EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Lunar Helium-3 Mining
1AC

1

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Inherency
There Is No Helium-3 on Earth—the Element That Is Key To Making Fusion Possible Exists Only On The Moon Stefano Coledan. Popular Mechanic. “Mining The Moon.” December 7, 2004.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056 A Reason To Return Throughout history, the search for precious resources--from food to minerals to energy--inspired humanity to explore and settle ever-more-remote regions of our planet. I believe that helium-3 could be the resource that makes the settlement of our moon both feasible and desirable. Although quantities sufficient for research exist, no commercial supplies of helium-3 are present on Earth. If they were, we probably would be using them to produce electricity today. The more we learn about building fusion reactors, the more desirable a helium-3-fueled reactor becomes. Researchers have tried several approaches to harnessing the awesome power of hydrogen fusion to generate electricity. The stumbling block is finding a way to achieve the temperatures required to maintain a fusion reaction. All materials known to exist melt at these surface-of-the-sun temperatures. For this reason, the reaction can take place only within a magnetic containment field, a sort of electromagnetic Thermos bottle. Initially, scientists believed they could achieve fusion using deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen found in seawater. They soon discovered that sustaining the temperatures and pressures needed to maintain the so-called deuteriumdeuterium fusion reaction for days on end exceeded the limits of the magnetic containment technology. Substituting helium-3 for tritium allows the use of electrostatic confinement, rather than needing magnets, and greatly reduces the complexity of fusion reactors as well as eliminates the production of high-level radioactive waste. These differences will make fusion a practical energy option for the first time. It is not a lack of engineering skill that prevents us from using helium-3 to meet our energy needs, but a lack of the isotope itself. Vast quantities of helium originate in the sun, a small part of which is helium-3, rather than the more common helium-4. Both types of helium are transformed as they travel toward Earth as part of the solar wind. The precious isotope never arrives because Earth's magnetic field pushes it away. Fortunately, the conditions that make helium-3 rare on Earth are absent on the moon, where it has accumulated on the surface and been mixed with the debris layer of dust and rock, or regolith, by constant meteor strikes. And there it waits for the taking. An aggressive program to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon would not only represent an economically practical justification for permanent human settlements; it could yield enormous benefits back on Earth.

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should fund the development of its lunar mining capabilities for Helium-3.

2

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Hegemony
China balancing in space now – beating them to the Moon is key FLITTON 09
[DANIEL FLITTON, July 11, 2009, diplomatic editor, a former intelligence analyst for the Australian government and was a university lecturer specialising in international relations. In a career focused on world affairs, he developed a wide breadth of knowledge on Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific. Daniel won a Fulbright award in 2004 and has written for a range of newspapers, magazines and academic journals, “Out to soar to the top of the new world pecking order? Space is the place to strut your stuff; SPACE EXPLORATION,” The Age (Melbourne, Australia), LexisNexis, LS] But a new era of space exploration is beginning, under colours not well known among the stars. China, India and Japan have all declared an intention to explore the moon; Brazil has a space program, European nations too. And in a supreme irony, after the shuttle makes its final flight next year, America will depend on old rival Russia to ferry supplies to its astronauts based on the International Space Station. The long US domination of manned space flight

may be finally ending. "Space flight is one of several manifestations of America's supremacy," says Morris Jones, a keen observer of the various national space programs as they develop around the world. "They have their strong military, strong technology, strong economy, and their space program, which is second to none." "With the financial crisis and their international entanglements, America's power is being challenged on several fronts. And if their space program is also challenged, it is yet another symbol of a superpower in decline." The focus has shifted to China, the rising giant of Asia. Dazzling economic growth over the past two decades has allowed the country to greatly expand its extraterrestrial ambitions. Under a 1997 plan known as "Program 973", Beijing set out its determination to advance its high-tech capability. "This program recognised space as a strategic industry," explains Griffith University's Jo-Anne Gilbert, who is undertaking a major study of China's ambitions beyond the planet. The exploration also gave a huge boost to China's economic development, she says, allowing the country to leap-frog along the path taken by the West. For instance, by adopting satellite communication,
China skipped the cumbersome roll-out of a copper-wire network for telephone lines. This, in turn, helped speed local commerce. But it is China's larger galactic goals that have really captured attention - the prospect of another country planting its flag upon the moon. "Potentially we could be in for a space race," says retired American astronaut Jim Reilly. "Not the same character, of course, we had when we first went to the moon. But with China pushing really hard it would be a competitor for the United States." Beijing's plans are not entirely clear, beyond a goal for a manned Chinese landing on the moon between 2020 and 2025. That could pit China directly against the aim set by former president George W. Bush, for the US to return to the moon by 2020 and prepare for an eventual manned mission to Mars - an objective Barack Obama has not walked away from. "I'd say there is about a 50/50 chance that it turns into a competition," Reilly told The Age this week during a visit to Melbourne. "But it's actually better in the long run because when you're in competition, you are actually developing 3

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title better and faster than when you're not." At the earliest, he says, in 2017 the Stars and Stripes might again be raised against a lunar back-drop. The idea of a benign competition to advance the cause of science is enticing. But there are other aspects of China's space program that raise concern. In 2007, Beijing successfully tested a missile capable of

destroying a satellite in orbit. Much of America's military supremacy rests on rapid communication - from connecting soldiers in far-flung battlefields with commanders at home, to directing so-called smart bombs. Knocking out satellite networks could have a crippling effect. Potential conflict in the heavens has even raised official concerns in Australia, which shares much of the benefit from US space technology. The recent Defence white paper ranks "space warfare" as an emerging problem, with attacks on critical systems a "serious or even grave" threat to our national security. "Space
assets, including communications, intelligence, surveillance, positioning, navigation and targeting systems, will play an increasingly important role in military operations," the paper warns. "Counter-space technologies will pose an increasing risk." Put another way, forget little green men, but still watch out for bogeys in the sky. Even so, orbital competition among countries has been brewing for some time. Europe and Russia have both developed navigation systems to operate independently of the American GPS network. But why chase the moon? What is the attraction of a lifeless rock no one has much bothered with for almost 40 years? "It's a question of national pride," says Brett Biddington, a former Australian air force officer and now a member of the space team of Cisco Systems. "The competitive element is China's ambitions

to be taken seriously as a world power . . . One of the ways you can do that is to put a man on the moon." Biddington believes China will be the next country
to land a manned craft on the moon. But he doubts this will do much to advance general technology. "The technologies are not going to be profoundly different from those used in 1969. That's one of the paradoxes here, that the real technology developments in space are in robotics, not in manned space flight." Robotic probes are far cheaper; they can operate for longer and don't need to return safely to Earth. So where do the benefits lie in sending a human to the moon? Morris Jones says China is motivated in part by the distant prospect that a lunar mineral could help meet China's expanding energy needs - a substance known as Helium-3 that - just maybe - could be used in fusion reactors.

China taking over He3 race—lunar program Lasker, 6- freelance journalist
(John Lasker, freelance journalist citing Dr. Gerald Kulcinski, a fusion researcher at UW-Madison, December 23-24, 2006, ―Future in Fusion?‖, http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/ct122206.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) But the nation now de- termined to gamble on the moon’s helium-3 bounty is not the United States, but China. Among all the nations and private investors interested in the potential of the moon’s fuel, it is China that is steadfast on winning what it apparently feels is the helium-3 race — one that could already be far past its starting point. Ouyang Ziyuan, chief scien- tist of China’s lunar program, has told the international press, “We will provide the most reli- able report on helium-3 to mankind,” and “Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first

4

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

LOSING SPACE RACE FOR HE-3 KILLS HEG THE EXPRESS 10
(ADRIAN LEE, FORMER NATIONAL NEWSPAPER JOURNALIST, FOUR YEARS ON STAFF OF
TIMES AND DAILY EXPRESS, 3/24/2010, “TRUTH BEHIND THE NEW SPACE RACE; INDIA, CHINA, BRAZIL AND NOW EVEN BRITAIN HAVE ANNOUNCED MASSIVE NEW SPACE PROJECTS-ALL COMPETING WITH NASA TO HARVEST THE MOON‘S PRICELESS COMPOUND THAT COULD POWER THE PLANET‖ LEXISNEXIS.COM. ACCESSED 6/20/11, LG) WHEN the first grainy pictures were beamed back from the Moon they signalled victory for the United States in the space race. The giant leap for mankind taken by Neil Armstrong in 1969 was intended to be the catalyst for further manned exploration. Vice president Spiro Agnew declared grandly that his nation would put a citizen on Mars by the mid Eighties. It was a hollow boast, underlined recently by an announcement that the US is abandoning plans to return to the Moon. The rulers of space for the past four decades are, it seems, ready to surrender their dominance. The result is a new space race, involving other nations

desperate to compete for a share of spoils thousands of miles above Earth. Even the UK is trying to get in on the act, unveiling a new space agency yesterday. Billed as a mini NASA, it will have a £270million annual budget and the government hopes it will inspire a new generation of British space enthusiasts. The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 'Nations are The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 1972, remains a source of untapped riches. Not far from its surface lies a source of power which, if successfully mined, could solve many of the world's energy needs for thousands of years to come. The Moon has acted spoils' The Moon has acted like a sponge and soaked up Helium-3, emitted from the Sun in the form of solar winds. According to space scientist and author Dr David Whitehouse, just two payloads full of Helium-3 in a Space Shuttle-style vessel could provide sufficient power for the United States for a year, created using nuclear fusion. It's been estimated that more than one million tonnes of this fuel lie buried on the Moon. If ways of getting heavy equipment to the Moon can be found, the technology exists to extract Helium-3, says Dr Whitehouse. Only a handful of other nations, currently led by China, are anywhere near ready to put a man on the moon. Russia - which has already stated its intention to mine Helium-3 - Japan and India are the others. A European alliance has the technology to land there and we even have a trainee astronaut, Major Tim Peake, working for the European Space Agency. However, there's little enthusiasm to put a Briton, or European, on the Moon, says Dr Whitehouse. "China sees the benefits of Helium-3 and psychologically it would also affect America," he adds. "India is also training astronauts, although it's
a bit of a puzzle because they don't have rockets powerful enough to put people into space. Under axed proposals, the US intended to reclaim the Moon in 2020. "That's still possible," says Dr Whitehouse. "Now, though, I think it is 50-50 whether China will get there first." For Britain, the last developed nation to have its own space agency, it's a case of too little, too late. "Sadly, it's hard to see Britain ever getting independently involved in manned space flights. The government only seems interested in sending satellites into space. Our space programme has just ambled along for years. We should be spending more money." Some experts insist there's little to be gained from going back to the Moon but Dr Whitehouse believes the next country to conquer our near neighbour, 240,000 miles distant, will gain a major advantage. "This time it will not be grainy black and white pictures but in high-definition colour and it will carry whole new meaning for whoever gets to the Moon next," he says. "In my opinion, abandoning the Moon is a big mistake." The discovery last year of a significant amount of water under the lunar south pole brings the reality of establishing a permanent base on the moon a step closer. The surface of the Moon is drier than any desert on our planet but scientists have long speculated that some permanently shadowed places might harbour huge stores of water, perhaps delivered by impacting comets billions of years ago. This water could sustain astronauts based at the lunar poles. However, efforts to tap into these wells seem more remote than ever. The US space industry has not been at a lower ebb since 1957 when the Soviets launched the first satellite, Sputnik. The Russians followed up that success by sending the first man, Yuri Gagarin, into orbit - but all that was overshadowed when the US narrowly won the biggest prize of all, the race to put man on the Moon. Given Spiro Agnew's ill-conceived boast about Mars, there are some who believe the US rested on its laurels afterwards. One Briton, Steve Bennett, who is battling to launch tourists 62 miles to the edge of space for an unforgettable experience, says: "The Americans are allowing other countries to steal a march. This is a very bad decision." Bennett faces a constant struggle for funding to achieve his lifelong ambition and has been testing his inventions for years with varying success. Despite a lack of formal training he aims to be at the controls in 2013 when blast-off is finally achieved at 3,500 miles-per-hour. He says: "How will people in the States feel when they see China celebrating a Moon landing and bringing back souvenir parts from the US lunar modules which are still up there?" Like Dr Whitehouse he regards harnessing power from the Moon and space as a prime reason to continue pushing boundaries. He says: "If you put satellites into space eventually you will be able to harvest energy from the Sun and beam it back to Earth. The resources up there are tremendous. It's cheap, clean, energy which will last forever." Bennett believes scrapping the programme is also short-sighted for military reasons. "China is a sleeping giant in space exploration and when it wakes, the world is going to be shocked.

If you have control of space, you have control of the world. If you are on the Moon it's 5

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title
like being on a big battleship." Brazil is behind in the space race but is hoping to revive an unmannned programme that has been on hold since a launchpad disaster killed 21 people in 2003. Worryingly, it's been reported that Iran, while still many years behind the Americans, has a fledgling space programme and is planning to send satellites above the Earth. Clearly, there are plenty of vultures circling the Moon to feast on the pickings. ooking even further ahead, Bennett says heavy industry could eventually be sited on the moon, or floating in space, leaving the Earth as a "garden planet". The US still has its International Space Station but if Obama's threats are carried through America will, in future, have to rely on the Russians to transport its astronauts there. How humiliating for the nation which triumphed in the first space race back in the Sixties to rely on its old foe to act as a glorified taxi service into space.

China’s moon program carries military implications. Adams, 10
[Jonathan, China is on a path to ‗militarization of space‘ CSM, 10-26-2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/1028/China-is-on-path-to-militarization-ofspace] Meanwhile, some have pointed out that China's moonshot, like all space programs, has valuable

potential military offshoots. China's space program is controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), which is
steadily gaining experience in remote communication and measurement, missile technology, and antisatellite warfare through

The security implications of China's space program are not lost on India, Japan, or the United States. The Pentagon notes that China, through its space
missions like Chang'e 2. program, is exploring ways to exploit the US military's dependence on space in a conflict scenario – for example, knocking out US satellites in the opening hours of a crisis over Taiwan. "China is developing the ability to attack an adversary's space assets, accelerating the militarization of space," the Pentagon said in its latest annual report to Congress on China's military power. "PLA writings emphasize the necessity of 'destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy's reconnaissance ... and communications

More broadly, some in the US see China's moon program as evidence that it has a long-range strategic view that's lacking in Washington. The US has a reconnaissance satellite in lunar orbit now, but President Obama appears to have put off the notion of a manned return to the moon. With China slowly but surely laying the groundwork for a long-term lunar presence, some fear the US may one day find itself lapped –"like the tale of the tortoise and the hare," says Dean Cheng, an expert on China's space program at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "I have to wonder whether the United States, concerned with far more terrestrial issues, and with its budget constraints, is going to decide to make similarly persistent investments to sustain its lead in space."
satellites.' "

U.S. hegemony key to deterrence – Cold War proves Prato 09 (Marine Corps University, “The Need For American Hegemony”, February 20th, 2009,
Furthermore, U.S.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA508040&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) NA

defense policy during the Cold War ensured U.S. security through the security of its allies. This policy guaranteed the peace and safety of democratic societies globally. Additionally, this benign U.S. hegemony was “augmented for a time by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them.” U.S. policy of nuclear deterrence, for example, dissuaded any Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Space weaponization leads to global conflict in space and on Earth Huntleya et al, 10
(Wade L. Huntleya, US Naval Postgraduate School, Joseph G. Bockb, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, and Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting, February 2010, ―Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space‖, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026596460900126X#sec4.2, AD: 6/27/11, SL) 6

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title ―Back to the Future‖ describes a future characterized by a high degree of technological breakthrough wherein power is projected by rule of force. In 2009 global tensions create an atmosphere where nations increasingly test new defensive technology. In 2010 India explodes a satellite out of Low-Earth orbit (LEO) and the USA tests an orbital interceptor. Gazprom invests $1 billion in the development of a nanotechnology research lab. There is also a steady erosion of Outer Space Treaty norms and limits to protect commerce. By 2013 NATO is dissolved, seen as no longer relevant. The EU alliance shifts towards defending its borders. Human spaceflight continues, in an increasingly competitive atmosphere. The USA launches Aries I, with a crew. Generation Y seems more interested in environmental issues than space. By 2014 many nations begin deploying anti-satellite (ASAT) technology. In 2015 China, the USA, India and Russia field rival ASATs in orbit, as LEO orbits are at risk from debris. Commercial interests give up on LEO and eye the Moon, which fuels the race to establish a presence there. An increasingly protectionist USA leaves the World Trade Organization (WTO). In response, China recalls its debts from the USA. Meanwhile, European and Asian growth continues and, in 2018, a Chinese factory begins production of bulk carbon nanotubes. The USA and China race to produce the first space elevator. The civil lunar programs move forward. By 2020 a joint US–EU team land on and ‗reclaim‘ the Moon. Lunar bases and the space elevator are established, as resources continue to dwindle on earth. Rival moon bases compete over mining rights and orbital lasers promote a defensive arms race in space. NATO is replaced by a new European Defence Organization (EDO). A coalition emerges, including the USA, the EU and India, in opposition to Russia and China. By 2025 African nations reject the influence of major powers and, thanks to the proliferation of technology, become space powers in their own right. In 2028 major powers withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty. Saudi oil fields are now officially empty, and the lunar colonies' major export is solar power. Military bases on the Moon defend against rival solar farms. A Russian–Chinese coalition attacks the space elevator, which essentially strands the US–EU lunar colonies and seriously impairs energy availability on Earth. The UN breaks down and is dismantled. Treaties are ignored and tensions increase. The earth is highly militarized, and conflict occurs both on earth and in space. The future is tense, dark and uncertain. By 2030 Californian scientists claim to have discovered an alleged artificial signal from outer space. The signal offers the possibility of a new reason for hope.

Extinction Bostrom ‘2 (Nick, Dir. Future of Humanity Institute and Prof. Philosophy – Oxford U., Journal of Evolution
and Technology, ―Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards‖, 9, March, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)
With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential

The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was
risks in human history until the mid-twentieth century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about. some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by "igniting" the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don't know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on.At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are. A

much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear
7

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind's potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local
terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

8

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Energy/Econ
American Economy will collapse within 15 years Alfred W. McCoy 10 J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of WisconsinMadison. http://www.salon.com/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025/ “How America Will
Collapse in 2025”

Today, three main threats exist to America’s dominant position in the global economy: loss of economic clout thanks to a shrinking share of world trade, the decline of American technological innovation, and the end of the dollar’s privileged status as the global reserve currency. By 2008, the United States had already fallen to number three in global merchandise exports, with just 11 percent of them compared to 12 percent for China and 16 percent for the European Union. There is no reason to believe that this trend will reverse itself. Similarly, American leadership in technological innovation is on the wane. In 2008, the U.S. was still number two behind Japan in worldwide patent applications with 232,000, but China was closing fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400 percent increase since 2000. A harbinger of further decline: in 2009 the U.S. hit rock bottom in ranking among the 40 nations surveyed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation when it came to “change” in “global innovation-based competitiveness” during the previous decade. Adding substance to these statistics, in October China’s Defense Ministry unveiled the world’s fastest
supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A, so powerful, said one U.S. expert, that it “blows away the existing No. 1 machine” in America. Add to this clear evidence that the U.S. education system, that source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. After leading the world for decades in 25- to 34-year-olds with university degrees, the country sank to 12th place in 2010. The World Economic Forum ranked the United States at a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010. Nearly half of all graduate students in the sciences in the U.S. are now foreigners, most of whom will be heading home, not staying here as once would have happened. By 2025, in other words, the United States is likely to face a critical shortage of

Such negative trends are encouraging increasingly sharp criticism of the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. “Other countries are no longer willing to buy into the idea that the U.S. knows best on economic policy,” observed Kenneth S. Rogoff, a
talented scientists. former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. In mid-2009, with the world’s central banks holding an astronomical $4 trillion in U.S. Treasury notes, Russian president Dimitri Medvedev insisted that it was time to end “the artificially maintained unipolar system” based on “one formerly strong reserve currency.” Simultaneously, China’s central bank governor suggested that the future might

Take these as signposts of a world to come, and of a possible attempt, as economist Michael Hudson has argued, “to hasten the bankruptcy of the U.S. financial-military world order.” After years of swelling deficits fed by incessant warfare in distant lands, in 2020, as long
lie with a global reserve currency “disconnected from individual nations” (that is, the U.S. dollar).

9

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

expected, the U.S. dollar finally loses its special status as the world’s reserve currency. Suddenly, the cost of imports soars. Unable to pay for swelling deficits by selling now-devalued Treasury notes abroad,
Washington is finally forced to slash its bloated military budget. Under pressure at home and abroad, Washington slowly pulls U.S. forces back from hundreds of overseas bases to a continental perimeter. By now, however, it is far too late. Faced with a fading superpower incapable of paying the bills, China, India, Iran, Russia, and other powers, great and regional, provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace. Meanwhile, amid soaring prices, ever-rising unemployment, and a continuing decline in real wages, domestic divisions widen into violent clashes and divisive debates, often over remarkably irrelevant issues. Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal. The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.

Going to moon will help economy--$300 billion market Davis, 9- Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing

Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team
(Dean Davis a Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team, Spring 2009, ―Space Settlement‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL)

Establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is the key to maintaining America’s technological superiority in the area of aerospace. Should America allow China or another nation to establish its foothold on the Moon first, the American economy will suffer. Our lunar base will serve in subsequent decades as a testbed for human exploration beyond the Moon—to Mars, the asteroids, and, further in the future, the outer planets. As time passes, viable mission designs are expected to experience reductions in risk, cost, and time optimization for translunar, crewed missions. The communications network infrastructure will use the Moon in revolutionary new ways and will enable further expansion of what is already a $300 billion market, driven by space systems. The Moon may be the cornerstone for expansion and survival of this critical segment of our global economy. In addition, U.S. efforts in human interplanetary space exploration and colonization may stimulate a new generation of students to take science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes in preparation for emerging high-technology engineering and science careers. Other economic reasons for establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon include helium-3 mining (assuming a nuclear fusion technology breakthrough occurs), significant reductions in space transportation costs, the prospect of space tourism (lunar hotels and resorts), and the potential for safe information storage.

Economic Collapse leads to extinction Stephen Whitt, ‘9. “Are Humans an Endangered Species?‖ 3-20, http://stephenwhitt.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/are-humans-anendangered-species.

If the economy falls apart, then our civilization falls with it. Once again, we’re left with limited technology, and we become sitting ducks for the changes that are bound to come. Though the least sexy, this third option seems like the most likely. Economic collapse could lead to war, nuclear or otherwise, that could both help bring on number 1 or dig
Economic collapse. We will one day run out of oil. That event could be enough to cause the world‘s economy to fall apart.

10

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

us even deeper into number 3. No economy, no civilization. No civilization, no chance of saving our species.

11

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Global Warming
Scientific evidence points to global warming unequivocally IPCC 07 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations panel to study global warming, ―Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report‖, 12/12-17, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf, CT)

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure 1.1). {WGI3.2, 4.8, 5.2, 5.5, SPM} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (19062005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the TAR (Figure 1.1).

The linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 (0.13 [0.10 to 0.16]°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. {WGI 3.2, SPM} The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the
climate system. New analyses of balloonborne and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM} Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1). Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longerterm trend is unclear. Since

1993 thermal expansion of the oceans has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets contributing the remainder. From 1993 to
2003 the sum of these climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table SPM.1} Observed

decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure 1.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. The maximum areal extent
of seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, with decreases in spring of up to 15%. Temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s in the Arctic by up to 3°C. {WGI 3.2, 4.5, 4.6,n 4.7, 4.8, 5.5, SPM} At continental, regional and ocean basin scales, numerous longterm changes in other aspects of climate have also been observed. Trends from 1900 to 2005 have been observed in precipitation amount in many large regions. Over this period ,

precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia whereas precipitation declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has likely2 increased since the 1970s. {WGI 3.3, 3.9, SPM} nSome extreme weather events have changed in frequency and/ or intensity over the last 50 years: _ It is very likely that cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, while hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. {WGI 3.8, SPM} _ It is likely that heat waves have become more frequent overmost land areas.
{WGI 3.8, SPM} _ It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation events (orproportion of total rainfall from heavy falls) has increased over most areas. {WGI 3.8, 3.9, SPM}_ It is likely that the incidence of extreme high sea level3 hasincreased at a broad range of sites worldwide since 1975. {WGI5.5, SPM}There

is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropicalcyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, and suggestionsof increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variabilityand the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to
routinesatellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of longtermtrends in tropical cyclone activity. {WGI 3.8,

12

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title
SPM}Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the secondhalf of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at leastthe past 1300 years. {WGI 6.6, SPM}

Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions Caused By Burning Fossil Fuels Are Causing Global Warming—Our Efforts To Reduce Carbon Now Are Critical To Solve Emily Figdor Director, Federal Global Warming Program, “CARBON-NEUTRAL POLICIES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,” CQ Congressional Testimony, May 17, 2007, p. lexis
Science is clear that the world faces dramatic consequences if we fail to rein in global warming emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Yet, science is also clear that what we do now to reduce
emissions can make a real difference and enable us to avoid the worst consequences of a warming world. Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that the evidence of global warming is "unequivocal" and concluded that it is very likely (>90 percent probability) that human activities - primarily the burning of fossil fuels - are responsible for most of observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century. The IPCC's scientific assessments, including the Fourth Assessment Report, which is being released over the course of 2007, are unparalleled in their rigor, comprehensiveness, and extensive review by both scientists and governments

worldwide, including the United States government. As such, its conclusions should be given the utmost consideration by policymakers. The IPCC has found that global average surface temperature increased by more than 1.4o F (0.8o C) since the second half of the 19th century. Since 1975, temperatures have been increasing at a faster rate of about 0.36o F per decade. Globally, 11 of the last 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the December 2006-February 2007 winter season was the warmest on record globally, and 2006 was the second warmest year on record for the contiguous United States.
The IPCC has concluded "with high confidence" that human-caused warming over the last three decades "has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems," pointing to, among other things, changes in snow, ice, and permafrost; increased run-off and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers; earlier timing of spring events; poleward and upward shifts in ranges in plant and animal species; and earlier migrations of fish in rivers. Other changes, such as the increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, are consistent with the kinds of changes scientists expect to occur on a warming planet and are harbingers of the dramatic climate shifts that await us, unless serious action is taken to reduce global warming emissions.

Helium-3 Eliminates Fossil Fuel Dependence And Solves Global Warming. D’souza, Otalvaro & Singh 6 (HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON An Interactive

Qualifying Project Report submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor Science by Marsha R. D’Souza Diana M. Otalvaro Deep Arjun Singh Date: February 17, 2006 http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/Eproject/Available/E-project-031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf) Energy is the most important driving force for powering industrial nations. In fact, a measure of a country’s industrialization is its annual energy consumption. Fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and natural gas are the chief means by which most nations get their energy. Because of the
world‘s increasing standards of living and its increased dependence on oil, fossil fuel amounts might not last longer than a few decades. Also with the world‘s population expanding to almost 12 billion by the year 2050, our oil demand will also increase drastically. Oil has become a key issue in the political

and economic affairs of many nations especially after the United States second war with Iraq. In such cases of crisis, the development of He-3 will alleviate the dependency on crude oil. Fossil fuels
also release a lot of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that have detrimental effects on the atmosphere, whereas the usage of He-3 fusion technology will be a great substitute to the fossil fuels as it doesn‘t release any harmful byproducts. In addition to the non- polluting properties of He-3 fusion

13

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title on Earth, the mining of He-3 from the Moon will not contaminate the Moon as the gases that are
released during the extraction process (water and oxygen) aren‘t harmful, and instead could be used for sustaining a lunar colony as outlined in the technical section.

Now Is Key—To Solve Global Warming, Fusion Must Make The Most Substantial Reductions In the Second Half of the 21st Century. John Clarke & Jae Edmonds, Joint Global Change Research Institute, “Why On Earth Fusion? Fusion: Energy Source for the Future,” AAAS Annual Meeting, February 19th, 2005
(fire.pppl.gov/aaas05_clarke_why.ppt)
Human induced climate change is a long-term issue with a characteristic time scale of 100 years or more, but with implications for present decision making. Climate change is all about technology and managing the development and deployment of succeeding generations of energy technology over the century ahead. Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations means that the largest changes to the global energy system are in the second half of the 21st century. The good news: The climate driven need for new technology will be largest when fusion is most likely to become available. The bad news: It’s a

competitive world. It takes more than a climate constraint to bring a non-emitting technology into the market. If a technology cannot deliver on cost, performance, other environmental concerns, health, and safety issues, its competitors will. Even if technically successful, fusion will compete with a portfolio of other technology responses. Fusion benefits from a climate constraints, but the benefit is relative. On the other hand, the value to successful fusion technology development is potentially very high Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations is the goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change Stabilizing the concentration of CO2 is a very long term problem Stabilization means that GLOBAL emissions must peak in the decades
ahead and then decline indefinitely thereafter.

Failure to Check Climate Change Will Eliminate All Life On Earth and Outweigh the Release of Every Nuclear Weapon on the Planet Richard Girling, “What will climate change do to our planet?” Times Online (London), March 11, 2007 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece)
Although warming on this scale lies within the IPCC's officially endorsed range of 21st-century possibilities, climate models have little to say about what Lynas, echoing Dante, describes as "the Sixth Circle of Hell". To see the most recent climatic lookalike, we have to turn the geological clock back between 144m and 65m years, to the Cretaceous, which ended with the extinction of the dinosaurs. There was an even closer fit at the end of the Permian, 251m years ago, when global temperatures rose by - yes - six degrees, and 95% of species were wiped out. "That episode," says Lynas,
"was the worst ever endured by life on Earth, the closest the planet has come to ending up a dead and desolate rock in space." On land, the only winners were fungi that flourished on dying trees and shrubs. At sea there were only losers. "Warm water is a killer. Less oxygen can dissolve, so conditions become stagnant and anoxic. Oxygen-breathing water-dwellers - all the higher forms of life from plankton to sharks - face suffocation. Warm water also expands, and sea levels rose by 20 metres." The resulting "super-hurricanes" hitting the coasts would have "triggered flash floods that no living thing could have survived". There are aspects of the so-called "end-Permian extinction"

that are unlikely to recur - most importantly, the vast volcanic eruption in Siberia that spread magma hundreds of metres thick over an area bigger than western Europe and shot billions of tonnes of CO² into the atmosphere. That is small comfort, however, for beneath the oceans,
another monster stirred - the same that would bring a devastating end to the Palaeocene nearly 200m years later, and that still lies in wait today. Methane hydrate . Lynas describes what happens when warming water releases pent-up gas from the sea bed. "First, a small disturbance drives a gas-

14

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title saturated parcel of water upwards. As it rises, bubbles begin to appear, as dissolved gas fizzles out with reducing pressure - just as a bottle of lemonade overflows if the top is taken off too quickly.
These bubbles make the parcel of water still more buoyant, accelerating its rise through the water. As it surges upwards, reaching explosive force, it drags surrounding water ?up with it. At the surface, water is shot hundreds of metres into the air as the released gas blasts into the atmosphere. Shockwaves propagate outwards in all directions, triggering more eruptions nearby." The eruption is more than just another positive feedback in the quickening process of global warming. Unlike CO², methane is flammable. "Even in air-methane concentrations as low as 5%," says Lynas, "the mixture could ignite from lightning or some other spark and send fireballs tearing across the sky." The effect would be much like that of the fuel-air explosives used by the US and Russian armies - so-called "vacuum bombs" that ignite fuel

droplets above a target. According to the CIA, "Those near the ignition point are obliterated. Those at the fringes are likely to suffer many internal injuries, including burst eardrums, severe concussion, ruptured lungs and internal organs, and possibly blindness." Such tactical weapons, however, are squibs when set against methane-air clouds from oceanic eruptions. Scientists calculate that they could "destroy terrestrial life almost entirely" (251m years ago, only one large land animal, the pig-like lystrosaurus, survived). It has been estimated that a large eruption in
future could release energy equivalent to 108 megatonnes of TNT - 100,000 times more than the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. Not even Lynas, for all his scientific propriety, can avoid the Hollywood ending. "It is not too difficult to imagine the ultimate nightmare, with oceanic methane eruptions near large population centres wiping out billions of people - perhaps in days. Imagine a 'fuel-air explosive' fireball racing towards a city - London, say, or Tokyo - the blast wave spreading out

from the explosive centre with the speed and force of an atomic bomb. Buildings are flattened, people are incinerated where they stand, or left blind and deaf by the force of the explosion.
Mix Hiroshima with post-Katrina New Orleans to get some idea of what such a catastrophe might look like: burnt survivors battling over food, wandering far and wide from empty cities." Then would come hydrogen sulphide from the stagnant oceans. "It would be a silent killer: imagine the scene at

Bhopal following the Union Carbide gas release in 1984, replayed first at coastal settlements, then continental interiors across the world. At the same time, as the ozone layer came under assault, we would feel the sun's rays burning into our skin, and the first cell mutations would be triggering outbreaks of cancer among anyone who survived. Dante's hell was a place of judgment, where humanity was for ever punished for its sins. With all the remaining forests burning, and the corpses of people, livestock and wildlife piling up in every continent, the six-degree
world would be a harsh penalty indeed for the mundane crime of burning fossil energy."

Global warming causes food shortages resulting in resource wars Schwartz and Randall, 3- co-founder and current chairman of the Global Business Network
organization focused on scenario thinking and planning; of the Global Business Network

(Peter Schwartz, and Doug Randall, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”, http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf, AD: 6/23/11, SL)
The changing

weather patterns and ocean temperatures affect agriculture, fish and wildlife, water and energy. Crop yields, affected by temperature and water stress as well as length of growing season fall by 10-25% and are less
predictable as key regions shift from a warming to a cooling trend. As some agricultural pests die due to temperature changes, other species spread more readily due to the dryness and windiness – requiring alternative pesticides or treatment regiments. Commercial fishermen that typically have rights to fish in specific areas will be ill equipped for the massive migration of their prey. 15

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

With only five or six key grain-growing regions in the world (US, Australia, Argentina, Russia, China, and India), there is insufficient surplus in global food supplies to offset severe weather conditions in a few regions at the same time – let
alone four or five. The world’s economic interdependence make the United States increasingly vulnerable to the economic disruption created by local weather shifts in key agricultural and high population areas around the world. Catastrophic shortages of water and energy

supply – both which are stressed around the globe today – cannot be quickly overcome. Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt
changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion, or national honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would alter which countries are most vulnerable and the existing warning signs for security threats.

16

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

2AC Extensions

17

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

2AC global warming XT

18

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Anthropogenic
The best Empirical scientific evidence points to the global warming existence because of humans Cook 10 (John, Solar Physics Scientist @ University of Queensland, Adjunct Fellow at the
University of Queensland, “The human fingerprint in global warming”, 29 March 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html , CT)
In science, there's

only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world - and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming: Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions. Further confirmation comes by measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon in the fossil fuels are joined to oxygen, creating carbon dioxide. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, oxygen decreases. Observations show oxygen levels are falling at a rate consistent with the burning of fossil fuels. The human fingerprint in the increased greenhouse effect Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001). Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). That less heat is escaping out to space is confirmed by surface measurements that find more infrared radiation returning to earth. Several studies have found this is due to an increased greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). An analysis of high resolution spectral data allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." There is scientific consensus that there is anthropogenic global warming Oreskes 4 (Naomi, Professor of History and Science Studies @ University of California SD, Adjunct
Professor of Geosciences @ Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Ph.D. geological research @ Stanford, Science Magazine “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, 12-3-04, Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full, CT)

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting
strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA through review, there

administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest
19

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key
Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The

American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That

hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate
change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of

all the papers, 75%fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the

impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

20

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Exists – Scientists Agree
An overwhelming majority of climate specialists agree Cook 10 (John, Solar Physics Scientist @ University of Queensland, “Is there a scientific consensus
on global warming? ”, 25 July 2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientificconsensus-intermediate.htm, CT)

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared
contrast, 97.5%

to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In

of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists." This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus
unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

Recent studies prove – 97% of scientists agree Doran 9 (Peter, Earth and Environmental Sciences Proffessor @ University Of Chicago,

“Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, 1-20-09, http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf, CT)

An invitation to parcipititate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geo sciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth). To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional
21

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

online survey site (http://www.questionpro.com) that allowed one -time participation by those who received the invitation. This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]): 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup .com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) that suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2. He3 produces a massive amount of energy and displaces fossil fuel use. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
[Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf]

Helium-3 has been recognized as a useful energy source because it can be used in a nuclear fusion reaction to generate vast amounts of energy. The abundant He-3 in the Moon needs to be mined and extracted before using it. There is about one million metric tons of He-3 in the lunar regolith that has been deposited over time due to solar winds (Lewis, 1990). The production of 1kg of He-3 would require the mining of about 120,000 metric tons of the lunar soil (Lewis, 1990). Other valuable elements like He-4, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and
22

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

hydrogen could also be extracted that are of commercial value. The hydrogen can be used to generate electricity in fuel cells, which can be used to sustain the working of various machines and modules on the Moon. Furthermore, by combining with oxygen found in lunar rocks the hydrogen could also be used to make water, and also as rocket propellant. The nitrogen could be used to grow plants in pressurized greenhouses, the carbon could be used in manufacturing, and the He-4 could be used as a ‘power plant working fluid’ and for pressurization (Lewis, 1990).
Moon mining solves fossil fuel dependence. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
[Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf]
Energy is the most important driving force for powering industrial nations. In fact, a measure of a country‘s industrialization is its annual energy consumption. Fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and natural gas are the chief means by which most nations get their

Because of the world’s increasing standards of living and its increased dependence on oil, fossil fuel amounts might not last longer than a few decades. Also with the world’s population expanding to almost 12 billion by the year 2050, our oil demand will also increase drastically. Oil has become a key issue in the political and economic affairs of many nations especially after the United States second war with Iraq. In such cases of crisis, the development of He-3 will alleviate the dependency on crude oil. Fossil fuels also release a lot of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that have detrimental effects on the atmosphere, whereas the usage of He-3 fusion technology will be a great substitute to the fossil fuels as it doesn’t release any harmful byproducts. In addition to the non- polluting properties of He-3 fusion on Earth, the mining of He-3 from the Moon will not contaminate the Moon as the gases that are released during the extraction process (water and oxygen) aren’t harmful, and instead could be used for sustaining a lunar colony as outlined in the technical section.
energy.

Fusion key to climate change—clean, sustainable energy Nuttall, 8- University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge
(W. J. Nuttall, University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge, September 2008, ―Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities‖, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, AD: 6/22/11, SL)

Life on Earth currently faces a threat on a truly global scale: climate change. A scientific consensus is emerging that civilisation must reduce its emissions of global warming gases by more than half in less than 50 years1 if we are to stand a chance of achieving a global climate as stable as that of the past 10,000 or so years. This pressing need comes at a time when fossil-fuel prices are high, albeit
perhaps for short-term reasons, giving the world a window of opportunity in which to make a significant

23

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title
move away from environmentally harmful fossil-fuel combustion. Thus far, no country has managed to make significant cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions as a consequence of rising concern over global warming. In Europe, at least, political leaders have started to put in place policies that, if delivered, would have sufficient strength to have some impact on the problem. In January 2008 the EC president José Manuel Barroso released a major package of policies entitled ―Climate Action‖.2 The measures consolidated earlier plans for a 20% cut in EU greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, even in the absence of any global deal that might see the EU target become a 30% cut. As with fission, fusion

would be a source of usable heatenergy producing almost no CO2 emissions. The only greenhouse-gas emissions
produced would be those associated with the construction and manu- facture of the power station, and the need for external energy inputs for start-up and operations. Fusion

research holds out the promise of a clean, sustainable energy supply to contribute to the increasing needs of our civilisation.
Cost of plan justified—solves climate change Whitesides 8, Executive Director of the National Space Society
(George Whitesides, Summer 2008, ―The Coming Debate‖, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/2011, SL) We are approaching a critical intersection in the history of human spaceflight and American governance: with the space shuttle due to retire, we are confronted with a gap in American spaceflight capability of five years or more. It has been more than thirty-five years since a human left low Earth orbit, beyond the direct memory of nearly two generations. Meanwhile, the nation is slowly coming to grips with the reality of staggering federal deficits and the potential necessity of cuts to discretionary spending. Those of us who understand the value of human spaceflight need to have a good answer to the question: why are we spending the money? We live in an age in which the greatest threat to humanity is not war but nature. Global climate change threatens the lives of millions. A growing consensus sees humanity's insatiable hunger for energy as a driver for this climate change. Meanwhile, a fundamentally different force of nature-the uncertain threat of asteroid impact-becomes more and more real. The global climate crisis may eventually require the use of space-based mitigation techniques. This could range from more advanced constellations of satellites to the solar shields proposed by Dr. Roger Angel and Dr. Pete Worden. Again, large-scale orbital construction will be required.

24

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

ECON EXTENSIONS

25

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Econ weak
Despite reports of economic growth, data shows that the economy is weak enough for a “resilient US economy” to collapse Wighton, Business and City Editor of The Times, 8
David, August 28, The Times Newspaper, ―No, it really is as bad as all that‖, LexisNexis So did we get it wrong? Did

we try to talk America into a recession that is not going to happen? Washington redid the numbers yesterday and declared that the US economy grew by a very robust 3.3per cent during the second quarter, compared with the initial 1.9per
cent estimate. Wall Street had been expecting about 2.7per cent. The big revision was mainly down to trade. Exports surged during the second quarter as the dollar hit record lows. Wall

Street seized on the unexpected good economic news. Combined with a fall in the oil price it was enough to push the Dow Jones average up almost 2 per cent as traders bet that their inhouse economists have all been far too gloomy. Sadly, there are few pleasant surprises awaiting Americans as they return from their summer vacations. Wall Street chose not to focus on the part of yesterday's data showing that the domestic economy is extremely weak. Domestic demand over the second quarter rose by only
0.4per cent despite the fat $168billion tax rebate cheque from Washington posted to Americans in May and June. Stripping out foreign trade, the

economy grew by a very feeble 0.2 per cent. The dollar is now strengthening, which hurts the competitiveness of American goods, and the economies of its biggest trading partners, Britain and the eurozone, are slowing sharply. While US jobless numbers yesterday were also lower than expected, 425,000 Americans are still losing their job a week. Of those economists on Wall Street who have managed to avoid the jobs cull, most are sticking
to their original forecasts that more than 6per cent of the workforce will be unemployed by Christmas. The key remains the housing market. The

S&P/Case-Shiller index - widely seen as the most authoritative measure of home prices - showed this week that the rate of price decline had slowed in the second quarter to 2.3 per cent. But it is far too soon to be confident we are near the turn. Robert Shiller, the Yale University professor who is the index's co-founder, gave warning in April that price falls were likely to double before they recovered, exceeding the 30 per cent losses suffered during the Great Depression. Some fear they could overshoot as badly on the way down as they did on the way up. If they do, even the amazingly resilient US economy will be on its knees. The economy is no longer resilient – Consumer spending varies too greatly Economist 8
The Economist Newspaper, November 22, ―United States: The end of the affair; Spending and the economy‖, Vol. 389, Iss. 8607, Proquest

An important reason why the American economy has been so resilient and recessions so mild since 1982 is the energy of consumers. Their spending has been remarkably stable, not only because drops in employment and income have been less severe than of old, but also because they have been willing and able to borrow. The long rise in asset prices--first of stocks, then of houses-raised consumers' net worth and made saving seem less necessary. And borrowing
became easier, thanks to financial innovation and lenders' relaxed underwriting, which was itself based on the supposedly reliable collateral of ever-more-valuable houses. On average, consumers from 1950 to 1985 saved 9% of their disposable income. That saving rate then steadily declined, to around zero earlier this year (see chart). At the same time, consumer and mortgage debts rose to 127% of

Those forces have now reversed. The stockmarket has fallen to the levels of a decade ago. House values have fallen 18% since their peak in 2006. Banks and other lenders have tightened lending standards on all types of consumer loans. As a consequence, consumer spending fell at a 3.1% annual rate in the third quarter (in part because tax rebates boosted spending in the second), the steepest
disposable income, from 77% in 1990.

26

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

since the second quarter of 1980 when Jimmy Carter briefly imposed credit controls. More such declines are likely to follow. Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley projects that in the 12 months up to the second quarter of next year real consumer spending will fall by 1.6%--a post-war record. "The golden age of spending for the American consumer has ended and a new age of thrift likely has begun," he says.

27

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Impact Extensions

28

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Disease
Economic collapse would lead to the spread disease and wars, leading to human extinction Silk, Professor of Economics at Pace University and Senior Research Fellow, 1993 (Leonard, Professor of Economics at Pace University
and Senior Research Fellow at the Ralph Bunche Institute on the United Nations at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. "Dangers of slow growth," Foreign Affairs, Wntr v72 n1 p167(16).) In the absence of such shifts of human and capital resources to expanding civilian industries, there

are strong economic pressures on arms-producing nations to maintain high levels of military production and to sell weapons, both conventional and dual-use nuclear technology, wherever buyers can be found. Without a revival of national economies and the global
economy, the production and proliferation of weapons will continue, creating more Iraqs, Yugoslavias, Somalias and Cambodias - or worse. Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the fires of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world. Economic

hardship is not the only cause of these social and political pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back on economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues. Growth will not solve all those problems by itself But economic growth - and growth alone - creates the additional resources that make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment, and more liberal and open economies and societies.

US-China War
US economic decline spreads globally, undermining US leadership and making WMD conflict with China inevitable Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2004 (Walter Russell Mead, Foreign Policy, 4/1/04 pg. Lexis)
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A

collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under
those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a

collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a
vengeance. THE SUM OF ALL POWERS? The United States' global economic might is therefore not simply, to use Nye's formulations,

the U.S. economic system provides the United States with the prosperity needed to underwrite its security strategy, but it also encourages other countries to accept U.S. leadership. U.S.
hard power that compels others or soft power that attracts the rest of the world. Certainly, economic might is sticky power.

29

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

HEG 2ac extensions

30

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Uniqueness

31

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Us losing
US being surpassed now—Asian space race Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars

mission at Imperial College London
(Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency‘s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) In the early morning dawn of October 22, 2008, the sky over southeastern India was illuminated by the fiery exhaust from the Chandrayaan-1 space- craft, which was embarking on India’s first robotic

mission to the Moon. Two weeks later, Chandrayaan became the third orbiter actively studying the Moon: mapping the surface, characterizing the mineralogy, and searching for traces of water. This
accomplishment may not seem particularly surprising given the success of recent autonomous missions to Mars and other planets; but what is noteworthy is the list of countries participating in this modern-day Moon-rush. Asian upstarts China, Japan, and India have taken center stage, while traditional space powers such as the United States, Russia, and the European Space Agency have been

noticeably absent. India’s recent success, coupled with China’s first spacewalk in September, signals the acceleration of a new Asian space race—a technological arms race that is quickly closing the gap between the United States and the rest of the world. As China,

India, and Japan push each other to aim ever higher, NASA has been relegated to the sidelines, nursing a broken shuttle fleet and a strained budget. Unfortunately, as the Asian space race heats up, NASA seems to be losing momentum. The space shuttles, which may have been futuristic enough 30 years ago, are now antiques. It has become increasingly difficult to justify the safety risks and billion-dollar price tags that come with each launch. Wisely, the remaining shuttles are on the fast track to retirement, but thanks to cost overruns, leadership gaps, and sagging employee morale chronicled by a NASA safety panel in August, a replacement vehicle is still several years off. In the interim, from 2010 to 2015, American astronauts will have to hitch rides to the International Space Station with the temperamental Russians, which is kind of like having to ask your grouchy neighbor to let you into your own house. Once things do get back on track, NASA aims for a manned return to the Moon by—you guessed it—2020. But even that might be too late: Former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin recently admitted the possibility, telling the BBC that “if China wants to put people on the Moon, and if it wishes to

do so before the United States, it certainly can.”

China taking over US superiority now—space program expansion Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars

mission at Imperial College London
(Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency‘s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) The Asian space race was ignited in large part by China, which in 2003 became just the third nation to achieve manned spaceflight. China’s manned missions—there have now been three—are all part of a

long-term agenda that will see the construction of a Chinese space laboratory and permanent space station. The program, titled Project 921, has been on the books since 1992, reflecting the
persistence and foresight with which China has pursued its spacefaring ambitions. Though it has been a long time in the making, China’s space program is finally achieving visible results, and the rest of the world has noticed. China’s distinctive blend of militaristic tendencies and nationalistic fervor, highlighted

32

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title
by a 2007 antisatellite missile test, has triggered a powerful reaction. Other Asian powers have

responded, and a new story has begun to unfold in the regional battle for cultural, technological, and economic supremacy.

China spurs Asian space race—Japan proves Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars

mission at Imperial College London
(Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency‘s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL)

Japan flinched. “We were surprised,” flight engineer Masashi Okada told Time magazine soon after China’s historic mission. “Obviously we knew they were working toward it, but they achieved manned flight very quickly. We are fully aware that our space development program has to include manned spacecraft.” Of the current Asian contenders, Japan has the most impressive pedigree of space exploration, having pioneered important astronomical tools, constructed reliable launch vehicles, and helped build the International Space Station. But in 2003, encouraged in part by the perceived threat of China’s fledgling space program, Japan rebranded its agency and focused its effort not on international partnerships but independent missions. Japan hopes to develop its own manned spaceflight program and land astronauts on the Moon by 2020.

China spurs Asian space race—India proves Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars

mission at Imperial College London
(Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency‘s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL)

India also took drastic action following China’s 2003 manned mission. Since the mid-1960s, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has been content to use space technology for development programs like communications, health care, and environmental monitoring. But in 2006, its national pride piqued, India announced more ambitious plans, calling for a manned program that would allow it to assume its rightful place as a technologically progressive nation. In the wake of Chandrayaan’s launch, Indian officials were more direct than ever. “China has gone earlier,” ISRO satellite communications director Bhaskar Narayan told Reuters, “but today we are trying to catch them.” India’s manned spaceflight plans remain unspecified, but there is little doubt that ambitions run high. Some analysts predict that the first Indian astronauts will fly around 2014, and the ISRO maintains that India’s ultimate goal is a 2020 Moon landing.

US starting to fall behind—newcomers India and China prove Downs, 8 - Chairman of National Space Society Board of Governors
(Hugh Downs, Chairman of National Space Society Board of Governors, Fall 2008, ―Ships for the Stars‖, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/11, SL)

Our challenges are formidable: George Whitesides, testifying in a Senate hearing this month, cited a 20year- old report of the National Commission on Space, with a paragraph I'd like to read in part: "Should the United States choose not to undertake achievements in these economies in launch and recovery capability [referring to a loss for NASA of a huge body of contractor skill and experience during the 7year hiatus between the Apollo and shuttle programs], then the nation must face the probability that other nations will rapidly overtake our position as the world's leading spacefaring nation." Paul Davies, who is 33

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title of Australian origin, and a leading cosmologist now at Arizona State University, wrote in 2007 (saying of his belief that NASA might not be up to the task of mounting a mission to Mars soon), "[I feel] that the new players in space-China and India-will not suffer from Western timidity. A joint Indian-Chinese colony on Mars by 2100 is not only technically feasible, it is also politically realistic."

US become dependent on Russia—ferry Americans to space Korss, 9-oral pathologist and medical writer/editor in Lincoln University,

Pennsylvania
(Dr. John F. Kross is an oral pathologist and medical writer/editor in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania, Spring 2009, ―A Change is Gonna Come: Constellation‘s Future in the Obama Administration‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) As things stand now, NASA—and the nation—face a five-year gap between the last shuttle flight in 2010 and the first flight of its replacement. During that protracted interval, American astronauts will be reduced to thumbing a ride on a Russian Soyuz, a proposal that has raised a few eyebrows, not to mention the hackles of important members of Congress. In fact, the GAO has questioned the

wisdom of relying on Russian spacecraft to ferry U.S. astronauts to orbit and many lawmakers have voiced opposition to dependence on Russia.

CHINA HAS INTEREST IN MINING HE-3-PLANS- ALREADY UNDERWAY BBC ASIA PACIFIC 07
(XINHUA NEWS, OFFICIAL CHINESE NEWS INDUSTRY, 08/10/07 “CHINA PLANS TO MEASURE THE SOIL OF THE MOON: EXPERT, LEXISNEXIS.COM, ACCESSED 6/20/11, LG)

Beijing, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) - China plans to measure every inch of the soil of the moon in its planned lunar probe programme, said Ouyang Ziyuan, chief scientist of the programme. By measuring the soil of the moon we can figure out the exact amount of helium-3, a resource for nuclear fusion, said Ouyang. Earlier reports said China's first lunar orbiter,
Chang'e I, will most likely be launched in the second half of 2007. Addressing a recent a forum for young workers in the provincial government departments in southwest China's Guizhou Province,

Ouyang said there is about 15 tons of helium-3 on earth, while the volume of helium-3 on the moon is estimated at 1 to 5 million tons. "When obtaining nuclear power from helium-3 becomes a reality, the resource on the moon can be used to generate electricity for more than ten thousand years for the whole world," Ouyang said. China's moon exploration programme will be carried out in three stages - "circling the moon", "landing on the moon" and "back to earth", said Ouyang. In the first phase China will launch an orbiter for preliminary exploration of the moon, in the second phase it will send a moon rover for precise probe in some area, and in the third phase lunar samples will be brought back to earth. China carried out its maiden piloted space flight in October 2003, making it the third country in the world
following the Soviet Union and the United States to have put men into space. In October 2005 China completed its second manned space flight, with two astronauts on board.

34

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

L 2 space weapons
China eyeing the moon and He3 for military purposes. Goosen, 11 – Special Editor, weapons / technology
[Yoshihisa, ―China‘s Star Wars Program‖ Weapons and Technology, http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/05/chinas-star-war-program.html]

The expert also emphasized the importance of China's lunar exploration program. China in October 2007 successfully launched the "Chang'e I" lunar probe satellite. He
said: "China's decision to use the past two years, two rockets spacecraft will weigh 130 tons into low orbit, the manned lunar exploration program to prepare. The scheme is in fact similar to the U.S. 'Constellation'. U.S. President Barack Obama was terminated in February last year, 'Constellation', while China is planning to carry small 2013 radar and laser range finder device soft landing on the moon. These two instruments are a military function, may capture to the U.S. early warning satellites, deep space place. " Therefore, the

development of exploration technologies in China, it may be a military conflict with the United States upset the occasion of the combat situation on the million. The expert also emphasized that China plans to launch in 2020 manned
spacecraft to the moon to the moon by 2049 with the military functions of the base building. On the other hand, the United States is prepared to abandon the lunar exploration program. The expert also emphasized that the Chinese have access to natural resources of the moon's strategic intent. He said: "The Chinese want the moon tritium or helium 3, and helium-3 is the best fuel fusion reactors, tritium is a very precious resource. China is promoting the development of fusion reactors, and

attempt to achieve its commercial applications. Nuclear Fusion energy has the military strategic significance, which reflect China's lunar exploration
program with a lot of military purposes. " To further prove this point, the expert example, saying that China North Industries Corporation has recently announced the establishment of the Institute of lunar resources to investigate. He said: "China North Industries Corporation is a corporate manufacturing guns and tanks, is also begun to study lunar resources and the development of the lunar surface in a moving vehicle. Can be inferred that China will eventually build military bases on the moon." In other words, the long-term objective of

China's space strategy is the military use of the Moon and begin it own STAR WARS Program.
pace. The signal offers the possibility of a new reason for hope.

35

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

REE
Rare Minerals are needed- key to Defense Applications David 10
(Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than four decades. He is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE.com since 1999. October 4th, 2010. Is Mining Rare Minerals on the Moon Vital to National Security? Accessed: 6/22/11 http://www.space.com/9250-mining-rare-minerals-moon-vital-national-security.html GR)

The seemingly barren moon may actually be a treasure-trove of priceless resources: a potentially bountiful, mineral-rich yet untapped cosmic quarry. Still, few see the moon as an alluring mining site, ripe for the picking of rare elements of strategic and national security importance. Here on Earth, China recently blocked the export of rare earth elements to Japan for use in an array of products; from wind turbines and glass for solar panels to use
in hybrid cars, and even guided missiles and other defense-oriented creations. China is increasingly putting the pinch on quotas of such elements

as the scarcity of these valuable minerals grows, so too does the concern in other nations regarding the availability of this limited resource. For instance, a recent report from the Congressional
out of their country. And Research Service ? a study arm of the U.S. Congress ? reviewed the worldly use of rare earth elements for national defense. The report looked at the production of elements such as europium and tantalum, among others, outside the United States and flagged the important issue of supply

rare earth elements are used for new energy technologies and national security applications and asked: Is the United States vulnerable to supply disruptions of these elements? Are they essential to U.S. national security and economic well-being? Among the policy options flagged in the Congressional Research Service assessment is establishing a government-run economic stockpile and/or private-sector stockpiles. Doing so "may be a prudent investment," the study noted, and would contain supplies of specific rare earth elements broadly needed for "green initiatives" and defense applications.
vulnerability. The study pointed out that

China with Rare Earth Materials makes us rely on them- no other way to gain Kennedy 2011
(James Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises. 2011. "Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth Resources" Accessed: 6/22/11http://www.smenet.org/rareEarthsProject/TMS-NMAB-paperV-3.pdf GR)

rare earth oxides are strategic and critical in their own right, refining these REOs into elements and alloys is even more important for the development of "Green Technologies" and advanced weapons systems. America does not have an active domestic source of rare earth oxides. America does not have any heavy rare earth elemental or alloy capabilities. The magnitude of this failure continues to become more apparent as the manufacture of REO based electronics and magnetic components moves eastward towards China. China has succeeded in outmaneuvering the United States and the world in its quest to control the rare earth oxides, elements and alloys, and the many industries dependent upon REO. What can be done? First, We Must Understand the Scope of this Failure The scope of failure is multi-fold,
Rare Earths: This paper outlines the complete failure of the U.S. in status and relevance in Rare Earth Oxides (REO). Although interdependent and compounding. Sustainability and growth of a mature economy, like the U.S., is dependent upon innovation. Innovation and research & development are dependent upon the overall macro-economic systems at the private, corporate and public level. Sustainable macro-

The U.S. economy is grossly imbalanced as the result of two decades of off-shoring and a complete lack of any rational industrial policy. In the absence of balance, the system is self-correctingi. The current banking crisis reflects the magnitude of that imbalance. Looking at the net present value of all future federal liabilities supported by
economic systems require balanced economies comprised of producers and consumers. a failing U.S. economy, shrinking tax base and growing vacancies in our domestic industrial capabilities, the future looks grim. On the commercial side the rapidly disappearing manufacturing and industrial base of America begins to resemble the Aral Sea: receding, stagnant, and unable to sustain the life of basic researchii. There is a growing body of research that shows a strong interdependence between basic research,

if you are shedding industry, innovation slips away. If you are growing technology-hungry businesses, innovation springs to life.
measured by patents, and the health of the local or national industrial baseiii. In other words, This has been well demonstrated in a paper titled ―Value Chain Off Shoring and the Location of Innovationiv,‖ that specifically analyses the REO

America is now 100% import dependent upon others for rare earth oxides, elements and alloys. Resulting pricing, supply and tax disadvantages have decimated U.S. competitiveness for all REO
magnet market for China and the U.S. related products. Today there are few remaining domestic manufacturers of value added rare earth components. REO enhanced products are typically components in some of the fastest growing markets in the world. For example, in 1990 The United States had 12 REO magnet

36

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title
producing facilities with 6000 employees for a global REO magnet market of about $600 million in gross revenues. Today the U.S. has 4 REO magnet producers with less than 600 employees while the global REO magnet market has grown to over $7 billionv. These magnets are in everything we use today, iPods, computer hard drives, automobile sensors, micromotors, wind turbines and military guidance systems. Nearly all of the production for this rapidly expanding market is increasingly coming from China. Experts agree the REO magnet market will at least double in the next 10 yearsvi. REO’s – A Failure of Historic Proportions in the Making The

United States, as a nation, can only survive by leading in the commercial development, application and manufacture of high value products. Wealth creation and improved standards of living can only come from three things: agriculture, natural resources and manufacturing. Manufacturing is increasingly driven by technology. As rare earth oxides, elements and alloys are critical in the development and production of enhanced materials performance in many materials science applications. America’s failure to secure, control and produce these materials can only compound the broader failure from an economic and defense stand point. REO technologies are increasingly present in the highest value applications, devices and products. These are the prized industrial base for any mature economy with higher cost for wages, capital and environmental issues. The national defense issues are equally important. Rare earths are critical components for military jet engines, guided missiles and bombs, electrical countermeasures, antimissile systems, satellite communication systems and armor, yet the U.S. has no domestic sources.

37

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Moon k2 Hegemony
Plan key to leadership – returning to the moon is the top priority for US national policy Schmitt 2010 (Harrison H., Ph.D. in Geology Harvard University, former NASA astronaut, & former US
Senator; April 15, 2010; http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Schmitt_SpacePolicyConstitution.pdf; bh)

Since 1957, national space policy, like naval policy in the centuries before, has set the geopolitical tone for the interactions between the United States and its international allies and adversaries . The President‘s FY2011 budget submission to Congress shifts that tone away from leadership by America by abandoning human exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars to China and, effectively, leaving the Space Station under the dominance of Russia for its remaining approximately 10-year life. With the Station‘s continued existence inherently limited by aging, these proposals sign the death warrant for NASA-sponsored human space flight. Until the Space Station‘s inevitable shutdown, the President also proposes Americans ride into space at the forbearance of the Russians, so far, at a cost of more than $60 million a seat. Do we really want to continue to go, hat in hand, to the Russians to access a Space Station American taxpayers have spent $150 billion to build? What happens as the geopolitical and ideological interests of the United States and an increasingly authoritarian Russia continue to diverge? In spite of funding neglect by the previous Administration and Congresses, a human space flight program comparable to Constellation remains the best way to develop the organizational framework, hardware, and generational skills necessary for Americans to continue to be leaders in the exploration and eventual settlement of deep space. Protecting liberty and ourselves will be at great risk and probably impossible in the long term if we now abandon deep space to any other nation or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic, authoritarian regime like China. To others would accrue the benefits, psychological, political, economic, technical, and
scientific, that accrued to the United States from Apollo‘s success 40 years ago. This lesson from John Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. An American space policy that maintains deep space

leadership, as well as providing major new scientific discoveries, requires returning to the Moon as soon as possible. Returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars, something we are a long way from knowing how to do. Returning to the Moon, importantly, trains new young Americans in how to work in and with the challenges of exploring and living in deep space . This also continues a policy in which freedom-loving peoples throughout the world can participate as active partners. Even more pragmatically, settlements on the Moon can send badly needed clean energy resources back to Earth for everyone‘s use and that are not under the control of some authoritarian regime.

China calling for agreements to peacefully exploit space resources. Yuan, 8 - Ph.D., is Director of Research for the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies [Jing-dong, China‘s Ascendancy to a Space Power, The Jamestown Foundation, April 16, 2008, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4852] China has made major achievements in space exploration and continues to charge ahead with ambitious plans and objectives. The drive for space power status is informed by

the potential scientific, industrial, commercial, and military benefits that are critical components in building up the country’s comprehensive national strength. China’s ascendancy to a space power also raises questions and concerns, some of which may be legitimate while others are unfounded. Beijing continues to call for negotiation leading to an international treaty banning the weaponization of outer space. Clearly, engagement and dialogue on the
38

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

implications of China’s civilian and military space programs for its future endeavors and international cooperation go a long way toward securing the space sanctuary and peaceful use of space.
Mining for He3 is essential – safe and efficient fusion is crucial for future leadership. Lasker 2006
(John, freelance journalist and contributor for Wired and Christian Science Monitor; December 15 th; ―Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel‖ http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=2; bh)

NASA's planned moon base announced last week could pave the way for deeper space exploration to Mars, but one of the biggest beneficiaries may be the terrestrial energy industry. Nestled among the agency's 200-point mission goals is a proposal to mine the moon for fuel used in fusion reactors -futuristic power plants that have been demonstrated in proof-of-concept but are likely decades away from commercial deployment.

Helium-3 is considered a safe, environmentally friendly fuel candidate for these generators, and while it is scarce on Earth it is plentiful on the moon. As a result, scientists have begun to consider the practicality of mining lunar Helium-3 as a replacement for fossil fuels. "After fourand-half-billion years, there should be large amounts of helium-3 on the moon," said Gerald Kulcinski, a professor who leads the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Last year NASA administrator Mike Griffin named Kulcinski to lead a number of committees reporting to NASA's
influential NASA Advisory Council, its preeminent civilian leadership arm. The Council is chaired by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Hagan "Jack" Schmitt, a leading proponent of mining the moon for helium 3. Schmitt, who holds the distance record for driving a NASA rover on the moon (22 miles through theTaurus-Littrow valley), is also a former U.S. senator (R-New Mexico). The Council was restructured last year with a new mission: implementing President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which targets

Mars as its ultimate destination. Other prominent members of the Council include ex-astronaut Neil Armstrong. Schmitt and Kulcinski are longtime friends and academic partners, and are known as helium-3 fusion's biggest promoters. At the Fusion Technology Institute, Kulcinski's team has produced small-scale helium-3 fusion reactions in the basketball-sized fusion device. The reactor produced one milliwatt of power on a continuous basis. While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away. The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year. NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020. Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3. "We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first." Russian space geologist Erik Galimov told the Russian Izvestia newspaper that NASA's plan to colonize the moon will "enable the U.S. to establish its control of the global energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out." Schmitt told a Senate committee in 2003 that a return to the moon to stay would be comparable "to the movement of our species out of Africa." The best way to pay for such a long-term mission, he said, would be to mine for lunar helium-3 and process it into a fuel for commercial fusion.

Moon is key to maintaining US space leadership Schmitt, 10 – Former Senator
[Harrison, Obama space policy cedes Moon to China, Space Station to Russia and Liberty to the Ages, Free Republic, 2-6-2010, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2445788/posts]

The Administration finally has announced its formal retreat on American Space Policy after a year of morale destroying clouds of uncertainty. The
39

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title lengthy delay, the abandonment of human exploration, and the

wimpy, un-American thrust of the proposed budget indicates that the Administration does not understand, or want to acknowledge, the essential role space plays in the future of the United States and liberty. This continuation of other apologies and retreats in the global arena would cede the Moon to China, the American Space Station to
Russia, and assign liberty to the ages. The repeated hypocrisy of this President continues to astound. His campaign promises endorsed what he now proposes to cancel. His July celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the first Moon landing now turns out to be just a photo op with the Apollo 11 crew. With one wave of a budget wand, the Congress, the NASA family, and the American people are asked to throw their sacrifices and achievements in space on the ash heap of history. Expenditures of taxpayer provided funds on space related activities find constitutional justification in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, that gives Congress broad power to ˛promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.˛ In addition, the Article I power and obligation to łprovide for the Common Defence˛ relates directly to the geopolitical importance of space exploration at this frontier of human endeavor. A space program not only builds wealth, economic vitality, and educational momentum through technology and discovery, but it also sets the modern geopolitical tone for the United States to engage friends and adversaries in the world. For example, in the 1980s, the dangerous leadership of the former Soviet Union believed America would be successful in creating a missile defense system because we succeeded in landing on the Moon and they had not. Dominance in space was one of the major factors leading to the end of the Cold War. With a new Cold War looming before us, involving the global ambitions and geopolitical challenge of the national socialist regime in China, President George W. Bush put America back on a course to maintain space dominance. What became the Constellation Program comprised his January 14, 2004 vision of returning Americans and their partners to deep space by putting astronauts back on the Moon, going on to Mars, and ultimately venturing beyond. Unfortunately, like all Administrations since Eisenhower and Kennedy, the Bush Administration lost perspective about space. Inadequate budget proposals and lack of Congressional leadership and funding during Constellation's formative years undercut Administrator Michael Griffin's effort to implement the Program after 2004. Delays due to this under-funding have rippled through national space capabilities until we must retire the Space Shuttle without replacement access to space. Now, we must pay at least $50 million per seat for the Russians to ferry Americans and others to the International Space Station. How the mighty have fallen. Not only did Constellation never received the Administration's promised funding, but the Bush Administration and Congress required NASA 1) to continue the construction of the International Space Station (badly underbudgeted by former NASA Administrator O'Keefe, the OMB, and ultimately by the Congress), 2) to accommodate numerous major over-runs in the science programs (largely protected from major revision or cancellation by narrow Congressional interests), 3) to manage the Agency without hire and fire authority (particularly devastating to the essential hiring of young engineers), and 4) to assimilate, through added delays, the redirection and inflation-related costs of several Continuing Resolutions. Instead of fixing this situation, the current Administration let go Administrator Griffin, the best engineering Administrator in NASA's history, and now has cancelled Constellation. As a consequence, long-term access of American astronauts to space rests on the untested success of a plan for the łcommercial˛ space launch sector to meet the increasingly risk adverse demands of space flight. Histories of nations tell us that an aggressive

program to return Americans permanently to deep space must form an essential component of national policy. Americans would find it unacceptable, as well
40

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title as devastating to liberty, if we abandon leadership in space to the Chinese, Europe, or any other nation or group of nations. Potentially equally devastating to billions of people

would be loss of freedom's access to the energy resources of the Moon as fossil fuels diminish and populations and demand increase. In that harsh light
of history, it is frightening to contemplate the long-term, totally adverse consequences to the standing of the United States in modern civilization if the current Administration's decision to abandon deep space holds. Even a commitment to maintain the International

Space Station using commercial launch assets constitutes a dead-end for Americans in space. At some point, now set at the end of this decade, the $150 billion
Station becomes a dead-end and would be abandoned to the Russians or just destroyed, ending America's human space activities entirely. What, then, should be the focus of national space policy in order to maintain leadership in deep space? Some propose that we concentrate only on Mars. Without the experience of returning to the Moon, however, we will not have the engineering, operational, or physiological insight for many decades to either fly to Mars or land there. Others suggest going to an asteroid. As important as diversion of an asteroid from collision with the Earth someday may be, just going there hardly stimulates łScience and the useful Arts˛ anything like a permanent American settlement on the Moon! Other means exist, robots and meteorites, for example, to obtain most or all of the scientific value from a human mission to an asteroid. In any event, returning to the Moon inherently creates capabilities for reaching asteroids to study or divert them, as the case may be. Returning to the Moon and to deep space constitutes the right and continuing space policy choice for the Congress of the United States. It compares in significance to Jefferson's dispatch of Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana Purchase. The lasting significance to American growth and survival of Jefferson's decision cannot be questioned. Human exploration of space embodies the same basic instincts as the exploration of the West the exercise of freedom, betterment of one's conditions, and curiosity about nature. Such instincts lie at the very core of America's unique and special society of immigrants. Over the last 150,000 years or more, human exploration of Earth has yielded new homes, livelihoods, know how, and resources as well as improved standards of living and increased family security. Government has directly and indirectly played a role in encouraging exploration efforts. Private groups and individuals take additional initiatives to explore newly discovered or newly accessible lands and seas. Based on their specific historical experience, Americans can expect benefits comparable to those sought and won in the past also will flow from their return to the Moon, future exploration of Mars, and the long reach beyond. To realize such benefits, however, Americans must continue as the leader of human activities in space. No one else will hand them to us. Other than buying our national debt, China does not believe in welfare for the U.S. With a permanent resumption of the exploration of deep space, one thing is certain: our efforts will be as significant as those of our ancestors as they migrated out of Africa and into a global habitat. Further, a permanent human presence away from Earth provides another opportunity for the expansion of free institutions, with all their attendant rewards, as humans face new situations and new individual and societal challenges. Returning to the Moon first and as soon as

possible meets the requirements for an American space policy that
41

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific returns. Properly conceived and implemented, returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars. This also can provide a policy in which freedom-loving peoples
throughout the world can participate as active partners. The Congressionally approved Constellation Program, properly funded, contains most of the technical elements necessary to implement a policy of deep space leadership, particularly because it includes development of a heavy lift launch vehicle, the Ares V. In addition, Constellation includes a large upper stage for transfer to the Moon and other destinations, two well conceived spacecraft for transport and landing of crews on the lunar surface, strong concepts for exploration and lunar surface systems, and enthusiastic engineers and managers to make it happen if adequately supported. The one major missing component of a coherent and sustaining deep space systems architecture may be a well-developed concept for in-space refueling of spacecraft and upper rockets stages. The experience base for developing in-space refueling capabilities clearly exists. Again, if we

abandon leadership in deep space to any other nation or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic regime, the ability for the United States and its allies to protect themselves and liberty will be at great risk and potentially impossible. To others would accrue the benefits psychological, political,
economic, and scientific that the United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo's success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. American leadership absent from space? Is this the future we wish for our progeny? I think not. Again, the 2010 elections offer the way to get back on the right track.

Race to moon key to US leadership—technological superiority Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars

mission at Imperial College London
(Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency‘s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL)

But the trends do matter, and the future of America’s space program may have a monumental effect on the future of the entire nation. The nebulous sense of prestige gained from a strong space exploration program often translates into substantive economic and political gains. James Oberg, a Houston-based space consultant, told the Associated Press that “doing ‘Moon probes’ advertises a country’s technological level, and that’s good for high-tech exports, and for validating the threat-level of its high-tech weapons.” The exact date that China, India, Japan, the United States, or anybody else next lands on the Moon is immaterial, but the race itself is important as a litmus test of participating nations’ technological prowess and the value they ascribe to science and technology. Right now, the United States must work to get back on the right side of the equation. Meanwhile, half a world away—after Chandrayaan soared over rice paddies and fishing ships toward the Moon just a few months ago—India is looking up.

US race to moon key to dominance—be overtaken by others Davis, 9- Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing

Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team
(Dean Davis a Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team, Spring 2009, ―Space Settlement‖, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL)

42

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title Our need to climb the highest mountain is part of what makes us human. Exploring the unknown terrains of the Moon—and learning how to survive and thrive there—is a lofty goal. Historically, as human societies slow down or stop exploring, they tend to decline and become overtaken by others. It is vital that America remain a dominant, human spacefaring nation; establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is a key component of that goal.

43

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Moon Race = Escalation
CHINA/US HE-3 SPACE RACE LIKELY- DRAWS IN MANY COUNTRIES THE EXPRESS 10 (ADRIAN LEE, FORMER NATIONAL NEWSPAPER JOURNALIST, FOUR
YEARS ON STAFF OF TIMES AND DAILY EXPRESS, 3/24/2010, “TRUTH BEHIND THE NEW SPACE RACE; INDIA, CHINA, BRAZIL AND NOW EVEN BRITAIN HAVE ANNOUNCED MASSIVE NEW SPACE PROJECTS-ALL COMPETING WITH NASA TO HARVEST THE MOON‘S PRICELESS COMPOUND THAT COULD POWER THE PLANET‖ LEXISNEXIS.COM. ACCESSED 6/20/11, LG)

The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 'Nations are The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 1972, remains a source of untapped riches. Not far from its surface lies a source of power which, if successfully mined, could solve many of the world's energy needs for thousands of years to come. The Moon has acted spoils' The Moon has acted like a sponge and soaked up Helium-3, emitted from the Sun in the form of solar winds. According to space scientist and author Dr David Whitehouse, just two payloads full of Helium-3 in a Space Shuttle-style vessel could provide sufficient power for the United States for a year, created using nuclear fusion. It's been estimated that more than one million tonnes of this fuel lie buried on the Moon. If ways of getting heavy equipment to the Moon can be found, the technology exists to extract Helium-3, says Dr Whitehouse.Only a handful of other nations, currently led by China, are anywhere near ready to put a man on the moon. Russia - which has already stated its intention to mine Helium-3 - Japan and India are the others. A European alliance has the technology to land there and we even have a trainee astronaut, Major Tim Peake, working for the European Space Agency. However, there's little enthusiasm to put a Briton, or European, on the Moon, says Dr Whitehouse."China sees the benefits of Helium-3 and psychologically it would also affect America," he adds. "India is also training astronauts, although it's a bit of a puzzle because they don't have rockets powerful enough to put people into space. Under axed proposals, the US intended to reclaim the Moon in 2020. "That's still possible," says Dr Whitehouse. "Now, though, I think it is 50-50 whether China will get there first." For Britain, the last developed nation to have its own space agency, it's a case of too little, too late. "Sadly, it's hard to see Britain ever getting independently involved in manned space flights. The government only seems interested in sending satellites into space. Our space programme has just ambled along for years. We should be spending more money." Some experts insist there's little to be gained from going back to the Moon but Dr Whitehouse believes the next country to conquer our near neighbour, 240,000 miles distant, will gain a major advantage. "This time it will not be grainy black and white pictures but in high-definition colour and it will carry whole new meaning for whoever gets to the Moon next," he says. "In my opinion, abandoning the Moon is a big mistake."The discovery last year of a significant amount of water under the lunar south pole brings the reality of establishing a permanent base on the moon a step closer. The surface of the Moon is drier than any desert on our planet but scientists have long speculated that some permanently shadowed places might harbour huge stores of water, perhaps delivered by impacting comets billions of years ago. This water could sustain astronauts based at the lunar poles. However, efforts to tap into these wells seem more remote than ever. The US space industry has not been at a lower ebb since 1957 when the Soviets launched the first satellite, Sputnik. The Russians followed up that success by sending the first man, Yuri Gagarin, into orbit - but all that was overshadowed when the US narrowly won the biggest prize of all, the race to put man on the Moon. Given Spiro Agnew's ill-conceived boast about Mars, there are some who
44

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

believe the US rested on its laurels afterwards. One Briton, Steve Bennett, who is battling to launch tourists 62 miles to the edge of space for an unforgettable experience, says: "The Americans are allowing other countries to steal a march. This is a very bad decision." Bennett faces a constant struggle for funding to achieve his lifelong ambition and has been testing his inventions for years with varying success. Despite a lack of formal training he aims to be at the controls in 2013 when blast-off is finally achieved at 3,500 miles-per-hour. He says: "How will
people in the States feel when they see China celebrating a Moon landing and bringing back souvenir parts from the US lunar modules which are still up there?"Like Dr Whitehouse he

regards harnessing power from the Moon and space as a prime reason to continue pushing boundaries. He says: "If you put satellites into space eventually you will be able to harvest energy from the Sun and beam it back to Earth. The resources up there are tremendous. It's cheap, clean, energy which will last forever." Bennett believes scrapping the programme is also short-sighted for military reasons. "China is a sleeping giant in space exploration and when it wakes, the world is going to be shocked. If you have control of space, you have control of the world. If you are on the Moon it's like being on a big battleship." Brazil is behind in the space race but is hoping to revive an unmannned programme that has been on hold since a launchpad disaster killed 21 people in 2003. Worryingly, it's been reported that Iran, while still many years behind the Americans, has a fledgling space programme and is planning to send satellites above the Earth. Clearly, there are plenty of vultures circling the Moon to feast on the pickings. Looking even further ahead, Bennett says heavy industry could eventually be sited on the moon, or floating in space, leaving the Earth as a "garden planet". The US still has its International Space Station but if Obama's threats are carried through America will, in future, have to rely on the Russians to transport its astronauts there. How humiliating for the nation which triumphed in the first space race back in the Sixties to rely on its old foe to act as a glorified taxi service into space.

45

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

A2 files

46

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

A2 Dust turn:
Landing on the moon doesn’t raise dust-NASA experiment proves The Guardian 9 (Ian Sample, science correspondent, 10-10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/10/nasa-lunar-crashlanding, 7-9-11, SRF)

Nasa's hope of filming a spectacular crash on the moon was dashed satellite and telescope imagery failed to record the enormous plume of rock and dust that scientists had predicted. The US space agency steered two parts of a spacecraft, called LCROSS, into the moon at more than 5,600 miles per hour, in the final act of a hunt for signs of water. Nasa scientists had anticipated that the impact would throw up a six-milehigh cloud of lunar dust and rock which could be scanned for evidence of frozen water. But after the collision at 12.31pm today, no sign of the plume was spotted, even from the second stage, which crashed nearby four minutes later. Nasa's headquarters
in Washington DC had faced a flood of calls from people objecting to the agency "bombing" the moon, fearing disruption to tides on Earth and even their menstrual cycles. Anthony Colaprete, principal investigator on the LCROSS mission, said of the missing plume: "We haven't been able to see it clearly in our data yet." He added that scientists were working "feverishly" on information sent back.

47

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

AT: Fusion Problems
All their fusion evidence assumes current nuclear processes – the aff uses a new fusion reactor recently invented Hedman 6 (Eric, Chief Tech. Officer @ Logic Design, 1-16, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1, accessed 7-7, JG)
Professor Kulcinski‘s lab is running the

only helium-3 fusion reactor in the world. He has an annual research budget that is barely into six figures and allows him to have five graduate research assistants working on the project. Compared to what has been spent on other fusion projects around the world, the team‘s accomplishments are impressive. Helium-3 would not require a tokomak reactor like the multibillion-dollar one being developed for the international ITER project. Instead, his design uses an electrostatic field to contain the plasma instead of an electromagnetic field. His current reactor contains spherical plasma roughly ten centimeters in diameter. It can produce a sustained fusion with 200 million reactions per second producing about a milliwatt of power while consuming about a kilowatt of power to run the reactor. It is nuclear power without highly radioactive nuclear waste.

48

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Helium 3 unrivaled – efficiency and safety make it invaluable Hurtack 2004 (Timothy J.; April 8; English 202c – Section 3 ―Helium 3 Fusion and the Development of the
Moon‖ https://www.courses.psu.edu/engl/engl202c_jck14/engineers/timrpt.pdf)

As the world‘s natural energy supply diminishes, researchers have been looking for new source of clean energy. Helium 3 seems to be the answer. The substance is almost foreign to Earth; however the Sun produces it in large quantities in a natural fusion reaction. The Helium 3 could be transported to Earth and used in a nuclear reaction that produces no radiation or radioactive waste. The only bi-product is oxygen and water. The technology is not advanced enough to make Helium 3 a plausible alternative yet, but new techniques are improving its efficiency every year. Once the technology has developed into a sustaining energy producer, many see Helium 3 as the perfect answer to the world‘s future energy needs. Introduction Energy is the driving force behind the Industrialized United States. Coal,
petroleum, and natural gas power the industries that drive America. Oil has become a key issue in world affairs, especially after the second war with Iraq. Alternative energy sources have been sought after for the last 30 years, first being

fueled by the depletion of coal. During the space race with the Soviets, U.S. astronauts brought back samples of moon rocks that were found to contain the gas Helium 3. Helium 3 research falls in the middle of space colonization, the fight between superpowers for control over special resources. Helium 3 research came to the forefront in 1988 at a convention held by NASA in conjunction with University of Wisconsin-Madison. Helium 3 is significant because it only has 1 neutron instead of two neutrons found in regular Helium. This absence of one Helium 3 Fusion 3 neutron makes the isotope very volatile in a fusion reaction. Scientists discovered Helium 3 in 1939, and astronauts found in on the Moon in 1969. It
wasn‘t until 1986 that the fusion scientists stumbled across the isotope lunar geologists had been studying for almost twenty years.

The unique chemical properties of Helium 3 make it an ideal substance for nuclear fusion because it produces nearly zero radiation. The fusion reaction of Helium 3 has an efficiency of about 80 percent when it is converted into energy. This efficiency is much greater that current hydrogen fusion reactions that also produce large quantities of radiation. Helium 3 is created in large quantities by the
sun. In its core, the sun‘s huge gravitational pull creates a natural fusion chamber that creates regular Helium into its valuable isotope Helium 3. Standard Helium contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Helium 3 still contains 2 protons but loses one of its neutrons. The

sun naturally produces the isotope and is propelled into space. Solar winds have been carrying Helium 3 throughout the solar system since the birth of the Sun. These solar winds have been depositing Helium 3 in the soils of the Moon for almost the same amount of time. Scientists have been using satellite technology to begin mapping the lunar surface to find the large deposits of Helium 3 that are present. Helium 3 fusion reactions produce extreme amounts of energy that can be converted into electricity. Quantities of Helium 3 have been estimated by K. Kulcinski at around 1,100,000 metric tones. Only 30 tons of Helium 3 gas will produce enough energy to power the entire country for an entire year. With new deposits of Helium 3 being dumped on the Moon from solar winds, the supply of Helium 3 would virtually be endless.

49

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

AT: Fusion Weapons
The tech for fusion weapons doesn’t exist Franceschini & Schaper 6 (Giorgio and Annette, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, Nuclear Weapons Research and
Modernization Without Nuclear Testing Pg. 21 JF) The primary role that is assigned to NIF is to maintain the intellectual and technical competency of the U.S. in physics related to nuclear weapons in a more generic sense.31 There are external critics who exaggerate the military potential of the ICF, some even fear that it may lead to the development of pure fusion weapons. 32 It is unclear whether a pure fusion weapon explosion would be banned by the CTBT because no fission would take place. While the

explosion during an ICF experiment is indeed a pure fusion explosion, it is extremely unlikely that a pure fusion nuclear weapon would be possible. The reason is that the release of any significant fusion energy requires an energy input of the highest density. In the foreseeable future, this is possible only with a fission bomb or with high power lasers.33 The latter are huge and bulky. A laser with such high energy that could be delivered like a weapon seems impossible today.34

50

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

A2 No Infrastructure
Helium-3 Is A Prerequisite To Fusion Development—Status Quo Fusion Unattractive And Unlikely To Develop. Cheetham, Brad and Pastuf, Dan. 2008. [University at Buffalo, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering. “Lunar Resources and Development: A brief overview of the possibilities for lunar resource extraction and development.” http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf The possibility of a Helium-3 fueled lunar economy was mentioned previously. In order for this to be a possibility fusion technology must be advanced beyond the current very small scale reactions being achieved (Schmitt). One problem with this plan of waiting for fusion technology to
develop before establishing a lunar base is that fusion without helium-3 is very much less attractive.

Using common deuterium fusion plans, power plants would actually produce more nuclear waste per kilowatt hour than a nuclear fission plant of comparable size would (Schmitt 41).
Thus fusion technology is somewhat dependent on having a large supply of He-3 while at the same time, getting He-3 from the Moon is depending on having large scale fusion plants operational. Only time will tell which occurs first, but with additional funding, and a He-3 source its likely fusion power could be figured out.

51

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

52

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

A2 OST
Lunar Mining Legal Under International Space Framework—Treaties Allow All Actors To Use Space For Peaceful Purposes. Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin

Law School. “A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options.” Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1. 2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf II. THE CURRENT LEGAL SITUATION The most salient place to look for international rules governing the mining of He-3 or other lunar resources is the growing body of "space law," in particular, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and 1979 Moon Agreement. However, while each of these sets out general principles relevant to the exploitation of lunar mining, neither provides a detailed legal regime for the conduct of such activities. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty,38 which is legally binding on 100 nations, including all of the principal space powers,3 9 establishes a broad framework for the exploration and use of outer space and is widely regarded as the "charter" of international space law.40 As relevant to possible lunar mining activities, the treaty provides that the state parties may "use" the Moon for peaceful purposes, presumably including not only scientific but other activities as well, but that they have a general obligation to share the benefits of their uses with all countries. 41 The treaty expressly prohibits any national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use or occupation, or by any other means over specific territory on the Moon,42 and forbids depriving "free access" to any area of the Moon or discriminatively excluding any state from the opportunity to explore or use the Moon.43 However, it recognizes that state parties may establish stations and other installations on the Moon,44 and that states have the right to exercise jurisdiction over its installations and personnel. 45 In addition, these activities may be carried out by nongovernmental entities, 46 international organizations, or joint enterprises. 47 Notably, while the Outer Space Treaty ostensibly bars the assertion of exclusive territorial claim to particular lunar mining sites, the treaty appears permissive in allowing a party to make "use" of lunar resources,48 subject to certain general environmental, notification, inspection, and other constraints. 49 Moreover, nothing in the treaty precludes the possibility of lunar mining activities by state parties, intergovernmental organizations, or private enterprises, or ownership over resources removed from the Moon by such entities. 50 The treaty does provide, however, that any "use" of lunar resources should, in some unspecified
sense and to some unclear extent, inure to the benefit and in the interests of all countries. 51 More broadly, the treaty also requires that all lunar activities shall be carried out under the principle of cooperation and with due regard to the interests of all other states parties. 52

53

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

54

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

OST will collapse—too broad to be effective and states are uncertain about its effectiveness. Quinn 8(Adam G. U. Mn. Law School,
accessed 7-9, CJQ) When the Outer Space Treaty was ―The New Age of Space Law: The Outer Space Treaty and the Weaponization of Space,‖ 2008,

drafted the dominant view was that it barred all property rights, including those of private actors and patents. That view has lost support over time as the changing international environment recognized the necessity to allow some property rights in space. Regardless, the damage was done. The fact that property rights could dramatically change without the treaty text changing indicated one thing: uncertainty. Uncertainty is anathema to investment. The Outer Space Treaty claims to apply to all actors through all of space. Over time, however, the definitions of both actor and space have come under flux. During this time, [*491] domestic courts have been reluctant to make statements regarding outer space . Although courts have been willing to extend
jurisdiction of United States patent law to cover infringement aboard "American vessels on the high seas," they have been unwilling to extend that same principle to United States vessels in outer space. Although the comparison is strikingly clear, courts have stated

that they are awaiting a clear signal from Congress regarding extraterritorial applications of patent law. Moreover, international courts have never enforced Article I against any nation.The lack of faith in the Outer Space Treaty is as great as its purported breadth, making it an insufficient base to develop a substantive set of space laws.

55

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

56

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

A2 Ratify Moon Agreement
Ratifying The Moon Agreement Risks Power Struggles And Prevents Future Cooperation Bilder, Richard B. Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School. ―A
Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options.‖ Fordham International Law Journal. Volume 33, Issue 2. Article 1. 2009. http://ddw11.wikispaces.com/file/view/Helium-3+Law+Review+Article.pdf It is true, of course, that U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement would involve risks, such as those

raised in the 1980 Senate hearings, based on a pessimistic prediction of the likely outcome of any eventual article 11 and 18 negotiations. 152 Thus, U.S. accession might well encourage wider participation in the agreement by many non-space powers and developing states countries that
might have a different ideology and approach to the exploitation of lunar resources from that of the United States. Conceivably, if these nations constituted a majority of parties to the agreement, they might succeed in imposing a resource regime unacceptable to the United States in any future article 11 and 18 negotiations. In this event, U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement could result in embedding and legitimating a lunar resource regime embodying principles contrary to U.S. interests. Moreover, U.S. accession might, in this case, effectively preclude its pursuit of alternative, more hopeful strategies. While it is true that under the agreement the U.S. is not legally obliged to agree to

any eventual international regime that it does not like, it might by that time be impractical for the United States to either "go it alone" or seek some other agreement.

57

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

58

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

A2 No Fusion Technology
Helium-3 Is A Prerequisite To Fusion Development—Status Quo Fusion Unattractive And Unlikely To Develop. Cheetham, Brad and Pastuf, Dan. 2008. [University at Buffalo, Department of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering. “Lunar Resources and Development: A brief overview of the possibilities for lunar resource extraction and development.” http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf The possibility of a Helium-3 fueled lunar economy was mentioned previously. In order for this to be a possibility fusion technology must be advanced beyond the current very small scale reactions being achieved (Schmitt). One problem with this plan of waiting for fusion technology to
develop before establishing a lunar base is that fusion without helium-3 is very much less attractive.

Using common deuterium fusion plans, power plants would actually produce more nuclear waste per kilowatt hour than a nuclear fission plant of comparable size would (Schmitt 41).
Thus fusion technology is somewhat dependent on having a large supply of He-3 while at the same time, getting He-3 from the Moon is depending on having large scale fusion plants operational. Only time will tell which occurs first, but with additional funding, and a He-3 source its likely fusion power could be figured out.

1. Only a risk plan solves—Helium-3 is more efficient than existing forms of energy production. That’s Coledan 4.

59

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

AT:Feasibility
Mining for Helium 3 feasible – easy to extract and not relatively expensive Schmitt 2004 (Harrison H., Ph.D. in Geology Harvard University & former NASA astronaut, October; Popular
Mechanics: ―Mining the Moon‖ pg 60; bh)

Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million. Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large mounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3—enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year. Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines, perhaps like those shown in the illustrations on pages 56 and 57, might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.

60

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

61

EHS DB8 2011-12 File Title

Moon is relatively easy to mine – current technology meets requirements. Bilder 2009
(Richard, J.D., Harvard University Law School & has served as Vice-President of the American Society of International Law; Fordham International Law Journal: Vol. 33 Issue 2, Pgs. 254-255 ―A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options‖; bh)

How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth? 29 Because the solar wind components are weakly bound to the lunar regolith, 0 it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. In one proposed scenario, once a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surface-probably, in particular, the lunar maria, or "seas"-scooping up the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat the collected regolith to the temperatures necessary to release, separate, and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, along with certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3) discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar surface; and (4) return with the collected He3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. The collected He-3 gas could then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in remotely-operated shuttles. 3 2 Importantly, this type of mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, all potentially very useful-indeed, perhaps indispensable-for the maintenance of a lunar base or further outer space activities such as expeditions to Mars or other planets. 33 Since He-3 is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to process large amounts of lunar regolith in order to obtain the quantities of He3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3-based power program. However, the extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the lunar environment because the regolith will be discharged back to the Moon's surface immediately after processing. 34

62