Está en la página 1de 35

NHSI 2008 SENIORS

SPS Neg 1

SPS NEG
SPS Neg............................................................................................................................................................1
Notes.................................................................................................................................................................2
AT: Space Militarization..................................................................................................................................3
AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................4
AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................5
AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................6
AT: Space Control............................................................................................................................................7
AT: Space Weaponization................................................................................................................................8
AT: Space Weaponization................................................................................................................................9
AT: Space Colonization..................................................................................................................................10
AT: Space Colonization..................................................................................................................................11
AT: Space Colonization..................................................................................................................................12
AT: Weather Control......................................................................................................................................13
AT: Weather Control......................................................................................................................................14
AT: Readiness/Procurement...........................................................................................................................15
Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................16
Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................17
Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................18
Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................19
Solvency Frontline..........................................................................................................................................20
Extension: Slow Timeframe ..........................................................................................................................21
Ext: Unfeasible- Costs ..................................................................................................................................22
Extension: Interference...................................................................................................................................23
Radio Astronomy Turn...................................................................................................................................24
Ext: Treaties....................................................................................................................................................25
Spending/PX Links.........................................................................................................................................26
Space Elevator CP..........................................................................................................................................27
AT: Meteoroids...............................................................................................................................................28
Solves Space Industry.....................................................................................................................................29
Solves SPS......................................................................................................................................................30
Add-Ons Internal............................................................................................................................................31
Add-Ons Internal............................................................................................................................................32
Solves Warming.............................................................................................................................................33
Solves Power Beaming...................................................................................................................................34
Multilateral CP................................................................................................................................................35

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 2

NOTES
- Other CP options – you can CP to create satellites but not allow the US to use them for

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 3

AT: SPACE MILITARIZATION

Space Militarization causes paranoia, killing deterrence and rationality, increasing the risk
of deadly mechanical glitches.

Mitchell, 2001 Japan-U.S. Missile Defense Collaboration: Rhetorically Delicious, Deceptively


Dangerous." Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. Vol. 25

A buildup of space weapons with capability to execute offensive missions might begin with noble intentions of "peace
through strength" deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that ". . . the presence of space
weapons . . . will result in the increased likelihood of their use." Military commanders desiring to harness the
precision strike capability afforded by space-based "smart" weapons might order deliberate attacks on enemy ground targets in a
crisis. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense "use or lose" pressure into
strategic calculations, with the specter of split-second laser attacks creating incentives to rig
orbiting Death Stars with automated "hair trigger" devices. In theory, this automation would enhance
survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of
human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow
insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed "complexly interactive, tightly
coupled" industrial systems, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each others flawless performance.
According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. He
further explains, "[t]he odd term 'normal accident' is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected
interactions of failures are inevitable." Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer
projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to "normal accidents." It is chilling to
contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to Bowman, "even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth
with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage -- even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!" In
the same laser technology touted by President Reagan as the quintessential tool of peace,
David Langford sees one of the most wicked offensive weapons ever conceived: "One imagines
dead cities of microwave-grilled people." Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not
hard to imagine that any nation subjected to a space weapon attack would escalate by
retaliating with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical
weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world
into the most destructive military conflict ever seen

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 4

AT: SPACE CONTROL


Non-Unique: U.S. Space hegemony is tanked-we’re dependent on Russia for transport and
treaties with Iran will prevent acquisition
Orlando Sentinel, 8/2/08
[Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block | Sentinel Staff Writers, “Will Iran help doom $100B Space Station”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=DGUS%2CDGUS%3A2006-25%2CDGUS
%3Aen&as_q=China+Space+cooperation+possible&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=lang_en&a
s_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=m&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=im
ages]
The international space station, a $100 billion symbol of global cooperation, might become a
casualty of U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. A little-known law intended to prevent the
sale of nuclear technology to Iran would also bar NASA from buying Russian Soyuz spacecraft
after 2011. With the space shuttle slated to retire in 2010 and its replacement not scheduled to fly
before 2015, the agency would have no way to send astronauts to the space station.Station
supporters say that without a crew, the station could become little more than an expensive piece
of state-of-the-art space junk. At issue is legislation passed in 2000 and now called the Iran,
North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act. It prohibits U.S. purchases of Russian space
technology -- including Soyuz spacecraft -- as long as Russia is exporting nuclear or missile technology to Iran.
Congress granted NASA a waiver of the ban in 2005, and the agency has since spent more than $700 million on Russian spaceships to
transport crew and cargo to the orbiting complex, now close to completion. Under the international agreements that
created the station, NASA is responsible for providing crew and cargo transport and keeping
extra craft on the station as lifeboats in case of an emergency.But the current contract with Russia
expires in 2011, and the Russian company that makes the Soyuz says it needs three years of lead
time to ensure there is no interruption in manufacture and supply. Adding to the pressure is that
the station crew is scheduled to double to six next year, increasing the need for Soyuz lifeboats. "It
takes 36 months to fulfill an order," said Yevgeny Khorishko, the Russian Embassy spokesman in Washington. "So if U.S.
Congress does not grant a waiver by the end of September, it means your astronauts in 2012 will
be preparing for their missions on the ground and will not be flying."NASA told Congress in April that
passage of the waiver was urgent. "Prompt legislative action is needed," wrote agency Administrator Mike Griffin.Congress,
however, appears less than willing to grant the waiver. Election-year politics and growing
concerns about Iran mean that some members, especially those in tough races for re-election, are
reluctant to risk being accused of being soft on Iran and Russia.Iran has rejected U.S. and European demands
that it shut down its nuclear-enrichment efforts and open its nuclear program to international inspection. Russia has sold Iran a nuclear
reactor -- to generate electricity, Iran says -- and is helping to construct it."The bottom line is that Congress is very
wary of Russia," said John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a Washington-based
think tank. "It's going to be difficult for any government agency to get an exemption."Last week, a U.S.
House committee included a provision for the NASA waiver in a bill that would allow U.S. companies to sell reactors and other
nuclear material to Russia, with some restrictions.But putting these issues together has made it harder for
Congress to get the NASA exemption. The pro-Israel lobby is against nuclear trading with
Russia, fearing it will strengthen Iran's ability to produce missiles and nuclear warheads. NASA
is caught in the middle. The Senate has put off both issues to September as members decide how to untangle the two;
Congress left for a five-week recessFriday. In the meantime, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has pushed to make the issue a priority
with congressional leaders. "If we don't get it, we'll end up with no access to space," Nelson spokesman
Bryan Gulley said. Despite his support for the waiver, Nelson, like most members of Congress, does not like that America is
dependent on Russia for access to space, much less that NASA will be paying Russians to build ships while cutting shuttle workers'
jobs in the U.S. Lynn Cline, NASA deputy associate administrator for space operations, said Congress must act this year.
If it waits until 2009, she said, NASA likely will be unable to access the station for months, or
longer, after 2011. Under NASA's current contract, the agency will spend $719 million for cargo and crew services from 2009
to 2011. After 2012, as part of its agreement, the U.S. needs to pay for Soyuz capsules to act as lifeboats on the station year-round.
Without these lifeboats, the station cannot support a crew. To handle its cargo-supply obligations, NASA hopes that either U.S.
commercial companies or its non-Russian partners will be able to take cargo to the space station after 2010. That prospect is uncertain
at best. NASA has awarded contracts to two companies –
Northwestern University Debate Society
National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 5

CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE

AT: SPACE CONTROL


CONTINUES WITHOUT BREAK
SpaceX and Orbital Sciences -- to build rockets to supply the station. But neither has launched a rocket yet. The situation is worrying
NASA's international partners, especially in Europe and Japan. Though both have developed capsules that can take cargo to the
station, each is years -- and billions of dollars -- away from building spacecraft that can transport humans. In theory, they could come
to an agreement to pay the Russians to take people and cargo to the station, but without U.S. support, it's not likely the
station could continue. "It's deeply worrying," said one Western diplomat whose country is a key
station partner. "Without the Soyuz, we will be grounded. There is no Plan B."

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 6

AT: SPACE CONTROL


ASAT risk is hyped—the sheer number of satellites and space debris means a benign rocket
can collide

Rediff, 3/27/08
['Chinese anti-satellite test no big deal', http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/mar/27china.htm]

China launched a missile in January to kill a satellite. Reports said Beijing shot down an ageing weather satellite with a ground-
based missile, about 860 km above Earth. Nair said the Chinese test had contributed significantly to space debris. "Today in the 500-1000 km
orbit, nearly 9,000 objects are there flying in their own trajectory. So the probability of hitting any satellite
is there," he said. Nair said countries are supposed to keep the space free of debris, though generation of
some debris in the natural course cannot be avoided. He indicated that carrying out a test of this scale is no
big deal. "Any rocket which reaches an altitude of 500-600 km can do this job. You know that our (Indian)
rockets are much more powerful than that," he said.Nair said that while space debris does not pose a very
serious problem to satellites in orbit at present, things could change if more objects are added. The
probability of hit (debris hitting satellites) is one in six, similar to the probability of a road accident," he
said. Asked if the Indian satellites had the ability to spy any location in the world, he said, "I will not say spy. It's observing locations. We are a peace-
loving country and so, we don't get into such (spy) activities." "Any satellite, which has earth observation capability, can look at anything. You are
getting (satellite) image of a railway station or bus stand or something. As a passenger, your interest is different. As a security man, his interest is
different. So, you view from a different angle," he added.

No risk of Space debris impact from ASAT’s—The U.S. destroyed a satellite without any
harm. Also disproves knee-jerk theory—China and Russia did not retaliate

Daily Telegraph, 2/21/08


[“US shoots down toxic satellite”, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23251796-
5001028,00.html]

A MISSILE fired from a US Navy warship has hit a defunct spy satellite in space to try to prevent
its toxic fuel tank from crashing to Earth, the Pentagon says.The SM-3 missile was fired from the USS Lake Erie in the
Pacific at about 10.26 EST (2.26pm AEDT) and hit the bus-sized satellite about 133 nautical miles (247km) above the ocean, the Pentagon said."A
network of land, air, sea and space-based sensors confirms that the US military intercepted a nonfunctioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite
which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere," it said. "Confirmation that the fuel tank has been fragmented should be available
"Due to the relatively low altitude of the satellite at the time of the engagement,
within 24 hours," it said.
debris will begin to re-enter the earth's atmosphere immediately," it said. "Nearly all of the debris
will burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40
days." A defence official told the Associated Press that an initial view of the missile strike indicated it probably hit the fuel tank. The Pentagon said
last week that President George W. Bush had decided the navy should try to shoot down the satellite because its tank of hazardous hydrazine could leak if
Russia and China have expressed concern about the operation. The
it enters the atmosphere and reaches Earth.
Russian Defence Ministry said it could be used as cover to test a new space weapon. Washington
has insisted the operation is purely to prevent people being harmed by the satellite's fuel load.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 7

AT: SPACE CONTROL


Communication tech can survive a nuclear blast from the atmosphere
Glasstone, 3/28/06
[“Effects of Nulcear Weapons Tests”, http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-
space.html]

The next very interesting article in "Fission Fragments", Issue No. 21, April 1977, is at page 25: A. D. Perryman (Scientific Advisory Branch, Home
'In an attempt to answer some of these questions [about EMP
Office), EMP and the Portable Transistor Radio. Perryman states:
effects on communications] the Scientific Advisory Branch carried out a limited programme of tests in
which four popular brands of transistor radio were exposed in an EMP simulator to threat-level pulses of
electric field gradient about 50 kV/m. 'The receivers were purchased from the current stock of a typical retailer. They comprised: '1. a low-price pocket
set of the type popular with teenagers. '2. a Japanese set in the middle-price range. '3. a domestic type portable in the upper-price range. '4. an expensive
and sophisticated portable receiver. 'All these sets worked on dry cells and had internal ferrite aerials for medium and long wave reception. In addition,
sets 2, 3 and 4 had extendable whip aerials for VHF/FM reception. Set 3 also had one short wave band and set 4 two short wave bands... .'During the
tests the receivers were first tuned to a well-known long-wave station and then subjected to a sequence of
pulses in the EMP simulator. This test was repeated on the medium wave and VHF bands. Set 1 had no
VHF facility and was therefore operated only on long and medium waves. 'The results of this
experimentation showed that transistor radios of the type tested, when operated on long or medium waves,
suffer little loss of performance. This could be attributed to the properties of the ferrite aerial and its associated circuitry (e.g. the relatively
low coupling efficiency). Set 1, in fact, survived all the several pulses applied to it, whereas sets 2, 3 and 4 all failed soon after their whip aerials were
extended for VHF reception. The cause of failure was identified as burnout of the transistors in the VHF RF [radio frequency] amplifier stage.
Examination of these transistors under an electron microscope revealed deformation of their internal structure due to the passage of excessive current
'Components other than transistors (e.g. capacitors, inductors, etc.) appeared
transients (estimated at up to 100 amps).
to be unaffected by the number of EM pulses applied in these tests. 'From this very limited test programme,
transistor radios would appear to have a high probability of survival in a nuclear crisis when operated on
long and medium bands using the internal ferrite aerial. If VHF ranges have to be used, then probably the
safest mode of operation is with the whip aerial extended to the minimum length necessary to give just
audible reception with the volume control fully up. 'Hardening of personal transistor radios is theoretically
possible and implies good design practice (e.g. shielding, bonding, earthing, filtering etc.) incorporated at the time of
manufacture. Such receivers are not currently available on the popular market.' The effects of EMP on electronics can be amplified if the equipment is
switched on, because the amplification of an EMP signal by an operating circuit will add extra power to the current surge. Damage also occurs when
current passes the wrong way through transistors, overheating them (especially the transistors built into IC's since these have no effective heat sink
available over the small time scale for nanosecond duration power surges).

Above atmosphere nuclear explosions won’t lead to fall out impacts


Shatner, 1999
[William, Atomic Bomb documentary, “Nukes In Space (The Rainbow Bombs)”,
http://www.vce.com/nukes.html]

"Nukes in Space" provides an interesting overview of the development of the military space program of
missiles and space-based nuclear weapons testing with spectacular, never-before-seen images. Starting with the
V-1 and V-2, this film takes you through missile development of ICBM's with nuclear warheads, the Cuban Missile Crisis through anti-ballistic missile
systems and what implications the they hold for the future of our nation's security.
During the heart of the Cold War, the United
States and the former Soviet Union launched and detonated a combined total of over 20 thermo nuclear
weapons in the upper atmosphere and near space region of earth in an effort to test the effects of launching
an offense as well as countering an offense. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis! Almost unknown to
the public, much of the information on theses tests has been kept secret for over 35 years until recently,
when newly declassified test footage and secret government documents obtained from both countries
reveals everything from the ICBM to outer space testing to ABM.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 8

AT: SPACE WEAPONIZATION

Space weaponization destroys US military readiness.

Arms Control Association.com “Weapons in Space?”2004


http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon

If Rumsfeld’s plans to weaponize space are carried to fruition, America’s armed forces,
economy, and diplomacy will face far greater burdens, while controls over proliferation
would be weakened further. Although everybody loses if the heavens become a shooting
gallery, no nation loses more than the United States, which is the primary beneficiary of satellites
for military and commercial purposes. If the United States leads the way in flight-testing and
deploying new anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, other states will surely follow suit because they
have too much to lose by allowing the Pentagon sole rights to space warfare. U.S. programs will
cost more and be far more sophisticated than the ASAT weapons of potential adversaries, who
will opt to kill satellites cheaply and crudely. The resulting competition would endanger U.S.
troops that depend on satellites to an unprecedented degree for battlefield intelligence,
communication, and targeting to win quickly and with a minimum of casualties.

Space weaponization undermines US military readiness, leads to arms race, and increased
prolif.
Arms Control Association.com “Weapons in Space?”2004
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon

Weaponizing space would poison relations with China and Russia, whose help is essential to stop
and reverse proliferation. ASAT weapon tests and deployments would surely reinforce Russia’s
hair-trigger nuclear posture, and China would likely feel compelled to alter its relaxed nuclear
posture, which would then have negative repercussions on India and Pakistan. The Bush
administration’s plans would also further alienate America’s friends and allies, which, with the
possible exception of Israel, strongly oppose the weaponization of space. The fabric of
international controls over weapons of mass destruction, which is being severely challenged by
Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, could rip apart if the Bush administration’s interest
in testing space and nuclear weapons is realized. This highly destabilizing and dangerous scenario
can be avoided, as there is no pressing need to weaponize space and many compelling reasons to
avoid doing so. If space becomes another realm for the flight-testing and deployment of weapons,
there will be no sanctuary in space and no assurance that essential satellites will be available
when needed for military missions and global commerce. Acting on worst-case assumptions often
can increase this likelihood. Crafting a space assurance[6] posture, including a hedging strategy
in the event that others cheat, offers more potential benefits and lower risks than turning the
heavens into a shooting gallery.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 9

AT: SPACE WEAPONIZATION

Space weaponization is not inevitable- the plan would cause international resentment and a
perpetuation of an arms race.
ABCNews.com “Shooting Stars U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space”2004
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Technology/Story?id=165290&page=3
"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already," argued the
senior defense expert, adding, "We should instead be taking the lead to make [weapons]
agreements with other countries." Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-
militarization of space. As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer
Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space. The United States
is a signatory to the treaty. Summarizing the differences between the United States and European
views on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency, who said in a
recent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of domination -- information domination
and leadership. Europe should be proposing a different model -- space as a public good."
Criticism of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to Europeans. The Washington,
D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a non-governmental organization founded by retired
senior U.S. military offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both military
and commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the line today is space
weaponization." Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more
interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit
if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space."

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 10

AT: SPACE COLONIZATION


Multilateral approach leads to sustainable space cooperation and maintains U.S. tech
hegemony
Logan, 5/21/08
[Jeffery, Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division, CRS Report for
Congress, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon]

Benefits of Cooperating with China. The potential benefits of expanded cooperation and dialogue
with China include: ! Improved transparency. Regular meetings could help the two nations
understand each others’ intentions more clearly. Currently, there is mutual uncertainty and
mistrust over space goals, resulting in the need for worst-case planning. ! Offsetting the need for
China’s unilateral development. Collaborating with China — instead of isolating it — may keep
the country dependent on U.S. technology rather than forcing it to develop technologies alone.
This can give the United States leverage in other areas of the relationship. ! Cost savings. China
now has the economic standing to support joint space cooperation. Cost-sharing of joint projects
could help NASA achieve its challenging work load in the near future. Some have argued that
U.S. space commerce has suffered from the attempt to isolate China while doing little to keep
sensitive technology out of China. Options for Possible Cooperation. ! Information and data
sharing. Confidence building measures (CBMs) such as information exchange on debris
management, environmental and meteorological conditions, and navigation, are widely
considered an effective first step in building trust in a sensitive relationship. NASA has done
some of this with CNSA in the past, but more is possible. ! Space policy dialogue. Another area
of potential exchange could begin with “strategic communication,”24 an attempt for each side to
more accurately understand the other’s views, concerns, and intentions. Dialogue on “rules of the
road,” a “code of conduct,” or even select military issues could be included. ! Joint activities.
This type of cooperation is more complex and would probably require strong political
commitments and confidence building measures in advance. Bi- and multi-lateral partnerships on
the international space station, lunar missions, environmental observation, or solar system
exploration are potential options. A joint U.S.-Soviet space docking exercise in 1975 achieved
important technical and political breakthroughs during the Cold War.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 11

AT: SPACE COLONIZATION


We control Uniqueness: Space cooperation exists in the status quo –the aff breaks away
from a multilat approach which is necessary to make space colonization sustainable

Americagov, 7/16/08
[“World Space Agencies Coordinate on Future Exploration”, http://www.america.gov/st/space-
english/2008/July/20080716155656lcnirellep0.3303034.html]

Washington --
Representatives of 11 space agencies met in Montreal July 10-12 to discuss the best ways to
share resources and capabilities in their efforts to reach destinations in the solar system where people may
someday live and work. This gathering is the latest in a series of meetings that is moving international cooperation in
space beyond bilateral projects and multilateral partnerships, like that among the United States, Russia, Japan and several
European nations to build the International Space Station. In 2006, NASA hosted a meeting of 13 other space agencies to discuss international interests in
space exploration. Together, in The Global Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination, released in May 2007,
agency
representatives articulated a vision for peaceful robotic and human exploration and developed a common
set of exploration themes. The agencies were Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, the British National Space Centre,
France’s Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, the China National Space Administration, the Canadian Space
Agency, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, Germany’s Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt,
the European Space Agency, the Indian Space Research Organisation, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, the Republic of
Korea Aerospace Research Institute, NASA, the National Space Agency of Ukraine and Russia’s Roscosmos. “We considered [the
Framework document],” Neal Newman, senior international relations specialist at NASA headquarters, told America.gov, “a shared
vision of the role of governments around the world to extend human and robotic presence throughout the solar system.”PEACEFUL
PURPOSES The International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG), as the effort is formally titled, first met in Berlin in
November 2007. “The ISECG is open to space agencies which have or are developing space exploration
capabilities for peaceful purposes and which have a vested interest to participate in the strategic
coordination process for space exploration,” the Framework document reads. “In sum, it is not an exclusive
club of the 14 agencies that developed the Framework document.”At the meeting in Montreal, participants established
an ISECG secretariat, to be hosted for the first two years by the European Space Agency, and discussed developing tools for sharing
information across agencies on exploration capabilities and mission plans. STANDARDS IN SPACE In Montreal, participants
took initial steps to identify critical space-infrastructure interfaces -- such as connections among spacecraft,
lunar rovers and lunar habitats -- that, if standardized, would increase opportunities for international
cooperation. Standards are requirements that establish uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices,
and make it possible to interchangeably use electronics, drive cars and build cities or space stations. One example of an ad hoc
standard today involves the docking mechanism on the International Space Station. The space shuttle uses a Russian-designed
mechanism -- the androgynous peripheral attach system -- that was designed for the Soyuz spacecraft.To build scientific bases
or habitats on the moon or Mars, nations must use standardized docking systems, common atmospheric
standards, communication protocols and more. ISECG’s job will be to identify all the critical interfaces that
should be standardized. “We may have a habitation module on the surface of the moon that needs to connect to a European-
developed habitation module,” Newman said. “There may be a Japanese pressurized rover with people inside that needs to drive
across the surface and plug into the habitation module, and there may be a French-developed power station that needs to be able to
provide power to all users.” Standardization also is linked to safety.“If three countries have the capability to send humans to the lunar
surface,” he said, “and only two of them can rescue one another in an emergency and a third one can’t, that’s not good.” The next
step, planned for early 2009, is to have space architects from the space agencies meet to determine how a
multilateral outpost might look, then determine the most critical interfaces. More information on the Global Exploration
Strategy is available at the NASA Web site.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 12

AT: SPACE COLONIZATION


Space cooperation can flourish during times of war—cold war proves

RedOrbit, 7/16/08
[NASA: Chinese May Be Next To Reach Moon,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1481212/nasa_chinese_may_be_next_to_reach_moon/index.html]

Over the last five years China has completed two manned missions into space. The initial mission, in 2003, launched "yuhangyuan"
(astronaut) Yang Liwei into orbit for 21 hours on board the Shenzhou 5 spacecraft. On the second mission aboard the Shenzhou 6, two
astronauts spent nearly five days in orbit. Another future manned mission is planned for October, shortly after the Beijing Summer
Olympic Games. Space cooperation is possible even during times of tension—cold war proves
Dr Griffin said the China and the U.S. were taking preliminary steps towards collaborative efforts
in space exploration. "We do have some early co-operative initiatives that we are trying to put in
place with China, mostly centered around scientific enterprises. I think that's a great place to
start," he told BBC News. "I think we're always better off if we can find areas where we can
collaborate rather than quarrel. I would remind your [audience] that the first US-Soviet human
co-operation took place in 1975, virtually at the height of the Cold War." "And it led, 18 years
later, to discussions about an International Space Station (ISS) program in which we're now
involved." Although India's space program is not as large as China's, it is nevertheless making significant progress. The country
will launch its Chandrayaan unmanned Moon probe later this year, and has also announced plans for a manned mission.
Since becoming NASA’s administrator in 2005, Dr Griffin has led the implementation of President Bush's Vision for Space
Exploration, which has the goal of returning Americans to the Moon by 2020, and then on to Mars.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 13

AT: WEATHER CONTROL


Multiple nations interest in Weather control will inevitably lead to weather wars.
Hoffman, 2002 (Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, American Meteorological
Studies, “Controlling the Global Weather,” http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-
0477-83-2-241.pdf)

Because of the intensive coupling of the weather over different regions of the globe, nothing short of control of the
global weather should be considered. The nation that controls its own weather will necessarily control the weather of
other nations. If there are several nations, each attempting to control the weather over its territory, then
each may operate at odds with the others and “weather wars” are conceivable. An international weather
control treaty may be prudent now. In the future, an international agency may be required so that weather control
is used “for the good of all.” Perhaps for the good of all is unattainable. Any change to weather will have
both positive and negative effects. How can the interests of both the “winners and losers” be accommodated? Of
course, weather always has both positive and negative effects, and there are winners and losers now.

Weather control is imprecise and ineffective over extended time periods – making it useless
for military planning.
Hoffman, 2002 (Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, American Meteorological
Studies, “Controlling the Global Weather,” http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-
0477-83-2-241.pdf)
Theoretical and model studies have established that the dynamics governing the atmosphere can be extremely sensitive to small changes in initial conditions (e.g., Rabier et al.
1996). Current operational practice at NWP centers illustrate this daily. Examples summarized in what follows include data assimilation, generation of ensembles, and targeted
. The key factor enabling control of the weather is that the atmosphere is sensitive to small
observations
perturbations. That is, it is the very instability of the atmosphere’s dynamics that makes global weather control a possibility. Chaos causes extreme
sensitivity to initial conditions. Although the atmosphere, and indeed realistic models of the atmosphere, have not been proven to be chaotic, the theory of dynamical systems and
chaos provide a useful background for this discussion. In a realistic NWP model, since small differences in initial conditions can grow exponentially, small but correctly chosen
perturbations induce large changes in the evolution of the simulated weather. Therefore we hypothesize that as we observe and predict the atmosphere with more and more
accuracy, we will become able to effect control of the atmosphere with sequences of smaller and smaller perturbations. Note the basic difference between predictability and control
theory: Predictability theory states that small differences grow; control theory states that a sequence of small perturbations can be used to track a desired solution. By tracking (i.e.,
following) a desired solution, our control method may overcome differences between model and reality. We will expand and explain these basic ideas in the following paragraphs.
The phase space description of dynamical systems. The evolution of dynamical systems is conveniently discussed using the phase space description of Poincaré (Lorenz 1963). The
state of the system is specified by n variables. For continuous systems, such as the atmosphere, we may first approximate the continuous system by discretization and thereby
obtain a large number of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations. For a physically realizable system, the collection of feasible points in the n-dimensional phase space
will be bounded. For a single time, the state of the system is represented by a single point. As the system evolves, the point representing the system will in general describe a
curved line. This is termed the trajectory. If the system is in a stable state, the trajectory is just the single point. Small perturbations about the point decay in time toward the stable
point. A stable point is an attractor. A stable point is also a fixed point of the system. There can be unstable fixed points. Some trajectories form closed curves—these represent
periodic solutions. For a realistic model of the atmosphere with fixed boundary conditions, periodic solutions probably exist but are unstable. There are many unstable periodic
solutions close to chaotic attractors. Chaotic systems are aperiodic, but given enough time, return arbitrarily close to points in the attractor. For the atmosphere, the lack of success
for analog forecast techniques suggests that this return time is very long. Chaotic systems. The strict definition of chaos describes it as a behavior of purely deterministic systems
with as few as three components for a continuous phase space flow (e.g., Lorenz 1963), or as few as a single component for an iterated mapping (e.g., Lorenz 1964). Chaotic
systems can appear to be random when sampled at timescales that are large compared to the dynamical timescale. The key characteristics associated with chaos are that the system
be bounded and possess at least one positive Lyapunov exponent (Lorenz 1965). A positive Lyapunov exponent implies average growth in the associated direction that is
exponential. Typically in the phase space of such systems, a small initial sphere of radius ε will over a short time deform into an ellipsoid. The axes of the ellipsoid might be called
the finite time or local Lyapunov directions, and the ratio of these axes to ε might be called the finite time or local Lyapunov factors. As the ellipsoid evolves it tends to flatten
parallel to the attractor of the system. Chaotic attractors are also called strange attractors. A characteristic of these attractors is that perturbations perpendicular to the attractor
collapse exponentially, while perturbations parallel to the attractor grow exponentially. It is for these reasons that we say the small perturbations can grow exponentially. A
randomly chosen perturbation may be decomposed into contributions from the finite time Lyapunov directions. Some, perhaps most, will decay, but the others will grow. The
perturbation may therefore first decrease in size, before growing explosively. A perturbation may also be constructed which projects only onto a particular growing mode. Such a
The limits to predictability. Since small differences grow rapidly in chaotic
perturbation will initially grow exponentially.
systems, chaotic systems are difficult to predict. Inevitably small errors will exist in our specification of the
initial conditions. Further, errors in model formulation induce errors in the model state at every model time
step. Although the magnitude of the error may initially decay with time, eventually small errors will begin
to grow exponentially and continue to do so until they become large. It is generally accepted that useful
forecasts of the instantaneous weather beyond 2–3 weeks are impossible (Lorenz 1982; Simmons et al.
1995). For the atmosphere, motions occur over a huge spectrum of scales. Smaller spatial scales have
shorter timescales. Errors in the smallest scales will completely contaminate those scales on the
characteristic timescale associated with that spatial scale. These errors will then induce errors in the next
larger scale and so on (Lorenz 1969). In fluids, advection implies that tiny errors on the large scales will in
turn cause large errors on the shortest scales. These interactions lead to a finite predictability time limit.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 14

AT: WEATHER CONTROL


Weather control is impacted by too many other factors to be effective.
Hoffman, 2002 (Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, American Meteorological
Studies, “Controlling the Global Weather,” http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/83/2/pdf/i1520-
0477-83-2-241.pdf)

The global weather control (GWC) system we envision is a feedback control system, made complicated by
a number of factors. These include the following: • The number of degrees of freedom required to represent
the atmosphere adequately. The nonlinear nature of the governing equations. The atmosphere is nonlinear
and sometimes discontinuous. For example, clouds have sharp edges. • The paucity and inaccuracy of
observations of the atmosphere. Satellites provide a huge volume of information. However this information
is not always in the right place, accurate enough, or of the right type. • The control must be effected at
significant time lags to minimize the size of the perturbations, yet the system is inherently unpredictable at
long lead times. • The difficulty of effecting control. The control mechanisms do not yet exist. The ideal
perturbations, while small in amplitude, may be large in scale. • The ambiguous nature of the figure of
merit. For inhabitants of New Orleans, eliminating a hurricane threat to that city may take precedence over
all else. But in general attempting to satisfy multiple objectives may result in conflicts.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 15

AT: READINESS/PROCUREMENT

There are more important factors for hegemony and readiness in the status quo - shorter
enlistments and increased soft power.
Baldor, 08 (Lolita C., February 8, “War Demands Strain US Military readiness,”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html
A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along
with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from
improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned. Despite security gains in Iraq, there is
still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the
report.Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level _
pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. The
Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment
and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on
condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it
is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense
Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it. The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor,
Marine Gen. Peter Pace. On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed
that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter.
"The risk has basically stayed
consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant." He said
the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with
longer rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said. Other key
national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass
destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than
six years of war. On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part
by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and
al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got more stability there as an example." The annual review grades the military's
ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy _ which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential
outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China. The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readiness
level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006. Last
year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is working to improve its
Gates is expected to tell Congress that
warfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."
while the primary goal is to continue to increase the size of the military, it is also critical to step
up efforts to work with other nations _ as well as other U.S. agencies _ to bolster fragile
governments through economic development and other support. And it will reflect his drumbeat
for the use of more "soft power" to defeat terrorism, which includes the greater use of civilians in
areas such as political development, communications and training. Pentagon leaders argue that
nontraditional conflicts _ such as the insurgents and terrorists facing coalition forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan _ will be the main military battlefields for years to come. And defeating them, they
say, will require more than military hardware _ or "hard power."

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 16

SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

1. SPS isn’t feasible – huge launch costs and sheer size


Boswell 2004 (David Boswell, expert speaker at the 1991 International Space Development
Conference, “Whatever happened to solar power satellites?”)

A fully-operational solar power satellite system could end up needing to be enormous. Some
designs suggest creating rectangular solar arrays that are several kilometers long on each side. If
we assume that enough money could be found to build something like this and that it could be run
competitively against other energy options, there is the very real problem of figuring out how to
get it into orbit or how to build it in orbit from separate smaller pieces. The largest solar panels
ever deployed in space are currently being used on the International Space Station. They cover
more than 830 square meters and are 73 meters long and 11 meters wide. These large panels
make the ISS one of the brightest objects in the night sky. Scaling up from there to something
much larger would be challenging, but the good news is that we can take one thing at a time. For
a proof of concept satellite it makes sense to use the station’s solar panels as a baseline. By taking
advantage of improvements in solar cell technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of
the same size that generates up to 3 times as much power. The station’s solar panels are 14%
efficient, but recent advances with solar cells and solar concentrators could allow us to build
panels that are up to 50% efficient. If this demonstration system validated the theory behind
generating power in space and beaming it down to Earth, the next step would be figuring out how
to put even bigger solar panels in space. It may be that with our current launch options it simply
isn’t possible to launch an operational solar power system into orbit. If that were the case, the
concept would need to be put on hold until other lift options, such as a space elevator, are
available.

2. Slow Solvency – SPS will be a major energy source by 2030


Canizares, 2000 (Alex Canizares, associate for Covington & Burling LLP, Space.com, “Solar
Satellites Will Power Earth, Scientists Say,” September 8, 2000,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_solar_000908.html)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 (States News Service) – Solar-powered satellites will become a major
energy source by 2030, scientists testified at a congressional hearing Thursday, helping to
reduce reliance on dwindling fuel supplies. With fuel supplies projected to fall and energy
costs reaching historic highs, using satellites to transmit energy to provide electricity used to
heat homes and run appliances is becoming technologically viable, scientists told the House
Science subcommittee on space and aeronautics. Electric energy use is projected to grow 75
percent worldwide by 2020, and oil production will slow due to depleting reserves after 2015,
said Ralph H. Nansen, president of Solar Space Industries. "Space solar power can solve these
problems," Nansen said. "The time is now right for their development to begin."

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 17

SOLVENCY FRONTLINE
3. No Solvency – the Technology isn’t even conceived to make SPS functional
James Bloom, BusinessGreen, 07 Nov 2007. http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-
green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-think
/ Is space solar power closer than we think?

Supporters of SSP argue it is particularly suited to small island nations that typically pay high
prices to power their generators with imported diesel, coal and other fuels. Similarly developing
nations are interested in the concept as a means of distributing power to rural communities
without the need to invest in massive grid infrastructure. Meyers says Space Island Group has
talked to almost every department within the Indian government about the potential of SSP, but
no contracts have yet been signed.
However, some observers are far less than optimistic about the technolgy's chances of short and
even medium-term success. Leopold Summerer, head of advanced concepts at the European
Space Agency (ESA), remains conservative about the prospects for SSP. " Space solar pops up
every ten years or so; it generates a lot of enthusiasm, then fades away," he says. "Presently we
are still far from a commercial proof-of-concept. I think we'll see some plants in orbit, but not
until 2050."

4. Interference Turn
A. SPS beaming back to earth causes radio interference
Hatsuda, Ueno, and Inoeu 2
Solar power satellite interference assessment Hatsuda, T. Ueno, K. Inoue, M. Dec 2002
Volume: 3, Issue: 4. Hokkaido Inst. of Technol., Sapporo

Interference assessment between the solar power satellite (SPS) system and fixed satellite service
(FSS), terrestrial fixed service (FS), wireless LAN, and radio astronomy (RA) has been reviewed
in this paper. We have found that interference constraints in the 2.45- and 12.25-GHz bands are
relatively severe. Some strategies for the relaxation of interference have been discussed, and co-
existence between FSS and SPS systems can be achieved. Interference with RA is the most
severe potential interference problem, and further studies will be necessary, e.g., selection of
harmless interference transmitter frequencies or effective interference reduction approaches. The
5.8-GHz SPS transmitter frequency is hopefully an alternative frequency that will contribute to
small antenna size, small interference potentialities to RA and FSS/FS services, etc

B. Disruption free communications key to investment


Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2 Southwest Economy Issue 1, January/February 2002 .
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/swe/2002/swe0201c.html

Second, the attacks did not negatively affect wireless telecom activity and probably boosted it.
Wireless sales were strong in the third quarter, while other telecom activity languished. There is
still room for growth in the industry because domestic cellular subscription rates are relatively
low.[4] When landlines in parts of New York remained a tangle of frayed wires after the attacks,
many of the city's firms turned exclusively to mobile communications to conduct business.
Satellite telecommunications and other systems not as susceptible to terrestrial disruptions may
attract more interest in the future.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 18

SOLVENCY FRONTLINE

C. Telecom Key to economy

Etner and Lewin 5


Roger Entner & David Lewin. September 2005. A study for CTIA-The Wireless Association. The
Impact of the US Wireless Telecom
Industry on the US Economy

After a review of the data available to us, we conclude that the economic impact of the US
wireless telecom industry in 2004 included the following: • 3.6 million jobs are directly and
indirectly dependent on the US wireless telecommunications industry; • the industry generated
$118 billion in revenues and contributed $92 billion to the US GDP;
•the industry is currently slightly smaller than the computer, automobiles, publishing and
agriculture industry segments; • the wireless telecom industry is expected to become a larger
sector of the US economy than the agriculture and automobile sectors within 5 years, based on
the wireless industry’s current 15% annual growth rate; • the industry and its employees paid $63
billion to the US Government, including federal, state and local fees and taxes; • the use and
availability of wireless telecom services and products created a $157 billion
consumer surplus which is the difference between what end-users are willing to pay for a
service and what they are actually having to pay

Economic collapse results in total extinction

Bearden 00 - Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists and a Fellow


Emeritus of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study
[T. E., "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly"]

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic
collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to
the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25
nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea (2)
launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a
spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles
can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it
significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress
conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then
compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the
MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective
defense, the only chance a nation has lo survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-
emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the
studies showed, escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD
arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know
it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 19

SOLVENCY FRONTLINE
SPS polarizes countries and causes international conflict.
Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment,
Solar Power Satellites “The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

The oil-exporting states are in a special position. An SPS would by no means eliminate oil
demand and may prove beneficial by helping to reduce pressure on exporters to increase
production to satisfy rising export needs. Countries with large populations and relatively small
reserves, such as Nigeria, Indonesia, China and Malaysia, may view SPS as insurance against the
upcoming depletion of their oil supplies and may choose to invest some of their current earnings
in the hope of long-term gains. On the other hand, exporting countries, especially those with
long-term reserve potential such as Saudi Arabia, have no immediate use for an SPS and may be
tempted to side with other LDCs —for political and cultural reasons — in attempts to put
pressure on the West for greater LDC control. Soviet support for such measures could cause the
SPS to become a highly polarized issue in which the Soviet bloc and the nonalined states seek
concessions from the West— a not uncommon phenomenon in recent international affairs.

There are multiple international legal barriers to SPS development and deployment.
Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment,
Solar Power Satellites “The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

The United States and other space-capable states are currently bound by a number of agreements
that would affect SPS development. 25 Much of existing international law has been formulated at
the United Nations (U. N.) by the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space (COPUOS). COPUOS has been in existence since 1959, when it began with 24
members. It now has 47, with membership expanding as international interest in space matters
has increased. COPUOS decisions have been made by consensus rather than by outright
voting.26The most important and comprehensive of the currently applicable agreements, all of
which have been ratified by the major space powers, is the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing
the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and other
Celestial Bodies . In 1979, COPOUS agreed on a final version of a new treaty, the so-called
“Moon Treaty, ” which has so far not been signed by the United States or other major powers.
The Moon Treaty applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies, but not to Earth orbit. In
addition to COPUOS, important decisions on frequency allocations and orbital positioning are
made by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a specialized U. N. agency. As a
new arena of human exploration, legal norms with respect to outer space have had to be defined.
This has been done through a gradual process shaped by actual usage, the extension of existing
law, and the explicit adoption of common principles and regulations. The outstanding
international legal issues that might affect SPS development are:1. the status of the
geosynchronous orbit, and the source of jurisdiction over the placement of satellites; 2. provisions
against environmental disturbances;

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 20

SOLVENCY FRONTLINE
SPS would be blocked by legal battles over frequency regulation.
Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment,
Solar Power Satellites “The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

Even if parts of the orbit cannot be appropriated by sovereign states, there is still the problem of
allocating positions and of deciding competing claims to scarce orbital slots. The question here is
part technical and part legal: How much space is there, and what constitutes infringement? This is
dependent on the state of technology, since “infringement” is not so much a problem of two or
more objects trying to occupy the same place as of electromagnetic interference between nearby
satellites (see ch. 8). SPS satellites would not only be very large but would, especially if using
microwaves, radiate a great deal of energy at radio frequencies. Each SPS would have to be
allocated a position and frequency to minimize interference with a rapidly growing number of
satellites (see ch. 8). Many spectrum users have worried that SPS operation would disrupt
communications and sensing tasks, others that the initial SPSs would use up the available
electromagnetic space, preventing exploitation by latecomers. Since the acceptable limits vary
with the size and type of SPS used, the size and type of future communications satellites, and
advances in transmission technology, it is impossible to say at this time how many SPSs could be
built without unacceptable interference. Allocation of frequencies and positions has to date been
the province of the ITU, whose 1973 convention states that stations “must be established and
operated in such manner as not to cause harmful interference of other members, or of recognized
private operating agencies, or other duly authorized operating agencies which carry on radio
services, and which operate in accordance with the provisions of the Radio Regulations.”29
Whether the ITU would have jurisdiction over noncommunications satellites such as SPSs is
unclear.30 In November 1979, at the ITU’s World Administrative Radio Conference, the United
States raised the question of allocating a frequency position for future SPS testing; the proposal was
referred to a specialized study group for evaluation and future decision. Allocation decisions by the ITU have been characterized by
debate over the first-come first-served tradition, whereby first users have priority in the use of frequencies and orbital slots. Newly
space-capable states as well as LDCs and others who intend to develop such capabilities in the future have urged, since 1971, that all
states have “equal rights” to frequencies and positions, and the ITU has called both the radio spectrum and the geostationary orbit
“limited natural resources” that “should be most effectively and economically used.” A number of LDCs have proposed that space be
reserved for their future use. Since there is no legal basis for permanent utilization or ownership of
positions, the possibility of future reallocation clearly has considerable support among have-not
states. Established users such as the United States remain opposed to a priori assignment of slots
and frequencies. Again, the ITU debate is part of LDC attempts to gain leverage. SPS
development could be affected by attempts of disaffected states to block development by denying
frequency allocations, or by making consent contingent on concessions by states with the most
interest in SPS.31

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 21

EXTENSION: SLOW TIMEFRAME


The timefame would be huge – your own author beleves SPS will be functional by 2017.

Bloom 7
James Bloom, BusinessGreen, 07 Nov 2007. http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-
green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-think. Is space solar power closer than we
think?
The National Security Space Office (NSSO) predicts such a service will be in operation between
2017 and 2020. The spacecraft, the report argues, would be equipped with a microwave or laser
beam, which could supply energy to remote locations facing high costs to generate or import
electricity. However, despite the fact an array of solar panels in geo-stationary orbit would be
exposed to roughly eight times as much sunlight as it would on the ground, the orbiting array
would still need to measure one and a half square miles across to generate 1 gigawatt
continuously, the capacity of a traditional power station. Consequently, Lt. Col. Damphousse of
the NSSO believes that the technology remains some way off large scale commercial viability.
"As of today we cannot close the business case," he says, but quickly adds that that could soon
change. "The price of oil is going to continue rising," he argues. "If SSP [Space Solar Power] can
go through a scaling up process over the next few decades it could generate ten percent of US
baseload power by 2050."

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 22

EXT: UNFEASIBLE- COSTS

Launch costs are huge – 45$ billion for geosynchronous orbit.

Roseman 7
Paul Roseman May, 2007. Manager - Design & Development. [Barely affordable SPS using
ISRU in LEO]http://crowlspace.com/?page_id=50
One part of a solar power satellite is solar cells. One way to rate these cells is in kilowatts of
power collected per kilogram of weight of the cell (Kw/Kg ). Current cells are 2 Kw/Kg. To
launch 5 gigawatts of solar cells to low earth orbit would cost $22.5 billion at $5,000 per pound
launch costs, and that is just for the solar cells. If you launch them to geosynchronous orbit,
where they need to be, the cost doubles to $45 billon. That is why it is so expensive to do this
project. To compare, the solar cells cost about $1 apiece or about $5 billion for 5 gigawatts of
collecting capacity. The hardware that has to be delivered to geosynchronous orbit and assembled
to do this project consists of the solar cells, the wiring and power management hardware, the
structural parts, and the transmitter. The total weight that goes to geosynchronous orbit comes to
about 3 times that of the solar cells, making the cost of delivering just the parts to
geosynchronous orbit about $135 billion. And they still have to be bought, and assembled. How
can we make those costs less?

Investors wont develop – Huge launch costs


Space Future.com 00 Informational Website.
http://www.spacefuture.com/power/sps2000.shtml
SPS 2000 is a study project started by the SPS Working Group in Japan to demonstrate energy
delivery from space to Earth soon; to put it on the table as a real option for development into a
major new source of electric power for Earth. The electricity industry consider SPS as just a
"paper idea", and it also suffers from the "space industry problem" that launch costs are still
unbelievably high, and so most outsiders don't understand that it's possible for them to be much,
much lower.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 23

EXTENSION: INTERFERENCE
Interference ruins radio communications

Rako July 25, 2008


Technical Editor Paul Rako looks at analog technology in power supplies, interface, the signal
path, and life in general.http://www.edn.com/index.asp?
layout=blog&blog_id=1700000170&blog_post_id=1830030583
Interference. Pumping gigawatts of RF into our atmosphere is sure to ruin a lot of radio
communications that operate at nine orders of magnitude lower power levels or more. The URSI
report points out that radio telescopes would be unusable. In addition all you RF folks know that
there will be side-lobes and spurs and harmonics on the 2.4 or 5.8 GHz so there will be huge
swaths of higher frequencies that will now be unusable for radio communications since the
gigawatt space power stations are blasting them out of the air.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 24

RADIO ASTRONOMY TURN


A. SPS Destroys radio astronomy.

Emerson and Davis ’65 (IUCAF Chair, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, and URSI
IUCAF Member, SETI Institute. “POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A SOLAR POWER SATELLITE
SYSTEM ON RADIO ASTRONOMY”http://64.233.167.104/search?
q=cache:NDBVwc2LDioJ:www.ursi.org/Proceedings/ProcGA02/papers/p1965.pdf+solar+power
ed+satelites+fail&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Receivers for radio astronomy are extremely sensitive. A failure that places less than a thousandth of the radiation of one of the 6
million klystrons in orbit inside a radio astronomy band would be more than a thousand times above the detrimental limit, essentially
destroying the use of that band for radio astronomy. The engineering requirements on reliability and limiting unwanted emissions are
therefore truly formidable.
The reference system of solar power satellites permanently blocks a strip of
sky, corresponding to the geostationary arc. This severely limits future radar or other observations
of solar system objects, as this strip includes much of the ecliptic plane. Several of the reference
system radiation mechanisms include broad band components at levels above the detrimental
interference levels given in ITU-R RA.769 in bands allocated to radio astronomy. In addition, the
power signal overloads sensitive radio astronomy receivers, requiring development and
installation of cryogenic, preferably superconducting, stopband filters. This reduces system
sensitivity and becomes particularly problematic for modern array designs with very large
numbers of antennas and receivers. It is estimated that about 2%, or 100 MW, of the power incident on the rectennas at
2.45 GHz is reflected and reradiated. This plus radiation of noise and harmonics from the rectennas will place restrictions on choice of
sites for the receiving antennas relative to existing observatories, and on possible new observatory sites. Radio astronomers’
apparently small amounts of
experience in the two decades since these original studies were carried out has confirmed that
unwanted emission from a satellite system falling inside a radio astronomy band can have
devastating effects. For example, the 10.6 – 10.7 GHz radio astronomy allocation is now virtually
useless in Europe because of unwanted emission from a satellite system in a neighboring band.
The intended power being transmitted is very much less than that of a solar power satellite
system.

B. Radio Astronomy key to predict black hole ejections and avoid extinction.
Latin American Times, 08 (April 26, 2008. “Humanities brush with Extinction,”
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/26/science/sci-briefs26

Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive
genetic study suggests. The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought,
according to an analysis published Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The report noted that a separate
study estimated that the number of early humans may have fallen as low as 2,000 before
numbers began to expand again. A black hole’s ejection recorded Using powerful radio
telescopes, scientists have captured a supermassive black hole just as it was belching out a jet of
supercharged particles, offering a first look at how these cosmic jets are formed, the scientific team reported Thursday in the
journal Nature. Supermassive black holes are believed to form the core of many galaxies, and astronomers have long suspected they eject jets of particles
A kind of supermassive black hole known as a blazar was suspected of
at nearly the speed of light.
spewing out a pair of forceful streams of plasma 950 million light years from Earth. Using the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s Very Long Baseline Array, the team imaged
this charged material winding in corkscrew fashion out of the supermassive black hole,
behaving just as astronomers had predicted. Volcano made 1601 a cold year. The 1600 eruption of the volcano Huaynaputina in Peru caused global
disruptions in food production, researchers from UC Davis reported in the journal Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 25

EXT: TREATIES
SPS would be prevented by international treaties.
Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment, Solar Power
Satellites “The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

The 1967 treaty commits states “not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear
weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” (art. IV) and in general to carry on activities
“in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation and
understanding” (art. III).34 The 1977 “Conven-tion on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use
of EnvironmentaI Modification Techniques” prohibits the activities implied, with “environmental
modification techniques” defined as “any technique for changing the dynamics, composition or structure of
the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere.” (art. 11).35 These general
principles obviously allow for criticism of some SPS designs as having weather modification potential, requiring restrictions or
redesign to reduce such effects. Whether an SPS’s microwave or laser capabilities would class it as a weapon of “mass destruction” and hence make it
illegal under the 1967 treaty is unclear, but it is very likely that such charges
would be made in the event of SPS deployment.
Development of an SPS might entail renegotiation of relevant treaties or special system design to minimize
its usefulness as a weapon. Military satellites for communications and remote sensing are currently used by
several countries, and presumably use of the SPS platform for such purposes would not constitute a change
in accepted practice.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 26

SPENDING/PX LINKS
Links to Politics and Spending

Boswell (David, Speaker At the 1991 International Space Development Conference) 04“Whatever
happened to solar power satellites?”
At the end of June, a conference about space based solar power generation was held in Granada, Spain. The conference provided progress
reports from groups in Europe, the US, and Japan who are working on concepts and plans for building solar power plants in orbit that would
beam electricity down for use on Earth.It sounds like the perfect solution for our future energy needs. The Sun is constantly sending energy
to the Earth and all we need to do is catch it and then use it. Unlike current energy sources, we are not going to run out of sunlight anytime
soon, it wouldn’t contribute to global warming, and it is available everywhere (or to put it another way, we don’t need to get most of our
sunlight from a politically unstable region).The
idea of generating power in space has been around for a while,
but has never really gotten off the ground. Concepts for solar power satellites were being
discussed in the 1960s and they have received varying amounts of interest since then. If solar
power satellites are such a great thing, why haven’t more people been more excited about them?
The theory of the concept is sound, but there are a number of hurdles that are holding development
back.Earth based solar power. Why bother putting solar panels on a satellite when you could generate electricity by putting them on the
ground or on rooftops here on Earth? The obvious problem is that any point on land is in the dark half of the time, so solar panels are useless
during the night. During the day clouds can also block sunlight and stop power production. In orbit, a solar power satellite would be above
the atmosphere and could be positioned so that it received constant direct sunlight. Some energy would be lost in the process of transmitting
power to stations on the Earth, but this would not offset the advantage that an orbiting solar power station would have over ground based
solar collectors. There are also opportunity costs associated with both options. On Earth, land used for generating solar power is not being
There is also only a limited number of
used for other things. Rooftop space may not be valuable, but acres of farmland are.
available slots in geosynchronous orbit where a satellite could be placed to continuously beam
power to a specific receiver. Where land is at a premium, a satellite would have an advantage over
a ground-based system. For places with plenty of sun and available land, satellites couldn’t
compete with generating solar power locally. It would be difficult to argue for the need of an
orbital system if every place had San Diego’s weather and climate, but since this isn’t the case
there would be demand for beaming solar power to locations that couldn’t generate it otherwise.
Using solar panels here on Earth though is far easier and less expensive, so much of the focus on
renewable energy solutions is not on satellite systems. High cost of launchingAnother barrier is
that launching anything into space costs a lot of money. A substantial investment would be needed
to get a solar power satellite into orbit; then the launch costs would make the electricity that was
produced more expensive than other alternatives. In the long term, launch costs will need to come down before
generating solar power in space makes economic sense. But is the expense of launching enough to explain why so little progress has been
made?There were over 60 launches in 2003, so last year there was enough money spent to put something into orbit about every week on
average. Funding was found to launch science satellites to study gravity waves and to explore other planets. There are also dozens of GPS
satellites in orbit that help people find out where they are on the ground. Is there enough money available for these purposes, but not enough
to launch even one solar power satellite that would help the world develop a new source of energy?In the 2004 budget the Department of
Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research. Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy
research and they realize that private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their own.
From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but rather the problem is that there is not enough
political will to make the money available for further development.There is a very interesting discussion on the economics of large space
projects that makes the point that “the fundamental problem in opening any contemporary frontier, whether geographic or technological, is
not lack of imagination or will, but lack of capital to finance initial construction which makes the subsequent and typically more profitable
economic development possible. Solving this fundamental problem involves using one or more forms of direct or indirect government
intervention in the capital market.”Competing with other optionsEven if a solar power system was built and launched there would still be the
economic problem of producing electricity at a cost that is comparable to other options. Government subsidies can help get this new industry
on its feet but it will need to compete in the market in order to survive. This is a challenge for all emerging renewable energy
solutions.Current non-renewable energy supplies are cheap. Even with the recent increases in the price of oil, it is still historically low.
Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are still much lower than they were during the oil crisis in the 1970s. With current prices there is little
incentive for customers or producers to pursue alternatives. Even if oil prices continue to increase, it is not likely that this will be enough to
drive demand for alternatives. Although we will eventually run out of oil, coal, and other non-renewable energy sources, in the short term
rising oil prices will simply generate more oil.There are large amounts of known reserves that are too expensive to profitably develop when
oil is below a certain price. As soon as the price increases past a certain threshold, a given field can be developed at a profit. From an
economic standpoint, energy producers will take advantage of this and will make use of their existing infrastructure to extract, refine, and
the problem is more of a
distribute as much oil as possible regardless of how high the price of a barrel of oil goes. Again
political one than an economic one. There will not be a financial reason to start creating a solar
power system in space unless we reach a decision to include the hidden environmental costs of our
current non-renewable sources of energy into the equation. In the near term we certainly can
afford to keep burning more oil, but are we willing to start investing in alternatives so we don’t
have to?

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 27

SPACE ELEVATOR CP
Space Elevators key to Space Colonization. They are the only mechanism that can transport
essential planetary resources Solves lunar mining and mars colonization which is key to
interplanetary mining and resources.

Weinstein (Leonard; Advanced Measurement and Diagnostics Branch NASA Langley Research Center)
No Date (Its past 2000) “Space Colonization Using Space-Elevators from Phobos”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030065879_2003074809.pdf
Space Colonization Using Space-Elevators from Phobos Leonard M. Weinstein Advanced Measurement and Diagnostics Branch,
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681, USA Phone: (757)864-5543, fax: (757)864-8315,
l.m.weinstein@larc.nasa.gov Abstract. A novel approach is examined for creating an industrial civilization beyond Earth. The
approach would take advantage of the unique configuration of Mars and its moon Phobos to make a transportation system capable
of raising mass from the surface of Mars to space at a low cost. Mars would be used as the primary location for support
personnel and infrastructure. Phobos would be used as a source of raw materials for space-based activity, and as an anchor for
tethered carbon-nanotube-based space-elevators. One space-elevator would terminate at the upper edge of Mars’ atmosphere. Small
craft would be launched from Mars’ surface to rendezvous with the moving elevator tip and their payloads detached and raised with
solar powered loop elevators to Phobos. Another space-elevator would be extended outward from Phobos to launch craft toward the
Earth/Moon system or the asteroid belt. The outward tip would also be used to catch arriving craft. This approach would allow
Mars to be colonized, and allow transportation of people and supplies from Mars to support the space industry. In
addition, large quantities of material obtained from Phobos could be used to construct space habitats and also supply
propellant and material for space industry in the Earth/Moon system as well as around Mars. INTRODUCTION Numerous
papers and books extensively examine the requirement and the potential value to establish a civilization in space and on other planets.
Outstanding examples of discussions that give numerous justifications are found in Stine (1975), O’Neill (1978), Cox (1996), and
Zubrin (2000). The most compelling of the arguments to the present author include the following: i) There is a growing need to
obtain new sources of many raw materials for industry. The materials might be obtained from Lunar
regolith, from the moons of Mars, and from the asteroid belt. ii) The problems of increasing energy needs
on Earth might be solved by obtaining Helium-3 from Luna or by using large solar power-collecting satellites to beam
power to the Earth iii) Pollution due to industrial activity would be reduced if a significant amount of the industry were conducted in
space. This is particularly important if highly polluting or toxic materials are required to be used. iv) The microðgravity and hard
vacuum in space might allow many new processes to be done that are not economical or may not even be possible to do on Earthð v)
The dispersal of mankind to space or other planets should be done in case critical damage is done to the
Earth’s biosphere-by an asteroid impact or by accidental or deliberate self-inflicted damage. vi) Mankind
has the desire and drive to expand to any available frontier Many construction and mining tasks in space,
out to Lunar distances, can be done with a combination of preprogrammed and remotely operated
(teleoperated) machines. However even in these cases some human presence is required for long term operation. Teleoperation
from Earth becomes impractical at distances large enough for a significant time of transit of radio signals to and from Earth, so for
these cases the need for a human presence is even more critical. The expansion of civilization beyond Earth might be
done completely without planetary colonization, using large space habitats such as suggested by O’Neill
(1978). However the need to obtain and move huge quantities of material to the desired locations, and
construction of such huge habitats, is not realistic for the near future. A planet would have much more readily
available structural material, and a foundation to build on. The infrastructure to support a space-based industry and
civilization could best be located on a planet, and the best candidate for a planetbased extension of
humankind is Mars. While Lunar and small space-based manned habitats are also likely, the large surface
areas and available raw materials on Mars’ surface would support the greatest population size. Mars also
has several features that are particularly attractive. These include a modest CO2 atmosphere, the presence of large
amounts of water at the poles and in the ground, the proximity of the moons Phobos and Deimos, and the proximity to the asteroid
belt. Zubrin (1997) gave a detailed discussion of the possible occupation of Mars by humankind. Mars, like the Earth, has a significant
gravity well, and a direct rocket system to go into space from Mars is still very energy-expensive. A rocket lifting from the surface of
Mars and going into low orbit requires a velocity change of over 3.6 km/s. Direct lift from Mars, followed by a trajectory to Earth or
other destinations, would require a total of over 6 km/s for the elliptical transfer orbit, followed by a deceleration velocity change of
about 2 to 3 km/s to orbit Luna or the Earth. These missions would require a large amount of fuel and a rocket thrust several times the
weight of the fully loaded rocket to take off from Mars. If a truly economical method of lifting people and material out
of the gravity well of Mars were possible, then Mars could support the major portion of space-based
activity far more economically than directly from Earth. This is particularly important for extensive industrial capability,
which would require a broad base of support facilities. A practical system would also have to have self sufficient life support systems
including food production. The present paper describes a method to lift people and supplies from the surface of Mars with relatively
little fuel, and to also boost vehicles and materials on their way toward Earth or the asteroid belt. Large amounts of raw material could
be obtained from Phobos and sent to the Earth/Moon system with a far smaller amount of fuel than would be otherwise needed to
CONTINUES WITHOUT BREAK

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 28

AT: METEOROIDS
CONTINUES WITHOUT BREAK
support space industry. The only required item needed to accomplish the present proposal that is not currently
available is a super high strength cable material. However, there is one candidate, high-strength carbon
nanotube cable, which seems to be on the path to practical development. It is anticipated that quantities of this
material should be available in just a few decades. The cable strength required to accomplish the present proposal is only a small
fraction of the theoretical maximum possible for carbon nanotube cable, so the likelihood of success is reasonably high.

Carbon Nanotubes Solves the Meteorid threat


Weinstein (Leonard; Advanced Measurement and Diagnostics Branch NASA Langley Research Center)
No Date (Its past 2000) “Space Colonization Using Space-Elevators from Phobos”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030065879_2003074809.pdf

The Problem with Meteoroids, and How To Minimize It Long cables used in space have a potential
problem with meteoroid damage. While a cable may have a fairly small diameter, the large length still
results in a large cross section, and thus high probability of being cut. If full-length cables (6,000 km long)
were used for the Phobos elevators, they would not last long enough to be practical. Even running cables
only 100 km between stages and attaching them to the stages, would result in too limited a usable lifetime.
Using larger numbers of smaller separate cables allows some cable strands to fail, and still allow the overall
cable to be usable. However, since smaller particles can now cut the cable strands, and the effective
capture-area increases, then total failure still occurs rapidly, and may be about as bad. The most practical
solution, described in a paper by Foreward (1992), is to make a net of fairly small cable strands, with full
strength joints between strands at fairly short strand lengths. The strands need to be held apart so that a
meteoroid cutting one strand would not have a high chance of cutting several nearby. The resulting cable
would look like a long skinny fish net. Estimations of damage rates have been made using meteoroid flux
vs. diameter data from Grun et al. (1985), and assuming that a meteoroid can significantly degrade or even
cut a strand if it is over 0.05 times the strand diameter. Even though large numbers of strands along the net
would fail per year, the redundancy of tension paths would allow the system to be safe for decades. If
repairs were made every few years, the system could be made reliable for a long period of time. Meteoroids
would pose a much smaller but not insignificant problem to items being raised from Mars to Phobos, or
from Phobos to the outer tip.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 29

SOLVES SPACE INDUSTRY

Space elevators solve Mars colonization Space industry


Weinstein (Leonard; Advanced Measurement and Diagnostics Branch NASA Langley Research Center)
No Date (Its past 2000) “Space Colonization Using Space-Elevators from Phobos”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030065879_2003074809.pdf
AXC SUMMARY A novel approach is examined for creating an industrial civilization beyond the Earth. The approach would take advantage of the
unique configuration of Mars and its moon Phobos to make a transportation system capable of lifting frequent payloads from the surface of Mars to space
and accomplishing this at a low cost. Mars would be used as the primary location for support personnel and infrastructure. Phobos would be used as a
source of raw materials for space-based activity, and as an anchor for tethered carbon-nanotube-based space-elevators to help raise people and payloads
from Mars to space. One space-elevator would terminate at the upper edge of Mars’ atmosphere (6,000 km long). This terminus would only be moving
about 0.52 km/s relative to the surface. Small craft could be launched from Mars’ surface at a modest velocity and small rockets used to rendezvous with
and attach the craft to the moving elevator tip. Staged cable lifts could then raise modules from the craft to Phobos, then the empty craft detached and
landed with a paraglider. Landing on Mars from space could be done directly with a combination of aerobreaking and use of a large paraglider to land.
Another space-elevator would be extended outward of Phobos an additional 6,000 km to launch craft toward the Earth/Moon system or the asteroid belt.
Release at the outward elevator tip velocity of 3.52 km/sec would result in a hyperbolic velocity of about 2.6 km/sec. This is the Hohmann elliptical
transfer velocity needed to reach the Earth/Moon system, and is also nearly the transfer velocity needed to reach the inner edge of the asteroid belt. This
velocity boost would considerably reduce onboard propellant needs for space transportation. This outward elevator tip could also be used to catch arriving
space-elevators would allow
craft, with staged elevators also bringing the vehicles or carrier modules from the vehicles to Phobos. These
low cost movement of people and supplies from Mars to Phobos and from Phobos to interplanetary space.
This approach would allow Mars to be used to support an extensive space industry. In addition, large
quantities of material obtained from Phobos could be used to construct space habitats and also
supply propellant and material for space industry in the Earth/Moon system as well as on and
around Mars.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 30

SOLVES SPS

Counterplan solves satellites better, a bridge would aid the process of fixing stalites at a
fraction of the cost of launches.
Robin McKie, (Science Editor The Observer England) September 3, 2006 “NASA hopes to catch an
elevator to space: US scientists compete to find technology that could replace costly rockets”

IN A few weeks, scientists from across the world will gather in the New Mexico desert to compete for one of the strangest - and
most ambitious - technological competitions ever devised. Some researchers will unveil robots, powered by solar panels, that will
climb long lengths of cable. Others will demonstrate materials so light and strong that mile-long stretches of
the stuff could be hung in the air without snapping. And some will highlight their plans to launch
satellites carrying sets of mini-probes tethered together, to discover how they behave in space.All these
different projects are united by one extraordinary goal: to build a stairway to heaven. Each of the groups
that will gather in New Mexico is competing to win a Nasa prize set up to encourage entrepreneurs to
start development work on the technology needed to create a space elevator. Such a device would
involve constructing a 23,000-mile cable that could pull men and goods into orbit without
blasting them there on top of expensive, and dangerous, rockets. 'I think there are going to be lots of
people that rise to this challenge,' said Michael Laine, president of the Washington-based company LiftPort, which will take part in
the competition. 'We're at the beginning of something really great.'The key feature of a space elevator would be the use of a
satellite that will orbit almost 23,000 miles above Earth. At this altitude, known as geostationary orbit, the orbital period of a
satellite moving around the globe matches Earth's rotation. The craft then hovers over a single spot on the equator. However, a
space elevator would have one extra key feature: a massive cable would be lowered from it to
link it to the ground where it would remain fixed, like a tube line to the stars.It sounds like science
fiction. And indeed for the past 30 years that is how most people have viewed the concept of a space elevator, after the idea -
originally put forward by the Russian scientist Yuri Artsutanov in 1960 - was made famous by Arthur C Clarke in his 1978 novel,
The Fountains of Paradise . At the time the book's ideas were praised for their soundness, though scientists noted that the
incredibly strong materials needed to build a space elevator were well beyond the technology of the day.But science has made
enormous advances since 1978, particularly in the development of incredibly light but strong substances that could be used to
construct the space elevator cable. In particular, the development of carbon nanotubes - made of highly robust webs of carbon
atoms - have raised the promise that a space elevator may one day become reality.And for Nasa that cannot come a moment too
soon. Despite decades of putting rockets into space, the agency has never managed to make any
real reductions in launch costs in that time. Hence its decision to back a competition to
stimulate space elevator technology. 'With a space elevator, Nasa could build probes that they
weren't able to do before; they could do new research on different applications of the space
elevator,' said Bradley Edwards, an entrepreneur who played a key role in helping to set up the space elevator
competition.Several US companies and groups of university researchers, plus Canadian, German and Spanish scientists, have
promised to bring their devices and put them through their paces at next month's space elevator competition. Prizes will be worth
more than $400,000 in total, including one for a robot that will have to climb a 60-metre cable powered only by photovoltaic cells,
and another for the creation of tether lighter and stronger than those made of materials now available commercially.It promises to
be a close-run thing. As New Scientist magazine reported last week, the best performing robot last year managed an ascent of only
12 metres up a cable before it stalled, while no material came close to meeting the standards needed for building a space elevator.
In short, we may have to wait a little bit longer than anticipated to build that stairway to heaven.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 31

ADD-ONS INTERNAL
Add-ons internal links
Bradley C. Edwards, Ph.D. 2003 “The Space Elevator NIAC Phase II Final Report”
http://www.liftport.com/files/521Edwards.pdf
case of the space elevator there are
Applications of the Space Elevator Every development must have some value to be worth doing. In the
both short and long-term applications. However, since we started this effort with little prior technical literature on the uses and
applications of the space elevator we needed to define the applications and limits to insure that our development was properly directed. The immediate
first use of the space elevator is deployment of Earth-orbiting satellites for telecommunications, military, Earth monitoring, etc. These satellites are placed
that the space elevator will work well for
in low-Earth orbit and geosynchronous Earth orbit both equatorial and inclined. It is clear
deploying equatorial geosynchronous satellites. To do this the satellite simply needs to be set adrift at the proper altitude, nothing
needs to be done. For inclined geosynchronous orbits delta-V's required are equivalent to the orbital velocity times the sine plus (1 - cosine) of the
This required propulsion is much less than what is required to place the satellite into this orbit
inclination.
starting from Earth with a rocket. For low-Earth orbits we have a separate problem. At low-Earth orbit altitude on the space elevator the
satellite will not have the required orbital velocity so it can not be simply let off at the proper altitude. To enter an equatorial low-Earth orbit the satellite
would be taken to an altitude above 23,500 km and dropped into a highly elliptical orbit and then circularized using a tether of small propulsion system.
To enter an inclined low-Earth orbit it is the same scenario as for the inclined geosynchronous orbit discussed above with the propulsion event occurring
at the highest altitude (immediately upon release) along with the circularization. Earth orbit applications from satellites to manned operations are clear
and dramatic cost savings are evident (up to 99% savings). For the longer-term, we also considered applications beyond Earth orbit. We produced
calculations on the mass and length of cables on various solar system bodies. This was an initial calculation that left out third-body effects or other
environmental factors. These initial calculations showed both common perceptions (Mars requires a small cable and the Moon a large one due to rotation
rates) and came up with a few other interesting details. Small, rotating bodies such as asteroids and some moons of Jupiter and Saturn require the smallest
cables and could allow for the best entering point to these systems. However, the ribbon length is more determined by the rotation speed and use (arrival
and launch velocities required) than the size of the body. Venus along with the moon require extremely long cables. The traditional markets the space
elevator will address include: Telecommunications Remote sensingDepartment of Defense The U.S. satellite launch market is expected to be at
110 launches per year when we enter the market1. However, we plan to extend this traditional base and target smaller institutions who are interested in
space activities; clients who, until now, have been unable to afford it. The new markets we will encourage and target include: Solar Energy Satellites
(clean, limitless power from space) Space-System Test-Bed (universities, aerospace)Environmental Assessment (pollution, global change)
Agricultural Assessment (crop analysis, forestry)Private Communications Systems (corporate) National Systems (developing countries) Medical Therapy
(aging, physical handicaps, chronic pain) Entertainment / Advertising (sponsorships, remote video adventures)Space Manufacturing (biomedical, crystal,
electronics) Asteroid Detection (global security)Basic Research (biomedical, commercial production, university programs) Private Tracking
Space Debris Removal (International environmental) Exploratory Mining
Systems (Earth transportation inventory, surveillance)
Claims (robotic extraction) Tourism / Communities (hotels, vacations, medical convalescence)1 We expect solar power satellites to be one of the
major markets to develop when we become operational and have begun dialogs with BP Solar about launch requirements and interest. Solar power
satellites consist of square miles of solar arrays that collect solar power and then beam the power back to Earth for terrestrial consumption. Megawatt
systems will have masses of several thousand tons2 and will provide power at competitive rates to fossil fuels, without pollution, if launch costs get
below $500/lb to GEO. Another market we expect to emerge is solar system exploration and development. Initially this would be unmanned but a
emerge early after elevator operations begin. The
manned segment, based on the Mars Direct (Zubrin) scenario, could
exploration market would include: Exploratory and mining claims missions to asteroids, Mars, Moon and
Venus.Science-based, university and private sponsored missions. In-situ resource production on Mars, and Moon. Large
mapping probes for Mars and the asteroids. Near-Earth object catastrophic impact studies from space. 1 Zogby International 2 NASA and ESA studies
The Space Elevator NIAC Phase II Final Report 28 The exploration market would be expected to consist of only a few lifts a year within two years of
operations but each mission would be a larger one and produce substantial media attention. In the long-term, such practices will increase our revenue as
Another market to consider in the coming decades is space tourism. We may
manned activities in space grow.
encourage tourism early on with day-long joyrides to space and later possibly lease a ribbon for long-term,
hotels in space. Such activities will produce positive public perception and broaden the long-term market.
In a recent survey by Zogby International it was found that " 7% of affluent(people) would pay $20 million
for 2-week orbital flight; 19% would pay $100,000 for 15-minute sub-orbital flight". These numbers
indicate a possible future market that could be tapped as well. One exciting possibility that becomes
reasonable with the Earth space elevator is colonization of Mars in the near future. To really accomplish this would
take several fully operational space elevators on Earth and an investment in a Martian elevator. We have produced an initial Mars elevator design which
includes: 1) a power beaming system using L’Garde’s inflatable solar concentrators, 2) a deployment scenario minimizing the propulsion requirements,
3) an overall system with modules on each end of the ribbon, 4) a self anchoring module on the lower end of the ribbon, 5) a power beaming, propulsion,
and capture system at the upper, and 6) an anchor location on Olympus Mons to avoid both the moons and the dust storms. Much of the sizing
requirements sizing requirements were loosely based on Zubin’s work.As
is obvious in our discussion on the colonization of
Mars, the elevator concept allows for entirely new modes of design that are not realistic with rocket
systems. One application where this is clearly an advantage is in the construction of space stations or
habitats in space. Without fairing restrictions entirely new station modules can be considered. One structure
that is not generally considered feasible now but would be feasible with the space elevator is a geodesic
sphere that is inflated prior to launch. Calculations show that a 30 m diameter sphere could be lifted to
geosynchronous altitude and outfitted using the first space elevator. It would require a minimum of two climber loads (one
carrying the sphere, some air and internal structures and a second carrying the primarily air) and more likely five or six launches to outfit an operational
station capable of supporting tens of individuals initially and up to 100 individuals on a long term basis. These calculations are based on discussions with
L’Guard, a leader in space inflatables. According to L’Guarde such a structure is completely viable with current technology if the inflatable structure is
CONTINUES WITHOUT BREAK

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 32

ADD-ONS INTERNAL
CONTINUES WITHOUT BREAK
not required to fold up to fit into a fairing and then unfold on orbit. We
have continued our pursuit of possible applications by
examining elevators for use on small bodies such as rocky moons and asteroids. These turn out to be ideal applications.
With minimal gravity and some rotation an elevator can be lightweight but long enough to have high tip velocity . The attachment to an
asteroid is the primary difficulty but with the body and system sizes we are discussing a net or strap
around the small body to hold onto it may work well. Asteroid-based systems could be viable with Spectran or Kevlar and not
require the CNT composite development. The various design aspects of an elevator on a small body must look at the travel times expected and the
payloads being moved. In certain cases it is easy to make the mistake of building an elevator too small and moving large payloads too quickly. The result
is insufficient time for angular momentum to be transferred from the planetary body to the climber and cargo. The worst case is an elevator that is pulled
down and wrapped around the planetary body. To avoid this the counterweight and travel times must be designed based on the cargo size and not on the
ribbon size.A few of the military applications that a space elevator would enable include: · High-resolution, broadspectrum, 24/7 surveillance from GEO ·
Narrow-band and pinpoint communications · On-orbit storage of kinetic impact weapons or observation drones for fast global delivery · Spotlight
illumination · Control of global communications In general, the space elevator is not optimal for offensive weapons deployment due to its vulnerability
and slow delivery time to orbit

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 33

SOLVES WARMING

We solve warming two ways- reducing greenhouse gases and reflecting radiation away from
earth
Hooton, 2K6 (Tom, January 2, Solar power and the Space Elevator, page @ http://www.sprol.com/?
p=322)
An array of solar cells, appropriately
There is an additional potential benefit that may make putting arrays of solar cells in outer worth the cost.
positioned between the earth and the sun, can absorb some of the incoming energy reducing the earth's
temperature and possibly contributing to relief from the greenhouse effect. However, if we bring the energy
down to the ground and use it there, we would help counter the greenhouse effect indirectly, since we
would use less fossil and petroleum fuels and thus generate less carbon dioxide. How can we get the solar
cell arrays into outer space economically? Rockets work, but they are anything but economical.
Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, anti-gravity and inertial drives do not work at all and magnetic
drives are too weak. Many years ago I built an inertial drive to turn rotating unbalanced weights into a pulsating unidirectional force, but it didn't
work. The equations describing the inertial drive were based on LaGrange's equations of motion which are based on the conservation of energy. Later a
physicist friend explained to me that momentum is conserved, not energy. When
I read the article about Michael Laine's speech
about "Nano bridges may precede space elevator", I initially categorized the Space Elevator to go in the same
file as the inertial drive.On a trip to Dallas last weekend to do Christmas with part of my family, I kept thinking about the space elevator. It
fascinated me. Earlier I had read the news release about Liftport's planned space elevator and how they plan to
shoot a rocket into outer space while spooling out a high strength carbon filament. They intend to build the
elevator by shooting up multiple rockets like the Romans shot arrows across a river to build a bridge. They plan a "tethered
satellite" with a tether or cable down to the ground keeping it from escaping into outer space. The cable
will provide the space elevator function. To keep the tether from breaking the satellite must be in a geo-
stationary orbit where its angular velocity exactly matches that of the point on the earth directly beneath it.
On the way home I jotted down my ideas about the space elevator and when we got back searched the internet to see what I could find. I was surprised by
the huge amount of information available on the space elevator, so I think it worth while to summarize it and to describe one possible approach to
building a space elevator and to discuss some of the problems involved in building it…. Given
an operational space elevator with a
solar array generating plenty of power, we will leave the transmission of the power back to earth for future
study.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 34

SOLVES POWER BEAMING


Elevator Solves Power beaming- doesn’t kill the boids either.
Bradley C. Edwards, Ph.D. 2003 “The Space Elevator NIAC Phase II Final Report”
http://www.liftport.com/files/521Edwards.pdf
We have continued our discussions with Hal Bennett of Bennett Optical / Compower. With proper funding they hope to have an operating system in 3.5
years. Bennett is also very interested in participating in our proposed feasibility tests. In conjunction with George Neal at Thomas Jefferson National Lab
The best currently
they propose to supply us with an operating and a 1 m optic to supply the power beaming component of the feasibility test.
designed system for both demonstrating and utilizing the space elevator concept is the laser designed by
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and now waiting to be built. It utilizes the sophisticated room temperature
accelerator design built for the Stanford Linear Accelerator Complex (SLAC). The SLAC system at Stanford has been operating
continuously for over two years now with great success. The laser designed using this technology will operate at 0.84 µ m with
an initial output power of 200 kW or upgradeable to 1,000 kW (The injector is now being tested at 350kW). It will beam laser power to
space using a 15 m diameter beam director. Birds and airplanes can then fly through the laser beam without
harm and at focus in space the average beam intensity on the solar panels is ten times that of the sun. Once
started, this power beaming complex will require 4-5 years to build.The laser beam director will have an adaptive optic primary mirror one meter in
diameter for focusing and tracking. The lightweight beam director mirrors are expected to be graphite impregnated cyanate ester composites fabricated
using the technology now being demonstrated by Bennett Optical Research under a NASA two-year, SBIR Phase II contract. The composite mirrors will
be built to the same performance specifications as the Zerodur or ULE mirrors normally used in large telescopes. The coefficient of thermal expansion of
the composite is comparable to Zerodur or ULE and Young’s modulus, as measured at Bennett Optical Research on samples furnished by Composite
Mirror Applications Inc. of Tucson, AZ, is slightly greater for the composite material than for either of the glasses. Moreover, the composite material is
not brittle, and when an adaptive optic mirror is used, the faceplate can be remarkably thin. The mirror influence function21 which determines how
accurately the adaptive optic mirror surface matches the wavefront distortion induced by the atmosphere, can thus match an atmospheric correlation or
Fried coefficient22 only a few centimeters in length. The requirements on “seeing” which have limited observatories to very high locations and keep
them from functioning well under turbulent atmospheric conditions are thus greatly relaxed. The composite “transfer mirrors” are made using a
replication process, can have scattered light levels comparable to superpolished ULE or Zerodur, excellent optical figures, and cost a fraction of what the
The other
more conventional mirrors do. Bennett optical now has a completed facility to begin producing mirrors for this and its other programs.
issue of the laser power beaming that has been addressed is the stability and size issues of placing this
system on an ocean-going platform. The current system requires 150 m of straight path real estate. Our initial baselined platform was 137
m in length though part of this was not usable. Our new anchor design (below and in The Space Elevator) can accommodate this length requirement and
has the stability required for supporting the laser and adaptive optics. We have examined the design aspects of the power receiver on the climber and
worked out the thermal and electrical efficiency of the design. In conjunction with this we have received specifications and sample GaAs solar cells.
Based on the measured specifications for the solar cells we received we can expect 80% light to electricity conversion at 840 nm (Charlie Chu @
We have also examined alternatives such as using amorphous silicon cells to reduce cost and the
Tecstar).
possibility of doing at least part of the program using direct solar power to reduce the dependence on the
laser power beaming. Both of these alternatives have value but we see them as fallback po

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958
NHSI 2008 SENIORS
SPS Neg 35

MULTILATERAL CP
Only international cooperation can create a long term, effective SPS system with a global
market.
Office of technology Assessment, 1981 (Report on SPS by Office of technology Assessment, Solar Power
Satellites “The International Implications of Solar Power Satellites,”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1981/8124/812409.PDF

There are three reasons why interested parties may wish to abandon their preference for autonomy in favor
of an international effort. These are: 1) to share the high costs and risks; 2) to expand the global market; 3)
to forestall foreign opposition and/or promote international cooperation. Costs The exact costs of
developing, manufacturing, and operating a SPS are unknown; NASA estimates a 22-year, $102 billion
program for the reference design.52 (See ch. 5, Costs. ) Although the R&D costs would be much lower than construction costs, they would
be the hardest to finance, and the ones where international cooperation would be most valuable. The number of satellites needed for a global system
would clearly be much larger than for a U.S. system alone. However, the R&D/prototype costs are essentially the same whether the system is unilateral
Since the very long 30-year period of investment before payback is the project’s weakest link, it
or multilateral.
would be desirable to spread these costs between a large number of possible investors. And by widening
the available pool of capital and expertise, an international effort would have less of an inflationary
impact on resources, thus keeping costs down. However, it should be realized that an international consortium, whether involving private firms
or government agencies, will tend generally to increase the overall costs. Under the best of circumstances there are costs associated with doing extensive
business across borders, with coordinating efforts in different languages and geographic areas, and with balancing the divergent national interests of
foreign partners. Without careful management and a high degree of cooperation from the states involved, these extra inefficiencies can eliminate any
advantage gained from internationalizing the project. The experience of European collaborative efforts has been that costs rise as the large number of
The Global Market We have previously discussed
participants increases the managerial superstructure and project complexity .53
the SPS’s potential global market. An international venture may improve the marketing prospects of the
system. First of all, potential users and buyers wouId be less concerned about becoming dependent on a
particular country or corporation, which may infringe on national sovereignty. Many states, especially
LDCs, are concerned about such a situation, particularly with regard to U.S. firms. Over the past 15 to 20 years, LDCs
have made great efforts to gain indigenous control over local industries and resources, often resorting to nationalization and expropriation. The
accumulation of financial and legal expertise by LDC governments means that future dealings with foreign firms will be more cautious and equitable than
in the past. Also, it is often politically more feasible for a neutral or nonalined state to deal with an internationally controlled consortium than with a U.S.
or Japanese or West European firm, especially when internal opposition to such relationships is strong.
A consortium that offered direct
participation and ownership to a large number of states would improve its marketing position even more.
Such participation/ownership, even if on a small scale, would help to familiarize members with the
organization’s operation and finances, and assure potential buyers that they were not being deceived. A
financial stake would provide an incentive to see that the system worked efficiently and was suited for the
needs of a variety of users.

Northwestern University Debate Society


National Debate Tournament Champions
2005 – 2003 – 2002 – 1999 – 1998 – 1995 – 1994 – 1980 – 1978 – 1973 – 1966 – 1959 – 1958

También podría gustarte