209 KO Space Affirmative Wave II

DDI ’08 Space AFF Wave II
Anuj, Jackie, Matt 1/96
Space Satellite AFF Wave II

States
Space Satellite AFF Wave II.............................................................................................1
A2: States CP- 2AC Frontline...........................................................................................3
Federal government incentives key 2 SPS.......................................................................8
Space Politics Links- Bipart Opposition..........................................................................9
McCain supports..............................................................................................................10
Bipartisan Support..........................................................................................................11
Obama Loves the Plan.....................................................................................................13
Military Lobbies...............................................................................................................14
Space Lobbies Approve...................................................................................................15
Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 1 (Big Impact).............................................................16
Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 2 (Small Impact).........................................................18
INHERENCY: DISASTERS COMING NOW.............................................................20
NATURAL DISASTERS BAD.......................................................................................21
POVERTY........................................................................................................................22
STRAIGHT TURNING ECON DISADS......................................................................23
TURN OTHER IMPACTS.............................................................................................24
Disaster Relief- SBSP Solves Disaster Relief.................................................................25
Aerospace Add-On...........................................................................................................31
Aerospace Declining.........................................................................................................37
Space Mil Now..................................................................................................................40
Aerospace Key to Hege....................................................................................................45
Aerospace key to Economy.............................................................................................50
SSP key to Aero Leadership............................................................................................55
SSP Key to Space Domination........................................................................................57
SSP key to Space Radar..................................................................................................59
Space power key to hegemony........................................................................................60
Space Domination Solves War........................................................................................63
UAV’s Necessary..............................................................................................................66
Nanotech- Semiconductor Add-ON................................................................................67
Defense of Grey Goo........................................................................................................70
Federal Government key to Aerospace..........................................................................73
SSP Key to reduce Launch Costs...................................................................................75
China Add-ON.................................................................................................................76
China War coming...........................................................................................................79
U.S.-SINO Space War Impacts.......................................................................................81
Plan Solves China’s energy needs...................................................................................83
Surveillance Prevents Genocide and Nuke War...........................................................89
Space Research Solves Diseases......................................................................................90
A2: Debris kills Satellites.................................................................................................91
Solves Prolif......................................................................................................................93
NASA Trade-off/ Credibility Add-on............................................................................94
1
Notes- Well kiddos, here is wave 2 of the space affirmative which was put out and
assigned during wave 3. Enjoy the advantages and I apologize for the slight indexing
problem (last minute indexing).
-Anuj
***Some Work for the next wave includes: Politics- the Bush Bad link turns, the Kagan
07 card lol, In-depth nanotech advantages, and about 15 more add-ons.***
2
A2: States CP- 2AC Frontline

1. Perm: [insert appropriate perm]
2. Perm solves: State and federal action together result in the best possible regulations-
divisions of state and federal power should not be static
Kristin Engel, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 1/07, “Harnessing the Benefits of Dynamic
Federalism in Environmental Law,” Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 06-37
The states’ failure to restrict their regulatory authority to issues impacting only their own jurisdictions, and the
federal government’s failure to regulate only when the states’ ability to address an issue effectively is hobbled by
collective action problems, are inconsistent with the policy implications of the scholarly debate over environmental
federalism, in which scholars have supported a particular allocation of at least primary regulatory authority between
the states and the federal government.9 The purpose of this Article is not to reengage in the long-running debate over
whether, and when, the federal or the state governments are the more appropriate environmental regulators.10 Rather,
the purpose is to question the fundamental assumption underlying the debate: that regulatory authority to address
environmental ills should be allocated to one or the other level of government with minimal overlap. This Article
argues first that a static allocation of authority between the state and federal government is inconsistent with
the process of policymaking in our federal system, in which multiple levels of government interact in the
regulatory process. Absent constitutional changes that would lock in a specific allocation of authority, broad,
overlapping authority between levels of government may be essential to prompting regulatory activity at the
preferred level of government. This Article further argues that a static allocation of authority deprives citizens
of the benefits of overlapping jurisdiction, such as a built-in check upon interest group capture, greater
opportunities for regulatory innovation and refinement, and relief for the courts from the often futile and
confusing task of jurisdictional line-drawing. Part I.A of this Article critiques the scholarly adherence to a generally
rigid separation between state and federal jurisdiction, which I argue is rooted in the dominance of economic models
in the environmental federalism debates. In Part I.B, I contrast the scholarly preoccupation with the separation of
federal and state power with environmental federalism in practice, which is marked by a large degree of
jurisdictional overlap and interaction between the states and the federal government. Part II of this Article sets forth
an alternative vision of environmental federalism, drawing upon recent scholarship that conceives the states
and the federal government as alternative—not mutually exclusive— sources of regulatory authority. Such a
conception views the interaction between the two levels of government as a means of improving the quality
and responsiveness of regulation.
3
3. The federal government is essential to providing 3 key incentives to allow for commercial SBSP tech to
occur.
National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security,” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-
01.pdf, pg. 3
Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low‐
cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space
access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that
include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement
to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just
purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review
finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze
SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be
accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space-
borne proof-of-concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10
MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class systems is included in Appendix B. The second
challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be
necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial‐commercial, government‐
commercial, and government‐government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government
contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is
accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on‐line today.
4. Turn: Patchwork: States regulations lead to patchwork and slow solar energy development
Clean Edge, clean-tech research and publishing firm, 2002, “Solar Opportunity Assessment Report,”
http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/reports-soar.php
Among the key challenges to growing the U.S. solar marketplace are: its small production scale, which keeps
quantities low and prices high; on-again-off-again government funding of solar research and development; a dearth
of financing solutions, pricing solar out of reach of most users; a patchwork of regulations related to solar,
forcing manufacturers and buyers of solar systems to meet different requirements in each state; a lack of
coordination among companies, government agencies, the solar and building industries, or potential buyers of
solar systems; a lack of standardized, plug-and-play systems that would greatly reduce the complexity and cost of
designing and installing a solar-energy system; and a lack of education about solar's benefits to a variety of
audiences
4
5. Counterplan will be struck down –violations of multiple clauses ensure
Robert K. Huffman, Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown University Law Center, a partner at the law firm of
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, and Jonathan M. Weisgall, Adjunct Professors at the Georgetown
University Law Center, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs at MidAmerican Energy Holdings
Company, Winter 08, “Climate Change and the States: Constitutional Iss ues Arising fr om State Climate Protection
Leaders hip”, downloaded from http://www.wcl.american.edu/org/sustainabledevelopment/
Conclusion State governments continue to demonstrate leadership in combating climate change— from adopting
energy efficiency standards to enacting renewable portfolio standards to developing cap-and-trade programs aimed
at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, often as part of regional compacts. At the same time, the Congress is in the
process of developing national climate change legislation and agencies in the Executive Branch are defining their
roles. As the federal and state governments begin regulating the same areas of the economy and the
environment, the potential for conflicting programs arises. State programs are potentially vulnerable to a
variety of constitutional challenges, including through the Commerce, Compacts, Supremacy, and Foreign
Affairs clauses. As the federal government solidifies its approach to global climate change over the next several
years, the likelihood for preemption of state programs will become more evident. It is apparent now, however,
that state programs are in serious jeopardy if the federal government actively seeks to restrict state authority.
If the current or future President does not want states to play an active role in climate change regulation, he
or she will have several constitutional tools at their disposal to handicap the states’ abilities to create
programs that reduce GHG emissions.
6. Turn: Coordination Key:
A. State action risks patchwork regulations deterring investment
James Murray, 6/30/08 US Congress to debate German-style feed-in tariff James Murray, BusinessGreen,
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2220323/congress-debate-german-style
Inslee warned that the US risked missing out on billions of dollars of cleantech investment if it does not do
more to stimulate demand for such technologies. "The cost of inaction on global warming extends well beyond
the serious ecologic and human health issues that already are taking a toll on our environment," he said. "There is
also an opportunity cost if we fail to help America's brightest entrepreneurs to quench public demand for
clean energy technologies here in the US." The bill's supporters said with more than a dozen states having already
enacted a feed-in tariff or considering doing so, federal legislation was also required to help avoid a "patchwork
regulatory structure" for the renewables sector.
B. States never act in coordinated manner on incentives
Dr. Arnold Leitner, Senior Consultant at RDI Consulting and PhD in Superconductor Physics, 7/02, Fuel From
the Sky: Solar Power’s Potential for Western Energy Supply, http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/32160.pdf
No two states have decided to promote renewables in exactly the same way; both the methods and the scope
by which renewables are promoted vary. The lack of precedent in applying such incentives may explain the
variety of approaches. Other states that are contemplating deregulation or that have pending legislation are
carefully observing the success of these programs.
5
7. Only through NASA and federal incentives will private industry begin to invest in solar tech research.
John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh
Look" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science,”
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
Chairman Rohrabacher started the questioning by asking how much SSP would cost and who should pay. Mr.
Mankins responded that preliminary studies showed that the first platform of the Sun Tower model would cost
between $5-7B after the technology has been developed and would produce 400 megawatts of energy, enough to
supply a small city. The Chairman then asked if SSP would have a detrimental impact on the environment,
specifically the ozone layer. Gregg Maryniak answered that the Earth receives radio beams and microwaves every
day. The energy density is what matters, and the center of SSP is less dense than sunlight. Space solar power is
therefore possible, he stated, without detrimental effect. It could be used to help underdeveloped countries to
industrialize while creating a new industry. Congressman Lampson asked about the 1980's Office of Technology
Assessment report that cited economic obstacles to SSP. Mr. Mankins replied that it was the goal of the Fresh Look
study to resolve those obstacles. The finding of the study was that costs have been drastically reduced since then;
basic technologies have been developed. For example, at the time of the OTA report, the shuttle wasn't operating.
The problem with space transportation, added Mr. Maryniak, is that there is not enough of it. Congressman Lampson
then asked what NASA is doing in SSP now and what it needs to do. Mr. Mankins cited the Fresh Look study
completed last year, and listed ongoing R&D programs under the Office of Space Flight and the Office of Space
Science. Congressman Weldon's questions focused on industry's interest and support of SSP and the possibility of
working with the satellite industry. Other questions focused on the amount of research and cost necessary to get SSP
underway, and how much market interest and industry support there would be for SSP, considering that fossil fuels
are a finite, pollution-causing resource. Congressman Bartlett asked about how much new technology would be
needed; Mr. Mankins replied that 8-10 major areas of technology needed to be advanced technologically, although
all were between an order of two and five improvement over current technology and would cost substantially below
$10B for technology maturation. Mr. Bartlett explained that while he doesn't believe in "greenhouse gases" he'd be
"willing to ride that horse" if that's what it would take to get funding for SSP. Chairman Rohrabacher stated that he
had spoken recently with the Speaker and Joint Taxation Chairman Archer about a proposal to make manufacturing
in space a tax free endeavor in order to raise private sector resources, and that they expressed interest. He wants to
get NASA to focus on SSP as a long term project, rather than human travel to Mars. He asked if the witnesses had
talked with anyone at NASA about this. Mr. Mankins testified that there have been a number of discussions, but at
this time in the context of the real struggle to make the books work on the Balanced Budget Agreement, NASA is
not making SSP a priority at this time. Mr. Maryniak stated that he had had conversations with the Administrator
and believed that he personally was interested in SSP. Dr. Grey suggested that the Subcommittee discuss the
possibility of using some of the overlap technology between what NASA is already engaged in, such as reduced
cost of space transportation, and SSP technology requirements to begin an SSP program at NASA. Mr.
Rohrabacher replied that Mission to Planet Earth might be a good place to put such a project. He said NASA may
eventually get an astronaut on Mars, and he isn't against it, but that SSP should come first because of the
benefit to mankind that could be derived from SSP. Mr. Lampson asked if anything could be accomplished now
without additional funding. Mr. Mankins replied that there is technology work being conducted at NASA now
that is applicable to SSP, including low cost of space transportation, which is the third goal of NASA's strategic
plan. Mr. Lampson then asked if the electric companies could be expected to contribute funding to the project;
Dr. Grey said that there is some support and that the interest level of the utilities would depend on the risk of
the technology advancement, and that the reduction of this risk was a perfect role for the Federal government
to fill. The Chairman closed the hearing by expressing his agreement with the other members that "this has been a
fascinating hearing and I look forward to further discussion on the subject."
6
8. Coordinated national program like NASA key to solvency
National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, 10/10/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security,” http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-
01.pdf, pg. 2
The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high-level leadershi
p and resourcing commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of
fusion energy research or International Space Station construction and operations.
9. States Fail—lack of government leadership and funding mean that the States will never solve
Mark Clayton, Staff Writer for the Christian Science Monitor, 10/6/2005, The Christian Science Monitor,
“States Take On Feds Over Environment”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p01s04-uspo.html
State efforts simply can't compensate for the steady drop in EPA enforcement efforts, even administration
critics admit. So the gap between states with strong and weak environmental enforcement is getting wider,
Mr. Schaeffer says. He notes, for instance, that while the nine-state initiative to limit carbon dioxide
emissions is a great step forward, no states currently building coal-fired power plants have signed onto the
pact. "All this state activity is great," he says. "The caveat is that it can't make up for what we're missing
from the federal government." Then add money woes. At least one-third of the $15 billion states spend
annually comes from the federal government, and that amount is dropping. States lost nearly $200 million
in federal funding - about $4 million per state in the new federal budget, according to the Environmental Council
of the States in Washington. Ms. Witcher denies that EPA is shirking enforcement or failing to fund compliance,
noting that 730,000 individuals and business got compliance assistance from the EPA last year. "Our strategy is
working," she says. But that's little solace to some state officials. "We certainly are using the courts to try to get
the federal government to do their job," Ms. Enck says. "It's astonishing how many cases are against federal
agencies, not polluters directly. If the feds aren't doing their job, there's not much chance of getting
compliance from polluters."
10. SBSP should be taken on by NASA
John C. Mankins, Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, 10/24/97, “Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh
Look" before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science,”
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an
agency should be all about" - the development of opportunities in space which are uncovered during NASA's
missions. He stated that NASA's lack of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed, "cries out
for further research," may be because NASA wants to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming the
glory days of Apollo." He feels that SSP is just as exciting -- or even more so -- as sending an astronaut to Mars,
and is closer to NASA's mission. He cited the Next Generation Internet project as an example where NASA
funding is enabling competition for the private sector, similar to what the SSP project could be. He wants NASA to
take the next measured step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would reap huge public
support for NASA. The space station, he said, is a tremendous engineering project with direct benefit to people on
Earth; SSP can provide great benefits as well. Ranking Minority Member Cramer discussed the fact that SSP is not a
new issue, but requires a long term focus. SSP requires a radical reduction in cost of access to space, which NASA
is already investing in.
7
Federal government incentives key 2 SPS

Federal Government Is Key To Incentivizing The Development Of SPS Systems
Executive Branch Of The Untied States Federal Government 2006 National Aeronatuics Research And
Development Policy
In order to achieve the goal of this policy, the executive departments and agencies of the U.S. Government
should adhere to the following general guidelines: Role of the Federal Government in Aeronautics R&D.
The Federal Government should only undertake roles in supporting aeronautics R&D that are not more
appropriately per- formed by the private sector. Specifically, the Federal Government plays a key role in
the following three aspects of aeronautics R&D. Investment in a full range of aeronautics R&D that
supports national defense and homeland security, from basic research through advanced technology
development and beyond, is a responsibility of executive departments and agencies and should remain a
U.S. Government priority. The U.S. Government plays a unique role in long-term, fundamental aeronautics
research that provides the foundation for future technology development. Executive departments and
agencies perform this role through direct Federal investment and indirectly through policies and regulations
that stimulate academic or private sector R&D investment and innovation. In addition, executive
departments and agencies should provide for the widest practical and appropriate dissemination of research
results, consistent with national security, foreign policy, and the Office of Management and Budget's
Information Quality Guidelines. The Federal Government also has a role in more advanced civil
aeronautics research. In these cases, the Federal Government's involvement in R&D must be based on well-
defined goals with objective measures of efficacy. These goals must be scrutinized to ensure that the
government is not stepping beyond its legitimate purpose by competing with or un- fairly subsidizing
commercial ventures. In such cases, the primary areas of government involvement are: Public Interest
Research: Research that directly benefits the public by improving public safety and security, by promoting
energy efficiency, or by protecting the environment. Research and Development to Address Gaps: In
certain cases where risks or other market factors limit private sector investment in more advanced research,
the Federal Government may decide investment is required. The appropriateness of Federal investment in
such research must be justified by an assessment indicating that the benefits of such R&D would occur far
in the future or the risks would be too great for non-Federal participants, and the results from the research
would not be appropriable to a single entity. In these cases, Federal R&D investment must be the best
means to achieve the objectives as opposed to other means such as regulatory, policy or tax incentives.
Government Internal R&D: Research in direct support of government infrastructure or services and the
setting and enforcement of regulations.
8
Space Politics Links- Bipart Opposition
Bipartisan opposition to NASA funding
Space Politics, Space Politics is a space policy blog by Jeff Foust (editor and publisher of The Space
Review), offering news and commentary about key issues affecting civil, commercial, and military space
efforts, April 17, 2007, “Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets”,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ [Bapodra]
Going through my notes from last week’s address at the National Space Symposium by Rep. Ken Calvert, I
picked up a theme that relates to some recent discussions in the comments of previous posts, where some
were trying to hang blame on one party or another for NASA’s FY07 funding woes. Calvert noted that one
of the House members who voted against the 2005 NASA authorization bill is the current appropriations
chairman, David Obey (although Calvert didn’t mention him by name, only by title). “This is a problem as
NASA finds itself in a precarious time, trying to ramp up spending to move America beyond low Earth
orbit while also meeting the demands of the agency’s diverse portfolio of missions.”
Was Calvert making an attack against the Democratic leadership in the House? No. “There is a dangerous
trend of bipartisan nonsupport in funding NASA in Congress,” he said. He mentioned two amendments to
the original FY07 appropriations bill on the House floor last summer that would have either prevented
NASA from spending any money on Mars exploration efforts, and another that would have transferred
NASA funds to other programs. While both amendments were defeated (a moot point, as it turned out,
since that appropriations bill was never enacted and replaced with a continuing resolution), “The reality is
that members of both parties supported these amendments, and by a large margin.”
That doesn’t bode well for NASA during the FY2008 budget process. “You can bet that NASA will be the
target again this year unless we prepare to defend NASA funding against grabs from other areas.”
9
McCain supports
Reports indicate McCain supports funding space exploration
Space Politics, Space Politics is a space policy blog by Jeff Foust (editor and publisher of The Space
Review), offering news and commentary about key issues affecting civil, commercial, and military space
efforts, April 17, 2007, “Bipartisan nonsupport and big targets”,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/04/17/bipartisan-nonsupport-and-big-targets/ [Bapodra]
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is willing to spend more money on NASA and consider
human exploration of Mars, according to a report on washingtonpost.com. McCain, meeting with Florida
newspaper editors, said, “I’d be willing to spend more taxpayers dollars” on NASA. How much more
money, he doesn’t say (or at least washingtonpost.com doesn’t report), nor how that would fit into his plans
for a discretionary spending freeze if elected.
He added that he had an interest in sending people to Mars that dates back to reading Ray Bradbury’s The
Martian Chronicles. “I’m intrigued by a man on Mars. I think it would excite the imagination of the
American people… Americans would be very willing to do that.” Exactly how that intrigue would translate
into policy (if it would at all), though, isn’t mentioned.
The AP account of the meeting brings up a different issue: McCain would “support continuing space
shuttle missions” beyond 2010 and that he wants the US to have “a better set of priorities” for the space
program. That last point sounds a little bit like what Barack Obama has been saying about reviewing the
agency’s direction.
10
Bipartisan Support
Congress supports NASA Reauthorization Bill
Mark K. Matthews, Washington Bureau, 6/25/2008, “Congress sets sights on moon, wants to boost NASA
funding” http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-nasa2508jun25,0,7421700.story [Bapodra]
WASHINGTON - Congress gave NASA another boost Tuesday when a U.S. Senate committee
recommended a $2.6 billion increase in the space agency's budget next year to accelerate its plans to return
astronauts to the moon.
The $20.2 billion mirrors the amount included in a similar bill that passed the U.S. House 409 to 15 last
week. Both measures also require that NASA add another shuttle flight to deliver a physics experiment to
the international space station.
Keeping the two versions alike makes it easier to get a NASA bill through Congress. Space supporters want
to send a bill to President Bush -- who opposes the House bill because it costs too much -- before the
November election, in part to send a message to the next president.
"Our enemy right now is time," said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who said he expects the full Senate to
vote on the bill next month. Because there is little variation in the two bills, finding a compromise between
the House and Senate versions should not be too difficult.
11
Strong Congressional bipartisanship for NASA funding
STEWART M. POWELL, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau correspondent, 6/11/2008, “White

House rejects call to boost NASA shuttle funding: Houston-area lawmakers lash out at administration”,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830045.html [Bapodra]
The White House also took umbrage at the legislation requiring NASA to deepen international cooperation
in the next generation of manned U.S. space operations, saying that the provision ordering international
outreach "directly infringes upon the president's authority to conduct foreign affairs."
President Bush's strong criticism of a program dear to Texas lawmakers left Lone Star State Republicans in
a tough political position.
Some, like Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, said they would push for additional NASA funding, with or
without White House approval.
Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, whose district includes parts of Harris County, disagreed with the White
House contention that the additional missions would jeopardize the 2010 retirement date.
"The contingency flights are necessary to make sure the space station is fully equipped entering that period
when the U.S. will have no spaceflights," he said.
There is strong bipartisan support for increased NASA funding in the Senate, which will act after the House
gives its funding plan final approval.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, did not directly
address the White House threats. But she said she considers completion of the space station an issue of
"utmost importance" and will continue working "to increase NASA funding so we may close the gap in
continuous spaceflight," said spokesman Matt Mackowiak.
Congressional bipart support for space policies
Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, 7/25/08 “Speech by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin before
the Parliamentary Group on Space”, French National Assembly,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28704 [Bapodra]
First, U.S. civil space policy is specifically designed for the long term, designed to be implemented
affordably and systematically across many changes of Administration and Congress. In fact, those who are
in favor of continuing human spaceflight, a substantial majority of U.S. policymakers, agree that we have
little choice but to proceed on the path we are now following. While there will certainly be debate on the
details of NASA's plans, in my view there will not be a significant change in our overall direction. There is
a broad bipartisan consensus of support for today's U.S. civil space policy.
12
Obama Loves the Plan

Obama supports multiple parts of the plan
Barack Obama 2008, Official Obama Campaign website, January 10, 2008, “Barack Obama's Plan For
American Leadership in Space”, Found on Spaceref.com, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?
pid=26647
Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the
adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama
believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in
space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years,
NASA technology has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to baby
formula and automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the daily
lives of all Americans.
Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the
United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of
this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to
the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed
with technology that is already proven and available.
Complete the International Space Station: The International Space Station is an example of what we can
accomplish through international cooperation. Barack Obama is committed to the completion of the
International Space Station.
Continue Unmanned Missions: Robotic missions provide a level of endurance and cost-effectiveness that is
unsurpassed. The Voyager probes, launched in the 1970s, are still sending back data beyond our solar
system. Closer to home, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have been exploring the surface of Mars for
more than 1,300 days, 14 times longer than their intended mission length. Along with Earth-orbiting
platforms like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, unmanned missions have
yielded some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Barack Obama is committed to a bold
array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for
further manned exploration.
Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change: Barack Obama has proposed bold initiatives to put
America on the path to stop global climate change. His administration will set standards based on rigorous
scientific inquiry that, in turn, cannot take place without a capable space program. The task of researching
and understanding the forces that affect our home planet will require a constellation of climate monitoring
space platforms. As president, Obama will ensure that NASA has the funding necessary to play its part in
the fight against global climate change.
Support Scientific Research: In the past, government funding for scientific research has yielded innovations
that have improved the landscape of American life, technologies like the Internet, digital photography, bar
codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and chemotherapy. Today, we face a new set
of challenges, yet the United States is losing its scientific dominance. Over the last three decades, federal
funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other
countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack Obama believes federally funded
scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom and
in the lab. He will work to diversify the makeup of the scientific community and provide federal research
programs a much- needed infusion of funds.
Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security: Orbiting surveillance satellites provide a vital way
to ensure compliance with non-proliferation treaties and monitor emerging threats. For example, nuclear
facility construction in North Korea and Iran can be closely monitored from above without the challenges
faced by weapons inspectors on the ground. Satellites can be further used in the effort to secure loose
nuclear weapons and materials around the world, an effort which Barack Obama has promoted aggressively
in the U.S. Senate.
13
Military Lobbies
Military Lobbies Love The Plan
Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, “Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power From
Space,” October 11, 2007)
Washington, DC A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has
gained a large supporter in the US military. A report released yesterday by the National Security Space
Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-power-generating
satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space-
based solar power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then
beam power down to Earth in the form of microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas
on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based on the ground, solar power
satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy
conditions."We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps
lieutenant colonel Paul
Military Lobbies Love The Plan
Foust, 2007 (Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “A Renaissance for Space Solar Power?,” August 13, 2007)
The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our
forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is
with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their
spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who
agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.
14
Space Lobbies Approve
Space Lobbies love the plan
Cho, 2007 (Dan Cho, NewScientist.com news service, “Pentagon Backs Plan to Beam Solar Power From
Space,” October 11, 2007)
Washington, DC At the same press conference, over a dozen space advocacy groups announced a new
alliance to promote space solar power – the Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy. These supporters
of space-based solar power say the technology has the potential to provide more energy than fossil
fuels, wind and nuclear power combined.
Space Lobbies Love The Plan Because It Coordinates Our Efforts In Space
Boyle, 2007 (Alan Boyle, MSNCB, Science Editor, “Power From Space?,” October 12, 2007)
"I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together
that we're doing in space," Air Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the
Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday. Space advocacy
groups immediately seized on the idea and formed a new alliance to push the plan.
15
Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 1 (Big Impact)

A. SBSP allows for distribution of power to humanitarian and disaster relief areas
NSSO, 10/10/07, National Security and Space Office, “Space Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic
Security: Phase o Architecture feasibility Study”, http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-
interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space-based solar power would be to broadcast
power directly to energy-deprived areas and to persons performing disaster relief, nation-building, and other
humanitarian missions often associated with the United Nations and related non‐governmental organizations. o
Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of the SBSP feasibility study
opportunities for broad international partnerships with non-state and trans-state actors should be explored. In
particular, cooperation with the United Nations and related organizations to employ SBSP in support of
various humanitarian relief efforts support consistent with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed
with the help of affiliated professionals.
B. Ineffective response to natural disasters risks new diseases
World Health Organization, 06, Communicable diseases following natural disasters -- Risk assessment
and priority interventions,
www.who.int/diseasecontrol_emergencies/guidelines/CD_Disasters_26_06.pdf.
Natural disasters are catastrophic events with atmospheric, geologic and hydrologic origins. They
include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, tsunamis, floods and drought. Natural disasters can
have rapid or slow onset, and serious health, social and economic consequences. During the past two
decades, natural disasters have killed millions of people, adversely affecting the lives of at least one
billion more people and resulting in substantial economic damage (1). Developing countries are
disproportionately affected because of their lack of resources, infrastructure and disaster
preparedness systems. The potential impact of communicable diseases is often presumed to be very
high in the chaos that follows natural disasters. Increases in endemic diseases and the risk of
outbreaks, however, are dependent upon many factors that must be systematically evaluated with a
comprehensive risk assessment. This allows the prioritization of interventions to reduce the impact
of communicable diseases post-disaster.
16
3. This leads to extinction

John D. Steinbruner, 97, Foreign Policy, Winter, Expanded Academic ASAP
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this
threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body
has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed
anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that cuts both ways: New
diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during
which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague
bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly
one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time. Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations
of the HIV virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of
AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera - once thought to be under control - are now making a
comeback. As we enter the twenty-first century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for
widespread contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of
movement across international borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate
manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has
ever been in the past. The threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a
fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.
17
Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 2 (Small Impact)
1. Natural disasters are inevitable and getting worse
Graciela Chichilnsky, UNESCO Chair of Mathematics and Economics and is a professor of statistics at
Columbia University, 05 ("Catastrophic Risks: The need for new tools, financial instruments and institutions."
October 20, 2005) http://privatizationofrisk.ssrc.org/Chichilnisky/
While people watch TV screens in shock and disbelief, scientists forecast a new global trend. Hurricanes that
could impact the US are increasing in strength and frequency. Many believe that we are entering a new
geological cycle and that the increased storm volatility is caused by the warming of the seas, part of an overall
pattern of global warming. We may need to brace ourselves for several decades of more frequent and intense
floods, hurricanes and typhoons. We need to prepare for an increasingly dangerous physical environment, and
we need to do that fast.
2. DISASTER RELIEF DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS THE POOR

World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost"
web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:3437
0~piPK:34424~th eSitePK:4607,00.html)
Losses from natural disasters are most devastating to the poorest people, says Margaret Arnold, acting
manager of the World Bank’s Hazard Management Unit. This is particularly true in developing countries.
Extensive research shows the poor are more likely to occupy dangerous, less desirable locations, such as
flood plains, river banks, steep slopes and reclaimed land.
Disasters are closely linked to poverty as they can wipe out decades of development in a matter of hours.
Because natural disasters hit poor people the hardest, implementing effective disaster recovery
programs, if they are well targeted, may be an effective means of reducing poverty, according to a
forthcoming report by the ProVention Consortium – an international network of public, private, non-
governmental, and academic organizations dedicated to reducing the impact of disasters in developing
countries. Other senior disaster recovery officials share that view: “Disasters are first and foremost a major
threat to development and specifically to the development of the poorest and most marginalized people in
the world. … and ensure they stay poor.”
18
3. Poverty is the root cause of all violence-the impact outweighs genocide, nuclear exchange
and extinction. We must act to minimize the suffering of others.
Gilligan ‘96(James, professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the
Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the
National Campaign Against Youth Violence. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes. P.
191-196)
The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to
this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by
socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come
closes to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the
lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy in the
world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems
against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structural
violence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the
past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased
dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural
violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing
this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by
major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military
and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the
Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-
1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was
clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year
after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die
because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a
six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact
accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every
year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of
behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and
suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence—structural or
behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to each
other, as cause to effect.
19
INHERENCY: DISASTERS COMING NOW

Natural disasters are inevitable and getting worse
Graciela Chichilnsky, UNESCO Chair of Mathematics and Economics and is a professor of statistics at
Columbia University, 05 ("Catastrophic Risks: The need for new tools, financial instruments and institutions."
October 20, 2005) http://privatizationofrisk.ssrc.org/Chichilnisky/
While people watch TV screens in shock and disbelief, scientists forecast a new global trend. Hurricanes that
could impact the US are increasing in strength and frequency. Many believe that we are entering a new
geological cycle and that the increased storm volatility is caused by the warming of the seas, part of an overall
pattern of global warming. We may need to brace ourselves for several decades of more frequent and intense
floods, hurricanes and typhoons. We need to prepare for an increasingly dangerous physical environment, and
we need to do that fast.
Natural disasters are coming heavier to economy and lives
Anthony Oliver-Smith, professor of anthropology at the University of Florida, 5-11-06 ("Disasters and Forced
Migration in the 21st Century" http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Oliver-Smith/)
Despite technological and scientific advances in prediction and mitigation, we have seen a serious increase in
both mortality and economic losses from disasters since 1960, particularly in the developing world.
Disasters are, in fact, increasing in impact and scope through the combined effects of economic, social,
demographic, ideological and technological factors. Greater numbers of people are more vulnerable to
natural and other hazards than ever before, due in part to increases in population, but more so to their
location in dangerous areas. In fact, disaster risk and losses have dramatically increased , but unevenly so
according to region (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2003). However,
regardless of region, some form of displacement of individuals and communities frequently results from the
threat or impact of a disaster.
20
NATURAL DISASTERS BAD

Natural disasters hurt lives and economy
21
POVERTY
DISASTER RELIEF DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS THE POOR

World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost"
web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:3437
Losses from natural disasters are most devastating to the poorest people, says Margaret Arnold, acting
manager of the World Bank’s Hazard Management Unit. This is particularly true in developing countries.
Extensive research shows the poor are more likely to occupy dangerous, less desirable locations, such as
flood plains, river banks, steep slopes and reclaimed land.
Disasters are closely linked to poverty as they can wipe out decades of development in a matter of hours.
Because natural disasters hit poor people the hardest, implementing effective disaster recovery
programs, if they are well targeted, may be an effective means of reducing poverty, according to a
forthcoming report by the ProVention Consortium – an international network of public, private, non-
governmental, and academic organizations dedicated to reducing the impact of disasters in developing
countries. Other senior disaster recovery officials share that view: “Disasters are first and foremost a major
threat to development and specifically to the development of the poorest and most marginalized people in
the world. … and ensure they stay poor.”
Natural disasters put disadvantaged in cycles of poverty

IRIN news.com, June 05 http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/DR/default.asp)
Didier J. Cherpitel, former secretary-general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies said, in the organisation’s 2002 Disaster Report, “Disasters are first and foremost a major threat to
development, and specifically to the development of the poorest and most marginalised people in the world -
[disasters] ensure they stay poor.” For many development strategists, and critics of globalisation, the
vulnerability of the poor in the face of natural disasters is symptomatic of the poverty cycle that forces
poorer communities (and nations) into a downward spiral of destitution. Their plight is compounded by
their inability to mitigate the impacts of the disasters they suffer.
22
STRAIGHT TURNING ECON DISADS

Natural disasters devastate GDP
World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost March 2, 2004"
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:
Didier J Cherpitel, former Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies said in the organization’s 2002 Disaster Report. Figures compiled by the World Bank’s Margaret
Arnold show that from 1990-2000, natural disasters resulted in damages constituting between 2 to 15
percent of an exposed country’s annual GDP. GDP losses for individual events can be even more
devastating: In Honduras, Hurricane Mitch caused losses equal to 41% of GDP. In terms of the
government’s annual tax revenue, the losses amounted to 292%.
Natural disasters cost hundreds of billions
World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost March 2, 2004"

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:
Natural disasters are happening more often and having an ever more dramatic impact on the world in
terms of both their human and economic cost. While the number of lives lost declined in the past 20 years—
800,000 people died from natural disasters in the 1990s compared with 2 million in the 1970s—the number
of people affected has risen. In the past decade, the number of people affected by natural disasters tripled to
2 billion. The International Red Cross, which publishes an annual World Disasters Report, says the economic
cost of natural disasters has skyrocketed. In the past two decades alone, direct economic losses from natural
disasters multiplied five fold to US$629 billion. Annual direct losses from weather-related events increased
from an estimated $3.9 billion in the 1950s to $63 billion in the 1990s. Other recent statistics show:
23
TURN OTHER IMPACTS

DISASTERS EXACERBATE MANY OTHER IMPACTS
Anthony Oliver-Smith, professor of anthropology at the University of Florida, 5-11-06 ("Disasters and Forced
Migration in the 21st Century" http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Oliver-Smith/)
The complexity of disasters today is demonstrated by the processes in which they can combine with and
compound each other. For example, in 1998 Hurricane Mitch (a natural agent) produced floods in
Honduras (a socio-natural phenomenon) that inundated warehouses full of pesticides and fertilizers (a
technological hazard), producing what might be called a compound or complex disaster (Jansen 2003).
Recently in the fall of 2004, Hurricane Ivan threatened New Orleans with just the same conflation of dangers.
Hurricane Katrina has just fully realized the nightmare of Ivan. There is no question that environmental
changes, particularly in the form of degradation, have increased the severity of socio-natural disasters.
Moreover, disasters, singly or in combination, can further be compounded by the incidence of political
upheaval, such as war, ethnic cleansing, or terrorism, or social factors such as racism, exclusion or
religious persecution. And disasters can contribute to political instability that can lead to conflict with the
potential to displace people.
24
Disaster Relief- SBSP Solves Disaster Relief

SBSP essential for sustainable energy to disaster relief and nation building
NSSO, 10/10/07, National Security and Space Office, “Space Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic
Security: Phase o Architecture feasibility Study”, http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-
interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential
to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission
technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units and installations
across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveries.
SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long-endurance
airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More
routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a
disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activities. SBSP could also facilitate
base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground-
based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense
establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps
the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by
providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.
25
SOLAR SATELLITES ARE KEY TO DISASTER RELIEF

TerraDaily Staff Writers, 7-17-08
terradaily.com/reports/Exercise_For_Rapid_Disaster_Relief_With_Space_Based_Technologies_999.html
[JWu]
The rapid access to such information is necessary because, after disasters like the earthquake in China or
the cyclone in Myanmar, rescue teams need to find out as soon as possible what type of aid is needed
where. Support is given by the new system from space: with the help of satellite images, the relief workers
receive an overview on blocked roads or destroyed buildings. By means of computer software, they then
synchronise their observations on the ground with the satellite images and feed the data to a specialised
network via satellite. The system is still in the prototype stage, but soon all involved organisations will be able
to access the data directly over the network and supplement them with their own information. The aim is
to speed up the investigation of disaster areas so that the exact support that is needed arrives as soon as
possible. "We want powerful satellite technology to be used quickly and effectively in case of emergency",
said Michael Angermann from DLR. The prototype will be enhanced for civil protection in the coming
months. "At the end it shall be as easy to use as a laptop or a phone without costing more", the developers said.
"The more field teams are able to connect with each other, share their results and transfer them, the
quicker and more effectively the international community will be able to help", said Claus Hollein from the
German Agency for Technical Relief (THW).
Space based solar satellites key for disaster relief

Andrzej Zwaniecki, USInfo Staff writer, site maintained by U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International
Information Programs, 8-20-07, ("Space solar energy has future, U.S. researchers say"
www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070820153255saikceinawz0.864773.html) [JWu]
Beam solar energy directly from space, and disaster relief expeditions could power all their equipment with
no more than a few portable antennas and converters. Campers could use such energy to cook dinners using
nothing more than a cell phone-like device. But the primary beneficiaries of such a technological feat would be the
many communities that would be able to tap into space solar energy fed into power grids. Terrestrial solar power
stations already exist throughout the world. But sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its
geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which
can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently, ask U.S. researchers. They have proposed putting in orbit mega-
satellites -- giant, possibly inflatable structures of photovoltaic arrays and antennas -- that would do just that. At
receiving stations on Earth, the beam could be converted into electricity (or synthetic fuels), which, in contrast to
power from terrestrial solar power stations, would flow continuously to the grid independent of the season,
weather or location.
26
SPACE SOLAR BEAMS ENERGY KEY TO DISASTER RELIEF

Jeremy Singer, Space.com staff wrter, 6-25-07,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070725_techwed_pentagon_spacepower.html [JWu]
Jeff Krukin, executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation, which has been studying space-based solar power for years, said that
he has been pleased with the collaboration with the NSSO thus far, and would like to work together again on other topics in the future.
Krukin said he has welcomed the NSSO's interest in space-based solar power, as it helps add legitimacy to the concept. The Space
Frontier Foundation believes there are energy and environmental benefits that could come from space-based solar
power — collecting solar power in space and transmitting it back to Earth — and that
construction of systems for this purpose could provide a major stimulus for the space industry. For
example, it could lead to the construction and launch of more satellites, he said. Krukin said the idea for collaborating
with the NSSO came after an event in April when he asked a Pentagon official who was speaking at a luncheon about
the NSSO's interest in space solar power after reading about it in Space News. Smith was sitting next to Krukin, and the
two began talking about space-based solar power, Krukin said. Both Smith and Krukin said while they are excited
about the potential benefits that could come from space-based solar power, they do not view it as a panacea for military
or civilian energy needs, and encouraged the development of other new energy sources. With satellites that could
collect solar energy and beam it to areas all over the world, Smith said space-based solar power
could help reduce the military's need for convoys that carry fuel through dangerous areas, and could
be used for disaster relief operations like the reconstruction of an area devastated by a
hurricane as well.
27
Space solar key to replace disaster relief electricity generators
Department of Energy, April 99 "Counting on solar power for disaster relief"

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/40/39847.pdf [JWu]
When disaster strikes, electric power is usually the first critically important service to be lost. And the
effects can be devastating. Lights go out. Furnaces, refrigerators, and other electric appliances don't
work. Neither do the electric pumps that deliver our drinking water and help treat sewage. Without
electricity for homes, hospitals, food stores, and vital municipal services, many of our most important
needs go unmet. What's more, emergency response teams need a reliable source of electric power to
even begin to deal with the crisis. Without electricity, gasoline can't be pumped at local service
stations to transport emergency supplies, and banks can't provide emergency funds. Without electric
power, conventional communication systems won't work. Historically, townspeople and emergency
response teams have had only one recourse in such a crisis — they have had to use gasoline- or diesel-
powered engine generators to provide emergency power.
The problem with engine generators Unfortunately, generators that run on fossil fuels like gasoline
and diesel oil have problems of their own. For example, they can be dangerous in the hands of
untrained users. In the wake of a major disaster such as a flood, tornado, earthquake, hurricane, or fire,
newspapers often report incidences of fires, burns, fuel explosions, and even asphyxiations caused by
the improper use of a generator. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other
response groups report that generators can also have very short life spans. Many have to be written off
the resource list after just one season. Noise can be a big problem, too. Local response organizations
and townspeople alike report that noisy fossil-fueled generators are annoying at best. At worst, the
constant loud noise adds to the trauma experienced by emotionally fragile, frazzled victims. But is
there a reliable alternative? The answer is yes.
A solar-powered solution After several years of research and development, portable electric generator
sets (gensets) are now entering the marketplace; these gensets either eliminate or reduce the severity
of many of the problems caused by fossil-fuel generators. Powered by the sun, like solar cells in
space, the new gensets make use of solar electric panels known as photovoltaics (PV) to produce
electricity. The electric energy these gensets produce can be used directly or it can be stored in
batteries for later use.
Space solar power key to disaster relief
Rob Mahan, 07 Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/
Worldwide disaster relief efforts are another area where space-based solar power might first be used.
After Katrina, if portable rectennas could have been helicoptered in to provide temporary power to
local grids, if they were still intact or using wireless power transmission if they weren’t operational,
mobile hospital units, food banks, pumping stations and many other critical disaster relief services
could have been up and running much sooner than they were.
Remote, isolated populations would benefit greatly from space-based solar power. Rural
electrification technology, consisting of a low cost rectenna and electrical distribution system would
dramatically improve the quality of life almost immediately. A remote African village that suddenly
had access to sanitation, water purification, refrigeration, lighting air conditionin and heat and
communication would be able to provide for the health and human needs of its people.
28
SBSP key to providing rapid and sustainable disaster relief energy
National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space
power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-
01.pdf [JWu]
For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has
the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield SBSP and its enabling
wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on
demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly
reducing dependence on vulnerable over‐land fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely
new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long‐endurance airborne or terrestrial
surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely,
SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to
a disaster area or to a local populatio undergoing nation‐building activities. SBSP could
also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate
independent of vulnerable ground‐based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to
helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st
Century through more scure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to
lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access o a strategically
secure energy supply.
SBSP can provide energy for disaster relief and nation building
National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar
space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
01.pdf [JWu]
Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space‐based
solar power would be to broadcast power directly to energy‐deprived areas and to
persons performing disaster relief, nation‐building, and other humanitarian missions often
associated with the United Nations and related non‐governmental organizations.
o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of
the SBSP feasibility study opportunities for broad internatinal partnerships with non‐state and
trans‐state actors should be explored. In particular, cooperation with the United Nations and
related organizations to employ SBSP in support of various humanitarian relief
effortssupport consistent with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed with the
help of affiliated professionals.
29
Space based solar power key to disaster relief response
01.pdf [JWu]
The first business case – “Scenario 1 – Urgent Need” ‐ is based on the use of SBSP to
quickly provide (likely on a temporary not permanent basis) baseload power to a specific
location. This may provide troops abroad in unfriendly or ill equipped territory with power.
It may be used to help peacekeeping missions in remote or underdeveloped locations. It
could also be used to re‐establish power in disaster zones such as those affected by
devastating hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis or other natural disasters (either domestic or to
provide valuable foreign aid, if or when these occur in other parts of the world) where the
existing infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed and cannot be quickly rebuilt. The
value of the power provided in these circumstances is very high, some would say priceless.
Government research key to make SBSP viable for disaster relief
01.pdf [JWu]
Whether SBSP begins as Scenario 2 (a large scale, commercially viable system) or Scenario
1 (a purely DoD/government system limited to expeditionary, disaster relief or humanitarian
operations, where competitive pricing is not the key driver), more research and development
needs to occur. Technical problems need to be resolved, retiring some of the risks and thus
making it more attractive to private industry.
The previous section on science and technology addresses many of the technologies where
research needs to occur. Reusable launch vehicles, satellite component fabrication and in‐
space construction, power beaming techniques, integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure
and the space hardness, mass reduction and efficiencies of solar cell materials are all areas
that need more research and development.
Government‐funded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conduct

some of the research would be desirable. Sharing costs between government, academia and
corporate interests who could then commercialize results into products would be even better.
Using the resources of NASA’s (former) Research Partnership Centers – which have already
done some of the research into SBSP, launch, materials and other concepts would be
valuable. DARPA also has existing relationships with universities that are likely to match
well with the research goals resulting from his study. Not only does this provide valuable
help and creativity to the research efforts, but it could build up the future workforce of
expertise by giving students exciting and impactful work to focus on while at unversity.
30
Aerospace Add-On
The U.S. is losing space dominance because of aerospace’s decline
Kaufman, 08 (Mark, “US Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There:Dominance in Space Slips as Other
Nations Step Up Efforts”, Washington Post, 7/9,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm)
The study by Futron, which consults for public clients such as NASA and the Defense Department, as well
as the private space industry, also reported that the United States is losing its dominance in orbital launches
and satellites built. In 2007, 53 American-built satellites were launched -- about 50 percent of the total. In
1998, 121 new U.S. satellites went into orbit.
In two areas, the space prowess of the United States still dominates. Its private space industry earned 75
percent of the worldwide corporate space revenue, and the U.S. military has as many satellites as all other
nations combined.
But that, too, is changing. Russia has increased its military space spending considerably since the collapse
of the Soviet Union. In May, Japan's parliament authorized the use of outer space for defense purposes,
signaling increased spending on rockets and spy satellites. And China's military is building a wide range of
capabilities in space, a commander of U.S. space forces said last month. Last year, China tested its ground-
based anti-satellite technology by destroying an orbiting weather satellite -- a feat that left behind a cloud of
dangerous space debris and considerable ill will.
Ironically, efforts to deny space technology to potential enemies have hampered American cooperation
with other nations and have limited sales of U.S.-made hardware. Concerned about Chinese use of space
technology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placed
them under the cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of
potentially "dual use" technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the Commerce
Department.
The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-made
satellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran
Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advanced
technology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buying
European satellites and paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. "Some of
these companies moved ahead in some areas where, I'm sorry to say, we are no longer the world leaders,"
Griffin said.
Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security expert at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said
the United States has been so determined to maintain military space dominance that it is losing ground in
commercial space uses and space exploration. "We're giving up our civilian space leadership, which many
of us think will have huge strategic implications," she said.
"Other nations are falling over each other to work together in space; they want to share the costs and the
risks," she added. "Because of the dual-use issue, we really don't want to globalize."
31
This loss of leadership is destroying the U.S. defense industrial base – an investment
in space solar power is necessary to revitalize aerospace research and
development, workforce, and infrastructure development
NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-
assessment-release-01.pdf)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Ae
rospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer atte
ntion to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our
“national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle.
An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this
commission, which stated:
The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aero
space leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and
sustained public investments in long‐term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakt
hrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off
the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…Government policies and invest
ments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold
national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure
investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to
lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E
Infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment
that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction
of new products and services.
The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved
through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national
infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate
private investment in our national aerospace sector.
The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐faring nation in order to be the global le
ader in the 21st Century that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore,
recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and
exploration. They explicitly recommended hat theUnited States create a space imperative and that NASA
and DoD need to make the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities t
o revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well asIncentives to Commercial Space. The report called
on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities an
d problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketpla
ce, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from
a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term resear
ch and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace s
ector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐term research pro
grams, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities.
It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products
, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noti
ng that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions
affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also no
ted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lo
st, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in
the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by
enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental system
s with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustai
n the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provi
de expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace resear
32
ch which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establish
ment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50
%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, ec
onomic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles t
hat jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expressio
n of this imperative.
33
Aerospace competitiveness is critical to U.S. leadership
Robert Walker et al, Chair of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry
Commissioners, 2002, “Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace
Industry Commissioners”, November,
http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf)
Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal govern-
ment.2 This translates into two broad missions—Defend America and Project Power—when and where
needed.
In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel,
intelligence information and precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed.
This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security strategy.
The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance
on aerospace capabilities and related military contribu-tions to homeland security. Combat air
patrols swept the skies; satellites supported real-time communica-tions for emergency
responders, imagery for recovery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and the security and
protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport.
As recent events in Afghanistan and Kosovo show, the power generated by our nation’s aerospace
capabilities is an—and perhaps the—essential ingredient in force projection and expeditionary operations.
In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided
critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne intelligence, com-mand,
control and communications assets permitted the rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facil-ities.
Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to critical locations. And aerial
bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global Positioning System
(GPS) and the Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also
played key roles in both conflicts.
Today’s military aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms
and an industrial base—measured in both human capital and physical facilities—that are aging and
increasingly inadequate. Consider just a few of the issues:
• Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites. Assured reli-able
access to space is a critical enabler of this capa-bility. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term
space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), a development project of Boeing,
Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial demand to close the
business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin.
In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle
development and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment.
Today, however, worldwide demand for commer-cial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing—
and is not expected to rise for a decade or more—while the number of available launch platforms
worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and
reliance on the economics of a com-mercially-driven market is unsustainable. A new strategy for assured
access to space must be found.
• The U.S. needs unrestricted access to space for civil, commercial, and military applications. Our satellite
systems will become increasingly important to military operations as today’s information revolution, the
so-called “revolution in military affairs,” continues, while at the same time satellites will become
increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds. To preserve critical satellite net-works, the
nation will almost certainly need the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after an attack.
One of the key enablers for “launch on demand” is reusable space launch, and yet within the last year all
work has been stopped on the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch programs
• The challenge for the defense industrial base is to have the capability to build the base force struc-ture,
support contingency-related surges, provide production capacity that can increase faster than any new
emerging global threat can build up its capacity, and provide an “appropriate” return to shareholders. But
34
the motivation of government and industry are different. This is a prime detrac-tion for wanting to form
government-industry partnerships. Industry prioritizes investments toward near-term, high-return, and
high-dollar programs that make for a sound business case for them. Government, on the other hand, wants
to prioritize investment to ensure a continuing capa-bility to meet any new threat to the nation. This need is
cyclical and difficult for businesses to sus-tain during periods of government inactiv-ity. Based on the
cyclic nature of demand, the increasing cost/complexity of new systems, and the slow pace of defense
modernization, aerospace companies are losing market advantages and the sector is contracting. Twenty-
two years ago, today’s “Big 5” in aerospace were 75 separate companies, as depicted by the historical
chart of industry con-solidation shown in Chapter 7.
• Tactical combat aircraft have been a key compo-nent of America’s air forces. Today, three tactical
aircraft programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (in production), the F/A-22 (in a late stage of test and
evaluation), and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (just moving into system design and development). Because
of the recentness of these programs, there are robust design teams in existence. But all of the initial design
work on all three programs will be completed by 2008. If the nation were to con- clude, as it very well
may, that a new manned tactical aircraft needs to be fielded in the middle of this century, where will we
find the experienced design teams required to design and build it, if the design process is in fact gapped
for 20 years or more?
• More than half of the aerospace workforce is over the age of 404, and the average age of aerospace
defense workers is over 50.5Inside the Department of Defense (DoD), a large percent of all scientists and
engineers will be retirement eligible by 2005. Given these demographics, there will be an exodus of
“corporate knowledge” in the next decade that will be difficult and costly to rebuild once it is lost. There
will be a critical need for new engineers, but little new work to mature their practical skill over the next
several decades. Further, enrollment in aerospace engineering programs has dropped by 47 percent in the
past nine years6, and the interest and national skills in mathematics and science are down. Defense
spending on cutting-edge work is at best stable, and commercial aircraft programs are struggling and
laying workers off. As the DoD’s recent Space Research and Development (R&D) Industrial Base Study7
concluded, “[s]ustaining a talented workforce of sufficient size and experience remains a long-term issue
and is likely to get worse.” In short, the nation needs a plan to attract, train and maintain a skilled, world-
class aerospace workforce, but none currently exists.
• The current U.S. research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure has a legacy dating
back to either World War II or the expansion during the Space Age in the 1960s. It is now suffering
significantly from a lack of resources required for modernization. In some cases, our nation’s capabilities
have atrophied and we have lost the lead, as with our outdated wind tunnels, where European facilities are
now more modern and efficient. In the current climate, there is inadequate funding to modernize aging
government infrastructure or build facilities that would support the development of new transformational
capabilities, such as wind tunnels needed to design and test new hypersonic vehicles. The aerospace
indus-try must have access to appropriate, modern facilities to develop, test and evaluate new systems.
Throughout this dynamic and challenging environ-ment, one message remains clear: a healthy U.S.
aerospace industry is more than a hedge against an uncertain future. It is one of the primary national
instruments through which DoD will develop and obtain the superior technologies and capabilities
essential to the on-going transformation of the armed forces, thus maintaining our position as the world’s
preeminent military power.
35
Aerospace leadership key to prevent emergence of global powers

Snead, 07 - Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development
(Mike, “How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,” Spacefaring
America Blog, 6/3, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-
america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx)
Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on
advancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational
capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power that
does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively less powerful. Eventually,
it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power for protection.
As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of
change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadership
in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights,
the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air
forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years
later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war, the U.S.
found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the
1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to
promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage compared to those of
Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "game
changer" for conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive
and generally needed air superiority to prevail.
With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from
becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths
through expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the
rapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S.
Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already speaking of plans for developing spacefaring
capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. A
strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation, starting in 2009 with the new presidential
administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through prudent increases in
military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is an
advantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.
36
Aerospace Declining
U.S. space leadership is collapsing
China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency is building a roving
robot to land on Mars. India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket. Space,
like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting
and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe.
Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military
satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other
nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many
tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said
NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted
terms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a
level that would preserve that commanding lead."
In a recent in-depth study of international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda
found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and
competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.
Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellites
and spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being
planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center
for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system
and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's.
While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking
the giant steps that once defined NASA:
• Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November the
European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will
soon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace,
whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana.
• Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are also working on lunar orbiters.
NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to
return astronauts to the moon.
• The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians,
Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The
17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to
the U.S. space-based Global Positioning System.
• South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-cost
satellite launchers. South Korea and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities.
This explosion in international space capabilities is recent, largely taking place since the turn of the
century. While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Israeli and European space efforts go back several
decades, their capability to pull off highly technical feats -- sending humans into orbit, circling Mars and
the moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a comet -- are all new
developments.
37
U.S. space leadership is declining
NASA and the U.S. space effort, meanwhile, have been in something of a slump. The space shuttle is still
the most sophisticated space vehicle ever built, and orbiting observatories such as the Hubble space
telescope and its in-development successor, the James Webb space telescope, remain unmatched. But the
combination of the 2003 Columbia disaster, the upcoming five-year "gap" when NASA will have no
American spacecraft that can reach the space station, and the widely held belief that NASA lacks the
funding to accomplish its goals, have together made the U.S. effort appear less than robust.
The tone of a recent workshop of space experts brought together by the respected National Research
Council was described in a subsequent report as "surprisingly sober, with frequent expressions of
discouragement, disappointment, and apprehension about the future of the U.S. civil space program."
Uncertainty over the fate of President Bush's ambitious "vision" of a manned moon-Mars mission,
announced with great fanfare in 2004, is emblematic. The program was approved by Congress, but the
administration's refusal to significantly increase spending to build a new generation of spacecraft has
slowed development while leading to angry complaints that NASA is cannibalizing promising unmanned
science missions to pay for the moon-Mars effort.
38
Emerging countries challenge U.S. space comepetitiveness
Sat Magazine, 8 (“Insight: The Futron Space Competitiveness Index” May 2008,
http://www.satmagazine.com/cgi-bin/display_article.cgi?number=1972093877)
To address these questions, Futron Corporation has developed a Space Competitiveness Index (SCI) to
examine the underlying economic determinants of space competitiveness across 40 individual metrics.
Together, these elements provide a cogent and holistic framework for assessing national space
competitiveness and assess national space competitiveness in three major dimensions: government, human
capital, and industry. This approach has allowed Futron Corporation to produce an in-depth comparative
analysis of 10 leading nations in space and space-related activity.
In addition to its country-level analysis, Futron’s 2008 Space Competitiveness Index also examines the
competitive dynamics of three global industry segments of particular interest to the international space
community: the military space arena; the positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) sector; and the Earth
observation (EO) market.
Futron’s 2008 Space Competitiveness Index ranks the relative competitiveness of the 10 leading space
nations in each of these three segments, and also surveys the broader strategic challenges and opportunities
that each global industry segment presents.
Why Have a SPACE Competitiveness Index? Currently, much of the vision surrounding the next
generation of space missions and technology is tied to the perceived “second race to the Moon” and
beyond. This civilian theme is complemented by an ongoing discussion about the military facets of space
activity, as well as the role of both current and emerging commercial enterprises in space access and
exploration.
Together, the civilian, military, and commercial space sectors focus the broader space discourse around
questions about the elements of space competitiveness, the relative competitive position of traditional space
leaders, and the role of emerging space powers such as China and India. This study, and its future updates,
seeks to address pivotal strategic questions about space power and competitiveness:
What are the core measures of space competition? Is “space nationalism” on the rise, and if so, what are
the implications? What is the current positioning of traditional space powers like the US, Europe, and
Russia? What role will emerging powers such as India and China play? Partners or competitors? What is
the competitive role for lower-tier players like Japan, Brazil, Israel, and others? What are the implications
of a multi-polar space community? What are the economic consequences of a commercial space
environment based on multiple international providers of key technologies, systems, and services?
A brief overview of key findings is provided below.
2008 Space Competitiveness Index Current Positioning
The United States (US) is the current leader in space competitiveness, followed by Russia, Europe, and
China
The US leads significantly in each of the major categories: government, human capital, and industry
Russian space power is resurgent, ending its decline following the fall of the Soviet Union
Europe increasingly acts in concert via joint policy, multinational corporations, and the development of
“European markets”
China is emerging as a major space power with ambitious and visionary goals backed by heavy investment,
centralized decision-making, and techno-nationalistic programs
India is poised to be a major collaborative player, and is a global leader in remote sensing
Canada’s space program benefits from strong European and US relations, as well as solid human capital
indicators, positioning it for advancement if space is more highly prioritized by national decision-makers
Japan has overcome recent difficulties and continues to be an important player focused on the exploration
and earth observation segments South Korea has significantly ramped up its space program, but its space
sector remains small and immature Israel continues to be a leader in space technology but has limited
commercial scale Brazil has seen its position decline relative to other leading space nations, and lacks a
clear strategy and commitment to invest in space activities.
39
Space Mil Now

Other countries are increasing their military dominance of space – this will be used to challenge U.S.
hegemony
The Washington Times, 8 (David. R Sands, “China, India hasten arms race in space; U.S. dominance
challenged,” 6-25-08, Lexis)
On the planet's final frontier, more and more countries are beefing up their border guards.
India became the latest country to boost its defense presence in space, announcing last week plans to
develop a military space program to counter the fast-growing space defense efforts of neighboring China.
India, which has an extensive civilian space satellite program, must "optimize space applications for
military purposes," army Chief of Staff Gen. Deepak Kapoor said at a defense conference in New Delhi.
"The Chinese space program is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive and defensive
content."
Last month, Japanese lawmakers passed a bill ending a decades-old ban on the use of the country's space
programs for defense, although officials in Tokyo insist that the country has no plans to develop a military
program in space.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in the first major review of France's defense and security policy in more
than a decade, has proposed nearly doubling spending for space intelligence assets, including spy satellites,
to more than $1 billion annually.
"I don't think what you are seeing is coincidental," said Wade Boese, a researcher at the Washington-based
Arms Control Association. "Countries are increasingly aware of the potential for military development in
space, and increasingly aware that other countries are moving ahead." The issue of an arms race in space
took on new prominence in January 2007, when China stunned Western military analysts by using a
medium-range ballistic missile to shoot down a defunct weather satellite. Pentagon planners said two
orbiting U.S. spacecraft were forced to change course to avoid being hit by the thousands of
pieces of space debris caused by the surprise test. China insists the exercise was not conducted for
military reasons. "We are against weaponization or an arms race in space," Zhou Wenzhong,
China's ambassador to the United States, said in an interview at The Washington Times earlier
this month. "This was a scientific experiment."
But in what many around the world saw as at least in part a return salvo to the Chinese action, the
U.S. Navy in February shot down a wayward U.S. spy satellite over the Pacific, arguing that the
action was needed to prevent the craft from crashing to Earth and spreading potentially toxic fuel.
India, which competes for influence with China even as trade relations between the two Asian
giants have blossomed, made no effort to hide its concerns about Beijing's plans for space. "With
time we will get sucked into a military race to protect our space assets and inevitably there will be
a military contest in space," Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder, one of India's most senior officers, said last
week in comments reported by the Indian Express newspaper and confirmed by the country's
defense ministry. "In a life-and-death scenario, space will provide the advantage," Gen. Lidder
said.
Although the United States holds a vast technological and spending edge in space defense programs, the
military's reliance on satellites and space-based assets exposes the United States more than any other
country to military threats in space.
40
Weaponization of space inevitable
Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, 2007, Independent Working Group, “Missile
Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century”, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.
While in effect, the ABM Treaty served as a critical impediment to U.S. deployment of space-based missile
defense. With the Treaty’s termination in 2002, new opportunities for space-based missile defense have
emerged. However, the key obstacles to space defenses remain more political than technological in nature.
For example, certain constituencies continue to voice vehement opposition to space-based missile defenses
in the mistaken belief that they could result in the weaponization of space. This assumption is the result of
the dubious logic that if the United States refrains from the deployment of space- based missile defense;
other nations will behave in similar fashion. There is no empirical basis for expecting such international
reciprocation, however. Whatever the United States chooses to do (or not to do), China, among other
nations, seems determined to pursue space programs and, at least in the case of Beijing, to establish itself as
a space superpower.
Countries’ capability of space reach makes militarization inevitable
Myers, 8 (Steven, International Herald Tribune, “Is an arms race in space a given?; U.S. not backing down
from quest to defend orbiting interests,” 3-11-08, Lexis)
Is war in space inevitable? The idea of such a war has been around since Sputnik, but for most of the Cold
War it remained safely within the realm of science fiction and the carefully proscribed U.S.-Soviet arms
race. But a dozen countries now can reach space with satellites - and, therefore, with weapons. China
strutted its stuff in January 2007 by shooting down one of its own weather satellites 530 miles above the
planet.
''The first era of the space age was one of experimentation and discovery,'' a congressional commission
reported just before Bush took office in 2001. ''We are now on the threshold of a new era of the space age,
devoted to mastering operations in space.'' One of the authors of that report was Bush's first defense
secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the policy it recommended became a tenet of U.S. policy: The United
States should develop ''new military capabilities for operation to, from, in and through space.''
Technology, too, has become an enemy of peace in space. Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald
Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was considered so fantastical by its critics that it was known as ''Star
Wars.'' But the programs Reagan began were the ancestors of the weaponry that brought down the
American satellite.
The Chinese strike, and now the Pentagon's, have given ammunition to both sides of the debate over war in
orbit. Arms-control advocates say the bull's-eyes underscore the need to expand the Outer Space Treaty of
1967, which the United States and 90 other countries have ratified. It bans the use of nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on the moon. Space, in this view, should remain a place for
exploration and research, not the destructive side of humanity. The grim potential of the latter was hinted at
by the vast field of debris that China's test left, posing a threat to any passing satellite or spaceship. The
Pentagon said its own shot, at a lower altitude, would not have the same effect - the debris would fall to
earth and burn up.
The risk posed by space junk was the main reason the United States and Soviet Union abandoned
antisatellite tests in the 1980s. Michael Krepon, who has written on the militarization of space, said the
Chinese test broke an unofficial moratorium that had lasted since then. And he expressed disappointment
that the Pentagon's strike had damaged support for a ban, which the Chinese say they want in spite of their
2007 test.
''The truth of the matter is it doesn't take too many satellite hits to create a big mess in low earth orbit,'' he
said.
The White House, on the other hand, opposes a treaty proscribing space weaponry; Bush's press secretary,
Dana Perino, says it would be unenforceable, noting that even a benign object put in orbit could become a
weapon if it rammed another satellite.
A new American president could reverse that attitude, but he or she would have to go up against the
41
generals and admirals, contractors, lawmakers and others who strongly support the goal of keeping U.S.
superiority in space.
The reason they cite is that the United States depends more than any other country on space for its national
security.
And so, research continues on how to protect U.S. satellites and deny the wartime use of satellites to
potential enemies - including work on lasers and whiz-bang stuff like cylinders of hardened material that
could be hurled from space to targets on the ground. ''Rods from God,'' those are called. For now, such
weapons remain untested and, by all accounts, impractical because the cost of putting a weapon in orbit is
huge. ''It is much easier to hold a target at risk from the land or sea than from space,'' said Elliot Pulham,
who heads the Space Foundation, a nonprofit group in Colorado Springs.
US militarization of space is inevitable
Asia Times, 7 (Jack Smith, “The Militarization of Outer Space”, 3-10-07,

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IC10Aa03.html)
The White House is reluctant openly to acknowledge its intention to militarize space, but the USAF in
particular has been quite frank. In 1996, the then head of the Space Command, General Joseph W Ashy,
was quoted as saying: "We're going to fight from space, and we're going to fight into space. That's why the
US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrial
targets some day - ships, airplanes, land targets - from space." In 2004, Under Secretary of the Air Force
Peter B Teets, discussing America's intentions in space, declared bluntly, "We are paving the road of 21st-
century warfare." In May 2005, the New York Times quoted General Lance Lord, another head of the
Space Command, as revealing, "Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny. Space
superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future." He did not explain
how space superiority is obtained, but there is only one way - dominant military force. The USAF
acknowledges that the militarization of space is a prime objective. Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1 on
"Counterspace Operations", published in August 2004 (and available online), states: "US Air Force
counter-space operations are the ways and means by which the air force achieves and maintains space
superiority. Space superiority provides freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack."
42
Satellites key to the US military now and will only become more crucial in the future
Kislyakov, 8- RIA Novoski political commentator

(Andrei, “Space Militarization,” 12-02-08, http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080212/99008082.html)
Recent conflicts have shown that the ideas that dominated military thinking in the 20th century have
become desperately obsolete. In the wars of today, and the future, the objective is to deal surgical strikes
against an enemy's sensitive facilities, rather than seize its territory. Massive use of ground troops and
armor is already a thing of the past. The role of strategic aviation is similarly decreasing. In strategic arms,
the emphasis is shifting from the classic nuclear triad to high precision weapons of different basing modes.
This kind of precision warfare has only been made possible by orbital support vehicles - satellite-based
reconnaissance, warning, forecasting and targeting systems. Much has been done in recent years for the
development of "smart" weapons - guided bombs and missiles that are highly accurate over hundreds of
miles. Military analysts say that by 2010 the leading military powers will have 30,000-50,000 such
weapons between them, and by 2020 some 70,000-90,000. It is hard to imagine how many satellites will be
required to support such a vast arsenal, but without them, the cruise missiles capable of hitting a mosquito
at a hundred miles will be absolutely useless. Thus, hundreds of seemingly harmless "passive" space
systems, which themselves are not designed to attack anything, are a crucial component of high precision
weapons, the main armaments of the 21st century. But this very strength makes space systems the Achilles
heel of the modern army. Disabling its satellites would effectively cripple the US military - and they are
almost completely undefended.
No Ban on ASAT makes space inevitable
Saunders, 7- Senior Research Professor at the National Defense University’s Institute for National
Strategic Studies
(Dr. Phillip C., “China’s Future In Space: Implications for U.S. Security,” 2007,
http://www.space.com/adastra/china_implications_0505.html?submit.x=94&submit.y=10&submit=submit)
Despite incentives to avoid a space race, arms control solutions face significant obstacles. China has long
advocated a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space. The joint Sino-Russian U.N. working paper,
tabled in May 2002, called for a ban on weapons in orbit and on any use of force against outer space
objects. The United States has been skeptical about the utility of such a treaty, believing verification would
be difficult and that it might limit future missile defense options. A ban on ASAT weapons would be one
means of protecting U.S. satellites, but a verifiable ban would be hard to negotiate. U.S. policymakers must
address a number of difficult questions. Is space domination an achievable, affordable and sustainable
objective? Will efforts to dissuade Beijing from developing ASAT weapons require tolerating significant
improvements in Chinese military space capabilities? Can arms control protect U.S. space assets? The
United States has legitimate security concerns about China's improving space capabilities, but will face
tough choices in deciding on its best response.
Space weaponization is inevitable
Oppenheimer 3, (Andy, regular contributor to lane's Information Group and the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, “Arms race in space” Foreign Policy, Issue 138, p. 81, September- October 2003) // CCH
Predictably, these plans to expand the Monroe Doctrine above the ozone layer do not sit well with the rest
of the world. Closer to home, critics warn that the United States risks triggering a self-defeating arms race.
Given that the United States owns 90 percent of all military satellites and 60 percent all commercial ones,
arms-control advocate John Pike argues that starting a shooting match in space makes about as much sense
as holding "rock-throwing contests" in a glass house The inaugural issue of Astropolitics, published by Frank Cass in
London, attempts to bring this dispute down to Earth. According to the editors, the journal was founded on the belief that "the
international space policy community, with its attendant academic inquisitors, lacks a rigorous an scholarly forum." (Note to would-be
contributors: All political views are welcome, but don't send articles on the existence of extraterrestrial life "until proven otherwise.")
43
The lead article, "Totem and "Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weaponization Debate," by Karl P. Mueller, a political scientist at
RAND, strives to inject nuance into the debate over the weaponization of space by giving a detailed political taxonomy of its key
players. U.S. proponents of space weaponization, he says, fall into three categories: "space racers," who
argue the United States must be first to develop space weapons when rival nations appear poised to do the
same; "space controllers," who see space weapons as a valuable military asset that should be built as soon
as the United States deems them necessary; and "space hegemonist," who favor intense development of
space weapons to safeguard U.S. political and military dominance the 21st century. These three views share
the belief that the weaponization of space is inevitable. Mueller disagrees. A "space Pearl Harbor" is
possible but crippling or destroying an object whipping around the Earth at 17,000 miles per hour is a bit
more challenging than doing "comparable damage" to buildings, electrical grids, and computer networks.
Moreover, adversaries can develop comparatively low-cost terrestrial options for disrupting U.S. space assets, such as ground-based
laser and electronic jamming.
Space militarization is inevitable
Eisendrath 6, (Craig, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., is an
adjunct professor of American Studies at Temple University, Philadelphia, “Waging War in the Heavens:
Profit and Power Go Hand in Hand as the U.S. Gears Up to Spread Its Military Influence to Vet Another
Vast Region-Outer Space” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Vol. 135, November
2006) // CCH
Moore cites the problem, often raised by critics, that space weaponization is being driven by those
corporations, such as Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and TRW, which benefit from the , tens of billions of
dollars of defense contracts. Although profit is a motive, the overwhelming driver in shaping defense policy
is a conviction that space weaponization is the way to defend the U.S. and its vital interests, argues Gen.
Chuck Homer, former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Space Command. "Space is becoming increasingly
important in combat and we must address--and deny the enemy--the use of space and ensure our access to
[it]. We did it in Desert Storm by bombing satellite group sites and asking the Russians and the French not to provide overhead
imagery to the Iraqis. The idea of keeping the military out of space is a little late. The train has left the station."
44
Aerospace Key to Hege

Aerospace is key to U.S. leadership
Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry
Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace
Industry Commissioners, November,
Aerospace will be at the core of America’s leadership and strength in the 21st century. The role of
aerospace in establishing America’s global leadership was incontrovertibly proved in the last
century. This industry opened up new frontiers to the world, such as freedom of flight and access
to space. It provided products that defended our nation, sustained our economic prosperity and
safeguarded the very freedoms we commonly enjoy as Americans. It has helped forge new
inroads in medicine and science, and fathered the development of commercial products that have
improved our quality of life.
Given a continued commitment to pushing the edge of man’s engineering, scientific and
manufacturing expertise, there is the promise of still more innovations and new frontiers yet to be
discovered. It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains healthy to preserve the
balance of our leadership today and to ensure our continued leadership tomorrow. (v)
Our Urgent Purpose
The contributions of aerospace to our global leadership have been so successful that it is assumed
U.S. preeminence in aerospace remains assured. Yet the evidence would indicate this to be far
from the case. The U.S. aerospace industry has consolidated to a handful of players—from what
was once over 70 suppliers in 1980 down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one U.S.
commercial prime aircraft manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies are in
strong business health. The U.S. airlines that rely upon aerospace products find their very
existence is threatened. They absorbed historical losses of over $7 billion in 2001 and potentially
more this year.
The industry is confronted with a graying workforce in science, engineering and manufacturing,
with an estimated 26 percent available for retirement within the next five years. New entrants to
the industry have dropped precipitously to historical lows as the number of layoffs in the industry
mount. Compounding the workforce crisis is the failure of the U.S. K-12 education system to
properly equip U.S. students with the math, science, and technological skills needed to advance
the U.S. aerospace industry. (v)
The Commission’s urgent purpose is to call attention to how the critical underpinnings of this
nation’s aerospace industry are showing signs of faltering— and to raise the alarm.
This nation has generously reaped the benefits of prior innovations in aerospace, but we have not
been attentive to its health or its future. During this year of individual and collective research, the
Commission has visited and spoken with aerospace leaders in the United States, Europe, and
Asia. Wenoted with interest how other countries that aspire for a great global role are directing
intense attention and resources to foster an indigenous aerospace industry. This is in contrast to
the attitude present here in the United States. We stand dangerously close to squandering the
advantage bequeathed to us by prior genera-tions of aerospace leaders. We must reverse this trend
and march steadily towards rebuilding the industry.
45
A strong aerospace sector is key to hegemony
Wright, 93 - Major, USAF [Stephen, “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE NATION”,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf]
A more dramatic indication of military dysfunction is evident in the DoD response to Senator Sam Nunn’s
questioning of the efficacy of the military having four air forces [meaning the four services}.{14} The DoD
response came in General Colin Powell’s report on roles and missions.{15} The report argues that "the
other services have aviation arms essential to their specific roles and functions but which also work jointly
to project America’s air power."{16} The debate argues that as it makes no sense to assign all radios or
trucks to one service, so to it would not make sense to assign all aircraft to one service. Is this an aerospace
rationale? Would we need aerospace forces to operate differently in the services’ strategies if there were
only one air service? Would we not be better served to describe what we want U.S. forces (land, sea, and
aerospace) to do and develop an integrated strategy to achieve some desired end state? For example, if the
nation wants a highly mobile amphibious assault capability it needs Marines with airpower. If the nation
wants sea control and power projection capabilities with minimal reliance on other nation support, it needs
a Navy with airpower in the form of carrier air wings. If the U.S. wants an Army with the capability to do
sustained, heavy combat with low casualties, it will need aerospace power. If the nation wants to exploit air
and space forces as in it did in Desert Storm, it will need many air and space capabilities. As we found in
Chapter 4, the future service strategies depend on aerospace power. The political imperatives driving those
strategies devolve upon aerospace capabilities. If the Defense Department is to answer Senator Nunn, it
must answer within the context of a military aerospace strategy.
The ties linking the aerospace with its military counterpart were forged through two world wars, a cold war,
Korea, Vietnam, and other lesser conflicts. Add to this crucible of the past the economic challenges of the
future and one sees the desideratum of aerospace power. To achieve a position of predominance in
aerospace, the U.S. requires a national aerospace strategy.
Whither the Aerospace Nation? {17}
If this paper serves no other purpose, it must serve as a wake-up call, a call to action for the aerospace
nation. United States policy makers must view aerospace power as a national treasure. If economists like
Robert Reich, Michael Porter and Lester Thurow, are correct, the aerospace industry will be critical to
America’s future economic prosperity. Each argues that the future belongs to those nations with trained,
skilled workers that add unique, high value to products. Each agrees that aerospace is one of those
industries. Militarily we cannot operate without control of aerospace--all military strategies rely upon it.
Aerospace dominance provides the capability for U.S. forces to win within the political imperatives of the
future, especially with reference to casualties. Aerospace power, both its economic and military elements,
is under great pressure to succeed in the future. To do so requires a national aerospace strategy.
46
Aerospace is vital to hegemony and the economy
Wright, 93 - Major, USAF [Stephen, “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE NATION”,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf]
The transition and development of the U.S. into an aerospace nation underwent many starts and stops in
both its economic and military elements. What this paper showed was the absolutely essential contribution
aerospace power makes to the security and well-being, economically and militarily, of the United States.
There can be no doubt that America is an aerospace nation. However, many problems cloud U.S. aerospace
power necessitating a national strategy that encompasses both elements of its power. The aerospace
industry provides the jobs, skills, and products that serve to increase the U.S. standard of living. It serves as
a visible symbol of the technological expertise and economic power of America. Militarily, the U.S. faces
uncertainty about potential threats; however, as long as she can control and exploit aerospace at will, her
future is secure from hostile intent.
47
Aerospace is vital to the U.S. economy and leadership
Aviation Week and Space Technology, 2000 (“What’s at Stake in US Aeronautics Decline” COL. 153,
NO. 14, PG. 82 10-2-2000, LN) // DCM
Several huge national problems will result for the U.S. if these trends are not reversed:
-- If air traffic expands to meet the expected demand, twice as many passengers will be flying 10
years hence, and within 20 years there will be triple the number flying today. But that is only a
market projection. If ATC is not modernized, the system will choke in 8-10 years. Tweaking the
current system will not do enough. What is required is new approaches to air traffic management
and the application of new technologies.
-- If aviation cannot continue to expand, growth of the ''new economy'' will be stifled. Few
Americans realize how much e-commerce depends on aviation. The Internet can handle the front
end of a transaction, but it takes airplanes to deliver the goods.
-- The ''old'' economy would suffer, too. Airlines and aircraft manufacturing account for an
estimated $ 436 billion in annual economic activity and a net 3% of the Gross Domestic Product.
More important, aerospace is the largest net exporter in the U.S. economy -- more than $ 40
billion annually. But Boeing is losing market share to Airbus Industrie and has fewer recently
designed aircraft to offer. And, the U.S. does not even manufacture regional jets. Such trade
surpluses cannot last without new products and the better technology they require.
-- Finally, national security could be threatened if the U.S. does not maintain leadership in
aeronautics. The Defense Dept. has no strategy that does not assume U.S. air superiority. But that
cannot be assumed if R&D spending continues to flag.
No one in Congress set out to gut U.S. leadership in aeronautics. It was just easy to cut. The
trouble, as former NASA Administrator James M. Beggs points out, is that a nation can postpone
investment in R&D without suffering any ill effects -- until a decade or so later.
But the erosion must be stopped now. First, Congress should adequately fund aviation R&D in
the NASA, Defense Dept. and FAA budgets in Fiscal 2001. The Administration requests would
begin to reverse the downward trend. But more needs to be done to address the nexus of problems
in U.S. aviation and aerospace. No candidate for President has indicated much recognition of the
problems or what is at stake, much less articulated a vision for aviation in the nation's future.
Perhaps that is too much to ask in a campaign year. But it is not too much to ask of an incoming
administration. We applaud the planned creation of a national commission on the future of the
U.S. aerospace industry, and we urge the next President to become personally involved to ensure
its success.
Aviation and aerospace are vital to the U.S.' future. If Americans fail to support aeronautics and
aviation-related research, there will be no next generation of professionals to solve the obvious
looming problems and create products the world will demand. And without that, the U.S. puts at
risk a linchpin of its economy, national security and quality of life.
48
Incentives for the aerospace industry are necessary to sustain the US economy, quality of life, and
national security
Marburer, 1 -- Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy; White House Sponsor for Commission
on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (John, “the Future Belongs to the Mobile” 11-27-01,
http://www.ostp.gov/cs/commission_on_the_future_of_the_united_states_aerospace_industry_the_future_b
elongs_to_the_mobile)
The President strongly supports your effort. The nation has depended on the aerospace industry
for decades to ensure that America leads the world in high technology, including the
manufacturing of military and commercial aircraft, satellites, space launch vehicles, weapon
systems and telecommunications systems. As a result, our military is the best in the world, our
economy has benefited from a positive aerospace balance of trade, and our people and shippers
have benefited from having the best and safest aviation system in the world. The public has also
benefited from the numerous spin-offs from the aerospace industry, including cellular telephones,
precision farming, new medical devices, improved weather forecasting, and hundreds of others.
The President wants to make sure that U.S. aerospace leadership continues in the 21st Century.
The critically important tasks of this Commission are to help the President establish the direction
for the U.S. aerospace industry in this new century, and to support national initiatives on
education, defense, security, and energy. This Commission is taking place at a landmark period in
our history. The events of September 11 require a national response similar to that following the
Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957. The President has clearly expressed our national determination
that all Americans, and indeed the world, will pursue their aspirations free from the threat of
global terrorism. The reprehensible terrorist assault on two of our nation's most important
facilities have turned a dramatic spotlight on weaknesses in our aerospace and air transportation
systems. Even prior to September 11th, however, the United States faced serious challenges in
these areas --our air traffic system - based on 1960's technology and management ideas - was
approaching gridlock, needed, but ever tightening environmental requirements on noise and
emissions were limiting world-wide flight operations and creating international conflict, our
aerospace market leadership was being challenged as an explicit goal of foreign competitors, and
our country's investments in long-term aeronautics and space research and development were
shrinking rapidly, threatening a crisis in the industry's ability to attracting trained and talented
human capitol. We must ensure that the disruption of transportation and services that followed the
events of September 11 does not recur. We need to develop a 21st Century global air
transportation system that provides safe, secure, efficient and affordable transportation of people,
goods and information in peacetime and wartime - enabling people and goods to move freely
anywhere, anytime, on time. We need a system that: Enhances national security by strengthening
homeland defense while enabling the military to project power anywhere in the world at any
time; Increases U.S. economic competitiveness by building a more efficient, higher capacity air
transportation system; and Improves the quality of life of all Americans by enabling them to do
what they want to do when and where they want to do it. We also need to re-invigorate an
innovative aerospace industry that, with the appropriate incentives and investments, can develop
such a system and sustain U.S. leadership in the 21st Century.
49
Aerospace key to Economy

Competitiveness in the aerospace industry is key to the US economy
Augustine, 5 – retired chairmen and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., charied National Academics
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (Norman R., Aviation Week and
Space Technology, “US Science and Technology is on a Losing Path” Pg. 70 Vo. 163 No. 17 10-31-05,
Lexis)
This transition to a borderless economy provides great opportunities for companies that are
prepared to take advantage, as the history of the aerospace industry amply demonstrates. But in
any dynamic, technology-intensive industry, leadership can be lost very quickly. Thus, many
other industries are now joining the aerospace industry in learning to compete in an uncertain and
quickly changing world.
Today, candidates for many jobs that currently reside in the U.S. are just a mouse click awa in y
Ireland, India, China, Australia and dozens of other countries. At first, manufacturing jobs were the
ones most susceptible to moving overseas. I recently traveled to Vietnam, where the hourly cost of low-
skilled workers is about 25 cents, less than 1/20th of the U.S. minimum wage. But the competitive
disadvantage is not confined to so-called low-end jobs. Eleven qualified engineers can be hired in India for
the cost of just one in the U.S.
At the same time, other countries are rapidly enlarging their innovation capacity. They are
investing in science and technology and encouraging their highly trained citizens who are
working abroad to return home. Even more important, these countries are creating the well-
funded schools and universities that will produce future scientists and engineers.
The U.S. is not competing well in this new world. Other nations will continue to have the
advantage of lower wages, so America must take advantage of its strengths. But those strengths
are eroding even as other countries are boosting their capacities.
Throughout the 20th century, one of America's greatest strengths has been its knowledge-based
resources--particularly its science and technology system. But today, that system shows many
signs of weakness. This nation's trade balance in high-technology goods swung from a positive flow of
$33 billion in 1990 to a negative flow of $24 billion in 2004. In 2003, foreign students earned 59% of the
engineering doctorates awarded by U.S. universities. In 2001, U.S. industry spent more on tort litigation
and related costs than on research and development.
A major factor determining U.S. competitiveness is the quality of the workforce, and the public school
system provides the foundation of this asset. But that system is failing specifically in the fields most
important to the future: science, engineering and mathematics. In a recent international test involving
mathematical understanding, U.S. students finished 27th among the participating nations. In China and
Japan, 59% and 66% of undergraduates, respectively, receive their degrees in science and engineering,
compared with 32% in the U.S. In the past, the U.S. economy benefited from the availability of financial
capital. But today it moves quickly to wherever a competitive advantage exists, as shown by the
willingness of companies to move factories to Mexico, Vietnam and China (see p. 18). One of America's
most powerful assets is its free enterprise system, with its inherent aggressiveness and discipline
in introducing ideas and flushing out obsolescence. But other nations have recognized these
virtues and are seeking to emulate the system. The aerospace industry is especially susceptible to
these broader economic trends. Without well-educated scientists and engineers, the industry will
not be able to compete with well-organized programs in countries with abundant engineering
talent. In addition, security issues in the industry highlight its reliance on homegrown talent, as
opposed to importing its people from abroad. Troubles in the aerospace industry also could have
implications throughout the U.S. economy. In particular, the industry has been especially
effective at making use of and producing systems engineers, some of whom eventually move to
other industries. If aerospace were to decline, a considerable portion of these valuable individuals
would be lost.
50
51
A competitive aerospace industry is key to U.S. economic and physical security
Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; Director of International Policy (Owen E., “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S.
Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201, 04-14-08,
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html)
Aerospace is an especially important industry for a nation's economic and physical security, and
perhaps no other country has benefited more from the aerospace industry than the United States.9
The Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry states
that the industry "contributes over 15 percent to our Gross Domestic Product and supports over
15 million high quality American jobs" (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2). U.S.
aerospace has been identified as a major source of "technical innovation with substantial
spillovers to other industrial and commercial sectors" and "high-wage employment, which
spreads the benefits of rising productivity throughout the U.S. economy.…" The Aerospace
Commission also noted the industry's contribution to the nation's "economic growth, quality of
life, and scientific achievements…." (Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 1-2).
Despite the importance of aerospace, the deterioration of the industry at home has continued at a
dramatic rate. Nearly 500,000 jobs have been lost in the U.S. aerospace industry since 1990
(Aerospace Industry Commission 2002, 8-12; see also AIA 2007), and several hundred thousand
more workers have lost their jobs in related industries. Sadly, the fact of these enormous job
losses comes as no surprise. More than 10 years ago, in Jobs on the Wing, authors Randy Barber
and Robert Scott predicted that "up to 469,000" jobs in the aerospace and related industries
"could be eliminated by 2013 because of offset policies and increased foreign competition"
(Barber and Scott 1995, 2). In a later study, Scott predicted that by 2013 the industry would suffer
a loss of over 25% "of the total jobs in aircraft production in 1995" (Scott 1998). These gloomy
predictions are apparently reinforced by U.S. government reports. According to the Department
of Labor, the outlook for employment in the U.S. aerospace industry is not rosy: between 2002
and 2012 aerospace employment in the United States will "decrease by 18 percent" (U.S.
Department of Labor 2004).
The future health of the industry depends in large part on its ability to attract new workers, but the
crisis in employment and the prediction that the crisis will deepen does not bode well for
attracting new workers. In its final report, the Aerospace Commission summarized this concern:
The U.S. aerospace sector, once the employer of choice for the "best and brightest" technically
trained workers, now finds it presents a negative image to potential employees. Surveys indicate a
feeling of disillusionment about the aerospace industry among its personnel, whether they are
production/technical workers, scientists or engineers. The majority of newly dislocated workers
say they will not return to aerospace. In a recent survey of nearly 500 U.S. aerospace engineers,
managers, production workers, and technical specialists, 80 percent of respondents said they
would not recommend aerospace careers to their children. (Aerospace Industries Commission
2002, 8-5).While the Aerospace Commission found that "U.S. policy toward domestic aerospace
employment must reaffirm the goal of stabilizing and increasing the number of good and decent
jobs in the industry," this policy has yet to be embraced, let alone implemented (Aerospace
Industries Commission 2002, 8-12).?
52
The aerospace industry is key to the national economy
ARTF, 8 (Aerospace Revitalization Task Force, “Report of the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task
Force”, February 2008, www.doleta.gov/pdf/REPORT_Aerospace_2008.pdf)
The workforce of each sector reflects a wide array of talents and competencies, from
researchers and engineers to technicians, mechanics, and skilled machinists.
AIA projects industry sales in 2007 totaled $53.3 billion for civil aircraft, $54.8 billion
for military aircraft, $17.7 billion for missiles, and $605 million in space sales. Robust
growth is anticipated again in 2008, with projections that industry sales will grow 6
percent, or $12 billion, driven largely by increase deliveries of civil aircraft, engines,
and related parts and components.11 The importance of the aerospace industry to the
economy and the public is best summarized the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) Labor Aerospace Research Agenda and Lean Aerospace Initiative:12
It enables the global movement of people and goods; It enables the global acquisition
and dissemination of information and data; It advances national security interests;
and, It provides a source of innovation by pushing the boundaries of exploration and
inspiration.
53
Aerospace workforce key to competitiveness

Muellner, 7 – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (George K, “A New Year’s Resolution
for 2008,” Aerospace America, 12-07, LN)
<For the past several years, the long-term viability of the aerospace workforce in the United States has been
a major concern. An aging workforce coupled with predictions of a looming shortfall of skilled
professionals threatens the vitality of the aerospace industry and makes it difficult to maintain our
competitiveness and technological edge in the world. A journalist described the problem as the "Crisis in
Aerospace." Congress responded to these issues by passing HR 758 in October 2005. This bill created a
federal inter-agency task force on Aerospace Workforce Revitalization. Recently, the challenge of
developing and sustaining a world-class aeronautics workforce became a specific principle of the National
Aeronautics Research and Development Policy endorsed by Executive Order in December 2006.
Revitalization of the aerospace workforce is a complex value-stream that starts with focus on Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education, continues into college and graduate
programs, and includes the education, training, and experience our professionals get when they enter the
workforce. Maintaining our world-class aerospace workforce is a challenge that requires integrated actions
at all steps in this process.
Both inspiration and leadership are required to maintain the quality and quantity of aerospace professionals,
and AIAA has a major role to play in this process. We represent today's aerospace workforce and can, and
should, assume a leadership role in insuring its vitality into the future. Events like "Education Alley" at the
recent AIAA 2007 Space Conference & Exposition attracted many potential aerospace professionals, got
them excited about what we do, and allowed many of you to dazzle them with your war stories. Your
stories on connecting the world through advances in commercial aviation, providing for the National
Security through military aircraft and space systems, and placing men on the moon and robots on Mars
inspired another generation of aerospace professionals.
A strong aerospace industry ensures competitiveness
The Commission concludes that the government must ensure that the nation has a
healthy aerospace industry today and in the future, an industry that can not only
meet the security and economic needs of the country but also can compete
successfully in the international market place. The government needs to exert
leadership and prioritize and promote aerospace by managing its activities
efficiently, effectively and as a sector to accomplish national objectives. It needs to
create an environment that fosters innovation in the U.S. aerospace industry,
ensuring its competitiveness into the 21st century.
54
SSP key to Aero Leadership
Developing space-based solar power is key to remain economically and

technologically competitive as a hegemonic power
The Washington Post, 6 (Marc Kaufman, “NASA Looks to the Future With Eye on the Past,” 12-04-06,
LN) // DCM
<As Michael Griffin, the head of NASA, sees it, humanity is setting out on an interplanetary quest not
dissimilar to what began with the Vikings. An age of space exploration has begun, but only with the same
confused baby steps that brought Leif Eriksson briefly to Vinland and North America (or was it
Greenland?). "Fifty years into it, the amount of progress that the Vikings had made would not have been
that noticeable, and that's where we are in space flight today," Griffin said in a recent interview. "I really
think that's the way to look at it." But Griffin and NASA have big plans for the future. The concrete
proposals are contained in the Vision for Exploration that President Bush announced in 2004, a program to
return Americans to the moon before 2020 and plan for travel onward to Mars. It's an ambitious, almost
Star Trek-like vision, one that has ardent supporters and vocal detractors. But to a degree generally
unappreciated by the public, it is the law of the land, since Congress adopted the president's moon-Mars
proposal last year. And it is moving forward: NASA will publicly outline today its exploration strategy for
the planned lunar missions. The bigger picture, however, is significantly more grand. As Griffin and others
(including renowned British cosmologist Stephen Hawking) describe it, it is all about whether humans will
incorporate the solar system "into mankind's sphere of influence."
"In the long run, we know that Earth and its resources are finite," Griffin said. "There are resources in space
-- solar power or particular materials or precious metals, or basic things like water or fuel which, in the
context of a space-based economy, can be very valuable. As we learn and develop the arts and sciences of
spaceflight, we will want to make use of those resources rather than bringing them up from Earth."
Some intriguing possibilities include extracting oxygen from the moon's soil to help power rockets,
collecting helium-3 (a non-radioactive isotope of the gas) for nuclear power back on Earth, and the mineral
anorthite to make aluminum.
"This won't happen tomorrow or in our grandchildren's day," he said. "But who would have thought that it
would be profitable to make wine in Australia and ship it to the United States? In a few short decades,
we've made a very significant part of the Earth's economy to be a global economy and not a patchwork of
national economies."
In the same way that globalization was the result of a thousand years of exploration and development,
Griffin argued, a space-based economy will appear only after thousands of missions -- some successful and
some not. "You will -- if you can live long enough -- see the resources of the solar system similarly
incorporated into humanity's sphere of influence," Griffin said. "In the long run, that's what the expansion
of humankind into space is all about." Whether this vision is achievable or even desirable is a subject of
debate, and there is already substantial concern that NASA's exploration plans will, over time, drain funds
from its highly successful science programs. "It's good to have such an enthusiast like Griffin at NASA, but
that whole messianic vision is pretty far from the current state of technology," said Robert Kirshner, an
astronomy professor at Harvard University and past president of the American Astronomical Society.
"Many of us worry that it will suck the juice out of other very promising projects to learn more about our
universe." Griffin said that NASA intends to maintain the financial balance between manned exploration
and pure science in its $17 billion yearly budget, a ratio that is now about two dollars for manned
exploration for each one spent on pure science. The billions more needed for the moon-Mars missions will
be redirected from the costly shuttle and space station programs, which are due to wind down in 2010.
But Wes Huntress, a former NASA associate administrator and ex-member of the NASA science advisory
board, said that ever since Bush announced the space exploration vision, the administration has refused to
give the agency additional funding to accomplish its mission.
The result is that "Griffin has had to cannibalize the agency to get the money for the new program,"
Huntress said. "Even at that, I don't think there are sufficient funds to support even the return to the moon
55
once the program gets really moving." In Griffin's big-picture view, the stakes in space are high -- which
helps explain why he is so driven about return to manned lunar exploration and beyond. Not only are there
major national security issues involved -- the country relies on space-based defense like no other nation --
but the NASA administrator said the United States can remain a preeminent civilization only if it continues
to explore space aggressively. If the United States pulls back, Griffin said, others will speed ahead. Russia
and China have sent astronauts into low-Earth orbit, and India, Japan and the Europeans all have the
technical ability to do the same now -- and far more in the future.
International cooperation has been ingrained into the government's thinking about space, but the United
States and others remain committed to manufacturing their own rockets and space capsules and will be
looking for international cooperation only once they are on the moon or Mars or some asteroids in between.
"I absolutely believe that America became a great power in the world, leapfrogging other great powers of
the time, because of its mastery of the air," Griffin said. "In the 21st century and beyond, our society and
nation, if we wish to remain in the first rank, must add to our existing capacities . . . to remain preeminent
in the arts and sciences of space flight.
SSP boosts aerospace competitiveness
Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace
Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United
States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November,
What limits the performance of most spacecraft, including the International Space Station (ISS), is the
amount of power that can be generated from solar energy. Increasing available power, both on orbit and
beyond orbit, could expand opportunities in military, civil, and commercial space applications.
The concept of using solar power satellites to beam power to Earth has been a distant dream. But, the use of
such satellites as a “refueling station,” to collect solar energy and beam it to on-orbit assets is worth
exploring.
Solar or nuclear power stations capable of supplying on-orbit power could also have commercial potential.
Selling power as a space utility is the kind of business arrangement that the space community has long
needed. The enhanced power would prove to be a huge benefit to ISS. It could provide sufficient energy to
conduct commercial activities not now possible within the station’s limited power capabilities.
In addition, others looking to commercial use of space could design their own free-flyer modules equipped
with an antenna to receive power, thus needing little more than an emergency backup capability on board.
See Chapter 9 for additional information on power. The Commission believes that once there is affordable,
abundant power in orbit, public and private investments in space systems and exploration will follow. (3-5)
56
SSP Key to Space Domination

SPS key to future space operations
Major Kim Ramos, 2000, USAF, “Solar Power Constellations Implications For The United States Air
Force,” April 2000, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A394928&Location=U2&doc
=GetTRDoc.pdf)
In addition to the terrestrial implications of solar power satellites for the Air Force, there are also
implications for space operations. The power required for spacecraft operations is increasing. In order to
meet this increase, engineers are looking at standardized solar cells, new gallium/aluminum solar cells and
paying close attention to solar power satellite developments.17 The problems associated with increasing the
size of solar arrays on satellites to meet the increasing power demands are deterioration of structure
dynamic performance, complications of orientation and stabilization, placing solar arrays under the
launcher fairing, deploying solar arrays in orbit, buffer elements for periods without sunlight and
discrepancies between the orientation of devices and solar arrays.18 Engineers from the Ukraine
recommend solving these problems with solar power satellites using wireless power transmission or a
cable.19 The authors of New World Vistas also recommended this approach. They advocated using space
solar power satellites to power other satellites in space and predicted that “power beaming will become a
major element of spacecraft operations.”20 Solar power satellites would provide improvements 17 in the
areas of reconstitution, maneuver, force application, space-based radar, and communication satellites which
produce power as well as transfer data.
57
SPS key to military space power

Major Kim Ramos, 2000, USAF, “Solar Power Constellations Implications For The United States Air
=GetTRDoc.pdf)
United States Space Command developed four operational concepts to guide their vision. One of those
operational concepts is global engagement. The USSPACECOM Long Range Plan defines global
engagement as an “integrated focused surveillance and missile defense with a potential ability to apply
force from space.”27 This application of force from space involves holding at risk earth targets with force
from space.28 New World Vistas identifies several force application technologies. One of the technological
issues associated with developing these space force application technologies is that they all require large
amounts of power generation. A solar power satellite can supply the required power. Two technologies in
particular would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite, directed energy weapons, such as
lasers, and jamming devices. 19 The space-based lasers currently under study accomplish ground moving
target indication, and air moving target indication, which would be part of missile defense.29 The main
difficulty with the laser is designing a power plant, which can produce the required energy in space without
the enormous solar arrays required. By using a solar power satellite to beam power to the laser, this
eliminates the problem. Another project, which would benefit from integration with a solar power satellite,
is a device, which would beam RF power to a particular geographic location to blind or disable any
unprotected ground communications, radar, optical, and infrared sensors.30As with the laser and other
directed energy applications, the limiting factor right now is generating enough power in space to energize
the RF beam.
58
SSP key to Space Radar
The Space Review 7, (Taylor Dinerman, “Solar power satellites and space radar”
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm, July 16, 2007)
One of the great showstoppers for the Space Radar (SR) program, formerly known as Space Based Radar,
is power. It takes a lot of energy to transmit radar beams powerful enough to track a moving target on Earth
from space. What is called the Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) is what makes SR so much better than other space radar
systems, such as the recently-launched German SAR-Lupe or the NRO’s Lacrosse system. While many of the details are
classified, the power problem seems to be the main reason that the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has
been extremely reluctant to fund this program.
In order to achieve the power levels needed for an effective GMTI system using current technology, very
large solar arrays would be needed. Even if these were to use the new Boeing solar cells that, according to the company, are
more than 30% efficient, the arrays would still be much bigger than anything on any operational satellite. Such large arrays
would make the SR spacecraft easy targets for enemy antisatellite weapons and would also produce so
much drag while in low Earth orbit (LEO) that their lifespan would be shorter—perhaps much shorter—
than current-generation reconnaissance satellites.
Why, then, does such a system need to rely 100% on its own power? If solar power satellites (SPS) were
available in geosynchronous orbit and could beam electricity to the SR satellites in LEO, this might allow
the radar satellites to have as much power as their power control systems and heat radiators could handle.
Power could be transmitted by a tightly focused laser or microwave beam to one or two receptors,
integrated into the spacecraft’s bus. If the radar antenna were integrated into the skin of the satellite the way
it is on a B-2 bomber, such satellite would be difficult to detect and track.
Using power from an SPS, such a satellite would be able to liberally use its ion engines to change its orbit.
These engines would never be powerful enough to make the kind of quick responsive maneuvers that some
space operations commanders would like to see in future LEO-based spacecraft, but they would be a step in
the right direction.
The demise of the E-10 program that had been intended to replace the Air Force’s JSTARS and AWACS
surveillance aircraft has left a hole in future US situational awareness capabilities that neither unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the Predator and Global Hawk, nor existing satellite programs can possibly
fill. Space Radar could do so, but only if the program is restructured to make it at once more ambitious in
terms of future capability and less ambitious in terms of near-term operations.
59
Space power key to hegemony

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Independent Working Group, 2007, “Missile
Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century”, 2007, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.)
For the United States, space represents an indispensable first line of defense. Almost since the beginning of
the space age over forty years ago, the United States has utilized this for intelligence and defense support,
including deploying sensors in space to provide early warning of a missile launch .Without space control,
the United States cannot maintain dominance on the battlefield. With the demise of the ABM Treaty,
the United States can now legally develop, test, and deploy space- as well as sea-, air-, and mobile ground-
based defenses. To build a missile defense with the global capability to protect its own territory and its
overseas forces, friends, and allies as President Bush has proposed, the United States will need to include
space-based defenses. They possess a global capability because they can intercept a missile regard less of
launch location, provided that the constellation is large enough to keep interceptors continually within
range of possible launch locations. Of all basing modes space-based defenses would provide the widest
area of coverage and greatest number of shots against enemy war heads – and it would have the very
desirable feature of always being present to destroy ballistic missiles launched from anywhere in the world.
If the U.S. doesn't control space, someone else will
Waller 1, (J. Michael, “Militarizing Space” Insight on the News, Vol. 17, 3-19-01)
The Space Commission recommended that the Department of Defense reorganize its entire space-
management structure, focusing more resources on space-based defenses. The report, released Jan. 11,
concluded that just as air and sea were theaters of battle in the 20th century, space will be a theater of battle
in the 21st. The United States, however, has not prepared itself in this respect for next-generation warfare.
The Rumsfeld report says: "Having shown the world the utility of space systems, it would be pretty naive
to think that our adversaries are just going to be sitting around idly and not developing their own space-
based information capabilities and the tools and techniques to counter the current U.S. space advantage."
How can the United States stop maverick regimes in Iran or Iraq, or potentially hostile ones such as Russia
or China, from using their satellites to harm U.S. interests on the ground or disabling or destroying U.S.
satellites in space? The simplest way is to deploy weapons to take out dangerous satellites. The Kinetic
Energy Anti-Satellite Weapon (KE-ASAT) is an inexpensive, quickly deployable device the United States
could build to deny the use of space to any potential adversary. This country has spent $350 million on the
KE-ASAT since 1993, but antidefense elements in the Clinton administration tried to make sure the funds
never reached the programs Congress intended. "Without an antisatellite capability," says Smith, "today's
foreign- and commercial-surveillance satellites could easily detect our now-famous dogleg in the desert that
allowed the United States to quickly end the Desert Storm operation with very few casualties. Without KE-
ASAT, this nation will not have the satellite-negation capability to deter satellite operators from sharing or
selling our adversaries sensitive intelligence of the U.S. military, resulting in longer wars and more lives
lost."
60
Failure to dominate space will collapse U.S. power

J. Michael Waller 2001, “Militarizing Space” Insight on the News, Vol. 17, 3-19-01
Failure to continue to dominate space, warns James Schlesinger, former CIA chief and secretary of defense,
will mean the downfall of the United States as a world power. "Our position depends upon space, space
sensors, space communications, space intelligence and, also, guiding our weapons accurately from space.
All of this is a marvelous achievement, but it creates for us a potential vulnerability -- and that is if we are
somehow or other cut off, or our ability to utilize space is reduced, we are going to be engaged around the
world in ways that the U.S. public will not particularly tolerate, in that we are likely to come home with
large numbers of bodies in bags. The consequence," says Schlesinger, "is that the public will be turned off.
So our international role might come crashing down. And the moral of the story is that we have to protect
the usage of space."
61
Space dominance is critical to sustain US hegemony

Waller 1, (J. Michael, “Militarizing Space” Insight on the News, Vol. 17, 3-19-01)
The nation with military control of space will have the capability to control international communications
and access to land, sea and air. If the U.S. should lose its present control of space, it will mark the end of its
status as a global superpower. Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H., was grimly serious. "Whoever controls space
will control the destiny of the Earth," he declared. "And when you look at the options out there, I would ask
you, who do you want it to be? Iran? Russia? Iraq? China?" Smith was raising those tough questions at a
recent seminar on space power at the prestigious Center for Security Policy in Washington. Not given to
flamboyant rhetoric, the plainspoken New Hampshireman continued, "To those who say we can't militarize
space, I must say, `Do you want somebody else to do it?'" China and Russia want to. So do likely or
incipient nuclear powers Pakistan, India, Iraq and North Korea. And it isn't just those with military
ambitions, say leading defense authorities. Now, thanks to commercialization of many space technologies,
any individual or group with the cash can buy the hardware and software to cause havoc for U.S. security
interests in space. Space holds the key to U.S. communications -- not only for the military, but for every
single citizen whose news and entertainment, telephone calls, Internet surfing, banking and financial
services depend on satellites. Vulnerable to attack is the entire communications system on which the U.S.
economy now depends. Equally vulnerable is the U.S. mainland itself. Any defense against incoming
ballistic missiles -- be they short-range or strategic rockets with nuclear warheads -- must rely heavily on
space-based sensors and, in some cases, space-based weapons to shoot down the missiles or warheads
before they land. In military terms, control of space means much more than missile defense. "The United
States' unimpeded access to space is vital to national interests -- the word `vital' meaning that we are
willing to do whatever it takes to maintain that access" according to Air Force Maj. Gen. Brian Arnold.
Virtually every facet of modern war-fighting makes use of space, he says, "from intelligence to
reconnaissance, surveillance to warning to timing [and] getting over the target, to our precision-guidance
weapons that you saw used so well in Operation Allied Force to limit the collateral damage, to put a single
weapon on a single target, to the weather, to accessing the battle damage after the fight, to the
communications ... and going even further to computer-network defense and computer-network attack,
which uses a lot of space assets." Polls show most Americans agree that, when threatened, the U.S. military
should be used to ensure full access to Middle Eastern oil, and Americans overwhelmingly supported the
use of force to free oil supplies in Kuwait. But what about an Operation Desert Storm in space? The issue is
seldom discussed. "The importance of space control and space superiority will continue to grow as our
economy becomes more reliant on space" according to Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, commander in chief of the
U.S. Space Command, known as SPACECOM. "As space becomes more integral -- and critical to military
land, sea and air operations, the U.S. must devote more attention to the sensitive issues of space control and
superiority." What does that mean? "The space systems we have today provide remote sensing, navigation,
communications and other support services to all of our land, air and sea forces" Sen. Smith explains. The
United States, he emphasized at the Center for Security Policy panel, must have "information superiority"
to prevail in a conflict. And that's not all. Smith said there are two other types of programs that are missing
if we are to achieve true space power: "Number one, we have lacked space-control technology and
capabilities. We don't have space-control capability, in my view," Smith said. "If we intend to maintain our
information superiority, we need a strong space-control program to protect our assets and to deny our
adversaries the use of their own systems." Secondly, he says, the United States lacks a flexible power-
projection capability that would allow U.S. forces to use space to project their military power elsewhere on
Earth. Rather than take out land targets with troops and aircraft, proponents say, the United States could
accomplish the same goals with space-based lasers capable of attacking targets on the ground, at sea and in
the air.
62
Space Domination Solves War

Domination of space is key to prevent a world war
Andy Oppenheimer, contributor to lane's Information Group and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
October 2003, “Arms race in space” Foreign Policy, Issue 138, p. 81
Eight days before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Maj. Gen. Franklin J. Blaisdell, the U.S. Air Force
director of space operations and integration, offered a blunt warning: "We are so dominant in space that I
pity a country that would come up against us." In the five weeks that followed, more than 5,500 Joint
Direct Attack Munitions pummeled Iraq, guided to within 3 meters of their targets by orbiting Global
Positioning System satellites. High-resolution radar satellites peered through clouds and sand-storms,
allowing coalition aircraft to pick off former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard. But
despite such military prowess, the U.S. defense establishment is worried. Two years ago commission
formerly chaired U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that growing dependence on
commercial and military satellites left the United States vulnerable to a possible "space Pearl Harbor."
More recently, national security agencies have been circulating proposals to develop a flotilla of military
spacecraft that would deny U.S. enemies (and possibly even U.S. allies) access to Earth's orbit without U.S.
permission.
63
US domination of space is key to prevent a space arms race
Eisendrath 6, (Craig, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., is an
adjunct professor of American Studies at Temple University, Philadelphia, “Waging War in the Heavens:
Profit and Power Go Hand in Hand as the U.S. Gears Up to Spread Its Military Influence to Vet Another
Vast Region-Outer Space” USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Vol. 135, November
2006)
AS RESEARCH ON SPACE weaponization reaches into the billions of dollars, and the first deployment of
national missile defense has taken place in Vanderburg Air Force Base, Calif., and Ft. Greeley, Alaska, it is
time to put these issues before the public. What exists is the possibility of a worldwide arms race in outer
space and the expenditure of trillions of dollars to arm space and deploy a national missile defense system
capable of dealing not only with rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, but more substantial potential
opponents like China or even the Russian Federation. Whatever the merits of space weaponization and
national missile defense, these programs need to be discussed fully by Congress and the general public.
According to Mike Moore, former editor of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and author of Space Cop,
"Space warriors are part of a professional belief community whose members have certain overarching
paradigms--one being that conflict in Space is probable, if not inevitable, and the United States must
therefore prepare for it by taking unilateral action that would give [it] control of space in a time of conflict."
This view is championed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who holds that the U.S. has been so
derelict in not arming space that it is vulnerable to a potential "Space Pearl Harbor." A version of this
space-control mindset appeared in the U.S. Space Command-issued document, "Vision of 2020." On the
first page, in oversize type, it reads, "U.S. Space Command--dominating the space dimension of military
operations to protect U.S. interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into war-fighting capabilities
across the full spectrum of conflict." Citing the development of sea and air power, the report states, "Over
the past several decades, space power has primarily supported land, sea, and air operations--strategically
and operationally," as in the first Gulf War or the invasion of Iraq, when space was used to identify targets
and guide weapons. "During the early portion of the twenty-first century, space power will also evolve into
a separate and equal medium of warfare. Likewise, space forces will emerge to protect military and
commercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance."
Moore wonders what would happen if China or Russia, or even Great Britain or France, had said it planned
to dominate outer space militarily within 15 or 20 years? The U.S., he maintains, would demand a change
of policy, or call upon the international community to impose sanctions. "But if such measures failed, the
world would have a new space race," he says, and that would be "outrageously expensive; it would suck
intellectual resources and scarce capital into black holes of mutual suspicion; it would compromise the
ability of nations to meet everyday human needs. Worse, it would make fruitful international cooperation
on mitigating a host of pressing global problems considerably less likely. "The United States may have the
best of intentions when it speaks of achieving a space-control capability. It may have no notion of ever
denying access to space to another country except in extremis. It may have no wish to vaporize the
satellites of other nations or to demolish buildings with devices launched from , orbit unless a war were in
progress, but what nation could afford to rely on the everlasting good intentions of another nation, even the
United States?"
64
The US will face a “space Pearl Harbor” if we do not pursue space control
Logsdon 1, (John, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University's Elliott School
of International Affairs in Washington, D.C, “Just Say Wait to Space Power” Issues in Science and
Technology, Vol. 17, Spring 2001) // CCH
With dependency comes vulnerability. The U.S. military is certainly more dependent on the use of space
than is any potential adversary. The question is how to react to this situation. The commission notes that the
substantial political, economic, and military value of U.S. space systems, and the combination of
dependency and vulnerability associated with them, "makes them attractive targets for state and nonstate
actors hostile to the United States and its interests." Indeed, it concluded, the United States is an attractive
candidate for a space Pearl Harbor: a surprise attack on U.S. space assets aimed at crippling U.S. war-
fighting or other capabilities. The United States currently has only limited ability to prevent such an attack.
Given this situation, the report said, enhancing and protecting U.S. national security space interests should
be recognized as a top national security priority. Rumsfeld's appointment as defense secretary makes it likely that this
recommendation will at a minimum be taken seriously. Yet there is a curious lack of balanced discussion of its implications. Although
the increasing importance of space capabilities has received attention from those closely linked to the military and national security
communities, it has not yet been a focus of informed discussion and debate by the broader community of those interested in
international affairs, foreign policy, and arms control. Of the 13 commission members, 7 were retired senior military officers, and the
other members had long experience in military affairs. In preparing the commission report, only those with similar backgrounds were
consulted. Without broader consideration of how enhancing space power might affect the multiple roles played by space systems
today, as well as the reactions of allies and adversaries to a buildup in military space capabilities, there is a possibility that the United
States could follow, without challenge, a predominantly military path in its space activities. What is proposed as a means of
reducing U.S. space vulnerabilities while enhancing the contribution of space assets to U.S. military power
is "space control." This concept is defined by the U.S Space Command, the military organization
responsible for operating U.S. military space systems, as "the ability to ensure uninterrupted access to space
for U.S. forces and our allies, freedom of operation within the space medium, and an ability to deny others
the use of space, if required." (The Space Command's Long Range Plan is available at
www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace.) In a world in which many countries are developing at least rudimentary
space capabilities or have access to such capabilities in the commercial marketplace, achieving total U.S.
space control is not likely. More probable is a future in which the United States has a significant advantage
in space power capabilities but not their exclusive possession. This implies a need to be able to defend U.S.
space assets, either by active defenses or by deterrent threats.
Space control prevents terrestrial war
Elhefnawy 3 (Nader, doctoral student at the University of Miami. He has previously written for several
other military journals, including Armor and Proceedings, “Four Myths about Space Power” Parameters,
Volume: 33, Issue: 1, p. 124, 2003) // CCH
The satellite gap between America and every other nation in the world is universally recognized, and the
significance of this fact is also unquestioned. America s unparalleled investment in space, in satellites, the
infrastructure that goes with them and the precision weapons that best exploit them is appreciated as having
made possible its successful campaigns against Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. If anything, the gap
seems certain to grow steadily greater in the coming years. In the three years between Yugoslavia and
Afghanistan, American airpower went from being effective principally against fixed targets like
infrastructure to routinely devastating moving formations using real-time intelligence with the help of faster
satellite relays. The Army and Navy as well as the Air Force have been directed to devote increasing
attention to space, specifically to "establish requirements, maintain a cadre of space-qualified officers, and
research, develop, acquire, and deploy space systems unique to each service." (1) The United States is even
slated to begin testing space-based weapons, starting with space-based interceptor missiles in 2006. The
implicit technical possibilities have compelled some to envision the United States going even further and
seizing outright the highest ground of all (happily unoccupied by anyone else) to impose a Wilsonian
international order on the planet. With an invincible space force keeping the peace between nations, war as
it has traditionally been known theoretically becomes impossible.
65
UAV’s Necessary
UAV’s are critical for information superiority in regional conflicts
Ramos, 2K —Major, USAF (Kim, “Solar Power Constellations Implications For The United States Air
=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Unmanned aerial vehicles help achieve information superiority. Both joint and Air Force service visions
define information superiority as vital. Joint Vision 2010 calls information superiority a technological
innovation to enable dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional
protection. It defines information superiority as “the capability to collect, process, and disseminate an
uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same.”
Global Engagement: A Vision for the 21st Century Air Force expresses the Air Force’s vision for the future
and defines its core competencies. One of the Air Force Core Competencies it describes is information
superiority. It goes on to endorse the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to “explore their potential uses over a
full range of combat missions ”4 to achieve information superiority. Supported by the highest levels of the
Department of Defense, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to achieve information superiority in regional
conflicts is increasing. High altitude and long endurance vehicles are in development for monitoring the
atmosphere, environmental impact studies, and more important to the Air Force, for communications
relays, surveillance, and missile defense.5 Other military uses for such vehicles are reconnaissance,
targeting, target designation, and battle damage assessment.6 One of the requirements for these vehicles is
that they must have long endurance,7 which currently is not possible. Using a microwave beam for
powered flight and to power on-board instrumentation increases the endurance of the vehicle.
Theoretically, by powering the craft with a beam it would possess unlimited endurance.8 The power
transmitted to the unmanned vehicle could come from a solar power satellite in space or from a ground
station. These vehicles would be part of a war fighting commander-in-chief’s arsenal. Unmanned aerial
vehicles with various detection modules would serve as near earth satellites for regional coverage of events.
This is especially important in areas where satellites are not available for coverage, the revisit time of a
satellite is too long, or due to limited assets, sharing of satellite time takes place
66
Nanotech- Semiconductor Add-ON
SSP creates the capability to manufacture semiconductors in space – key to dominating the industry
Prado 2, - physicist, former U.S. DOD space engineer and consultant multinational engineering and
construction companies (Mark, “Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth,” http://www.permanent.com/p-
sps-ps.htm) // CCH
The solar power satellite fits into an asteroidal and lunar materials utilization scenario very well -- it is
composed of materials most abundant in asteroids near Earth and/or from the Moon, and it is made up of a
small variety of simple parts mass produced in large quantity. The industry required in space to produce
SPS components is relatively modest. Some design studies claim that more than 99% of an SPS can be
made from asteroidal and/or lunar material.
The silicon solar cells can be made from lunar or asteroidal silicon, as silicon is the second most abundant
element on the Moon and likewise in many kinds of asteroids. Purification of silicon is easier in the
vacuum of space, and better crystals grow in zero gravity (due to no convection currents). The glass cover
over the solar cells could be silica glass (silicon dioxide) -- composed of the two most abundant elements
on the Moon and likewise in many kinds of asteroids.
The SPS structure could be made from asteroidal nickel-iron steel or steel-reinforced lunarcrete or
astercrete using cheap glass-ceramics or fiberglass composites. The waveguides could be made of glass
ceramics. The vacuum tubes to generate the beam could be largely steel in terms of weight, with the small
electrodes perhaps imported from Earth depending on the level of effort we put into processing the
different kinds of asteroidal materials.
Given the advantages of manufacturing semiconductors in orbit, Silicon Valley could lose big business to
competition from Silicon Orbit in the future. Computer chips are small and lightweight enough to bring
back to Earth. A future generation of space-made chips may start to bring a close to many kinds of chip
manufacturing on Earth, to the benefit of consumers and Earth's environment.
The first to go into business making silicon solar cells in space may well become the first to dominate that
business. That may be judged by the first to experiment in orbit and get patents
67
Semiconductor technology is key to US nanotech leadership – it provides the basis for necessary
innovations
AZoNano ‘5, Online Journal of Nanotechnology

[“U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotechnology Leadership,” 3/17/05, www.azonano.com/news.asp
%3FnewsID%3D635]
The coming transition to nano-scale semiconductor devices means that leadership in information
technology is up for grabs, warned the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). At a news conference in
Washington, D.C., today chief executives of U.S. semiconductor makers and a leading economist stressed
the importance of continued progress and leadership in semiconductor technology. The industry is
observing the 40th anniversary of Moore's Law -- an observation made in 1965 by industry pioneer Gordon
Moore that the number of components on a computer chip was doubling approximately every 12 months
with a commensurate reduction in costs. Following the vision of Moore's Law, the U.S. semiconductor
industry has led the worldwide industry, contributing key innovations that have helped drive America's
economic growth. Speaking at the news conference were Steve Appleton, chief executive officer of
Micron Technology and 2005 chairman of the SIA; Craig Barrett, chief executive officer of Intel
Corporation; Dale Jorgenson, Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University; and George
Scalise, president of the SIA. The industry executives noted that four decades of continuous advances in
microchip technology have led to creation of entirely new industries, including personal computers, the
Internet, and cellular telephones, while enabling major advances in biotechnology, medicine, and
environmental protection. Professor Jorgenson discussed the contributions semiconductors have made to
economic growth and productivity gains during the past decade. SIA called for stepped up support for
basic research in the physical sciences to assure continued U.S. technology leadership. Experts believe
current semiconductor technology could run up against physical, technological, and economic limits around
2020. "U.S. leadership in technology is under assault," said Barrett. "The challenge we face is global in
nature and broader in scope than any we have faced in the past. The initial step in responding to this
challenge is that America must decide to compete. If we don't compete and win, there will be very serious
consequences for our standard of living and national security in the future." Barrett said that industry
scientists believe current CMOS scaling to support Moore's Law can remain in effect for at least another 10
to 15 years. When the smallest features on a chip shrink to less than 10 nanometers -- 10 one-billionths of a
meter -- current chipmaking technology will reach its ultimate limits. To keep Moore's Law alive, the
industry will have to leave Newtonian physics behind and transition to the realm of quantum physics -- the
era of nanotechnology. "U.S. leadership in the nanoelectronics era is not guaranteed," noted Barrett. "It
will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal
governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology."
68
Nanotech leadership is critical to winning humanity’s most important arms race
John Robert Marlow, 2004, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February,
http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm
Marlow's 2nd Paradox As stated in the Nano novel, Marlow's Second Paradox is this: "Nanotechnology
must never be developed, because it is too dangerous a thing to exist; nanotechnology must be developed-
because it is too a dangerous a thing to exist in the hands of others." The first rationale-Bill Joy's
relinquishment option-will be ignored. The second will drive the race for nanosuperiority. The first
nanopower will, if it plays its cards right, remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future-assuming there
remains a future to foresee. This is so because it will be possible to use the technology itself to prevent all
others from deploying it, or to simply annihilate all others. In the entire history of the human race, there has
never been such a prize for the taking, and there likely never will be again.
We are embarked upon what is quite possibly Mankind's final arms race. Caution may not be a factor,
because the losers in the nanorace will exist only at the whim of the winner, and many will see themselves
as having nothing to lose, and the world to gain.
Semiconductors are key to hegemony

SIA ‘6, Semiconductor Industry Association
[“Innovation Leadership and the Semiconductor Industry,” 1/25/06, http://www.sia-
online.org/downloads/Competitiveness.pdf]
For more than 50 years, leadership in technology has been the foundation of American strategy for
economic growth, jobs creation and national security. The rapid application of technology to create and
manufacture innovative products enables American workers to earn high wages in an increasingly
competitive world. While innovation has driven America’s economic strength and security, U.S. leadership
is not our birthright. Leadership in technology requires a commitment to excellence in K-12 education and
funding basic research in our universities combined with immigration laws that allow the best and brightest
from around the world to study in our universities and stay and work after graduation. In addition we must
have a business climate that encourages investment and supports risk-taking. The U.S. semiconductor
industry provides the enabling technology for thousands of products and services we use every day, such as
PCs, cell phones and digital cameras. Semiconductors are also essential to the defense systems that ensure
our national security. A vibrant domestic semiconductor industry is critical to U.S. economic strength and
homeland security. Basic research conducted at America’s universities and the chip industry’s significant
investments in commercialization have made it possible for American companies to maintain world
leadership with a market share of nearly 50 percent. But, the U.S. share of leading-edge manufacturing
capacity has been eroding rapidly. Other countries are seeking to displace the U.S. as the world’s
technology leader by investing heavily in basic research, offering tax incentives and subsidies to attract
investment, and training highly skilled scientists and engineers. To maintain our world leadership, we must
choose to compete!
Hegemony solves nuclear war.

Zalmay Khalizhad, RAND Analyst, "Losing the Moment?”, Washington Quarterly,
spring, 1995 p. ln.
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony
by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another
hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all
the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to
global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
69
Defense of Grey Goo

Additionally, Grey goo theories are outdated and don’t assume newly developed
methods which prevent the production. Even if Grey Goo was developed, it couldn’t
survive.
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 12/14/03, “Grey Goo is a Small Issue”
http://www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm
Fear of runaway nanobots, or “grey goo”, is more of a public issue than a scientific problem. Grey goo as a
result of out of control nanotechnology played a starring role in an article titled "The Grey Goo Problem"
by Lawrence Osborne in today's New York Times Magazine. This article and other recent fictional
portrayals of grey goo, as well as statements by scientists such as Richard Smalley, are signs of significant
public concern. But although biosphere-eating goo is a gripping story, current molecular manufacturing
proposals contain nothing even similar to grey goo. The idea that nanotechnology manufacturing systems
could run amok is based on outdated information.
The earliest proposals for molecular manufacturing technologies echoed biological systems. Huge numbers
of tiny robots called “assemblers” would self-replicate, then work together to build large products, much
like termites building a termite mound. Such systems appeared to run the risk of going out of control,
perhaps even “eating” large portions of the biosphere. Eric Drexler warned in 1986, “We cannot afford
certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers.”
Since then, however, Drexler and others have developed models for making safer and more efficient
machine-like systems that resemble an assembly line in a factory more than anything biological. These
mechanical designs were described in detail in Drexler's 1992 seminal reference work, Nanosystems, which
does not even mention free-floating autonomous assemblers.
Replicating assemblers will not be used for manufacturing. Factory designs using integrated
nanotechnology will be much more efficient at building products, and a personal nanofactory is nothing
like a grey goo nanobot. A stationary tabletop factory using only preprocessed chemicals would be both
safer and easier to build. Like a drill press or a lathe, such a system could not run wild. Systems like this are
the basis for responsible molecular manufacturing proposals. To evaluate Eric Drexler's technical ideas on
the basis of grey goo is to miss the far more important policy issues created by general-purpose nanoscale
manufacturing.
A grey goo robot would face a much harder task than merely replicating itself. It would also have to
survive in the environment, move around, and convert what it finds into raw materials and power. This
would require sophisticated chemistry. None of these functions would be part of a molecular manufacturing
system. A grey goo robot would also require a relatively large computer to store and process the full
blueprint of such a complex device. A nanobot or nanomachine missing any part of this functionality could
not function as grey goo.
Development and use of molecular manufacturing will create nothing like grey goo, so it poses no risk of
producing grey goo by accident at any point. However, goo type systems do not appear to be ruled out by
the laws of physics, and we can't ignore the possibility that someone could deliberately combine all the
requirements listed above. Drexler's 1986 statement can therefore be updated: We cannot afford criminally
irresponsible misuse of powerful technologies. Having lived with the threat of nuclear weapons for half a
century, we already know that.
Grey goo eventually may become a concern requiring special policy. However, goo would be extremely
difficult to design and build, and its replication would be inefficient. Worse and more imminent dangers
may come from non-replicating nano-weaponry. Since there are numerous greater risks from molecular
manufacturing that may happen almost immediately after the technology is developed, grey goo should not
be a primary concern. Focusing on grey goo allows more urgent technology and security issues to remain
unexplored.
70
Government nanotech allows us to develop adequate defenses to grey goo

Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason and former FERC analyst, 12-1-2004. “The smaller the
better: the limitless promise of nanotechnology--and the growing peril of a moratorium.”
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3334354/The-smaller-the-better-the.html
The second nanotechnology risk that worries ETC Group activists is runaway self-replication.
Mooney points to a scenario suggested by Eric Drexler himself in The Engines of Creation:
Self-replicating nanobots get out of control and spread exponentially across the landscape,
destroying everything in their path by converting it into copies of themselves. In this
scenario, the biosphere is transformed by rampaging nanobots into "gray goo." But
according to Nobelist Richard Smalley, "Self-replicating nanorobots like those envisioned
by Eric Drexler are simply impossible to make." Mihail Roco likewise dismisses such
nanobots as "sci fi," insisting there is "common agreement among scientists that they
cannot exist." So let's suppose Smalley and Roco are wrong, and such nanobots are
possible. How dangerous would self-replicating nanobots be? One of the ironies of the
debate over regulation of nanotechnology is that it was nanotech boosters like Drexler who
first worried about such risks. To address potential dangers such as the uncontrolled self-
replication envisioned in his gray goo scenario, Drexler and others founded the Foresight
Institute in 1989. Over the years, Foresight devised a set of guidelines aimed at preventing
mishaps like a gray goo breakout. Among other things, the Foresight guidelines propose
that nanotech replicators "must not be capable of replication in a natural, uncontrolled
environment." This could be accomplished, the guidelines suggest, by designing devices so
that they have an "absolute dependence on a single artificial fuel source or artificial 'vitamins'
that don't exist in any natural environment." So if some replicators should get away, they
would simply run down when they ran out of fuel. Another proposal is that self-replicating
nanotech devices be "dependent on broadcast transmissions for replication or in some cases
operation." That would put human operators in complete control of the circumstances under
which nanotech devices could replicate. One other sensible proposal is that devices be
programmed with termination dates. Like senescent cells in the human body, such devices
would stop working and self-destruct when their time was up. "The moratorium is not a new
proposal," says Foresight Institute President Christine Peterson. "Eric Drexler considered that
idea a long time ago in The Engines of Creation and dismissed it as not a safe option. With a
moratorium, we, the good guys, are going to be sitting on our hands. It's very risky to let
the bad [people] guys be the ones developing the technology. To do arms control on
nanotechnology, you'd better have better nanotechnology than the bad guys." Software
entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil is confident that nanotech defenses against uncontrolled
replication will be stronger than the abilities to replicate. Citing our current ability to
reduce computer viruses to nuisances, Kurzweil argues that we will be even more vigilant
against a technology that could kill if uncontrolled. Smalley suggests we can learn how to
control nanotech by looking at biology. The natural world is filled with self-replicating
systems. In a sense, living things are "green goo." We already successfully defend ourselves
against all kinds of self-replicating organisms that try to kill us, such as cholera, malaria,
and typhoid. "What do we do about biological systems right now?" says Smalley. "I don't see
that it's any different from biotechnology. We can make bacteria and viruses that have never
existed before, and we'll handle [nanobots] the same way." Nanotech theorist Robert Freitas
has written a study, "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorons Nanoreplicators With
Public Policy Recommendations" which concludes that all "scenarios examined appear to
permit early detection by vigilant monitoring, thus enabling rapid deployment of
71
effective defensive instrumentalities." Freitas persuasively argues that dangerous self-
replicating nanobots could not emerge from laboratory accidents but would have to be
made on purpose using very sophisticated technologies that would take years to develop.
72
Federal Government key to Aerospace

Federal support of aerospace is vital to aerospace leadership
The federal government plays a key role in promoting the health of the U.S. aerospace industry.
Maintaining global aerospace leadership to ensure America’s military preeminence, guarantee homeland
security, and assure economic growth and a superior quality of life for our citizens in the 21st century
requires government activism. Aerospace provides the fastest, safest, most flexible and often the only
means of travel and security. A coherent and integrated national aerospace consensus is critical to move
the country forward, drive government action, and preserve U.S. global aerospace leadership.
The federal government has called on the aerospace industry in time of crisis in the past. The aerospace
industry has always responded when called. Today, the U.S. aerospace industry is in jeopardy and is
looking to the federal govern-ment to respond. The Commission is not asking for the federal government
to create industrial policy, to pick winners and losers, or to subsidize the development of commercial
aerospace products and services. But, the federal government must recognize that its interactions with
industry are key to its strength and long-term survival and, ultimately, to the security and economic
prosperity of America.
Objective: Government—Flexible, Responsive and Oriented Towards Decision Making
The health of the aerospace industry, today and in the future, is inextricably linked to the leadership of the
federal government. Its interaction with the U.S. aerospace industry is vast, complex, and multi-
dimensional. In the rapidly changing global econ-omy, government leadership must be increasingly
flexible, responsive and oriented toward decisionmaking at macro-levels. It must prioritize and promote
aerospace both within the government and in its interaction’s with the industry in order to realize the
fullest potential of aerospace to the nation.
• As a leader, the government must provide the national policies and investments needed for the industry to
be competitive, to be innovative and to serve the public good both in the short and long term.
• As a customer and operator, the government must buy, use and provide the finest aerospace products and
services for the public good, such as for national defense, homeland security, air transportation and
science.
73
The lack of R&D funding for aerospace is crushing U.S. development – federal spending is vital
Commercial Research and Development Funding. Although we are ahead of other countries in investment
in military technology and capability, we are on the edge of dropping out of the race in the civil sector.
Instead of continuing to invest, our gov-ernment has increasingly pulled back from the civil aerospace
market and left it up to U.S. companies to compete against competitors subsidized by governments that
have “not stopped running.” The U.S. government historically has limited civil aerospace technology-
related funding to basic research, creating enabling technologies and sharing the results with U.S. and non-
U.S. companies. We have left it up to the compa-nies to integrate these technologies into commercial
products.
NASA spending for aerospace research has declined in recent years, resulting in fewer and less robust
programs. NASA rotorcraft research was eliminated entirely in Fiscal Year 2002. In those projects that
remain, the U.S. government is cutting off funding at earlier stages of technologydevelopment as a cost-
saving measure. FAA R&D funding has remained flat in recent years in the midst of plans to completely
overhaul our air traffic control system. These budgets are likely to decline in the near future as FAA diverts
funding from all areas to aviation security.
Starved of funds, the U.S. government research and development infrastructure is deteriorating as well.
Some NASA research facilities have closed, while others are saddled with an aging infrastructure and
declining number of programs. In fact, the percentage of the budget NASA must spend on maintaining
aging infrastructure has increased over the last ten years, dis- placing money intended to be spent on other
aspects of the research programs.
Instead of increasing private funding for basic R&D, U.S. industry spending has fallen off too. Because
companies contribute money and resources when they participate in government-funded R&D projects, a
reduction in federal funding is matched by a corresponding decrease in industry funding. Companies have
little incentive to fund basic research on their own because capital markets and stockholders shy away from
risky investments with indeterminate returns
74
SSP Key to reduce Launch Costs

Space based power is vital to expanding space launch services
Mankins, 8 - president of the Space Power Association, and former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies,
Office of Space Flight at NASA (John, Ad Astra, “Inexhaustible Energy from Orbit” Spring 2008, pg. 20,
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf)
At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in
space. More ambitious missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of
energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism and
manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as they do on progress in
space transportation.
SSP will create sufficient demand to reduce launch costs
Ashworth, 08 - Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society (Stephen, The Space Review, “In defense of
the knights”, 6/23, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1)
One of the leading spaceplane companies in the UK is Reaction Engines, based in Culham in Oxfordshire.
Here, there has been major progress in developing a revolutionary new combined jet-rocket engine, thanks
to £5 million (US$10 million) of private investment. Alan Bond, its founder and managing director,
recently told me that the British government is now more supportive of their work than it has been for
decades.
The Skylon orbital spaceplane that the company is promoting is a direct successor to the British Aerospace
Hotol project of the 1980s. It should be capable of carrying at least 10 tonnes of payload in a standardized
container to the orbital altitude of the ISS. The economics of the design depend upon the production of
dozens of vehicles, each with a lifetime of around 200 return flights to orbit. As well as new engines, the
design incorporates a breakthrough in overall layout, with the engines mounted on stubby wings midway
along the fuselage, aircraft-style, rather than the more usual spaceplane design in which they are attached at
the rear, creating huge problems of balancing the vehicle in atmospheric flight.
That fact that a vehicle such as this might not be available until the 2020s is irrelevant. The prototype SSP
system proposed in the NSSO study’s Appendix B would be launched using a “large-lot purchase” of
expendable launch vehicles (p. B-4). SSP will therefore not really be in the market to buy cheap spaceplane
flights to orbit until the 2020s in any case. A substantial demonstrator can be launched before the
economics have been solved.
Appendix C of the NSSO study analyses the business case for SSP. It notes that launch cost is the single
most important factor in the economics of SSP, and that increased demand for launch to orbit could lead to
a virtuous cycle of cost improvement. Obviously, as Day says, the present-day economic case for SSP is
“abysmal”.
But factor in a growing space tourism industry moving along its own cost-volume development curve, a
government-funded SSP demonstrator to provide confidence that there will be large-scale launch activity in
the 2020s, and increasing pressure on oil, coal, and gas, and the economics could soon look very different.
75
China Add-ON
A. US- Sino Space War coming- The Chinese will threaten US space power with
Sino-US war
Griffin and Lin, 8 - Research Assistant, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins
University
(Christopher Griffin and Joseph Lin, Armed Forces Journal, “China’s Space Ambitions” April 8, 2008,
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27772/pub_detail.asp)
The impetus behind China's drive toward developing military space capabilities lies within the Chinese
military's view of future warfare, with the U.S. as its most likely adversary. The Chinese military, known as
the People's Liberation Army (PLA), has been obsessed with information-age warfare ever since the U.S.
leveraged its space-based C4ISR systems to eradicate Saddam Hussein's military during the 1990-1991
Gulf War. One Chinese military commentator noted with awe afterward: "The United States deployed three
defense communications satellites, established 128 defense satellite communications terminals and built an
ultra-high frequency network before the assembling of allied troops."
Indeed, the American advantage in the area of military satellites presents the Chinese government with
what it recognizes as an asymmetric disadvantage. The U.S. is so dominant in this sphere of military
competition that it seems impossible to win a head-to-head competition. Faced with this dilemma, the
People's Liberation Army has developed a two-pronged response that invests in both its own space assets
and in anti-satellite capabilities with which to disrupt American space dominance.
Even if the PLA believes it cannot compete directly with American space power, the necessity to invest in
space assets is by no means wasted in Beijing. The Chinese military is developing aerospace networks in
pursuit of the technological advantages that the U.S. has come to expect during wartime. A 2004 article
printed in the People's Liberation Army Daily stated: "Information dominance cannot be separated from
space dominance. We can say that seizing space dominance is the root for winning the informationalized
war." Indeed, the U.S. Defense Department reports that China plans to launch some 17 satellites in 2008 in
an ambitious bid to have a fully indigenous satellite fleet by 2010.
But even as China deepens its own reliance on space-based assets in support of military operations,
policymakers in Beijing are fixated on the deficit they face in a conflict with the U.S. and the concomitant
requirement to challenge American space power. One PLA analyst recently argued that in modern wars,
"seizing space dominance has already become a vital part of seizing information dominance, from which
one can then retain the active position in the war." In a less-subtle argument for the use of offensive
capabilities in space, another PLA officer recently proclaimed that China requires ASAT capabilities for
"destroying, damaging and interfering with the enemy's observation and communications satellites."
76
B. A Chinese attack on US satellites would devastate the satellites of all other

nations, make space unusable for thousands of years, devastate the world’s
economy, and slowdown responses to humanitarian crisis’s.
Forden, 8—An M.I.T. research associate and a former UN weapons inspector and strategic weapons
analyst Congressional Budget Office
(Geoffrey, PhD, “How China Loses the Coming Space War”, 1-10-08,
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html#more)
But if the short term military consequences to the United States are not that bad, the long term
consequences to all space-faring nations would be devastating. The destruction of the nine satellites hit
during the first hour of the attack considered here could put over 18,900 new pieces of debris over four
inches in diameter into the most populated belt of satellites in low Earth orbit. Even more debris would be
put into geostationary orbit if China launched an attack against communications satellites. In the
immediate aftermath of the attack, the debris from each satellite would continue to “clump” together, much
as the debris from last year’s test. However, over the next year or so—well after the terrestrial war with
China had been resolved—the debris fields would fan out and eventually strike another satellite. These
debris fields could easily cause a run-away chain of collisions that renders space unusable -- for thousands
of years, and for everyone. Not only is this a quickly growing and important sector of the world’s economy
(sales of GPS receivers alone reportedly exceeds $20 billion annually), but space is also used for
humanitarian missions such as forecasting floods in Bangladesh or droughts in Africa. We cannot allow
space to be forever barred to our use for what turns out to be a very minor military advantage. If the
military utility of attacks in space are so minor; if the active defense of space assets is impractical,
counterproductive, and unnecessary; and if the danger resulting from the consequent debris affects all
space-faring nations for thousands of years to come, it is clear that diplomacy is in every country's interest.
C. War with China leads to Extinction

Chalmers Johnson, Chairman of the Center of Chinese Studies at UofC Berkley and President of the
Japan Policy Research Institute, May 14 2001.. “Time to Bring the Troops Home.” The Nation
[Bapodra[
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US
militarists know that China's nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US
power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan,
whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous
place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no
one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that
neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a
Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself
against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. Since any
Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's
sovereignty, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
77
D. Maintaining aerospace superiority is key to prevent Sino-US war

University
After a decade of fighting the tide, it appears that American attempts to frustrate China's growing military
space capabilities have reached a critical point of failure. This dilemma has no easy solution. A
combination of European arms manufacturers and aerospace firms appear to have decided to provide China
with arms and dual-use technology so long as they can avoid providing Beijing with the lethal tip of its
military hardware. Faced with this defeat, the U.S. must retake the initiative in its dealings with both the
Chinese and the Europeans in this critical matter.
In its relationship with China, the U.S. must recognize that the militarization of space inspires the most
revisionist elements of Chinese strategy. Beijing appears to have made the long-term decision that it is in a
struggle with the U.S. over a variety of security issues in East Asia and that preparing for potential military
conflict will require the ability to cripple the U.S. military satellite system.
There should be opportunities to engage China on military space issues, even if it has already made this
fundamental calculation. It would be worthwhile to develop a Sino-American strategic dialogue on space in
which the U.S. could explain its self-imposed restrictions on the militarization of space, and how more
provocative steps by China may result in the erosion of those restrictions. Such a dialogue would also
provide the U.S. with the opportunity to present nonsensitive areas for cooperation, such as the
standardization of spacecraft docking hatches, a move that helped to decrease tensions during the Cold
War. Likewise, as China's military lawyers analyze the terms under which the PLA could conduct ASAT
and other space operations against the U.S., Washington should demarcate some red lines for Chinese
behavior.
Further, recognizing the potential for long-term competition with China over the future control of space, the
U.S. must take steps to mitigate its potential losses and guarantee that it retains escalation superiority in any
future conflict. Investing in a hardened, robust satellite system is the obvious first step in any such effort.
Developing redundancy through additional layers or C4ISR capabilities is another necessary step in this
regard. Rapid improvements in unmanned aerial vehicles promise to facilitate such an effort, and would
push the Sino-American competition to a cutting-edge field in which the U.S. retains a clear technological
lead.
78
China War coming

The Chinese will threaten US space power with Sino-US war
University
The impetus behind China's drive toward developing military space capabilities lies within the Chinese
military's view of future warfare, with the U.S. as its most likely adversary. The Chinese military, known as
the People's Liberation Army (PLA), has been obsessed with information-age warfare ever since the U.S.
leveraged its space-based C4ISR systems to eradicate Saddam Hussein's military during the 1990-1991
Gulf War. One Chinese military commentator noted with awe afterward: "The United States deployed three
defense communications satellites, established 128 defense satellite communications terminals and built an
ultra-high frequency network before the assembling of allied troops."
Indeed, the American advantage in the area of military satellites presents the Chinese government with
what it recognizes as an asymmetric disadvantage. The U.S. is so dominant in this sphere of military
competition that it seems impossible to win a head-to-head competition. Faced with this dilemma, the
People's Liberation Army has developed a two-pronged response that invests in both its own space assets
and in anti-satellite capabilities with which to disrupt American space dominance.
Even if the PLA believes it cannot compete directly with American space power, the necessity to invest in
space assets is by no means wasted in Beijing. The Chinese military is developing aerospace networks in
pursuit of the technological advantages that the U.S. has come to expect during wartime. A 2004 article
printed in the People's Liberation Army Daily stated: "Information dominance cannot be separated from
space dominance. We can say that seizing space dominance is the root for winning the informationalized
war." Indeed, the U.S. Defense Department reports that China plans to launch some 17 satellites in 2008 in
an ambitious bid to have a fully indigenous satellite fleet by 2010.
But even as China deepens its own reliance on space-based assets in support of military operations,
policymakers in Beijing are fixated on the deficit they face in a conflict with the U.S. and the concomitant
requirement to challenge American space power. One PLA analyst recently argued that in modern wars,
"seizing space dominance has already become a vital part of seizing information dominance, from which
one can then retain the active position in the war." In a less-subtle argument for the use of offensive
capabilities in space, another PLA officer recently proclaimed that China requires ASAT capabilities for
"destroying, damaging and interfering with the enemy's observation and communications satellites."
79
China is already challenging U.S. space dominance in the status quo
Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, 2007, Independent Working Group, “Missile
Defense, The Space Relationship, and the 21st Century”, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.
China has also begun to erode American space dominance. In the wake of its successful October 200
launch of the Shenzhou V spacecraft, Beijing is developing advanced military capabilities as part of an
exoatmospheric “deterrent” force even while Beijing warns against any U.S. weaponization of space.
China’s emerging space force will include both lasers and missiles capable of destroying satellites. It will
incorporate- rate the PRC’s Dongfeng 31, Dongfeng 41, and Julang 2 medium- and long-range missiles.
China has also developed a range of “nanosatellite” technologies for space warfare, apparently for the
purpose of crippling American space assets.5 Other Chinese advances in space include the Ziyuan 1 and
Ziyuan 2 remote-sensing satellites and the development, through a joint venture between China’s Tsinghua
University and the United Kingdom’s University of Surrey, of a constellation of seven minisatellites
(weighing between 101 and 500 kilograms) with 50-meter-resolution remote-sensing payloads. Notably,
Beijing launched the Shenzhou VI in October 2005, marking the second successful Chinese manned
spacelight.
80
U.S.-SINO Space War Impacts

Chinese attack on US satellites leads to massive US nuclear retaliation
The United States has five satellites in geostationary orbit that detect missile launches using the heat
released from their exhaust plumes. These satellites are primarily used to alert US nuclear forces to
massive nuclear attacks on the homeland. However, in recent years, they have played an increasing role in
conventional conflicts, such as both Gulf Wars, by cueing tactical missile defenses like the Patriot missile
defense systems that gained fame in their engagements with Saddam’s SCUD missiles. Because of this
new use, China might find it useful to attack them with ASATs. Since there are only five of them, China
could destroy the entire constellation but at the cost of diverting some of the few available deep-space
ASATs from other targets. Of course, China would not have to attack all five but could limit its attack to
the three that simultaneously view the Taiwan Straits area. If China did decide to destroy these early
warning satellites, it would greatly reduce the area covered by US missile defenses in Taiwan against
SCUD and longer range missiles. This is because the area covered by a theater missile defense system is
highly dependent on the warning time it has; the greater the warning time, the more effective the missile
defense system’s radar is. Thus a Patriot battery, which might ordinarily cover the capital of Taiwan, could
be reduced to just defending the military base it was stationed at. Some analysts believe that China would
gain a tremendous propaganda coup by having a single missile make it through US defenses and thus might
consider this use of its deep-space ASATs highly worthwhile even if it could not increase the probability of
destroying military targets. On the other hand, China would run a tremendous risk of the US believing it
was under a more general nuclear attack if China did destroy these early warning satellites. Throughout the
history of the Cold War, the US has had a policy of only launching a “retaliatory” nuclear strike if an
incoming attack is detected by both early warning satellites and radars. Without the space leg of the early
warning system, the odds of the US misinterpreting some missile launch that it detected with radar as a
nuclear attack would be greatly increased even if the US did not view the satellite destruction as a
sufficiently threatening attack all by themselves. Such a misinterpretation is not without precedent. In
1995, Russia’s early warning radars viewed a NASA sounding rocket launch off the coast of Norway and
flagged it as a possible Trident missile launch. Many analysts believe that Russia was able to not respond
only because it had a constellation of functioning early warning satellites. Any Chinese attacks on US
early warning satellites would risk both intentional and mistaken escalation of the conflict into a nuclear
war without a clear military goal.
81
A Chinese attack on US satellites would devastate the satellites of all other nations, make space
unusable for thousands of years, devastate the world’s economy, and slowdown responses to
humanitarian crisis’s.
But if the short term military consequences to the United States are not that bad, the long term
consequences to all space-faring nations would be devastating. The destruction of the nine satellites hit
during the first hour of the attack considered here could put over 18,900 new pieces of debris over four
inches in diameter into the most populated belt of satellites in low Earth orbit. Even more debris would be
put into geostationary orbit if China launched an attack against communications satellites. In the
immediate aftermath of the attack, the debris from each satellite would continue to “clump” together, much
as the debris from last year’s test. However, over the next year or so—well after the terrestrial war with
China had been resolved—the debris fields would fan out and eventually strike another satellite. These
debris fields could easily cause a run-away chain of collisions that renders space unusable -- for thousands
of years, and for everyone. Not only is this a quickly growing and important sector of the world’s economy
(sales of GPS receivers alone reportedly exceeds $20 billion annually), but space is also used for
humanitarian missions such as forecasting floods in Bangladesh or droughts in Africa. We cannot allow
space to be forever barred to our use for what turns out to be a very minor military advantage. If the
military utility of attacks in space are so minor; if the active defense of space assets is impractical,
counterproductive, and unnecessary; and if the danger resulting from the consequent debris affects all
space-faring nations for thousands of years to come, it is clear that diplomacy is in every country's interest.
82
Plan Solves China’s energy needs

SSP is key to meeting Chinese energy demand and preventing economic collapse and war
Dinnerman, 07 (Taylor, “China, the US, and space solar power,” 10/22,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)
Now that the National Security Space Office’s (NSSO) space solar power study has been released and
shows that the technology is well within America’s grasp, a set of decisions have to be made concerning
how the US government should proceed. The idea that the government should fund a series of
demonstration projects, as the study recommends, is a good place to start. Another aspect should be to
study the impact that this technology will have on the political and economic future of the world.
The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power
status. Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest danger to
China’s future prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According to an International
Energy Agency estimate, demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from
2003 and 2025.
China is already experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the
provinces of Jiangsu and Zhijiang and contributes almost 20% of China’s GDP, faced capacity shortages of
four to five gigawatts during peak summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new
power sources, including dam building and new coal-fired power plants, China’s economic growth is
outstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to keep it going.
While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership is
certainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another
Communist superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not
without strong safety measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build.
Wind power and terrestrial solar power will not be able to contribute much to meeting China’s demand and
certainly not without government subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to
provide.
At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be
almost certainly unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external
pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economic
growth would stall and they would face a massive recession.
Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global
repercussions would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to
generate enough clean energy to satisfy China’s mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. The
capital costs for such systems are gigantic, but when compared with both future power demands and
considering the less-than-peaceful alternative scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain.
For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the ability of private US or multinational firms to
offer China a reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive price would allow China to continue its
economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful world power structure. China would have to build
the receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this would be fairly easy for
them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe when the
NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project.
Experiments have demonstrated, at least on a small scale, that such receivers are safe and that cows and
crops can coexist with them. However, there are persistent doubts and it would be wise to plan for a world
in which rectenna placement on land will be as politically hard as putting up a new wind farm or even a
nuclear power plant.
China, like its neighbors Japan and Korea, has a land shortage problem. This may seem odd when one
looks at a map, but the highly productive industrial regions of China are confined to a limited coastal area.
These areas also overlap with some of the nation’s most fertile agricultural lands. Conflicts caused by hard
choices between land use for factories and housing and for food production are now common.
Building the rectennas at sea would help alleviate some of these disputes. China and its neighbors could
83
compete to see who could build the most robust and cost-effective sea-based rectennas. They would also be
able to export these large systems: a system that can survive the typhoons in the South China Sea can also
handle the monsoons of the Bay of Bengal or the hurricanes of the Caribbean.
In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be many
years before they can realistically contemplate building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let
alone a lunar-based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land
on the Moon before the US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel
manufacturing facility up there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated.
If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent
considerable sums over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages
described in the NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for
international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Information
about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily accessible.
Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of the
major spacefaring nations, including China.
Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when
China, India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they
now see the West enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives.
Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physics
and politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these
nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative that this country be able to fulfill that
worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is in everyone’s interest.
84
Solar power is the only way that the future can have a reliable energy source, China
especially will be dependant on this technology and the US capturing it would avoid
a catastrophic energy war.
Dinerman, 2007 (Taylor Dinerman, Author and Journalist based in NYC, October 22, 2007, “China, the
US, and Space Solar Power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)
Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get as China and other nations
attain Western lifestyles. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-
scale alternatives. In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own
space technology, it will be many years before they can realistically contemplate building the
off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-based system. Even if NASA
administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the US
gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel manufacturing facility up
there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated. If the US were to invest in space-based
solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the
years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages described in the
NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for
international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international
transparency. Information about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the
ISS, should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the
Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of the major spacefaring nations,
including China. Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get,
especially in about fifty years when China, India, and other rising powers find their
populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West enjoying.
Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. Other
sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both
physics and politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to
satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative that
this country be able to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war
over energy is in everyone’s interest.
85
Maintaining aerospace superiority is key to prevent Sino-US war
University
After a decade of fighting the tide, it appears that American attempts to frustrate China's growing military
space capabilities have reached a critical point of failure. This dilemma has no easy solution. A
combination of European arms manufacturers and aerospace firms appear to have decided to provide China
with arms and dual-use technology so long as they can avoid providing Beijing with the lethal tip of its
military hardware. Faced with this defeat, the U.S. must retake the initiative in its dealings with both the
Chinese and the Europeans in this critical matter.
In its relationship with China, the U.S. must recognize that the militarization of space inspires the most
revisionist elements of Chinese strategy. Beijing appears to have made the long-term decision that it is in a
struggle with the U.S. over a variety of security issues in East Asia and that preparing for potential military
conflict will require the ability to cripple the U.S. military satellite system.
There should be opportunities to engage China on military space issues, even if it has already made this
fundamental calculation. It would be worthwhile to develop a Sino-American strategic dialogue on space in
which the U.S. could explain its self-imposed restrictions on the militarization of space, and how more
provocative steps by China may result in the erosion of those restrictions. Such a dialogue would also
provide the U.S. with the opportunity to present nonsensitive areas for cooperation, such as the
standardization of spacecraft docking hatches, a move that helped to decrease tensions during the Cold
War. Likewise, as China's military lawyers analyze the terms under which the PLA could conduct ASAT
and other space operations against the U.S., Washington should demarcate some red lines for Chinese
behavior.
Further, recognizing the potential for long-term competition with China over the future control of space, the
U.S. must take steps to mitigate its potential losses and guarantee that it retains escalation superiority in any
future conflict. Investing in a hardened, robust satellite system is the obvious first step in any such effort.
Developing redundancy through additional layers or C4ISR capabilities is another necessary step in this
regard. Rapid improvements in unmanned aerial vehicles promise to facilitate such an effort, and would
push the Sino-American competition to a cutting-edge field in which the U.S. retains a clear technological
lead.
86
If the U.S. fails to develop a more competitive aerospace industry, they will lose the space race to
China
Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers; Director of International Policy (Owen E., “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S.
Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201, 04-14-08,
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html)
China is likely to be the largest customer—and possibly an emerging competitor—of the U.S. aerospace
industry in the future. China's aerospace manufacturing base is enormous. U.S. companies (and European
companies to a lesser extent) have successfully partnered with Chinese companies that provide components
or parts for a number of commercial aerospace programs. However, China also is seeking to become a
world-class prime commercial aerospace manufacturing industrial base, both through indigenous
development programs and joint ventures with non-Chinese companies. (U.S. Department of Commerce
2005b, xii)
In testimony in 2001, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) singled
out China for developing an effective industrial policy in an effort to create its own aerospace industry. It
noted in its testimony that the U.S. International Trade Commission had already found with respect to
China, "…the nation's aviation sector intends to pursue a principal role in commercial aircraft
manufacturing."11
During a 1998 visit to China to tour aerospace facilities, IAM participants observed the country's enormous
aerospace capacity.12 China's aviation industry "consists of more than 200 enterprises that produce and
manufacture products such as aircraft, turboprop engines, aircraft components and subsystems, helicopters,
industrial gas turbines, and various electromechanical products" (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b,
58). China's huge industrial capacity has been noted by other observers as well.13 For example, one
research group notes that in China there are six companies devoted to "airframe assembly," eight "engine"
companies, 28 entities involved with "components," and 20 "research institutes."14 The two leading aircraft
companies in China (China Aviation Industry Corporation I [AVIC I] and Aviation Industry Corporation II
[AVIC II]) "and their subsidiaries have about 491,000 employees" (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b,
5815). How did China develop such a huge capacity for aerospace production? While there are many
different and related methods China uses, a significant one is offsets.16 As globalization critic Jeff Faux
said in testimony to Congress, "China is one of the most aggressive countries in pursuing offsets
agreements and, with its market potential and minimal labor standards, it has substantial leverage in
negotiating these agreements" (Faux 2002). And as a business person told the Wall Street Journal, "they're
interested in having total access to technology…."17
Of particular concern to the United States is the huge involvement of Boeing in China, an involvement the
company acknowledges. According to its Web site: "Boeing procurement from China is significantly
greater than other aviation companies" (Boeing 2007). According to company summaries: Since the 1980s,
Boeing has purchased more than $1 billion in aviation hardware and services from China. Approximately
4,500 Boeing airplanes with parts and assemblies built by China are flying throughout the world today.
Boeing and Boeing supplier partners have active supplier contracts with China's aviation industry valued at
well over $2.5 billion (Boeing 2007). A detailed listing illustrating Boeing's extensive procurement
activities, production work, and supplier involvement in China appears in the appendix. According to a
news report, "Boeing is expanding its relationship with China through plans to double its annual purchases
from Chinese companies over the next six years to more than $1 billion per year by 2010" (U.S.
Department of Commerce 2005b, 59, citing Business Daily Update, "Boeing Seeks Higher-Level
Cooperation With Chinese Suppliers"). Boeing is, of course, just one of many aerospace companies
investing in China's aerospace industry; another is Boeing's chief rival, Airbus. As quoted in The Australian
("Airbus Enlists China," June 14, 2004), Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard explained his company's
philosophy with respect to China: "Airbus is not only selling aircraft in China but is also committed to the
long-term development of China's aviation industry." The Australian also reported that parts of the A380
will be produced in China:
European aircraft maker Airbus has subcontracted a state-owned Chinese manufacturer to make parts for its
super-jumbo A380 plane, in a deal worth about $170 million. China Aviation Corp. I (AVIC I) will make
panels for A380 nose-landing gear….China's Shenyang Aircraft Corp., affiliated with AVIC I, would also
be subcontracted to make A330/A340 forward-cargo door projects….Five Chinese companies are now
87
making parts for Airbus.
The New York Times reported that Airbus is committed "to buy at least $60 million yearly in parts from
China by 2007, rising to $120 million yearly by 2010."18
According to other news reports, China will "build wing boxes for Airbus" in a $500 million deal,19 and
Airbus and China have agreed on "a $9 billion order…for 150 narrow-body A320 aircraft, and said they
would study the possibility of building a final assembly line for the aircraft in China."20 That study
apparently produced positive results; as stated in an Airbus press release ("Joint Venture Contract Signed
for the A320 Family Final Assembly Line in Tianjin," June 28, 2007): "The FAL [final assembly line] in
Tianjin will be based on the latest state-of-the-art Airbus single-aisle final assembly line in Hamburg,
Germany. The aircraft will be assembled and delivered in China to the same standards as those assembled
and delivered in Europe." The significance of such a development cannot be overstated: "the memorandum
of understanding between China's National Development and Reform Commission and Airbus…meant that
China was likely to become only the third country assembling Airbus aircraft, after France and
Germany."21 Brazil's aerospace industry is also teaming up with China. "In order to supply its domestic
market while continuing to learn how to assemble a modern, complete aircraft to Western standards, two
AVIC-II companies teamed with Embraer…in 2002 for co-production of their regional jet (ERJ-145) in
Harbin" (Andersen 2008).
Eurocopter, a subsidy of EADS, is also involved with China's aerospace industry. "France's Eurocopter and
Singapore Technologies Aerospace have signed with Hafei Aviation, a listed arm of one of China's top
military contractors, to make helicopters for domestic civil use."22China's aerospace industry is apparently
not content to maintain its current level of success. According to news reports, "China is likely to start
developing its own large aircraft rather than rely solely on foreign giants Boeing and Airbus…."23 The
country recently announced that it would be entering the large civil aircraft industry in the next 20 years,24
and, according to news reports, much of the success of this effort depends on the transfer of production and
technology from other countries, presumably in the form of outsourcing and offsets from U.S. and other
aerospace companies. And according to a report in Jane's Defence Weekly, "China is developing a new
stealthy fighter jet aircraft and many of the design concepts and components have already been
created….This new aircraft is the first Eastern rival to the West's F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter to be put into development…."25
China's aerospace industry may even be expanding to space. In an article headlined "The Next Space Race:
China Heads to the Stars," the New York Times (January 22, 2004) raises the possibility of a space race
with China, noting: The Chinese plan to send more astronauts into space next year, to launch a Moon probe
within three years, and are aiming to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon by 2010…. Will the U.S.
aerospace industry remain the strongest in the world? As other countries implement industrial policies
based on outsourcing and offsets, the question becomes more urgent. Moves by countries like China to
implement industrial policies targeting U.S. leadership in such essential industries as aerospace call for a
response by U.S. policy makers. Even if China's aerospace industry remains behind that of the United
States, it is poised to contribute to growing global competition. It has the capacity, skilled workforce, and
the will to make this a reality. The virtually unregulated world of offsets only exacerbates this situation.
While the U.S. government continues a hands-off approach to this market-distorting scheme, other
countries are giving their companies significant backing based on well-developed industrial policies
88
Surveillance Prevents Genocide and Nuke War
Surveillance through space is vital to preventing genocide and nuclear war
Schwab, 06 - security strategist at the University of Zurich (Martin, “Alternative Strategic Approaches to
Space”, http://beyondearth.org/pdfs/beyond-earth-ch-34.pdf)
* Human to human violence. Surveillance satellites, in addition to monitoring Earth's natural sub-systems
can aid human intelligence efforts around our world in preventing nuclear attack. This form of violence is
designed to spawn terror among the global civilian population, serving the interests of various parochial
political objectives. Sustained genocide and other forms of local intimidation are other recent tools of these
objectives around Earth, of which surveillance satellites are able to provide detailed evidence to a vigilant
global community, willing to take necessary action at a minute's notice.
89
Space Research Solves Diseases
Space research is vital to preventing disease – extinction

Schwab, 06 - security strategist at the University of Zurich (Martin, “Alternative Strategic Approaches to
Space”, http://beyondearth.org/pdfs/beyond-earth-ch-34.pdf)
* Natural and human influenced change to the Earth system. Citizens and their representatives need to
know that we are now winning or losing the battles against multiple threats to human existence, in the
wider war for our progeny. We are now experiencing the effects of climate change around Earth. We are
now experiencing potential pandemics of disease around Earth. We are now experiencing fresh water
scarcity around Earth. We are now experiencing biodiversity decline around Earth. These global threats can
be overcome by an expanded human presence in our solar system, if for no other reason than micro-
evacuation followed by back-population of Earth, in a worst case scenario. Closer to home, continued
medical experimentation aboard the International Space Station (ISS) could potentially yield breakthrough
defenses against SARS, the Ebola virus and AIDS, each of which potentially threatens global civilization,
as we know it.
90
A2: Debris kills Satellites

NASA shields are effective at saving satellites from debris.
Crews, 2k (Jeanne L. “Enhanced shield against meteroids and orbital debris,”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3957/is_200007/ai_n8912801/print?tag=artBody;col1)
NASA scientists, who are very concerned with the increasing hazard of impacts of orbital debris impact on
spacecraft, have designed the "stuffed Whipple" shield - a lightweight, relatively inexpensive alternative to
simple aluminum meteoroid/orbital-debris (M/OD) shield. The stuffed Whipple shield features an easily
adaptable design that increases protection against hypervelocity impacts (HVIs), without significantly
affecting previously formulated designs of spacecraft. The stuffed Whipple shield is critical to the
continued human exploration of space, especially to the Space Station, inasmuch as the Station will be
operating in low orbit around the Earth and will need shielding against HVIs in order to survive intact and
for an appreciable amount of time and continue to safely support human habitation. Scientists project that
the number of HVIs from detritus of artificial objects will increase from 2 to 5 percent per year - an
increase that could produce devastating results.
The design of the stuffed Whipple shield greatly reduces the risk of loss of a spacecraft crew and/or
damage to the spacecraft. It also increases crew efficiency, in that by providing more efficient shielding, it
reduces the frequency of both extravehicular and intravehicular activities EVAs and IVAs to effect repairs
of HVI penetrations of the outer skin of the spacecraft. It is particularly amenable to introduction in the
final or nearly-completed phase of the spacecraft-design effort. The stuffed Whipple shield can be
retrofitted to any extant military or commercial spacecraft.
91
There’s no impact to space debris, empirical data proves its no big deal
The Washington Times, 7 (James Hackett, “Much Ado about Space Debris,” 04-25-07, LN)
<China's deliberate destruction of one of its own satellites in a January test of an anti-satellite (ASAT)
weapon has led to much hand-wringing about the creation of space debris, reinvigorating the opponents of
weapons in space. Orbiting debris is dangerous, but the danger has been greatly exaggerated and is no
reason for new unenforceable arms control agreements.
When the space age began 50 years ago there were no man-made objects in space. Since then, Space
Command has tracked more than 25,000 objects of baseball size or larger. More than 10,000 have fallen
into the atmosphere and disintegrated or landed, but in 50 years not one person anywhere on Earth has been
killed or injured by falling debris.
Space debris is only slightly more likely to strike one of the 850 active spacecraft. Most are in low Earth
orbit below about 800 miles. These operational spacecraft are only 6 percent of the objects tracked. The rest
is space junk that includes inactive satellites, spent rockets, debris from exploding rockets and just plain
trash. Space Command monitors debris to identify threats and alerts operators of satellites to move out of
the way if they appear to be in danger.
Some 80 percent of debris orbits between 500 and 600 miles altitude. The Chinese test, at 527 miles,
created more debris right where traffic is heaviest. Air Force Space Command is tracking more than 1,000
pieces of debris from the Chinese test, plus 14,000 that were there before. So far, none has hit an active
spacecraft. In fact, over the last 50 years there have been only three documented debris impacts with
operational spacecraft, and none have been destroyed.
A Space Command Web site describing the Space Surveillance Network that tracks debris notes there is
only a small amount in the low orbits of the space shuttle and space station, and gives a worst-case estimate
of 1 chance in 10,000 years of a piece of debris of baseball size or larger hitting either one.
Even in the debris-heavy area around 500 miles altitude, Space Command says normally there are only
three or four objects orbiting in an area equivalent to the airspace over the continental United States up to
an altitude of 30,000 feet. Thus, it states, the likelihood of a collision is very small.
Now there are reports U.S. intelligence agencies knew about and monitored Chinese preparations for the
ASAT test, but senior administration officials decided to say nothing to deter Beijing in orderto protect
intelligence methods. That shows that despite the anguish about space debris the creation of more was not
considered a serious danger.
Most debris eventually migrates down and burns up in the atmosphere. The main efforts are to avoid
existing debris, design spacecraft and rockets that will not explode in space, limit the release of debris on
orbit, and at the end of their mission de-orbit satellites or move them to parking orbits where there is little
traffic
92
Solves Prolif
SSP solves nuclear proliferation by eliminating global demand for nuclear power
Preble, 06 – President of the Space Solar Power Institute (Darel, Energy Pulse, “NASA - Wrong mission
for the right stuff,” 6/19, http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1285)
We must demand and meet higher environmental standards and stronger assurances of energy security and
reliability. We must reforge the foundations, direction and charter of America’s energy and space
development policies toward SSP construction - the only long-term solution for these many problems.
Some have suggested nuclear power is the clean safe solution:
“Britain’s recent and comprehensive Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) reports that doubling
their nuclear capacity would make little impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. Some say nuclear is
a more secure source of energy than hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. Proponents say it could
generate large quantities of electricity while helping to stabilize carbon dioxide CO2 emissions. But the
SDC report concluded that the serious risks of nuclear energy outweighed its advantages.
Research by the SDC suggests that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only
provide an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010).
No long-term solutions for the storage of nuclear waste are yet available, says the SDC, and storage
presents clear safety issues.
Cleaning up UK’s 16 nuclear plants could cost more than £70Bn ($US130Bn), according to the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA).
If the UK brings forward a new nuclear programme, it becomes more difficult to deny other countries
access to nuclear energy technology.
Our Cold War drill of nuclear brinksmanship has not been solved; instead the nuclear battle has infected
other nations and the energy front, notably Iran and North Korea, with China and other nations not far
behind. Until we can successfully point to a better answer, which is SSP, we will fail to stop the spread of
nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, nuclear health issues, escalating nuclear fuel worries, and soaring nuclear
decommissioning costs, as the Brits are now struggling just to measure. Nuclear power is not the answer to
our critical need for safe clean baseload energy. The real answer is that nuclear power plant 93 million
miles away, our sun:
With Space Solar Power,Nuclear waste problemsNuclear fuel supply worriesNuclear proliferation
problemsNuclear decommissioning costsEvaporate …
<Insert Utgoff 2>
93
NASA Trade-off/ Credibility Add-on

NASA’s credibility is low now because of failed shuttle attempts and misplaced goals, putting funding
for key programs at risk. a new initiative would solve.
David, 2006 (Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “Space Shuttle: NASA’s Risky, High-Stakes Gamble,”
June 28, 2006)
NASA credibility and space funding "In truth, the problems that NASA continues to experience with
its shuttle and the International Space Station program--really the only reason the shuttle is still flying--
goes back at least to the Challenger disaster in 1986," Pelton said. Two major national space
commissions back then--one looking into the Challenger accident, the other delving into the future of
the American space program--noted that the shuttle was indeed becoming "obsolescent" and that it had
to be replaced by another vehicle within at least 15 years, or 2001, Pelton noted. "Instead of developing
alternative plans for the launch of International Space Station components in smaller and more modular
parts at that time," Pelton said, "NASA pushed ahead without developing a new vehicle, nor developing
a back-up plan. Now, not only is NASA's credibility and space funding at risk, Pelton continued, but
also at risk are the agency's international partners that are engaged in the $100 billion station program.
"The now 'tar baby-like tandem' of the ISS and the space shuttle has done great harm to space programs
around the world." NASA has over-invested in both the shuttle and station initiatives, Pelton said,
taking away money from programs that truly matter to the United States and indeed the world.
The credibility NASA needs to continue it’s programs is gone because of bureaucratic scandals.
Anthis, 2006 (Nick Anthis, Journalist, February 8, 2006)
NASA Science Censor Resigns For a president that paints himself as a champion of national security,
the NASA incident is a major blow to Bush’s credibility. This isn’t the first time either, with George
Deutsch now joining the ranks of Michael Brown, the embattled former director of FEMA, and Harriet
Myers, Bush’s Supreme Court nominee who was subsequently withdrawn. Congratulations, Deutsch,
this is a pretty elite circle! The NASA censorship scandal was originally about partisan figures
compromising the science, and it still is, but now it’s also about something much deeper and much
more troubling. I don’t know how many others there are out there like Deutsch, but it shouldn’t be hard
to find out. Journalists, it’s time to make some phone calls! In the meantime, NASA needs the authority
to remove the rest of those who are interfering with the scientific process for partisan gains. Although
NASA's credibility has tragically taken a big hit here due to political interference, the real victim is the
science. And, when the science suffers, we are all affected.
94
NASA faces budget cuts that threaten the earth sciences necessary to protect life on
the planet. Empirically, when budget cuts are made, programs like Aura are the
first to go.
House Science Committee 2006

"How Severe Budget Cuts May Threaten the Vitality of NASA Earth Science
Programs" The House Science Committee initiated what may be a series of hearings
that question NASA's plans to cancel or delay a number of Earth Science satellite
missions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, NASA has proposed to spend $1.37 billion for
Earth Science research, a cut n 8% from FY 2005 levels, and a 24% cut in real dollars
from FY 2004, according to Science Committee ranking member Bart Gordon. A day
before the hearing, the National Research Council (NRC) released a report, which
found that tight budgets at NASA and other agencies are threatening the value and
preeminence of U.S. earth observing systems. Concerned with these findings,
committee members called on senior U.S. scientists to offer testimony regarding
NASA's role in meeting future scientific priorities. Committee Chairman Sherwood
Boehlert, Representative Gordon, and other members of Congress have been
concerned that cuts to Earth observing missions are due to NASA's strategic
reorientation around the President's "Vision for Space Exploration." In his opening
remarks, Chairman Boehlert challenged the apparent shift in priorities. "The planet
that has to matter most to us is the one we live on," he said. "You'd think that would
go without saying." Gordon added that under the proposal, Earth Science and
Aeronautic Programs would absorb 75% of the overall cuts that NASA must sustain to
meet tight budget demands. In comparison, exploration programs would only account
for 10% of the overall cuts.
95
NASA’s Aura program is key to understanding and protecting earth’s atmosphere,

preventing extinction.
Ramanujan, 2004 (Krishna Ramanujan, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, 2004)
When people search for conditions that might support life on other planets, one of the
first things they look for is water. Right now, NASA is searching for signs of water on
Mars as a precursor to whether life may have been possible there. But the thin sliver of
gases and air that make an atmosphere around a planet is just as necessary for life to
exist. The atmosphere traps air around our planet, making it possible to breathe and to
have a climate. It also regulates the temperature within a range that allows life to exist,
and our ozone layer blocks life-threatening ultraviolet radiation from the sun from
reaching earth's surface. Earth's atmosphere sustains life in all these ways, and by the
thinnest margins. If a person could cruise at a speed of 60 miles an hour straight up, it
would take just 6 minutes to exit the air we need to survive. Considering the relatively
delicacy of this thin protective film, understanding our atmosphere goes hand in hand
with protecting life as we know it. On June 19, NASA will launch Aura, a next
generation Earth-observing satellite that will make global observations of the ocean of air
that surrounds our planet. Aura will supply the best information yet about the health of
Earth's atmosphere. Answering Key Science Questions Aura will provide an essential
component for understanding changes in our climate, our air quality, and the ozone layer
that protects life from harmful solar radiation. In doing so, it will help answer some
fundamental questions regarding climate change. One question that researchers have
asked is: Is the stratospheric ozone layer recovering? International agreements, like the
Montreal Protocol, have banned ozone destroying chemicals like Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), but scientists are unclear about the effectiveness of these treaties. Aura will
accurately detect global levels of CFCs, and their byproducts, chlorine and bromine,
which destroy the ozone layer. Another question that researchers need more information
to: What are the processes controlling air quality? Aura will help greatly to unravel some
of these mysteries by tracking the sources and processes controlling global and regional
air quality. When ozone exists in the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, it acts as an air
pollutant. Gasoline and diesel engines give off gases in the summer that create ozone and
smog. Aura will help scientists follow the sources of ozone and its precursors. Finally,
Aura will offer insights into the question: How is the Earth's climate changing? As the
composition of Earth's atmosphere changes, so does its ability to absorb, reflect and
retain solar energy. Greenhouse gases, including water vapor, trap heat in the atmosphere.
Airborne aerosols from human and natural sources absorb or reflect solar energy based
on color, shape, size, and substance. The impact of aerosols, tropospheric ozone and
upper tropospheric water vapor on Earth's climate remains largely un-quantified, but now
Aura will have the unique ability to monitor these agents.
96

209 KO Space Affirmative Wave II

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

209 KO Space Affirmative Wave II

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

DDI ’08 Space AFF Wave II

Anuj, Jackie, Matt 1/96

Space Satellite AFF Wave II

A2: States CP- 2AC Frontline

5. Counterplan will be struck down –violations of multiple clauses ensure

6. Turn: Coordination Key:

A. State action risks patchwork regulations deterring investment

B. States never act in coordinated manner on incentives

8. Coordinated national program like NASA key to solvency

10. SBSP should be taken on by NASA

Federal government incentives key 2 SPS

Space Politics Links- Bipart Opposition

Bipartisan opposition to NASA funding

STEWART M. POWELL, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau correspondent, 6/11/2008, “White

Congressional bipart support for space policies

Obama Loves the Plan

Military Lobbies Love The Plan

Space Lobbies Approve

Space Lobbies love the plan

Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 1 (Big Impact)

B. Ineffective response to natural disasters risks new diseases

3. This leads to extinction

Disaster Relief- 2AC Add-On # 2 (Small Impact)

1. Natural disasters are inevitable and getting worse

2. DISASTER RELIEF DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS THE POOR

INHERENCY: DISASTERS COMING NOW

Natural disasters are coming heavier to economy and lives

NATURAL DISASTERS BAD

DISASTER RELIEF DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS THE POOR

Natural disasters put disadvantaged in cycles of poverty

STRAIGHT TURNING ECON DISADS

Natural disasters cost hundreds of billions

World Bank 04 ("Natural Disasters: Counting the Cost March 2, 2004"

TURN OTHER IMPACTS

Disaster Relief- SBSP Solves Disaster Relief

SOLAR SATELLITES ARE KEY TO DISASTER RELIEF

Space based solar satellites key for disaster relief

SPACE SOLAR BEAMS ENERGY KEY TO DISASTER RELIEF

Space solar key to replace disaster relief electricity generators

Department of Energy, April 99 "Counting on solar power for disaster relief"

Space solar power key to disaster relief

Rob Mahan, 07 Citizens for Space Based Solar Power, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/

SBSP key to providing rapid and sustainable disaster relief energy

Space based solar power key to disaster relief response

Government research key to make SBSP viable for disaster relief

Government‐funded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conduct

Aerospace competitiveness is critical to U.S. leadership

Aerospace leadership key to prevent emergence of global powers

Space Mil Now

Countries’ capability of space reach makes militarization inevitable

US militarization of space is inevitable

Asia Times, 7 (Jack Smith, “The Militarization of Outer Space”, 3-10-07,

Kislyakov, 8- RIA Novoski political commentator

No Ban on ASAT makes space inevitable

Space weaponization is inevitable

Space militarization is inevitable

Aerospace Key to Hege

Aerospace key to Economy

A competitive aerospace industry is key to U.S. economic and physical security

Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and Aerospace

Aerospace workforce key to competitiveness

A strong aerospace industry ensures competitiveness

SSP key to Aero Leadership