., after correction for inflation). Yet federal R&D accounted for only $86 billion of $288 billion total U.S. R&D expenditures in 2004. Industrial R&D expenditures, the largest source of R&D, grew rapidly, at an average rate of 5.4 percent and 5.3 percent per year for the periods 1953–2004 and 1994–2004, respectively, and accounted for most of the growth in total R&D (4.7 percent and 4.4 percent for the periods 1953–2004 and 1994–2004, respectively). As a result, growth in total R&D was on par with the world’s average growth: Measured in dollars at purchasing power parity (PPP), U.S. R&D expenditures grew at an average rate of 5.8 percent per annum from 1993 to 2003, close to the world’s average of 6.3 percent. Further, total basic research showed the greatest rate of increase, at an average of 6.2 percent and 5.1 percent per year (4.7 percent and 4.4 percent for total R&D) for the periods 1953–2004 and 1994–2004, respectively. Also, federally funded basic research grew by 3.4 percent per year over the period 1970–2003 and 4.7 percent per year over the period 1993–2003. As industrial and federal R&D grew, universities and colleges managed to increase their R&D by an average of 6.6 percent and 5.1 percent per year for 1953–2004 and 1994–2004, respectively. This is reassuring, given the importance of basic and academic research to innovation.

15

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness – Tech Leaks Inevitable
Tech leaks are inevitable
Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008 U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf In this report, we have focused primarily on U.S. competitiveness in S&T, without considering the implications for national security. Past research indicates that globalization of S&T complicates national security: The United States is less capable of denying other nations access to advanced technology to maintain a wide military capability gap between itself and potential adversaries. Technological capability is more widely diffused to potential competitors and may provide adversaries with capability to pursue nontraditional strategies and tactics on the battlefield or through insurgency and terrorism. Nevertheless, past research concludes that attempts to regulate or limit the diffusion of some (but not all) sensitive defense technology might have harmful long-term consequences and might not even be beneficial in the short term.

16

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness – A2 Worker Shortage
Foreign science and tech workers fill any gaps
Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008 U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf The United States has benefited from the inflow of foreign S&E students. Foreigners have helped to enable the fast growth in S&E employment (about 4.2 percent per year since 1980) in the face of relatively slow growth in S&E degree production (about 1.5 percent per year). This also suggests that foreigners have helped to hold down S&E wage increases, thereby reducing the cost of U.S. research. Further, because many foreign students come to the United States with a secondary education or a college education, the United States has not had to bear the cost of that education. Technological and scientific innovation is the engine of U.S. economic growth, and human talent is the main input that generates this growth. Immigration of highly skilled scientists and engineers allows the United States to draw the best and 3 In contrast, the share of non-U.S. citizens in the non-S&E workforce remained constant at 5 percent for similar levels of education (bachelor’s degree and higher). brightest from a global rather than domestic pool of talent. Finally, wage data suggest that the quality of the foreign S&E workforce is as good as that of U.S. citizens, in that comparable workers are paid the same.

No shortage of technology workers
Titus Galama, Physical Scientist Santa Monica Office, RAND, and James Hosek, Director, Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Security Research Division; Editor, RAND Journal of Economics; Professor, Pardee RAND Graduate School, 2008 U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology, RAND Corporation Monograph, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.sum.pdf Scientists and engineers are paid substantially more (about a 25 percent wage premium) and have the same unemployment as the non- S&E workforce for similar levels of education. Judging by recent versus past wage and unemployment trends, there is no evidence of a current shortage of S&E workers. At any given time, a firm or set of firms within an industry may be unable to fill their S&E job openings, but that is true for non-S&E positions as well. More broadly, despite the higher wages available in S&E jobs, the number of U.S.-born graduates xx U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology in S&E has grown slowly. Much of the growth in S&E employment has come from foreign-born S&E workers who have studied in the United States or who migrated to the United States after completing graduate studies in their home country. The share of non-U.S. citizens in the science and engineering workforce increased from 6 percent in 1994 to 12 percent in 2006.3 But alternative pathways, such as an increasing share of S&E graduates entering S&E jobs, the return of individuals holding S&E degrees who had earlier left for non-S&E jobs, and individuals without S&E degrees entering S&E jobs, may have also contributed. Given the current choice of many U.S.-born students to not study S&T, some observers are skeptical that scholarships and improved elementary and secondary science teaching will do much to expand the number of students studying S&T. The reasoning is that students will ultimately not enter (and stay) in S&E jobs unless their pay and intangible rewards are increased relative to non-S&E jobs. With rapid growth in R&D worldwide and aging populations, increased global competition for skilled S&E workers may result in slower growth of the workforce, more firms unable to fill their S&E job openings, and higher wages for S&E workers (i.e., increased cost of conducting R&D). While not apparent in the data yet, such potential trends are worth monitoring.

17

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness – New Tech Not Key
Developing new technology isn’t key to competitiveness
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 The double-edged phenomenon of globalization, which can both strengthen U.S. technology companies and threaten the innovation system, makes the task of supporting innovation through policy much more difficult. Proximity to consumers gives firms a better sense of potential new markets and allows them to rapidly respond to changing customer demands. Yet a move overseas, although it might seem good for shareholders, could also destabilize the complex interactions between firms and universities that drive technological discovery in the United States. Removing any one element from a technology cluster can diminish its ability to generate new ideas. Send manufacturing jobs to Asia and you risk exporting important components of your innovation infrastructure. The United States cannot and should not prevent the emergence of new technology clusters in Asia. Instead, it should prepare to develop and absorb new technologies as they emerge elsewhere. The ability to make good use of diverse ideas and systems remains one of the United States' most important comparative advantages, and U.S. companies must make sure that good ideas, no matter where they are developed, are brought to market in the United States first.

18

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Competitiveness Turn – Restricting Tech Bad
Restricting tech fails – free-riding and superior implementation are key to tech dominance
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 U.S. private industry may want to follow the example of the nation's armed forces. Washington's military dominance no longer depends on it denying others access to critical technologies. Many of the sensors that the U.S. military now uses to detect ships or aircraft beyond visual range or to provide targeting information are off-the-shelf items produced by companies around the world. Unable to prevent the spread of these technologies to potential enemies, the United States has maintained its military superiority by making sure it is better than any other country at using such tools, integrating sensor input, and creating sensor networks. In the commercial sphere, U.S. firms should similarly strive to maintain their advantage by adopting and integrating new technologies more rapidly than their competitors.

Trading tech is key to innovation
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-17-04 Is America Losing Its Edge? Foreign Affairs, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4893 Maintaining such speed will require that U.S. companies have a presence in Asian markets to track, develop, and invest in the most promising new ideas. Washington must continue to pressure its trading partners-especially Beijing-to meet the terms of current trade agreements and allow such access. The United States must also promote voluntary and open technology standards. In March 2004, the Bush administration protested regulations requiring all wireless imports to China to contain data-encryption technology produced only by Chinese companies. Beijing has since withdrawn the regulations, but given China's interest in developing new technology standards, the United States should watch for future attempts of a similar nature.

19

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization Alt Cause – Transportation & Biosphere
Solar power isn’t key to space colonization - transportation and biosphere are the linchpin to durable colonization
Al Globus, NASA Ames Research Center and UCSC University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), 9-22-05 Space Settlement Basics, http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html With great difficulty. Fortunately, although building space colonies will be very difficult, it's not impossible. Building cities in space will require materials, energy, transportation, communications, life support, and radiation protection. * Materials. Launching materials from Earth is very expensive, so bulk materials should come from the Moon or Near-Earth Objects (NEOs - asteroids and comets with orbits near Earth) where gravitational forces are much less, there is no atmosphere, and there is no biosphere to damage. Our Moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon and metals, but little hydrogen, carbon, or nitrogen. NEOs contain substantial amounts of metals, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon. NEOs also contain some nitrogen, but not necessarily enough to avoid major supplies from Earth. * Energy. Solar energy is abundant, reliable and is commonly used to power satellites today. Massive structures will be needed to convert sunlight into large amounts of electrical power for settlement use. Energy may be an export item for space settlements, using microwave beams to send power to Earth. * Transportation. This is the key to any space endeavor. Present launch costs are very high, $2,000 to $ 14,000 per pound from Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). To settle space we need much better launch vehicles and must avoid serious damage to the atmosphere from the thousands, perhaps millions, of launches required. One possibility is airbreathing hypersonic air/spacecraft under development by NASA and others. Transportation for milllions of tons of materials from the Moon and asteroids to settlement construction sites is also necessary. One well studied possibility is to build electronic catapults on the Moon to launch bulk materials to waiting settlements. * Communication. Compared to the other requirements, communication is relatively easy. Much of the current terrestrial communications already pass through satellites. * Life support. People need air, water, food and reasonable temperatures to survive. On Earth a large complex biosphere provides these. In space settlements, a relatively small, closed system must recycle all the nutrients without "crashing." The Biosphere II project in Arizona has shown that a complex, small, enclosed, man-made biosphere can support eight people for at least a year, although there were many problems. A year or so into the two year mission oxygen had to be replenished, which strongly suggests that they achieved atmospheric closure. For the first try, one major oxygen replenishment and perhaps a little stored food isin't too bad. Although Biosphere II has been correctly criticized on scientific grounds, it was a remarkable engineering achievement and provides some confidence that self sustaining biospheres can be built for space settlements. * Radiation protection. Cosmic rays and solar flares create a lethal radiation environment in space. To protect life, settlements must be surrounded by sufficient mass to absorb most incoming radiation. This can be achieved with left over from processing lunar soil and asteroids into oxygen, metals, and other useful materials.

Space solar power jumps the gun - efficient transportation is the sine qua non of space colonization
Al Globus, NASA Ames Research Center and UCSC University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), 9-22-05 Space Settlement Basics, http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html Although we know generally how to build space colonies, we have yet to find an economic path from where we are now to construction of the first colony. One approach is to develop a series of profitable, private industries. For example: 1. Sub-orbital tourism. The key to space colonization is transportation from the Earth's surface to LEO. The key to inexpensive, economic transportation is the same as learning a musical instrument: practice, practice, practice. To date, there have been only a few thousand space launches and only a few hundred people have been to space. Traditional uses of space, such as communication, Earth resources, military, exploration and science won't require a whole lot more in the next few decades. However, hundreds of thousands of people say they would travel to space if the price was right. Tourism is a market that may provide the necessary practice. Making a profit on space tourism seems like a ridiculous dream, but it has already happened. Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites flew their privately developed rocket, SpaceShipOne, into space three times in 2004, winning the $10 million Ansari X-Prize in the process. Not only did they win the prize, but they sold the technology to Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic for over $20 million, becoming profitable on their first space tourism venture. Virgin Galactic has put up another $50 million to develop five larger vehicles to carry tourists into space for a profit. The price is expected to be around $200,000 per flight. In a late 2004 talk, Rutan made the following predictions: * Within 5 years 3,000 tourists will have been to space. * Within 15 years sub-orbital tourism will be affordable, and 50,000 people will have flown. * Within 15 years the first, expensive orbital tourist flights will have happened. * Within 25 years orbital tourism will be affordable. Time will tell if these are accurate. 2. Orbital Tourism. SpaceShipOne went almost straight up 100km to get into space, and then came nearly straight down again. This sub-orbital flight is much easier than orbital flight, which requires the spacecraft to go nearly 30,000 km/hr horizontally to avoid crashing back to Earth. Surprisingly, the first paying orbital tourists have already flown. The Russians have taken Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth to the International Space Station (ISS) developed by the U.S., Russia, Canada, Europe, Japan and other partners. However, even at $20 million a trip, this business only makes economic sense because the international partners spent tens of billions of dollars developing the ISS for other reasons. Nonetheless, if Rutan's prediction is correct we will see affordable orbital tourism within the lifetime of most people reading this. Successful orbital mass tourism will mean not only people, but solar power satellites can be launched from the ground to orbit affordably. 3. Solar Power Satellites. Electrical power is a multi-hundred billion dollar per year business today. We know how to generate electricity in space using solar cells. For example, the ISS provides about 80 kilowatts continuously from an acre of solar arrays. By building much larger satellites out of hundreds of solar arrys, it is possible to generate a great deal of electrical power. This can be converted to microwaves and beamed to Earth to provide electricity with absolutely no greenhouse gas emissions or toxic waste of any kind. If transportation to orbit is inexpensive following development of the tourist industry, much of Earth's power could be provided from space, simultaneously providing a large profitable business and dramatically reducing pollution on Earth. 4. Asteroidal Metals. John Lewis in Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from Asteroids, Comets, and Planets estimates that the current market value of the metals in 3554 Amun, one small nearby asteroid, is about $20 Trillion. There's $8 trillion worth of iron and nickel, $6 trillion worth of cobalt, and about $6 trillion in platinum-group metals. Once 20

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO
we can easily launch thousands of people into orbit, and build giant solar power satellites, it shouldn't be too difficult to retrieve 3554 Amun and other asteroids to supply Earth with all the metals we will ever need.

21

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Diseases Into Space
Space exploration could cause the release of diseases into space threatening aliens Satellite Events Interprise, 8-29-05
Protecting Space from Earth and Protecting Earth from Space, http://www.theguardians.com/Microbiology/gm_mbc01.htm In order to allow experts to carry out examinations in controlled laboratory conditions, the astronauts removed the video camera from Surveyor, sealed it in a sterile bag and brought it back to Earth. When the camera was examined it was found to be the home of a colony of bacteria, Streptococcus mitis. However these were not space monsters, but had come from Earth. They were thought to be the result of inadequate cleaning techniques, which had failed to sterilize the camera before it was put on the spacecraft and sent to the Moon. However, there is also the possibility that the camera was accidentally contaminated after returning to Earth. If the bacteria had indeed survived - not only the space travel, but space itself - their ordeal included the vacuum of space, 3 years radiation exposure, temperatures as low as 20 K (36F above absolute zero), and no nutrient, water or other energy. Something between 50 and 100 organisms appear to have remained viable. (above) Surveyor 3 is examined by the crew of Apollo 12. © NASA, 1970 0 Whether or not the microbes did travel to the Moon, the lesson is clear. By not taking adequate precautions we could accidentally release microbes into space.

22

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – New Diseases
Space exploration exposes us to new diseases and irritants SciPop, 6-11-08
Space blog, http://popchaser.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/interesting-problem-for-moon-dwellers/ During the Apollo program, scientist discovered that the statically charged moondust proved to be quite an engineering problem, but now, researchers are starting to realize that lunar dust may also pose a significant health risk for astronauts to come. One superficial aspect of moondust is that it extremely small and jagged, much like tiny, little shards of glass. There is no consistent weathering process on the moon, unlike here on Earth, so rounded edges cannot develop on the dust particles. For Apollo astronauts, the sandpaper-like nature of moondust scratched faceplates and caused irritation to both the eyes and lungs. To combat this problem, right now, researches of the Lunar Airborne Dust Toxicity Advisory Group (or LADTAG) are exposing lab rats to moondust aerosols and studying the effects. Additionally, in the lunar, airless, environment, moondust is also super chemically reactive. On Earth, the constant presence of highly reactive oxygen in the atmosphere quells any potentially reactive compounds on surfaces when they are exposed to air. Fortunately, scientist believe that the high reactivity of moondust will probably not be a major problem, considering that future lunar astronauts will most likely come equip with their own supply of air…hopefully. As you read, research aimed at learning more about the above mentioned nuances of lunar dust marches on; however, I believe there is one more possible moondust complication which merits scientific attention: moondust allergy. I know this may seem silly at first, but if astronauts or lunar settlers are going to be living with moondust day in and day out and, thus, become chronically exposed to it, then there is always the possibility of a longterm sensitization allergy developing. Furthermore, some more sinister type of moondust-induced autoimmune disease may also be lurking in the future for humans living on the moon. Here on Earth, there have been reported cases of humans developing a rare type of autoimmune disease while breathing in pig-brain aerosols at meat-packing plants, so I guess that anything is possible.

23

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Solvency – Launch
Space solar power requires massive improvements in launch efficiency
Alan Boyle, Science editor, 10-12-07 Power from space? Pentagon likes the idea, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/ The Solar Electric Power Association's Taylor, who advises utilities and other organizations on trends in terrestrial solar power, said the space option "is not something that's on the current solar industry's radar." He told msnbc.com that putting a large power-generating system in space would pose huge technical challenges — and the potential payoff would have to be similarly huge to justify the risk and expense. "I'm not sure there'd be a great need to move into space unless it had some exponential cost improvement," Taylor said. "It can't be just a marginal improvement." What is to be done? Smith agreed that the hurdles were high. "You put the study out, you spend a couple of weeks getting comments, you step back and take a breath, then you get busy," he said. "We didn't try to candy-coat this. This is going to be a hard, hard, hard, hard problem." No. 1 on his list was reducing the cost of sending payloads into geosynchronous orbit — a cost that is currently estimated at $10,000 per pound or more. "We have got to solve the reusable rocket and space plane problems immediately," Smith said. "It's time to stop just talking about it."

24

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Solvency – Timeframe
Decades of development are necessary before space solar power can even be tested International Union of Radio Science, September 2006
URSI White Paper on Solar Power Satellite (SPS) System, http://ursi.ca/SPS-2006sept.pdf This has led URSI to organise an open forum for the debate of the radio-science aspects of SPS systems and related technical and environmental issues. The present white paper is intended to draw attention to these aspects of SPS systems. It is not URSI’s intention to advocate solar power satellites as a solution to the world’s increasing energy demands, or to dwell on areas outside of URSI’s scientific domain, such as the whole issue of the space engineering to launch, assemble, and maintain an SPS system in space, the economic justification, and public acceptance. URSI is well aware that if a practical SPS system is feasible, the realisation of such a system is far in the future. Many of the required technologies currently exist, but some of these must be substantially advanced, and others must be created. Microwave power transmission is an important technology for SPS systems, since its overall efficiency is one of the critical factors that determines the interest in such systems from an economic standpoint. Ideally, almost all energy transmitted from the geostationary orbit should be collected by the rectifying antennas on the ground. In that respect, an overall dc-to-microwave-to-dc power efficiency in excess of 50% is needed (see Section 2.4), which requires the development of suitable microwave power devices. Accurate control of the antenna beam is essential, and measurement and calibration are important issues. Even if these technologies can be successfully developed, there remains the challenging task of combining the outputs of thousands or even millions of elements to form a focused beam. Proper safety measures have to be developed to be certain that the transmitted microwave beam remains within the rectenna’s area. Maintenance of the space systems may be very difficult and expensive in the harsh environment of a geostationary orbit. Ensuring the long-term stability of huge structures in space in the presence of solar radiation pressure and tidal forces is an unsolved problem. The influence and effects of electromagnetic emissions from an SPS, and, in particular, the microwave power transmission, are radio-science issues that concern URSI. Atmospheric effects on the microwave beam, and linear and non-linear interactions of the microwave beam with the atmosphere, ionosphere, and space plasmas, are among the numerous issues that must be investigated and evaluated. Undesired emissions – such as harmonics, grating lobes, and sidelobes from transmitting antennas and rectennas – must be sufficiently suppressed. This is true not only to avoid wasting power, but also to avoid interference with other radio services and applications and with remote sensing and radio astronomy, in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The evaluation of possible effects on human health and the incorporation of appropriate safety measures are essential for legal operation and public acceptance of this power-generation technique.

25

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Solvency – Tech Fails
Key parts of the system are untested and will fail – launch technology, maintenance, radiation International Union of Radio Science, September 2006
URSI White Paper on Solar Power Satellite (SPS) System, http://ursi.ca/SPS-2006sept.pdf The most important key technology concerns the infrastructure to launch, assemble, transport, and maintain the SPS system. Since this topic is beyond URSI’s scientific domain, it will not be dealt with here. The key elements in the dc power generation for the SPS system are the solar cells. Thinmembrane (amorphous) silicon solar cells are expected to be the most suitable type for the SPS system because of their good performance for a given weight, and because of conservation of natural resources, although their conversion efficiency is lower than the figures for Si cells (17.3% [7]) and GaAs cells (20% [7]). Mass-production feasibility is also an important aspect in choosing the most suitable solar-cell type. A sunlight concentrator would enhance the power output. Therefore, two types of power-generation systems have been studied: (a) a massive light-concentration type [9], and (b) a super-lightweight thin-membrane type [30]. An increase of the total power-conversion efficiency is to be greatly desired. However, it should be noted that solar cells in space deteriorate, due to accelerated solar-wind particles and solar radiation. Radiation-hardened cells are already available for long-term space missions, but at considerably higher costs than cells for terrestrial use. The thermal design and control of the SPS system will also be of importance, particularly if sunlight concentration is applied. One method for thermal control of the generator is blockage of the infrared radiation from the sun, either by effective reflection or by band-elimination filters for infrared radiation. The radio science and technology of an SPS system, such as the microwave power transmission, microwave power devices, rectennas, and beam control, will be discussed in detail in Section 3. A very important detail of an SPS is the proper orbit in space. A geostationary orbit has been proposed for most of the systems envisioned so far. However, a more-remote orbit, an L2-halo orbit [31], was also considered. It is generally assumed that the SPS is assembled at a low Earth orbit, with subsequent transportation to a geostationary orbit. Modern SPS concepts rely on robotic assembly and maintenance systems, rather than human astronauts for the assembly task. For transportation, suitable orbit-transfer vehicles have to be developed to transport a very large structure from a lower to a higher orbit. Solar electric-propulsion orbital-transfer vehicles have been suggested for this purpose. Some corresponding prototype propulsion systems, such as a magneto-plasmadynamic thruster, a Hall thruster, and a microwave-discharge ion engine, have been tested ([1, Section 2.3.1.2). It should also be noted that the selection of the final working orbit of an SPS may have important implications for the antenna design and its characteristics (far-field or Fresnel region). Other key issues of SPS technology are lifetime and maintenance. The limited lifetime of solar cells has already been mentioned, but a long-term radiation hazard also exists for any solid-state device on the SPS, such as dc-to microwave converters, for instance. In addition, there is the problem of the long-term mechanical stability of the very large structures of the solar panels and the microwave transmitting antenna. The long-term influence of tidal effects and radiation pressure have to be examined. In principle, both effects can deform the structure as well as change its orientation. In particular, the radiation pressure exerts a force that changes continuously in direction with respect to the line joining the satellite and the rectenna. This may pose serious problems concerning the control of the orbit and the orientation of the RF beam. The amplitude of this force is of the order of 100 N for a solar-cell area of 10 km2 (2 × solar radiation power flux × 10 km2/velocity of light). Regarding maintenance, the present-day experiences for low Earth orbits with the Hubble space telescope and the International Space Station indicate that maintaining and servicing a much larger system in a much higher orbit may be very difficult and much more expensive than for low Earth orbits. A completely new approach to space maintenance may be required to maintain assets at geostationary orbit. Currently, progressive replacement is the only viable option.

26

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Exploration Now
NASA space exploration now
The Washington Times, 7-28-08 NASA launches new market; After 50 years, dreams turn to profitable travel, Lexis-Nexis The next ventures are planned to build permanent manned space stations, first on the moon and then on Mars. The Constellation program that is taking shape at NASA facilities nationwide is developing multistage rockets and lunar landers that look much like the Apollo spacecraft that made one giant leap to the lunar surface. "The laws of physics haven't changed," said Stephanie Schierholz, a NASA spokeswoman. The biggest difference is the mission NASA has in mind. While the Apollo missions sent two men at a time to the lunar equator to collect rocks for a couple of days, Constellation will send crews of four to the south pole. They will start with weeklong missions, building in increments a permanent outpost designed to house crews for six months at a time. "The south pole is actually a very interesting place," Ms. Schierholz said. Unlike the day and night cycles along the lunar equator, "If you go to the polar region, there are areas that are exposed to the sun almost all the time, so you can get solar power," she said. NASA wants to learn from the outpost how humans can adapt to the harsh environment of low gravity, no air, unfiltered solar radiation and deadly subzero temperatures - in other words, an environment that's a lot like the one on Mars. "It's approximately a three-day trip to the moon," Ms. Schierholz said. "Mars, on the other hand, is six months just to get there, which is why we think it's a good idea to go to the moon first."

27

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Outer Space Treaty
Outer Space Treaty prevents colonization
Jeff Brooks, Public Interest Advocate for the Texas Public Interest Research Group, 12-11-06 The International Agency for the Development of Mars, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/763/1 Aside from reducing nationalistic rivalry as a motivating factor for manned space exploration (a mixed blessing), the Outer Space Treaty presents a major problem for the advocates of space colonization: it makes impossible the buying and selling land on the worlds of the Solar System. Since no country can have legal sovereignty over moons and planets, no legal system can be in place to regulate the ownership of real estate. If nobody owns it, nobody can sell it.

28

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Plant / Human Reproduction
Plants can’t grow in space and human reproduction would be too dangerous Thinkquest Team, 2000
Reproduction in Space, http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=habitat05 Many biological processes are affected by the weightless conditions in space, and reproduction is no exception. Gravity acts as a downward force on Earth, but in space, the lack of this ‘downward force’ has a disorienting effect on living things. Not a lot of research has gone into reproduction in space. So far the reproductive abilities of organisms such as plants, fish, amphibians, insects and small animals have been studied in microgravity, but no serious effort has gone into studying the reproduction of humans in space (that we are aware of!). A thorough understanding of how organisms reproduce in space is vital to the success of future long-distance space missions. On a mission to Mars, for example, plants would be an integral part of a life support system. Plants will take up the carbon dioxide exhaled by humans to use in photosynthesis and will return oxygen and food to the crew. We need to learn how to maximize the reproductive abilities and health of these plants in space. Scientific studies have demonstrated that microgravity has adverse effects on plant cell division. Experiment results have shown genetic abnormalities occur in plants during space flight. The division and development of plant cells, which are essential for plant growth and reproduction, are hindered by the lack of gravity. Although certain plants have actually pollinated and produced seeds in microgravity, we are a long way from successfully growing plants as a food source in space. Quail incubator in space This Russian quail incubator carries fertilized quail eggs into space. Photo courtesy NASA. There are a few reasons that might explain why plants have difficulties reproducing in space. Life in space is susceptible to a number of hazards that are not major concerns on Earth. In addition to microgravity, another hazard is the exposure to radiation. Fetal and embryo development can be deleteriously effected by radiation. Because of this, NASA prohibits pregnant women from going into space.

29

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Asteroids
Asteroids don’t pose a big threat – can be easily moved with spacecraft or nukes if necessary
Aaron Rowe, 6-27-08 Nukes Are Not the Best Way to Stop an Asteroid, Wired, http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/nukes-are-not-t.html Nuclear weapons could be used to stop earth-bound asteroids, but in most instances, they are not the best option, said Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart during a public lecture this Wednesday in San Francisco. The venerable scientist explained that all but the largest heavenly bodies can be redirected by rearending or towing them with an unmanned spacecraft. But last year, NASA issued a report stating that using nukes is the best strategy to prevent a catastrophic collision with earth. Although Schweickart has a great deal of faith in the agency, enough to risk his life piloting their lunar lander, he feels that they issued the misleading statement -- under immense political pressure. It was a nefarious excuse to put nuclear weapons in space. Rusty His own organization, the B612 Foundation, intends to use gentler tactics to alter the course of an asteroid by 2015. Right now, humans are not tracking most of the objects that could cause serious damage to earth, but in the next century, as powerful new telescopes come online, we will begin watching many of them. When that day comes, we will know which ones stand a chance of hitting earth, and it will be time to make some tough decisions.

Asteroids won’t affect us for at least fifty years – and we can always move them off course
Duncan Steele, president of Spaceguard, No Date http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/duncan_steel.shtml MR: Could we somehow blast an asteroid if it was a threat to Earth? Duncan Steel: First, let me say that it is unlikely that we will need to do this at any time within our lifetimes. The chances are simply that it's unlikely that we will find an asteroid on a collision course for the Earth. However, if we did find one which perhaps was due to hit us in ten or twenty years, it might be possible to divert it to get it to miss the Earth. Unfortunately, the only way we know of which would accomplish this would involve using nuclear weapons, but it is not like in the movies. Paradoxically, we need to use a nuclear weapon in a 'gentle' way - that is, we want to give it a nudge by using a stand-off nuclear explosion so that it remains intact, because actually blasting it on its surface would simply shatter it into pieces, thus turning a cannonball into a shotgun blast. We would still be hit by the fragments. But we think it should be possible to give the object a sufficient shove with an explosion to get it to miss the Earth. The essential thing is we need lots of warning time, and that means many years. This is why a diligent search programme is necessary now. And it must be global - the Americans simply cannot see the southern sky. Wes: What do you think about the theory of attaching sails to the asteroids and using the solar wind to nudge them off course? Duncan Steel: This has been suggested, but the reality is that if we did find one which was threatening us we would surely use a proven technique. The solar sail idea is nice in theory but in practice we would not be able to gamble with the chance that it might not work. Really, dealing with asteroids is like dealing with cancer. The first step is a screening programme and it's unlikely that you will develop a particular type of cancer. But if you do, none of the solutions are pleasant. It's the same with asteroids. We wouldn't want to use nuclear weapons in space, but I believe it would be essential. Zeppelinlz130: Would an array of Hubble-like space based telescopes around the Earth make it easier to discover and monitor asteroids? Duncan Steel: Certainly it is impossible to see asteroids coming from the day side of the Earth using ground-based telescopes. However, we could see them using telescopes in space.The problem is that this would be very expensive and at the current time the money is not even available to carry out the sort of search programme which we could and should do from the ground. It is much cheaper to use ground-based telescopes, but in some ways, space-based telescopes would be very desirable.

30

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Can’t Colonize Mars
Colonization of Mars is impossible – permafrost, bone loss
Jeffrey Bell, space scientist, 11-24-05 The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html Just look at Bob Zubrin's vision of Mars colonization. Nowhere in Zubrin's books is there the kind of detailed engineering design for Mars colonies that the O'Neillians produced for their L-5 colonies. The problems of sustaining human life on Mars are dismissed after superficial discussions devoid of any hard numbers. And there are obvious problems with colonizing Mars. The first one is that it gets incredibly cold there - probably down to -130C on winter nights. Every robot Mars probe has used small slugs of Pu-238 to keep its batteries from freezing at night. And there is air on Mars - not enough to breathe, but enough to conduct heat. The Martian regolith will not be the perfect insulator that the Moon's is. Thermal control on Mars will not be simply a matter of adding layers of aluminum foil to reflect the sun. Bases and rovers will need to be insulated and heated. And how do you keep a human in a spacesuit warm in this climate? And Mars has permafrost - at least in some places and those places are the ones to colonize. How do we keep the heat leaking out from our habitat or farm greenhouse into the ground from heating up the ice and melting or subliming it away? This is a severe problem in permafrost areas of the Earth - how bad will it be on Mars? Zubrin even proposes underground habitats. These will be in direct contact with the cold subsoil or bedrock which will suck heat out at a rapid rate. If Gerard O'Neill was still alive and advocating Mars colonies, he would be doing some basic thermal transfer calculations to see how bad the Martian cold problem really is. He would be figuring out how big a fission reactor to send along to keep the colony warm and how often its core will need to be replenished by fresh U-235 from Earth. He would even have a rough number for the amount of Pu-238 everyone will have to carry in their spacesuit backpacks. Bob Zubrin is perfectly competent to do these calculations since he has a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. But you never see this kind of hard engineering analysis from the Mars Society. Instead, we get propaganda stunts like the Devon Island "Mars Base" which is only manned during the peak of the Arctic summer when the climate is tropical compared with that of Mars. Another thing you never see from the Mars Society is a realistic discussion of what would happen to the human body in the low Martian gravity. Zubrin has discussed at length the need for artificial spin gravity on the 6 month trip to Mars. But he assumes that the problem ends once the astronauts land on Mars. The problem of bone loss in a 0.38g field on Mars for ~18 months is completely ignored. When I read Zubrin's book The Case For Mars, I was so intrigued by this surprising omission that I consulted a friend who is a space medic at JSC. He tells me that this issue was once discussed at a conference of medical doctors who had actually worked with the long-term residents of Mir and ISS. NONE of these experts thought that humans could adapt permanently to Mars gravity!

31

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Can’t Colonize Moon
Moon colonization is dangerous – cosmic rays stunt development
Jeffrey Bell, space scientist, 11-24-05 The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html This dream palace is symbolized by one particular image that one sees far too often these days. This is an artist's concept of a future Moon base/colony with a small spacesuited child playing joyfully in the regolith like it was a gigantic sandbox. Logically, this image makes no sense. 1) Spacesuits are so expensive and so tailored to individual measurements that no Moon parents could afford to have a whole series custom-made for a growing child. 2) EVA is so dangerous that no one would allow an irresponsible child out in vacuum. (Even the Robert Heinlein kid's SF novels that we Boomers grew up on were relatively sane on this point.) 3) The child would be exposed to deadly cosmic rays at a critical time in its development. 4) No child could grow normally in the low lunar gravity. Even adult astronauts are carried away on wheelchairs after only 6 months in space (the last American to return from the ISS actually fainted from the stress of normal gravity).

32

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Timeframe / Alt Cause
Space colonization requires scientists in space and will take hundreds of years
Douglas Robertson, space industry journalist, 3-6-06 OpEd: Space Exploration: A Reality Check, Space Business News, http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html Dramatic increases in exploration funding are not likely in the foreseeable future. If we are going to make progress toward truly understanding the Moon and Mars, we must send scientists while staying close to existing budgets. Whatever the dangers, we must proceed with our existing tools and technologies. Dangerous it will be. Detailed exploration, let alone settlement, of nearby worlds will be the single most difficult task humanity has ever tackled. Most likely, it will take many hundreds, or even thousands, of years. Our first attempts to establish a base on Earth's Moon or Mars may well fail. As on the oceans, many people will die: we cannot insist on levels of safety that make the exercise technically impractical or unaffordable.

33

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – Radiation, Nutrients
Space colonization fails – radiation exposure, lack of essential elements SciPop, 6-11-08
Space blog, http://popchaser.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/interesting-problem-for-moon-dwellers/ If humans are ever to successfully colonize the moon, it’s obvious that such a monumental task will be plagued by a myriad of technological, physiological, and psychological challenges. Obstacles such as radiation exposure, lack of air+food+water, and space madness are a few lunar-specific problems worthy of mentioning. However, there is one rather clandestine problem that will also face the future pioneers of the moon — one which could turn out to be the lunar problem with proves to be the most difficult of all.

34

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Colonization – International Cooperation Key
Without international cooperation, space exploration won’t happen Tariq Malik, journalist, May 4, 2004 (“Space Experts Say International Cooperation is Key for NASA's Space
Vision”, http://www.space.com/news/commission_ny_040504.html)

NEW YORK CITY -- NASA should not limit itself to merely seeking support from the American public to push forward its vision of the human exploration of space, according to the foreign space agency directors, scientists and space enthusiasts addressing a presidential commission Monday. While support from the American people, and the politicians who represent them, is a critical component of the space vision, so to[o] is international cooperation, panelists said during the final meeting of the Commission on the Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. The commission, held at the Asia Society here, was appointed by President George W. Bush to recommend the steps needed to full his vision of sending humans to the moon and Mars. "Space is a global industry," said Daniel Sacotte, a director with the European Space Agency's (ESA) human spaceflight, microgravity and exploration programs. "[The vision] is most difficult, but it is most important that we cooperate."

International treaty key to space colonization
Jeff Brooks, Public Interest Advocate for the Texas Public Interest Research Group, 12-11-06 The International Agency for the Development of Mars, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/763/1 What is needed, therefore, is for the major spacefaring nations of the world to sign a new treaty, creating the legal framework for the buying and selling of Martian land. An international agency could be created to properly regulate the process and provide a legal and reliable regulatory system for purchasing and selling Martian land shares. What name it would go by matters little; in this article, let’s call it the International Agency for the Development of Mars (IADM).

35

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Solar Power Satellites –International Backlash and War
Unilateral space-based solar power causes massive international backlash and risks war
Peter Glaser, fellow American Association of the Advancement of Science and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, December 2007 Ad Astra Magazine, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf Ad Astra: Do you think the push to create space-based power systems should be spearheaded by the government or the private sector? Glaser: Since it would be such a huge undertaking, I think it would be best accomplished at an international level, perhaps even managed by the United Nations. Each country could contribute their best effort, and then each country would reap the benefit of cheap and plentiful power from the sun. We could utilize the knowledge of all the nations that have been researching spacebased solar power. If only one country has the satellites, the international community will worry that the technology will be misused. With every nation taking part in the planning, building, and operation of the system, there would be inherent transparency, oversight, and equality. There would be no secrets, and no country would be left in the dark. On the other hand, if one nation decides to build the system, all hell may break loose. There would be distrust and a huge shift in the balance of power. Any nation with such a system would not only have an advantage in space, but they would have economic and military advantages on the ground as well. And there are many countries taking the idea of solar power from space much more seriously that we are in the United States. I would prefer to see a network of power satellites built by an international effort.

36

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Militarization Bad – Heg, War, Terror
Space militarization kills heg, triggers a massive global race risking international war, and increasing terrorism
Theresa Hitchens, Center for Defense Information Vice President, 4-18-02 Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette? http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm It is inconceivable that either Russia or China would allow the United States to become the sole nation with space-based weapons. "Once a nation embarks down the road to gain a huge asymmetric advantage, the natural tendency of others is to close that gap. An arms race tends to develop an inertia of its own," writes Air Force Lt. Col. Bruce M. DeBlois, in a 1998 article in Airpower Journal. 29 Chinese moves to put weapons in space would trigger regional rival India to consider the same, in turn, spurring Pakistan to strive for parity with India. Even U.S. allies in Europe might feel pressure to "keep up with the Joneses." It is quite easy to imagine the course of a new arms race in space that would be nearly as destabilizing as the atomic weapons race proved to be. Such a strategic-level space race could have negative consequences for U.S. security in the long run that would outweigh the obvious (and tremendous) short-term advantage of being the first with space-based weapons. There would be direct economic costs to sustaining orbital weapon systems and keeping ahead of opponents intent on matching U.S. space-weapon capabilities — raising the proverbial question of whether we would be starting a game we might not be able to win. (It should be remembered that the attacker will always have an advantage in space warfare, in that space assets are inherently static, moving in predictable orbits. Space weapons, just like satellites, have inherent vulnerabilities.) Again, the price tag of space weapons systems would not be trivial — with maintenance costs a key issue. For example, it now costs commercial firms between $300 million and $350 million to replace a single satellite that has a lifespan of about 15 years, according to Ed Cornet, vice president of Booz Allen and Hamilton consulting firm. Many experts also argue there would be costs, both economic and strategic, stemming from the need to counter other asymmetric challenges from those who could not afford to be participants in the race itself. Threatened nations or non-state actors might well look to terrorism using chemical or biological agents as one alternative. Karl Mueller, now at RAND, in an analysis for the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, wrote, "The United States would not be able to maintain unchallenged hegemony in the weaponization of space, and while a space-weapons race would threaten international stability, it would be even more dangerous to U.S. security and relative power projection capability, due to other states' significant ability and probably inclination to balance symmetrically and asymmetrically against ascendant U.S. power." 31

Space weaponization prevents US power projection and risks direct strikes on satellites and cities
Theresa Hitchens, Center for Defense Information Vice President, 4-18-02 Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette? http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm Spurring other nations to acquire space-based weapons of their own, especially weapons aimed at terrestrial targets, would certainly undercut the ability of U.S. forces to operate freely on the ground on a worldwide basis — negating what today is a unique advantage of being a military superpower. 32 U.S. commercial satellites would also become targets, as well as military assets (especially considering the fact that the U.S. military is heavily reliant on commercial providers, particularly in communications). Depending on how widespread such weapons became, it also could even put U.S. cities at a greater risk than they face today from ballistic missiles.

37

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Space Militarization – Turns Competitiveness
Space weaponization kills competitiveness and results in satellite destruction
Theresa Hitchens, Center for Defense Information Vice President, 4-18-02 Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette? http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm The competitive and cost challenges the U.S. satellite industry faces could be increased if the United States moved to make space a battlefield. Up to now, the threat that commercial satellites could become direct wartime casualties has been negligible. But an aggressive U.S. pursuit of ASATs would likely encourage others to do the same, thus potentially heightening the threat to U.S. satellites. Space industry executives, whose companies often are working at the margins of profitability, are concerned about U.S. commercial satellites and their operations becoming targets, especially because current commercial satellites have little protection (electronic hardening, for example, has been considered too expensive). There would be costs to commercial providers for increasing protection, and it is highly unclear whether the U.S. government would cover all those costs.

38

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Russia DA – 1NC
Russia expects cooperation over civilian space issues – the plan would reverse this
A.C. Charania, President, SpaceWorks Commercial, a division of SpaceWorks Engineering, 6-22-08 U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's Comments on Use of Russian Radar for Asteroid Investigations, Plantary Defense, http://planetarydefense.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html U.S.-Russian cooperation in space was discussed during U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's visit to the rocket and space corporation Energia in Moscow, Russian space agency Roscosmos reported. Rohrabacher met with Energia head Vitaly Lopota for talks that were also attended by NASA representatives, Roscosmos said on its website. "The parties expressed the opinion that cooperation between the two space powers in major space projects, including the International Space Station (ISS), is very effective, while a flight to Mars could give the generations to come a lot more than manned flights to the Moon," Roscosmos said. The talks dealt with the safety of Soyuz flights, the operation of the ISS and the future of Russian-U.S. cooperation in space, it said. "U.S. Congressman Rohrabacher said that he personally did not doubt the reliability and flight safety of the Russian manned spacecraft Soyuz," Roscosmos said. "The U.S. congressman also said that Russia and the United States could launch large-scale space projects in the future. A Moon base project and the protection of the earth from asteroids deserve priority attention, he said," according to the Roscosmos posting

Civilian cooperation over space is critical to overall relations
Steven Pifer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, 6-11-03 Testimony Before the House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, The U.S. and Russia: Space Cooperation and Export Controls Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee. It is an honor to appear before you with my colleague from NASA. We at the State Department consider it a privilege to work together with John Schumacher and his colleagues at NASA to further one of America's loftiest goals -- the mission of human space flight. At State, our contribution to this mission is to facilitate relations with our international partners in space exploration while safeguarding our broader national security interests. Although we cooperate closely with many space agencies around the world, any conversation about the U.S. space program would be incomplete if it did not note the unique and historic partnership we share with Russia in the field of human space flight. Space cooperation between the United States and Russia remains one of the most visibly successful elements of the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship. U.S.-Russian Space Cooperation In recent months, this partnership has had to face tragic and unforeseen challenges. In the wake of the loss of the Shuttle Columbia, we have turned to our Russian colleagues for their assistance in sustaining the operations of the International Space Station (ISS). Considering our mutual experience in space exploration, Russia has undertaken important additional efforts to maintain the viability of the ISS. With the shuttle fleet grounded, the Russian Aviation and Space Agency (Rosaviakosmos) readily accepted its role as provider of the world's only physical link to the Station. When the International Partners became concerned about the supply of water and other critical provisions to the Station, Russia made every effort to ensure that its Progress resupply vehicle would be available to provide support for the Station. The unmanned Progress vehicles are critical workhorses for delivering supplies to the Station. When the International Partners were faced with the possibility of mothballing the Station, Russia utilized a previously planned Soyuz launch to ferry a fresh crew to the Station, a mission that had been slated to be carried out by the Shuttle. This kind of cooperation, in the aftermath of the loss of the Columbia, has strengthened further our space partnership. Underscoring the depth of this partnership, President Bush and President Putin reaffirmed U.S.-Russian cooperation in space at their June 1 meeting in St. Petersburg. In their joint statement, the Presidents extolled the role our two countries have played in the field of human space flight and confirmed their mutual aspiration to ensure the continued assembly and viability of the International Space Station as a world-class research facility. Looking to the future, the Presidents agreed to explore ways to enhance our cooperation in the field of space technology and techniques.

39

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Russia DA – Satellite Coop
Satellite cooperation now with Russia House Science and Technology Committee, 6-11-03
House Science Committee Hearing Charter: U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Space, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9435 Collaboration with Russia on Space Programs. The Iran Nonproliferation Act only covers U.S.-Russian collaboration on the International Space Station, but the U.S. and Russia collaborate in several other space programs. NASA provided a summary of its cooperation with Russia in Attachment 4. The joint U.S.Russia statement says that the two countries “are prepared to take energetic steps to enhance our cooperation in the application of space technology and techniques.” Other than the Space Station, space launch is the main area of collaboration between the U.S. and Russia. These joint ventures are formed between U.S. and Russian companies rather than through government-to-government collaboration. Rocket Engines. Lockheed Martin's Atlas V uses the RD-180 first stage engine built by Energomash, a Russian company, and Sea Launch is a partnership between Boeing, Energia, and Yuzhnoye/Yuzhmash using the Ukrainian Zenit rocket and Russian upper stage engines. Several U.S. commercial satellites are launched from Russia or Kazakhstan.

40

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Russia DA – Coop Now
Strong US and Russian cooperation over space station now AFP News, 7-17-08
Space chiefs ponder ISS transport problem, post-2015 future, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHU-9Wk8oBGYe8q05p3TBOSU9eeA A US replacement for the shuttle, a rocket-and-capsule system called Aries-Orion, is due to be operational around 2015. The head of the Russian Space Agency, Anatoly Perminov, told reporters that the United States and Russia will hold talks on beefing up flights by the Soviet-era workhorse, Soyuz, to ferry astronauts to and from the ISS between 2011 and 2014. "By the end of this year or by the beginning of next year at the latest, the whole rationale for our cooperation will be laid out," Perminov told a press conference at European Space Agency (ESA) headquarters. Possible shuttle substitutes for freight, mulled by the agency chiefs, are commercial operators as well as Japan's unmanned cargo ship, the H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), due to be launched for the first time next year by its H-2 rocket, the Russian supply vessel Progress, and ESA's own cargo ship, which docked automatically with the ISS in March. Begun in 1998, the ISS is scheduled to be completed in 2010 after suffering long delays as a result of the loss of the shuttle Columbia and enduring major cost overruns. The US has shouldered the lion's share of the cost. The four other partners are Russia, ESA, Japan and Canada. NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told the press conference that the ISS would be a 100-billion-dollar (63-billion-euro) asset when completed, and it was unlikely that the station's partners would want to give up this investment when the facility's official life comes to an end. "I believe all the partners expect to go to their governments supporting the extension of the station's life... beyond 2015. I personally think the station will continue to be used as long as its use is productive.

41

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

Russia DA – Laser Link
Lasers transmission violates Russian treaty Space Daily, 3-27-01
A Constellation Of Orbital Power, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01b.html Lasers are also under consideration for beaming the energy from space. Using lasers would eliminate most of the problems associated with microwave but under a current treaty with Russia, the U.S. is prohibited from beaming high-power lasers from outer space.

42

Space Neg DDI ‘08 CO

NASA Tradeoff DA - Overwhelmed
NASA can’t even manage current missions Houston Chronicle, 7-26-08
Shorten the gap, Don't allow the United States to be out of the human spaceflight business for five or more years, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5908650.html U.S. Rep. John Culberson recently said NASA was a failed agency that had delivered too little for its cost. He blamed NASA's bureaucracy and complimented NASA's rank and file scientists and engineers. NASA has had trouble accounting for the billions it spends every year on a broad spectrum of research. It has to have managers capable of keeping track of agency and contractor performance. However, NASA's leadership has been guilty of being, if anything, impetuous rather than overly cautious. What holds NASA back is the chronic condition of trying to solve the world's most difficult scientific and engineering problems without the big bucks a realistic assessment of the job would appropriate.

43

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful