You are on page 1of 19

FILE NAME

DDI 2008 <BQ>


Your Name

Index
Index........................................................................................................................................................................1
SHELL 1.................................................................................................................................................................2
Uniquness evidence ...............................................................................................................................................4
Budget tight U........................................................................................................................................................5
Wicked team C/P evidence and Budget low uniquness......................................................................................6
U other priorities. ..................................................................................................................................................7
U-Budget cuts/Impacts..........................................................................................................................................8
Impacts - Armageddon..........................................................................................................................................9
Impacts - phytoplankton.....................................................................................................................................10
Impacts- Warming...............................................................................................................................................11
Impact program loss/readiness...........................................................................................................................12
Impact – Pandmeics.............................................................................................................................................13
Impact-Pandemics................................................................................................................................................14
SPS costs too high Link evidence........................................................................................................................15
SPS costs trillions it is madness..........................................................................................................................16
Their timeframe is 30 yrs at the very least........................................................................................................17
The plan is costly and has a long timeframe......................................................................................................18
Dod C/p ................................................................................................................................................................19

1
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

SHELL 1
A. Budget tight now

Erin E. Dooley Environmental Health Perspectives May 1, 2007 Satellites for health; The Beat; Report; Brief article BYLINE:
SECTION: Pg. A243(1) Vol. 115 No. 5 ISSN: 0091-6765, lexis

A two-year National Research Council study released in January 2007 states that 17 new Earth-observing satellite
missions need to be funded over the next decade if important data on climate change, hurricanes, and shifting drought
and rainfall patterns are to be gathered. The landmark report sets forth the actions deemed most crucial by a 100-member
panel of scientists for NASA and NOAA over the next 10 years. Panel cochair Richard Anthes said a $10 per capita investment
in Earth-observing projects would pay for itself exponentially by improving weather forecasts, resource management, and
hurricane preparedness. NASA's budget for satellite measurements and analysis has been cut by more than 30% over the past
five years.

B. SPS tradeoff with already tight funding


Taylor Dinerman, Monday, May 19, 2008, “NASA and space solar power” http://www.thespacetrreview.com/article/1130/1

NASA has good reason to be afraid that the Congress or maybe even the White House will give them a mandate to work
on space solar power at a time when the agency’s budget is even tighter than usual and when everything that can be safely cut
has been cut. This includes almost all technology development programs that are not directly tied to the Exploration Missions
System Directorate’s Project Constellation. Not only that, the management talent inside the organization is similarly under
stress. Adding a new program might bring down the US civil space program like a house of cards. In the mid-1990s,
urged on by the new chairman of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), NASA did
conduct a so-called “Fresh Look” study of space solar power. According to John Mankins, one of the world’s greatest
authorities on space solar power, “Several innovative concepts were defined and a variety of new technology applications
considered including solid state microwave transmitters, extremely large tension stabilized structures (both tether and inflatable
structures), and autonomously self assembling systems using advanced in-space computing systems.” Concluding his 2003
paper on the study, Mankins wrote: The economic viability of such systems depends, of course, on many factors and the
successful development of various new technologies—not least of which is the availability of exceptionally low cost access to
space. However the same can be said of many other advanced power technologies options. There was no follow-up to this
study, partly because of a lack of urgency in the era of cheap energy that existed a decade ago and also because NASA did not,
and does not today, see itself as an auxiliary to the Department of Energy. NASA does science and exploration and not
much else. Along with its contractors it can develop new technologies that apply directly to those two missions, but outside of
that it will resist being forced to spend money on projects that it does not see as falling within those two missions.
Technology development in general has been cut back. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has been closed. There
is a minimal ongoing effort to build up some technologies that may in the future be useful for reusable launch vehicle
development, but it is hard to see how this fits into a coherent future program. The agency has its priorities and is
ruthlessly sticking to them. NASA is not the US Department of Spatial Affairs: it does not have the statutory authority
to control, regulate, or promote commercial space activities such as telecommunications satellites, space tourism, space
manufacturing, or space solar power. Such powers are spread throughout the government in places like the FAA’s Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, the Department of Commerce, and elsewhere. Even if NASA were somehow to get the
funds and the motivation to do space solar power, these other institutions would resist what they would recognize as an
encroachment on their turf. Until the shuttle is retired and NASA has a new and secure method of getting people into space,
either with the Orion capsule on top of the Ares 1 or perhaps another rocket, or using the SpaceX Dragon capsule and Falcon 9
combination, there is no room for any other major programs. It will require all they can do to cope with their current
programs and to deal with a new president and his or her administration. They don’t need any more distractions right
now.

2
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

C. Many key space programs are lost thus decreasing US innovation by 2010
the

Bangor Daily News, January 24, 2007, RETURNING NASA TO EARTH SECTION: Pg. A8, lexs
Under the direction of the Bush administration, NASA is cutting its Earth science program by $3.1 billion over the next
five years, with the money directed toward renewed efforts to send people to the moon in preparation for a manned Mars
mission. Last year, the agency dropped the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" from its mission statement.
Knowing more about Mars is a worthwhile scientific endeavor. It can't, however, come at the expense of critical
research about our own planet and the dangers it faces from climate change. Lawmakers must ensure that NASA
continues to devote resources to studying Earth. Reinserting understanding the home planet in the agency's mission
would be a good first step. Sen. Susan Collins plans to send a letter to the president making these points. She sent a similar
letter to NASA last year. The National Academies of Science last week warned that the ability to monitor and understand
environmental events such as patterns of drought, hurricanes, volcanoes and retreating glaciers was at "great risk"
because NASA was cutting back on Earth observing work. By 2010, the number of operating Earth-observing
instruments on NASA satellites will be cut nearly in half under current budget constraints. Much of the research funded
by NASA is done at the country's universities. Cutting funds for this research will eliminate opportunities for graduate
students and university researchers, further eroding U.S. leadership in science and engineering, the National Academies
warns. University of Maine researcher Gordon Hamilton and graduate student Leigh Stearns use NASA satellite data to
measure glaciers around the world. Ms. Stearns calculated that three of Greenland's largest glaciers were moving three times
faster than expected. Accelerating toward the ocean at 14 kilometers a year, the glaciers dump vast amounts of meltwater into
the sea, which could cause a significant rise in sea level and change ocean currents and salinity. The satellite they rely on,
Terra, is aged and NASA has no plans to replace it. As professor Hamilton explained via e-mail from Antarctica, long-term
measurements and observations are critical to understanding climate change. Scientists now have about 30 years of satellite
data, the minimum for seeing patterns. Breaks in the data because of malfunctioning or nonexistent satellites would set back
current research efforts. Professor Hamilton also points out that the NASA mission statement and its research priorities were
developed with a lot of input from the scientific community. Now, without such input, the priorities and mission have been
changed. Lawmakers can fix this by first restoring the agency's mission statement and second ensuring the agency devotes
adequate funds to Earth research.

D. Cross apply their innovation key evidence from 1ac

E. D/A turns the case they entrench the problems surrounding us

3
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Uniquness evidence
Budget tight right now and nothing is helping it.

University Wire, 6/08 Tuesday Editorial: Limiting NASA limits our future BYLINE: By Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan;
SOURCE: U. Iowa DATELINE: IOWA CITY, Iowa, lexis

The general impression is that NASA's missions produce a minuscule amount of scientific data, of dubious consequence, at an
enormous cost to taxpayers. This is a terribly misguided perspective; yet with opponents dispersing easily regurgitated, simple,
and frankly inaccurate information, advocates of space exploration have their work cut out for them. The first step is education.
Advocates must attempt to illustrate that space exploration does not distract from problems on Earth - it may, in fact, provide
solutions to them. Phoenix lander will study the climate of Mars, which went from hot and wet to dry and cold. Information
gathered on this mission could offer insight regarding Earth's future and the current climate crisis. Spirit and Opportunity, the
Mars rovers and arguably the most successful mission thus far, are carrying science that exceeds even the most hopeful
predictions. Expected to operate for only a few months, each continues to thrive and explore four years later, relaying new
scientific discoveries daily. These discoveries may influence a new generation to look to the stars, sparking an interest in
science and engineering at a time when interest in these fields is desperately needed. Despite the success of these missions,
their continued operation taxes an already tight NASA budget. The agency will retire its shuttle fleet in the next two
years, and it plans to launch a new Moon ship, the Orion crew capsule and its Ares I and Ares V rockets, by 2015. The
Moon mission has forced NASA to take on more than its current budget can afford. It is imperative for advocates of
space exploration to rally for an increase in funding. Between the escalating cost of war and increased pressure placed on
social programs as a result of retiring baby boomers, our next president will be forced to reconsider NASA's exploration plans.
Fortunately, both the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees have spoken favorably about NASA, though neither
has clarified the fate of such exploration. Congress is considering a $2 billion increase in NASA funding over the next two
years, which would provide the agency the opportunity of making the lunar mission viable by late 2013. Still, even with
bipartisan support in congress, President Bush has threatened to veto such a spending increase. It is critical that we not limit the
aspiration of scientists and the potential of their programs. Policymakers must stop discussing ways to cut NASA's budget and
begin searching for methods to increase funding. The spirit of exploration is the core of scientific achievement. Potential
solutions to current issues and the imagination of future generations depend on continued support of and greater funding for
NASA's space-exploration missions.

4
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Budget tight U
Budget tight cant spare even 100,000 dollars for milestone satellite.

University of California Berkeley press release, 7/28/08 LOW-COST EUV SATELLITE SHUT DOWN BYLINE:
Targeted News Service LENGTH: 1114 words DATELINE: BERKELEY, Calif. LOAD-DATE: July 28, 2008 LANGUAGE:
ENGLISH PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newswire, lexis

University of California, Berkeley, scientists quietly switched off one of the campus's working satellites in April, ending a 10-
year series of ups and downs for NASA's first and only low-cost, university-class Explorer spacecraft. The Cosmic Hot
Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer satellite (CHIPSat), funded by NASA in 1998, was designed to look for extreme ultraviolet
(EUV) emissions from the bubble of hot gas that envelops our solar system out to a distance of several hundred light years.
Five years later, after two cancellations and anxious scrambling for launch space by Mark Hurwitz, the UC Berkeley physicist
who shepherded the satellite from its original concept, CHIPSat was launched on Jan. 12, 2003. The total cost was $14.5
million. The only other university-class Explorer (UNEX) mission approved never made it to launch. On April 11, 2008, not
long after its fifth anniversary in orbit, CHIPSat was essentially told not to call home anymore. "It is sad and liberating," said
Hurwitz, who, during CHIPSat's lifetime transitioned from a data-crunching research astronomer to a high school physics
teacher at Lick-Wilmerding High School in San Francisco. "It's been lucky that the project has gone on as long as it has, and it
has been very cool." Although the team needed only about $100,000 to operate the satellite through the rest of 2008,
Hurwitz said the budget climate is tight and that NASA personnel do not have the discretion they had in past years.
According to Patrick Crouse, project manager for space science mission operations at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, CHIPSat is one of five satellites turned off since last fall, and only two of them had become inoperable.
"Typically, missions just kept getting extended, but we're now reaching the end of diminishing returns on some of these
small satellites," said Crouse, who still oversees about 20 other satellites for Goddard. The CHIPS instrument never did detect
EUV radiation from the hot interstellar gas, which may be cooler or hotter than the million-degree Kelvin temperatures
expected, or else theories of what makes up the sparse material between stars are incomplete. After about three years of
operation, Hurwitz concluded from CHIPS measurements that the EUV glow of the local interstellar medium was less than
one-thirtieth expected, and redirected the satellite to look at EUV emissions from the sun. Hurwitz and colleagues at UC
Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory had hoped that NASA would be interested in such studies, since they complement the
observations of other satellites studying the sun's ultraviolet emissions. "CHIPSat's instruments can provide a high-
resolution solar spectrum that can help us learn about the temperature distribution in the sun's chromosphere and
corona and the EUV input to the photochemistry in Earth's upper atmosphere," Hurwitz said. Additionally, from an
altitude of 575 kilometers, CHIPSat was observing the so-called "ultraviolet sunset" in the tenuous outer layers of Earth's
atmosphere, probing the distribution of nitrogen and oxygen high above the surface of the earth. Unfortunately, NASA turned
down two proposals to support such studies. Hurwitz reminisced about the hurdles he had to overcome to get the CHIPS
instrument launched in the first place. Though the original proposal called for attaching an extreme ultraviolet spectrograph to a
commercial communications satellite to be launched aboard a Russian rocket, the U.S. government killed that idea when it
unexpectedly applied to the CHIPS instrument a policy designed to prevent the launch of government-funded satellites aboard
foreign launch vehicles. "After the Russian rocket fiasco, we pounded the pavement for months, looking for any way to get our
small instrument into space," recounted Hurwitz. "At the end of the day, we would have done just as well to stand on the side
of the road near the Kennedy Space Center and stick out a thumb." An offer to piggy-back aboard the launch of a global
positioning satellite (GPS) made Hurwitz and his team scramble to build an independent satellite, CHIPSat, instead of a ride-
along experiment, but that fell through in 1999. Finally, NASA switched CHIPSat into a Delta rocket to replace a satellite
having problems, and the mini-satellite was launched in 2003. "Many people at NASA and elsewhere assigned us a low
probability of success," Hurwitz said. The satellite and instrument had been built on a shoestring, and without the parts
qualification and test programs that the larger projects use. But both the satellite, built by SpaceDev Inc. of Poway, Calif., and
the EUV spectrometer, built at UC Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory (SSL), performed beyond all expectations, he said.
"The operations team at UC Berkeley, led by Mark Lewis and Manfred Bester, has done a fantastic job over the years keeping
an increasingly temperamental satellite healthy and productive," he said. CHIPSat has also been productive from an
engineering perspective.

5
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Wicked team C/P evidence and Budget low uniquness


The Orlando Sentinel LOAD-DATE: May 27, 2008 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Los Angeles Newspaper Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved, lexis

A $17.3 billion annual budget makes money tight at NASA, but the agency will need over time to come up with tens of
billions of dollars to realize its mission of sending astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars. That's why a bipartisan
House proposal to enlist partners to share the cost makes sense. The space agency is now anticipating a five-year gap
between the 2010 retirement of shuttles and the launch of Orion, the vehicle that will carry astronauts to the moon and
Mars. A gap that long puts NASA at greater risk of losing high-skill employees, including thousands at Kennedy Space
Center. It leaves astronauts bound for the international space station dependent for too long on vehicles launched by
authoritarian Russia. Congress' immediate priority needs to be finding additional dollars to narrow the gap. The House
proposal seeks an extra $1 billion for that purpose next year. Any effort to pull in partners now, if it delays getting
Orion off the ground, would be unwise. But over the long term, persuading countries to defray the huge costs of the
mission could be crucial. This would not be uncharted space for NASA. More than a dozen nations have worked with
the agency on the space station. Beyond the financial argument, there is a strategic one for the House proposal, whose co-
sponsors include Florida Republican Tom Feeney. It would be easier for the United States to monitor and shape the
development of space programs in nations such as China by working - not just competing - with them. Of course, NASA
would need to be very careful in the technology it makes accessible. But even during the Cold War, the United States
managed to collaborate in space with the Soviet Union. Russia and China are strengthening their ties with other nations
through their space programs. The United States could better maintain its leadership in space and extend its global
influence by following their example.

6
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

U other priorities.
Other priorities on tight budget SPS wont make it.

Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy Newspapers Service, 5/08 Astronomers to get an eyeful with major space missions planned, lexis
WASHINGTON _ Despite a painful budget squeeze, the United States will undertake a jampacked array of new
astronomy missions over the next 12 months. The goals range from counting tiny specks of carbon in Earth's
atmosphere to surveying the outer boundary of the solar system and studying the farthest corners of the universe.
NASA asked for $4.44 billion to pay for these and more than 40 existing and future science projects in the next fiscal
year. But astronomers complain that the budget is still too tight. NASA has "too few resources to accomplish the many
tasks that the nation has placed on the agency," Lennard Fisk, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' prestigious
Space Studies Board, told Congress. The pressure led Alan Stern, NASA's deputy administrator for science, to quit in
frustration last month. The first event in this astronomical parade (on the 400th anniversary of Galileo's invention of the
telescope) will be the landing of NASA's Phoenix spacecraft near the north pole of Mars on May 25. The lander is equipped
with a robotic arm that'll scoop up some icy soil to see if it contains the ingredients for microbial life. If it lands safely _ always
a question _ Phoenix will join the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, which have been exploring the equatorial regions of the planet
since 2004. In addition, three satellites now orbiting Mars _ two American and one European _ will adjust their flight paths to
handle communications with Phoenix as it parachutes onto the northern ice cap. Next in line is the launch of a large space
telescope named GLAST (for Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope), which will study extremely high-energy gamma rays
streaking from massive black holes and colliding stars. Celestial gamma rays are the most powerful form of electromagnetic
radiation known to science. The rays are lethal to human cells, but fortunately are blocked by Earth's atmosphere. By studying
gamma rays, scientists can test theories about the birth and early evolution of the universe that would be impossible in earth-
bound laboratories. GLAST was supposed to be launched on May 16, but a rocket problem forced a delay to early June.
Aiming closer to home, NASA will launch a satellite on June 15 to measure changes as small as one inch in the sea level. The
Ocean Surface Topography Mission will cover 95 percent of the ice-free seas every 10 days. Average sea levels have risen
about six inches over the last century as global warming melts glaciers and heats ocean waters. Then on Aug. 7, if all goes well,
the space shuttle Atlantis will boost a crew of seven to the 18-year-old Hubble space telescope, which badly needs repairs to
extend its life another five years. In five spacewalks, the astronauts will fix two broken scientific instruments and install three
new ones, giving Hubble far greater capabilities to explore the nature and origin of the universe. "Hubble is a national treasure,
and all of NASA is looking forward to seeing it receive this tune-up and upgrade," Stern told the American Astronomical
Society in January. Later in August or September, a satellite called IBEX, for Interstellar Boundary Explorer, will be launched
to explore the outer border of the solar system. This is the region where the solar wind _ a blast of particles streaming a million
miles an hour from the sun _ slows down and stops when it hits contrary winds coming from the stars. Two 1970s-era
spacecraft have already crossed that frontier _ Voyager I in 2004 and Voyager II last August. The Voyagers revealed what was
happening at only two specific points in the boundary region. In contrast, IBEX will be "making all-sky observations of the
sun's interstellar interaction," said David McComas, the mission's chief scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San
Antonio. IBEX may confirm a suspected "hydrogen wall" built of hydrogen atoms guarding the border of our sun's realm.
December will be a busy month, with three missions planned for launch. The biggest is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
(LRO), the first step in President Bush's plan to return humans to the moon. The orbiter will scout potential sites for robots and
humans to land _ robots starting in 2013 and humans in 2020. Piggy-backing on the LRO will be the Lunar Crater Observation
Sensing Satellite, which will send a rocket crashing into a huge crater at the moon's south pole. The impact will kick up
material that may contain water useful for future human colonists. Also coming in December is an Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, which will provide precise measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The rise in CO2, a major
greenhouse gas, is believed responsible for much of the global warming that is changing Earth's climate. The third December
mission is a Solar Dynamics Observatory, which will study the varying activity of the sun. Of special interest is the sun's role in
"space weather" _ the winds, magnetic fields and radiation that affect life on Earth and in space. Next February will bring a
launch of intense interest to astronomers _ the Kepler Mission.

7
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

U-Budget cuts/Impacts
Budget cuts have happened now and are leading to decrease in key programs

Guardian Unlimited, Newspaper, April 11, 2007 "Plants" on other planets could be purple or yellow, say NASA scientists
LOAD-DATE: April 11, 2007 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper Copyright 2008 Guardian Unlimited,
lexis

They modelled a handful of different star types with rocky planets in the so-called "goldilocks" zone- not too hot - and not too
cold. They also considered how radiation from a star might change the atmosphere of their hypothetical planet. "The light that
hits the surface of the planet is a function of the star's light spectrum and also the filtering effects of the atmosphere," said Dr
Kiang. The research is published in the journal Astrobiology. The star Sigma Bootis, for example, is much hotter than the sun
and produces most of its visible radiation at blue wavelengths. The researchers predict plants on that planet would be yellow or
orange. Another star, AD Leo, produces peaks of radiation in the UV spectrum. The team predict that plants on a planet bathed
in this high-energy glow would be purple. But can scientists really predict the properties of hypothetical organisms on planets
they can't observe directly and know almost nothing about? John Raven, a professor of biology at Dundee University said that
the work is useful despite the large number of assumptions involved. "While we don't know about the type of organism, I think
solid physics and atmospheric chemistry absorption properties do give some kind of hint as to what colour it will be," he said.
The team hope that the predictions could be used to help detect the presence of life on potentially inhabitable planets in
other solar systems. It is not possible to see light reflected from a planet in another solar system at present, but two
telescopes are being designed to do just that. Nasa's Terrestrial Planet Finder satellite has been put on hold because of
budget cuts, and the European Space Agency's Darwin telescope is still around a decade away from being launched.
Both are designed to analyse the spectrum of light that comes back from extra-solar planets, which could contain hints
of exotic coloured vegetation on the surface. The team say they have not yet considered the kinds of plants that would
grow on planets in our solar system because direct observations have already ruled out the presence of large vegetation
on, for example, Mars. However, Dr Kiang said they could use a similar technique to work out which Earthly plants
might grow best under the man-made domes of a potential future human settlement on the planet.

8
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Impacts - Armageddon
Satellites key to prevent biological Armageddon which beats their timeframe and is of greater
magnitude and probability.
Staff Writers, terra daily, Washington DC (SPX) Nov 07, 2007,
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/NASA_Technology_Helps_Predict_And_Prevent_Future_Pandemic_Outbreaks_999.html
With the help of 14 satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
Applied Sciences Program, scientists have been able to observe the Earth's environment to help predict and prevent
infectious disease outbreaks around the world. The use of remote sensing technology aids specialists in predicting the
outbreak of some of the most common and deadly infectious diseases today such as Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley
Fever. The ability of infectious diseases to thrive depends on changes in the Earth's environment such as the climate,
precipitation and vegetation of an area. Through orbiting satellites, data is collected daily to monitor environmental changes.
That information is then passed on to agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
Department of Defense who then apply the data to predict and track disease outbreaks and assist in making public
health policy decisions. "The use of this technology is not only essential for the future of curbing the spread of infectious
diseases," explains John Haynes, public health program manager for the NASA Earth Science Applied Sciences Program.
"NASA satellites are also a cost-effective method for operational agencies since they are already in orbit and in use by
scientists to collect data about the Earth's atmosphere." Remote sensing technology not only helps monitor infectious
disease outbreaks in highly affected areas, but also provides information about possible plague-carrying vectors -- such
as insects or rodents -- globally and within the U.S. The Four Corners region, which includes Colorado, New Mexico,
Arizona, and Utah, is a highly susceptible area for plague and Hanta virus outbreaks, and by understanding the
mixture of vegetation, rainfall and slope of the area, scientists can predict the food supply of disease transmitting
vectors within the region and the threat they cause to humans. Because plague is also considered a bioterrorism agent,
NASA surveillance systems enable scientists to decipher if an outbreak was caused by natural circumstances or was an
act of bioterrorism. A particular infectious disease being targeted by NASA is malaria, which affects 300-500 million persons
worldwide, leaving 40 percent of the world at risk of infection. The Malaria Modeling and Surveillance Project utilizing NASA
satellite technology is currently in use by the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences in Thailand and the U.S.
Naval Medical Research Unit located in Indonesia. Data collected at these locations is combined and used to monitor
environmental characteristics that effect malaria transmission in Southeast Asia and other tropical and subtropical regions.
Malaria surveillance provides public health organizations with increased warning time to respond to outbreaks and assistance
in the preparation and utilization of pesticides, which leads to a reduction in drug resistant strains of malaria and damage to the
environment. "NASA satellite remote sensing technology has been an important tool in the last few years to not only
provide scientists with the data needed to respond to epidemic threats quickly, but to also help predict the future of
infectious diseases in areas where diseases were never a main concern," says Mr. Haynes. "Changing environments due
to global warming have the ability to change environmental habitats so drastically that diseases such as malaria may
become common in areas that have never been previously at-risk."

9
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Impacts - phytoplankton
Satellites key to study phytoplankton concentration that drive marine food
chain and provide humans with oxygen.

Krishna Ramanujan, nasa researcher, 02, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801plankton2.html

Since the early 1980s, ocean phytoplankton concentrations that drive the marine food chain have declined substantially
in many areas of open water in Northern oceans, according to a comparison of two datasets taken from satellites. At the
same time, phytoplankton levels in open water areas near the equator have increased significantly. Since phytoplankton are
especially concentrated in the North, the study found an overall annual decrease in phytoplankton globally. The authors of the
study, Watson Gregg, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and Margarita Conkright, a scientist at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Oceanographic Data Center, Silver Spring, Md., also
discovered what appears to be an association between more recent regional climate changes, such as higher sea surface
temperatures and reductions in surface winds, and areas where phytoplankton levels have dropped. Phytoplankton consist of
many diverse species of microscopic free-floating marine plants that serve as food to other ocean-living forms of life. "The
whole marine food chain depends on the health and productivity of the phytoplankton," Gregg said. The researchers
compared two sets of satellite data -- one from 1979 to 1986 and the other from 1997 to 2000 -- that measured global ocean
chlorophyll, the green pigment in plants that absorbs the Sun's rays for energy during photosynthesis. The earlier
dataset came from the Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS) aboard NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite, while the latter dataset
was from the Sea-Viewing Wide Field of View Sensor (SeaWiFS) on the OrbView-2 satellite. The researchers re-
analyzed the CZCS data with the same processing methods used for the SeaWiFS data, and then blended both satellite
measurements with surface observations of chlorophyll from ocean buoys and research vessels over corresponding time
periods. By doing so, the researchers reduced errors and made the two records compatible. Results indicated that
phytoplankton in the North Pacific Ocean dropped by over 30 percent during summer from the mid- 80s to the present.
Phytoplankton fell by 14 percent in the North Atlantic Ocean over the same time period. Also, summer plankton
concentrations rose by over 50 percent in both the Northern Indian and the Equatorial Atlantic Oceans since the mid-80s. Large
areas of the Indian Ocean showed substantial increases during all four seasons. "This is the first time that we are really
talking about the ocean chlorophyll and showing that the ocean's biology is changing, possibly as a result of climate
change," said Conkright. The researchers add that it remains unclear whether the changes are due to a longer-term climate
change or a shorter-term ocean cycle. Phytoplankton thrive when sunlight is optimal and nutrients from lower layers of the
ocean get mixed up to the surface. Higher sea surface temperatures can reduce the availability of nutrients by creating a
warmer surface layer of water. A warmer ocean surface layer reduces mixing with cooler, deeper nutrient-rich waters.
Throughout the year, winds can stir up surface waters, and create upwelling of nutrients from below, which also add to blooms.
A reduction in winds can also limit the availability of nutrients. For example, in the North Pacific, summer sea surface
temperatures were .4 degrees Celsius (.7 Fahrenheit) warmer from the early 1980s to 2000, and average spring wind stresses on
the ocean decreased by about 8 percent, which may have caused the declines in summer plankton levels in that region.
Phytoplankton currently account for half the transfer of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere back into the biosphere by
photosynthesis, a process in which plants absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air for growth. Since carbon dioxide acts as a
heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, the role phytoplankton play in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere helps reduce
the rate at which CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and may help mitigate global warming.

10
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Impacts- Warming
Tradeoff decrease satellites key to monitor warming
JOHN HEILPRIN Seattle time reporter, The Associated Press, 6/07 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-
bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003734645&zsection_id=2002107549&slug=warming05&date=20070605

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space,
just as the president tries to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases. A
confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that U.S. scientists will soon lose much
of their ability to monitor warming from space using a costly and problem-plagued satellite initiative begun more than a
decade ago. Because of technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, the Defense Department
has decided to downsize and launch four satellites paired into two orbits, instead of six satellites paired in three orbits.
The satellites were intended to gather weather and climate data, replacing existing satellites as they come to the end of
their useful lifetimes beginning in the next couple of years. The reduced system of four satellites will now focus on
weather forecasting. Most of the climate instruments needed to collect more precise data over long periods are being
eliminated. Instead, the Pentagon and two partners — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA —
will rely on European satellites for most of their climate data. "Unfortunately, the recent loss of climate sensors ... places
the overall climate program in serious jeopardy," NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in the report. They said
they will face major gaps in data that can be collected only from satellites: about ice caps and sheets, surface levels of
seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Rick Piltz,
director of Climate Science Watch, a watchdog program of the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, called
the situation a crisis. "We're going to start being blinded in our ability to observe the planet," said Piltz, whose group
provided the AP with the previously undisclosed report. "It's criminal negligence." Bush has repeatedly cited his
administration's record on researching global warming as a response to criticism of his opposition to forced reductions in the
greenhouse gases blamed for it. The administration has been spending about $5 billion a year on global warming: $2 billion on
climate research and $3 billion on technologies for combating it. Bush requested $331 million for work on the scaled-back
satellite system next year in his fiscal 2008 budget proposal. Congress has yet to act on it. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences have both cautioned that downsizing the satellite program
will result in major gaps in the continuity and quality of the data about Earth gathered from space. NASA and NOAA
agreed in April to restore sensors that will enable the satellites to map ozone. NOAA Administrator Conrad
Lautenbacher said that would give scientists a better idea of the content and distribution of atmospheric gases. But
seven other climate sensors are still being eliminated or substantially downgraded by lower-quality equipment to save
money, according to the report to the White House. Most of the satellites, which were scheduled to launch starting next
year, have been delayed to between 2013 and 2026. White House science adviser Jack Marburger, for whom the report
was intended, acknowledged that climate scientists had been depending greatly on the planned satellites. "We're
obviously very concerned about this," he said. "It got in trouble and we couldn't fit all those instruments on it ... leaving
us with a number of problems and questions: How do we maintain our momentum in this very important area of
science?" Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology, called for a hearing later
this week on the satellite program. The committee wants to hear from Marburger and the satellite program's director, Air Force
Brig. Gen. Susan Mashiko, and to receive an update from congressional investigators. "You're looking at a program that's
roughly $6 billion over budget with no hope of recovery," said Alisha Prather, the spokeswoman. "They can't even tell us when
different pieces of the puzzle may be functional. ... It's failed leadership." NASA spokeswoman Tabatha Thompson said a final
version of the "impacts" report was delivered to Marburger on Jan. 8. It was not made public because it is "a pre-decisional
document within the administration," she said.

<Get terminal impact from warming file>

11
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Impact program loss/readiness


Nasa tradeoff causes loss of key programs

Laura Allen, reporter for popular science, 07, http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/07/25/earth.satellites/index.html


The American Association for the Advancement of Science calls it a crisis. Atmospheric scientist Timothy L. Killeen, the
president of the American Geophysical Union, says it "could harm our ability to protect our citizens." We call it plain old
scary. It's the endangered future of our nation's arsenal of Earth-observing satellites, the 42 instruments that enable
scientists to monitor the planet. Satellite images and colorful data sets help researchers track killer hurricaneLs, plan
conservation efforts, manage water resources, and predict glacial melting. Yet our fleet is aging, and badly. A recent
National Research Council report predicts that by 2010, the number of working satellite sensors will drop by 40
percent. Even more troubling, it warns that the next generation of sensors won't be able to adequately address the ever
more intricate questions that scientists will pose about the land, sky and oceans over the next decade. Blame in part the
shifting priorities of NASA, one of the main agencies that manage our satellites. NASA's earth-science budget decreased 30
percent between 2000 and 2006. Although the space agency has requested a $1.1-billion increase over 2007, most of its
budget is going to fund the International Space Station and President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, a plan to
send humans back to the moon by 2020 and, ultimately, to Mars. We support sending humans to space, but let's not
forget where we live now. The U.S. needs a timely recommitment to Earth observation. Otherwise, our ability to
monitor, predict, and respond to dire environmental threats will continue to erode.

12
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Impact – Pandmeics
NASA VITAL TO PREVENT PANDEMICS
(Jason McManus, November 07, 2007, NASA Remote Sensing Technology Predicts & Prevent Future Global Pandemics,
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/11/nasa-remote-sen.html)

With the help of 14 orbiting satellites currently in orbit and the National Aeronautics and Space scientists have been
able to observe daily the Earth’s environment to help predict and prevent infectious disease outbreaks around the
world, including Ebola, West Nile virus and Rift Valley Fever. The ability of infectious diseases to thrive depends on
changes in the Earth’s environment such as the climate, precipitation and vegetation of an area. According to NASA: Remote
sensing technology not only helps monitor infectious disease outbreaks in highly affected areas, but also provides
information about possible plague-carrying vectors -- such as insects or rodents -- globally and within the U.S. The Four
Corners region, which includes Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, is a highly susceptible area for plague and Hanta
virus outbreaks, and by understanding the mixture of vegetation, rainfall and slope of the area, scientists can predict the food
supply of disease transmitting vectors within the region and the threat they cause to humans. Because plague is also
considered a bio agent, NASA surveillance systems enable scientists to decipher if an outbreak was caused by natural
circumstances or was an act of bio. A particular infectious disease being targeted by NASA is malaria, which affects 300-500
million persons worldwide, leaving 40 percent of the world at risk of infection. The Malaria Modeling and Surveillance Project
utilizing NASA satellite technology is currently in use by the Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences in Thailand
and the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit located in Indonesia. NASA satellite remote sensing technology has been an
important tool in the last few years to not only provide scientists with the data needed to respond to epidemic threats
quickly, but to also help predict the future of infectious diseases in areas where diseases were never a main concern,”
says Mr. Haynes. “Changing environments due to global warming have the ability to change environmental habitats so
drastically that diseases such as malaria may become common in areas that have never been previously at-risk.

13
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Impact-Pandemics
PANDEMICS CAUSE EXTINCTION
(Kavita Daswani, 1996 , South China Morning Post)

Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a
much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier
than HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola
outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former
Soviet Union - they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and
research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear
warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively,
complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. If
there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is a tragedy waiting to
happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven
his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks
over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was
because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in
London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The
shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the
threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent
conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign.
The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist
for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of
how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and
rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises
the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at a large scale and
imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

14
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

SPS costs too high Link evidence.


Space powered satellites are hoped to cost 10 billion in ten years that does
not fit the NASA budget right now.

Michael Schirber, reporter and phd in astrophysics, 18-6-08, http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-solar.html


Now robots can do the job, installing improved-efficiency solar cells in a modular fashion, for 100 times cheaper than before.
"If you decide to go now with today's technology, you're talking about the same cost as ground-based solar," Hopkins
said, which is around 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's still too high, according to Hopkins, but he thinks costs will
continue to come down, especially if development dollars start coming in. The Pentagon-sponsored report offered a
roadmap for how to build a 10-megawatt test satellite over the next 10 years for $10 billion. But where that money will
come from is hard to say. According to Hopkins, NASA sees this as an energy application and the Department of Energy
sees this as a space enterprise. "

The 2010 satellites is not the real deal it only give .1 watts enough for a light
bulb.

Michael Schirber, reporter and phd in astrophysics, 18-6-08, http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-solar.html

A report from U.S. Defense Department found that space-based solar is technically feasible and economically viable. To help
prove the point, the Air Force Academy recently announced plans for a small demonstration satellite that would beam
down a meager, but still significant, 0.1 watts of solar power. "Our vision is to build the world's first-ever space-based solar
power system to light a single bulb on Earth and in so doing light the path for business to follow," said Col. Michael "Coyote"
Smith of the Air Force. The type of transmission beam is still not decided, but the project may benefit from separate research
in Japan that has been studying the two most likely technologies: microwaves and lasers

15
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

SPS costs trillions it is madness


To get the satellites up there it will take 15 trillion then 10 trillion to build the
solar tech and another few over that.

Sam Dinkin, journalist Monday, 9/04, review of Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/231/1

Remember that we only need to use about half as much oil in the transition because we will have nearly half as much solar
cells halfway through the installation. That means we only need about 15 years of consumption left when we get religion and a
sufficient industrial base. We could probably get some gains for mass production that would cancel out the costs of the rushed
semiconductor production conversion and allow us to make the solar conversion quicker if not cheaper. If Earth-based solar is
good, space-based solar could be better. Goodstein says that about 800 solar satellites the size of Manhattan in
geosynchronous orbit would do the trick. At $1,000 per kilogram we would only need to spend $15 trillion or so on
launch costs to heft 15 billion kilograms of solar cells, which would only be about one-fourth as much as 200,000 square
kilometers because there’s about four times as much light up there with no clouds and no night. Throw in another $10
trillion for the cells and some more for the microwave ground stations and we have a pretty good case for solar orbital.
We should probably exhaust the case for stratospheric lighter than air solar before we invest, but there are other objections.

16
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Their timeframe is 30 yrs at the very least


Even JAXA who is ahead of us in sps tech says it will take 30 yrs to power
500,000 homes with a gigawatt of energy.

Michael Schirber, reporter and phd in astrophysics, 18-6-08, http://www.livescience.com/environment/080618-pf-space-solar.html

Japan plans ahead The Japanese space agency, JAXA, has been providing steady support over the past decade for their
Space Solar Power System (SSPS). The goal is to launch a geostationary satellite by 2030 that could supply 500,000
homes on Earth with a gigawatt of power. Currently, JAXA researchers are looking at both microwaves and lasers as
possible options for beaming the energy down. "The technology for microwave transmission is more advanced, since it
is based on current communication satellites," said Susumu Sasaki, a manager at JAXA's Advanced Mission Research
Group. But to transmit huge amounts of power in a focused beam, the transmitting antenna in space needs to be
roughly 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) wide. A receiving antenna of similar size or bigger must be built on Earth. The
alternative would be a laser. Japanese scientists have been working on metal alloy plates that can absorb sunlight and directly
convert it into an infrared laser beam. The advantage is that the transmitting and receiving devices can be about 10 times
smaller than for microwaves, Sasaki said. Lasers also do not carry the risk of interfering with communication networks that
use microwaves. However, lasers cannot go through clouds like microwaves can, so about half of the beam energy is lost if
lasers are used. Another problem is that a laser-beaming satellite sounds like a weapon, even though Hopkins thinks there
would be ways to ensure that it never gets used in such a way. In contrast, microwave transmission is too low of intensity to be
considered dangerous. A person could safely walk across where the targeted beam hits the Earth, according to Hopkins. "You
would feel it as some extra warmth, like on a sunny day," he said.

17
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

The plan is costly and has a long timeframe


There are too many questions and problems with SPS

Erci Sofge, science journalist, 1/08 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4230315.html

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

18
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <BQ>
Your Name

Dod C/p
Text – the DOE, and DOD will fund NASA to ______________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Competition – through function and net benfits-

Solvency –

NASA cant solve alone we need a collaboration between NASA, DOE and DOD
to solve.

Jeff Foust, editor and publisher of space review, 8/07 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military’s voracious
appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—in getting that energy to troops deployed in places
like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their
devices. The total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply
chain, can run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in
attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. “The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources
that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said,
is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They
gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a
study on the feasibility of space solar power. There was one problem with those plans, Smith said: because this project was
started outside of the budget cycle, there was no money available for him to carry out a conventional study. “I’ve got no
money,” he said, “but I’ve got the ability to go out there and make friends, and friends are cheap.” So Smith and his cadre of
friends have carried out the research for the study in the open, leveraging tools like Google Groups and a blog that hosts
discussions on the subject. Smith made it clear, though, that he’s not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar
power satellites feasible in the near term. “If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, it’s going to take a long
time,” he said. “The horizon we’re looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do something significant.” The first major
milestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten years that
would demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of
various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that
architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.” The idea of a demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an
entrepreneur and self-described “cynic” who also participated on the NewSpace panel. “The first step in this case needs to be a
cheap, simple satellite, just to prove that we can beam power back down,” he said. A satellite that generated just 10 kilowatts of
power—less than some commercial GEO communications satellites—could be developed for on the order of $100 million, he
said. Ali said there needs to be a “coalition of the willing” that includes the DOD and other government agencies like
NASA and DOE, as well as “the usual suspects” in the commercial space sector, to help advance space solar power if it
appears it can be feasible. That group, he said, should also include oil companies. “We like to think of ‘Big Oil’ as a big, ugly,
evil set of companies that are just taking our money at the gas tank,” he explained, “but the reality is that they are not
idiots and they do take the long view.” Smith agreed, and noted that his team had already met with some
representatives off major oil companies, in part because “we realized we didn’t want to get ‘Tuckered’ out of the
business,” a reference to Preston Tucker, who clashed with the established Detroit automakers in the 1940s. If space solar
power is to become a reality, he said, it will have to be because of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will
play a small, but not leading, role. “This is not the Department of Defense’s job. We do not want to be in the energy
business, we don’t want to be a producer of energy,” he said. “We just want to be a customer of a clean energy resource
that’s out there.”

19