45 CO Space Based Solar Power Affirmative

SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Rebecca, Ram, Wesley, and Simon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................................................1
1AC- INHERENCY..................................................................................................................................................................4
1AC- COMPETITIVENESS.....................................................................................................................................................5
1AC-COMPETITIVENESS......................................................................................................................................................8
1AC- LEADERSHIP.................................................................................................................................................................9
1AC- LEADERSHIP...............................................................................................................................................................10
1AC- LEADERSHIP...............................................................................................................................................................11
1AC- JAPAN...........................................................................................................................................................................12
1AC- JAPAN...........................................................................................................................................................................13
1AC- JAPAN...........................................................................................................................................................................14
1AC- JAPAN...........................................................................................................................................................................15
1AC- JAPAN...........................................................................................................................................................................16
1AC- SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................17
1AC- SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................18
1AC- SOLVENCY..................................................................................................................................................................19
INHERENCY..........................................................................................................................................................................20
INHERENCY..........................................................................................................................................................................21
Funding = Incentives...............................................................................................................................................................22
AT: SPACE COLONIZATION BAD.....................................................................................................................................23
SPACE COLONIZATION ADV............................................................................................................................................24
SPACE COLONIZATION ADV............................................................................................................................................25
SOFT POWER I/L..................................................................................................................................................................26
SOFT POWER I/L..................................................................................................................................................................27
COMPETITIVENESS ADV...................................................................................................................................................28
ECON ADV............................................................................................................................................................................31
ECON ADV............................................................................................................................................................................32
ECON ADV............................................................................................................................................................................33
ECON DECLINE EXTINCTION.......................................................................................................................................34
LEADERSHIP ADV...............................................................................................................................................................35
LEADERSHIP ADV...............................................................................................................................................................36
LEADERSHIP ADV...............................................................................................................................................................37
JAPAN ADV...........................................................................................................................................................................38
JAPAN ADV...........................................................................................................................................................................39
HEGE- LUNAR MATERIALS I/L........................................................................................................................................40
HEGE- LUNAR MATERIALS I/L........................................................................................................................................41
RESOURCE WAR ADV........................................................................................................................................................42
RESOURCE WAR ADV........................................................................................................................................................43
RESOURCE WAR ADV........................................................................................................................................................44
RESOURCE WAR ADV........................................................................................................................................................45
RESOURCE WAR ADV........................................................................................................................................................46
FOREIGN DEPENDENCY ADV..........................................................................................................................................47
FOREIGN DEPENDENCY ADV..........................................................................................................................................48
NEG OR HARD POWER ADV.............................................................................................................................................49
COOLING ADDON...............................................................................................................................................................50
**CITES** WARMING ADV...............................................................................................................................................51
WARMING ADV...................................................................................................................................................................52
WARMING ADV...................................................................................................................................................................53
**CITES** SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY..........................................................................................................54
1
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY..............................................................................................................................55
**TAG AND CITE** SOLVENCY.......................................................................................................................................56
FED KEY................................................................................................................................................................................57
FED KEY................................................................................................................................................................................58
FED KEY................................................................................................................................................................................59
FED KEY................................................................................................................................................................................60
FED KEY................................................................................................................................................................................61
FED KEY................................................................................................................................................................................62
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................63
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................64
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................65
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................66
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................67
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................68
AT: STATES CP.....................................................................................................................................................................69
AT: PRIVATIZE CP...............................................................................................................................................................70
AT: PRIVATIZE CP...............................................................................................................................................................71
NASA KEY.............................................................................................................................................................................72
NASA KEY.............................................................................................................................................................................73
NO NASA EXTINCTION..................................................................................................................................................74
AT: DOD CP...........................................................................................................................................................................75
AT: DOD CP...........................................................................................................................................................................76
AT: DOD CP- SECRECY SOLVENCY DEFICIT................................................................................................................77
AT: DOD CP- AIR FORCE TRADE OFF DA......................................................................................................................78
AT: NOT FOR 50 YEARS.....................................................................................................................................................79
AT: NOT FOR 50 YEARS.....................................................................................................................................................80
AT: NOT FOR 50 YEARS.....................................................................................................................................................81
AT: NO TECH NOW..............................................................................................................................................................82
AT: NSSO INDICTS..............................................................................................................................................................83
AT: SPENDING......................................................................................................................................................................84
AT: CHINA MILITARIZATION...........................................................................................................................................85
AT: CHINA MILITARIZATION...........................................................................................................................................86
US-China Space Cooperation Bad..........................................................................................................................................87
China-US Space Cooperation Good........................................................................................................................................88
SPACE SOLAR INTL COOPERATION...........................................................................................................................89
SPACE SOLAR LAND SOLAR........................................................................................................................................90
SOLVENCY- LAUNDRY LIST............................................................................................................................................91
AT: SPACE MIL TURNS.......................................................................................................................................................92
AT: SPACE MIL TURNS.......................................................................................................................................................93
NEG: SBSP would require massive political capital..............................................................................................................95
NEG: PRIVATIZE CP............................................................................................................................................................96
NEG: JAPAN CP....................................................................................................................................................................97
NEG- BUSH GOOD LINK (AFF BUSH BAD LINK TURN)..............................................................................................98
POLITICS...............................................................................................................................................................................99
MISC (POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES)...............................................................................................................................101
2
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD FULLY FUND THE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER
3
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- INHERENCY
CONTENTION 1- INHERENCY
DESPITE DoE FUNDS FOR RESEARCH, CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT STALLED BY

POLITICAL APATHY
David Boswell, keynote a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference
“Whatever happened to solar power satellites?”
Monday, August 30, 2004
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1
Whatever happened to solar power satellites? by David Boswell Monday, August 30, 2004 High cost of launching Another 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.”
Despite its potential as a solution to the energy crisis, solar power in space lacks a catalyst to bring it off
the drawing board
National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

In March 2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of space‐based solar
power (SBSP) as a potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual,
and space security as well. First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look”
Study. In the decade since this last study, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current
exploration of the strategic implications of SBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a no ‐cost Phase 0 Architecture
Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring and Summer of 2007. Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the
attached report was compiled through an innovative and collaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet
discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts around the world. I applaud the high
quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants who contributed in the last six months. I encourage
them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek to answer the question of whether
SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable,
sustainable and expandable energy for mankind. This interim assessment contains significant initial findings and
recommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders,
and citizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is
improving with each passing year. Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties
toward actually developing a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP
presents as part of a national and international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.
4
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- COMPETITIVENESS
US TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP ON THE BRINK - ONLY SBSP CAN SAVE IT
National Security Space Office Interim Assessment Release 0.1 10 October 2007 Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study Report to the Director, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-
interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US intellectual competitiveness in
math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true “Manhattan or Apollo
project for energy.”
In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which
established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was
“deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when
many other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐paying jobs. It would
require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the American Competitiveness
Initiative.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which
called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base,
our “national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle.
An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated:
The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st
century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long term research and
RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace
sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…Government policies and
investments in long-term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace
technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these
opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long-term enabling research and
related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters
innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services.
5
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Solar-based satellites will increase US competitiveness and will spur private sector technological and
business development.
(NSSO (National Security Space Office), 10/10/07, “Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” Phase 0
Architecture Feasibility Study, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, Release 0.1,
www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)
The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our
future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must
commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The
Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that
our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new
frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space
imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - Page 19 necessary for developing and supporting future
launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report
called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in
space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal
government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an
increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of
government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its
long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities . It urged the federal
government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that
strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies
represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private ‐public partnerships were also to
be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be
lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic
aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities
through continuous development of new
experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the
critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the
warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace
transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost
and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security,
economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its
ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative
6
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Technological research and development is key to US competitiveness.
(US Gov. Domestic Policy Council Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2/06, “AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS
INITIATIVE,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/aci06-booklet.pdf)
Keeping our competitive edge in the world economy requires focused policies that lay the groundwork for continued leadership in
innovation, exploration, and ingenuity. America's economic strength and global leadership depend in large measure on our
Nation’s ability to generate and harness the latest in scientific and technological developments and to apply these developments to
real world applications. These applications are fueled by: scientific research, which produces new ideas and new tools that can
become the foundation for tomorrow’s products, services, and ways of doing business; a strong education system that equips our
workforce with the skills necessary to transform those ideas into goods and services that improve our lives and provide our Nation
with the researchers of the future; and an environment that encourages entrepreneurship, risk taking, and innovative thinking. By
giving citizens the tools necessary to realize their greatest potential, the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) will help ensure
future generations have an even brighter future. Sustained scientific advancement and innovation are key to maintaining our
competitive edge, and are supported by a pattern of related investments and policies, including: • Federal investment in cutting-edge
basic research whose quality is bolstered by merit review and that focuses on fundamental discoveries to produce valuable and
marketable technologies, processes, and techniques; • Federal investment in the tools of science—facilities and instruments that
enable discovery and development—particularly unique, expensive, or large-scale tools beyond the means of a single organization; •
A system of education through the secondary level that equips each new generation of Americans with the educational foundation for
future study and inquiry in technical subjects and that inspires and sustains their interest; • Institutions of higher education that provide
American students access to world-class education and research opportunities in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology; •
Workforce training systems that provide more workers the opportunity to pursue the training and other services necessary to improve
their skills and better compete in the 21 st century Immigration policies that will continue to enable the United States to attract the
best and brightest scientific minds from around the world to work alongside the best and brightest American scientists; • Private
sector investment in research and development that enables the translation of fundamental discoveries into the production of useful
and marketable technologies, processes, and techniques; • An efficient system that protects the intellectual property resulting from
public and private sector investments in research; and • A business environment that stimulates and encourages entrepreneurship
through free and flexible labor, capital, and product markets that rapidly diffuse new productive technologies. An important element
of the American Competitiveness Initiative is Federal investment in research and development (R&D). Under President Bush, this
investment has increased by more than 50 percent to $137 billion—the largest sustained increase since the Apollo space program in
the early 1960’s. Similarly, President Bush and Congress have provided historic funding increases for K-12 education over the last
five years and have successfully instituted critical policy reforms as a part of the President’s No Child Left Behind Act. This
Administration has consistently pursued policies and investments that reflect the need for a vigorous science and technology
enterprise, as outlined by the National Science and Technology Council’s 2004 report, Science for the 21 st Century, and by the
President’s 2004 plan to inspire A New Generation of American Innovation. Recognizing the critical importance of science and
technology to America’s long-term competitiveness and building on these previous efforts, President Bush introduced the American
Competitiveness Initiative, an aggressive, long-term approach to keeping America strong and secure by ensuring that the United States
continues to lead the world in science and technology, in his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006. This $5.9 billion ACI
includes $1.3 billion in new Federal funding and an additional $4.6 billion in R&D tax incentives. Specifically, the ACI: • Doubles,
over 10 years, funding for innovation-enabling research at key Federal agencies that support high-leverage fields of physical
science and engineering: the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute
for Standards and Technology within the Department of Commerce Modernizes the Research and Experimentation tax credit by
making it permanent and working with Congress to update its provisions to encourage additional private sector investment in
innovation; • Strengthens K-12 math and science education by enhancing our understanding of how students learn and applying that
knowledge to train highly qualified teachers, develop effective curricular materials, and improve student learning; • Reforms the
workforce training system to offer training opportunities to some 800,000 workers annually, more than tripling the number trained
under the current system; • Increases our ability to compete for and retain the best and brightest high-skilled workers from around the
world by supporting comprehensive immigration reform that meets the needs of a growing economy, allows honest workers to provide
for their families while respecting the law, and enhances homeland security by relieving pressure on the borders.
7
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC-COMPETITIVENESS
Economic growth and competitiveness are the backbone of US hegemony
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the UN and formerly to Afghanistan and Iraq, former Director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and
Force Structure at the RAND Corporation, Spring 1995, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War”,
The Washington Quarterly, Vol.18, No.2, p.84
The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U.S. economy declines seriously. In
such an environment, the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would
probably incrementally withdraw from the world, become inward-looking, and abandon more and more of its external interests. As
the United States weakened, others would try to fill the Vacuum. To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United
States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past,
developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative
position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may
be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and
nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To
remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus
increasing real per capita income; by strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and
technology. In the long run the economic future of the United States will also be affected by two other factors. One is the imbalance
between government revenues and government expenditure. As a society the United States has to decide what part of the GNP it
wishes the government to control and adjust expenditures and taxation accordingly. The second, which is even more important to U.S.
economic wall-being over the long run, may be the overall rate of investment. Although their government cannot endow Americans
with a Japanese-style propensity to save, it can use tax policy to raise the savings rate.
DECLINE IN HEGE CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

Khalilzad 95
[Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis]
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a
vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with
the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level
conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
8
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- LEADERSHIP
FEDERAL ACTION ON SPACE RESEARCH KEY TO PRESERVE U.S. SPACE LEADERSHIP

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which
called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial
base, our “national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle.
An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The
United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the
21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long ‐term
research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades,
the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…
Government policies and investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not
have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments.
The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it
needs to invest in long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology
demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage
risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S.
aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long
term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must
facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a
space‐faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will
depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology,
commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and
DoD need to make the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S.
space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the
investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the
new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is
dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase
in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government
research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long ‐term
research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government
must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen
transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent
some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐public partnerships were also to be
encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will
be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the
investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling
breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a
requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive,
develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top
priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace
transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing
the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and
planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the
obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this
imperative.
1AC- LEADERSHIP
SBSP ENSURES PEACE-ORIENTED LEADERSHIP
9
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers significant opportunities for positive international leadership and
partnership, at once providing a positive agenda for energy, development, climate, and space.
If the United States is interested in energy, sustainable development, climate change, and the peaceful use of space, the international
community is even hungrier for solutions to these issues. While the US may be able to afford increased energy prices, the very
availability and stability of energy is a threat to other countries’ internal stability and ability for development. SBSP offers a way to
bypass much terrestrial electrical distribution infrastructure investment and to purchase energy from a reliable source at receiver
stations that can be built by available domestic labor pools without significant adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse
gas emissions.
U.S. SPACE DOMINANCE IS THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE A GLOBAL ETHIC OF

COOPERATION. THIS SOLVES THE ROOT CAUSE OF WAR AND PREVENTS EXCTINCTION.
Isaac Asimov, author, former president of the American Humanist Association, and biochemist, 2003, Speech at Rutgers University,
“Our future in the Cosmos—Space,” http://www.wronkiewicz.net/asimov.html
Beyond all these material things that space exploration can bring us, there is something completely immaterial that counts more than
anything else. One thing that can stop us from going into space, from realizing what I consider a glorious possible future for humanity,
is the fact that here on Earth, most people, especially those in power, are far more concerned with the immediate threat from other
countries than they are with the possible dangers to civilization as a whole. How much of any country’s mental energy, money, effort,
and their emotion is directed towards saving civilization from destruction by pollution, overpopulation, or war, and how much is spent
maintaining armed forces because of the danger from neighboring countries? You know the answer; the world is now spending 500
billion dollars every year for war and preparations for war. That’s half a trillion dollars every year spent on forces that we don’t dare
use, or if we do use them, it is only to wreak destruction. The United States and the Soviet Union quarrel over differences that may be
extremely important, but if the quarrel extends to the point of a nuclear war that destroys civilization, the differences become
inconsequential.
How are we to prevent this whole thing from happening? There is one example in history that is very unusual. From 1861 to 1865, the
United States fought the War Between the States, and many of its most epic battles were fought on Virginia’s soil. One side lost; one
side won. For a period of years, the winners showed no mercy as far as the losers were concerned, and the losers lived under
occupation forces. The South has lived with this loss ever since, and yet the bitterness passed. This is not to say that the South has
forgotten the Confederacy (of course it hasn’t), but it’s not forever laying plans to reestablish it. It hasn’t maintained an attitude of
unforgiveness; it doesn’t say, We will never forget. It doesn’t always try to find allies abroad to help it reestablish itself. We have
reunited into a single nation. How did we manage to do that, when there are other places on Earth in which the mutual hatred has
continued undiminished because of things that happened thousands of years ago, and people refuse to forget? My theory is that after
the Civil War there was a period of the development in the West, in which the North and the South could take part indiscriminately.
People from both sides traveled westward and established the new states, and in the positive task of developing the western half of the
United States, the old quarrels were forgotten. What was needed was something new, something great, something growing into
which the old problems would sink into insignificance. It was just our good fortune that we had the development of the West to
occupy our minds in the half century after the Civil War. I have a feeling that if we really expanded into space with all our might and
made it a global project, this would be the equivalent of the winning of the West. It’s not just a matter of idealism or preaching
brotherhood. If we can build power stations in space that will supply all the energy the world needs, then the rest of the world will
want that energy too. The only way that each country will be able to get that energy will be to make sure these stations are maintained.
It won’t be easy to build and maintain them; it will be quite expensive and time-consuming. But if the whole world wants energy and
if the price is world cooperation, then I think people are going to do it.<CONTINUED>
10
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- LEADERSHIP
<CONTINUED>
We already cooperate on things that the whole world needs. International organizations monitor the world’s weather and pollution
and deal with things like the oceans and with Antarctica. Perhaps if we see that it is to our advantage to cooperate, then only the real
maniacs will avoid cooperating and they will be left out in the cold when the undoubted benefits come in.
I think that, although we as nations will retain our suspicions and mutual hatreds, we will find it to our advantage to cooperate in
developing space. In doing so, we will be able to adopt a globalist view of our situation. The internal strife between Earthlings, the
little quarrels over this or that patch of the Earth, and the magnified memories of past injustices will diminish before the much greater
task of developing a new, much larger world. I think that the development of space is the great positive project that will force
cooperation, a new outlook that may bring peace to the Earth, and a kind of federalized world government. In such a government, each
region will be concerned with those matters that concern itself alone, but the entire world would act as a unit on matters that affect the
entire world. Only in such a way will we be able to survive and to avoid the kind of wars that will either gradually destroy our
civilization or develop into a war that will suddenly destroy it. There are so many benefits to be derived from space exploration and
exploitation; why not take what seems to me the only chance of escaping what is otherwise the sure destruction of all that humanity
has struggled to achieve for 50,000 years? That is one of the reasons, by the way, that I have come from New York to Hampton
despite the fact that I have a hatred of traveling and I faced 8 hours on the train with a great deal of fear and trembling. It was not only
The College of William and Mary that invited me, but NASA as well, and it is difficult for me to resist NASA, knowing full well that
it symbolizes what I believe in too.
11
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- JAPAN
FEDERAL INACTION OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE RISE OF MULTIPLE COMPETITORS

The SBSP Study Group concluded that should the U.S. begin a coordinated national program to develop
SBSP, it should expect to find that broad interest in SBSP exists outside of the US Government, ranging
from aerospace and energy industries; to foreign governments such as Japan, the EU, Canada, India,
China, Russia, and others; to many individual citizens who are increasingly concerned about the
preservation of energy security and environmental quality. While the best chances for development are
likely to occur with US Government support, it is entirely possible that SBSP development may be
independently pursued by other capable and ambitious nations or partnerships without U.S. leadership.
WHOEVER HAS THE TECHNOLOGY FIRST WILL BE THE HEGEMON FOR THE NEXT
CENTURY
Lara Farrar, CNN Staff Writer, 6/1/08
“How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!” http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html
American scientist Peter Glaser introduced the idea of space solar power in 1968. NASA and the United States
Department of Energy studied the concept throughout the 1970s, concluding that although the technology was feasible, the price of
putting it all together and sending it to outer space was not. "The estimated cost of all of the infrastructure to build them in space was
about $1 trillion," said John Mankins, a former NASA technologist and president of the Space Power Association. "It was an
unimaginable amount of money." NASA revisited space solar power with a so-called "Fresh Look" study in the mid-90s but the
research lost momentum when the space agency decided it did not want to further pursue the technology, Mankins told CNN. By
around 2002 the project was indefinitely shelved -- or so it seemed. "The conditions are ripe for something to happen on space solar
power," said Charles Miller, a director of the Space Frontier Foundation, a group promoting public access to space. "The environment
is perfect for a new start." Skyrocketing oil prices, a heightened awareness of climate change and worries about natural resource
depletion have recently prompted a renewed interest in beaming extraterrestrial energy back to Earth, Miller explained. And so has a
2007 report released by the Pentagon's National Security Space Office, encouraging the U.S. government to spearhead the
development of space power systems. "A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in
one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the
report said. The study also concluded that solar energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military operations and
deliver energy to disaster areas and developing nations. "The country that takes the lead on space solar power will be the energy-
exporting country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said. Russia, China, the European Union and
India, according to the Pentagon report, are interested in the concept. And Japan, which has been pouring millions of dollars
into space power studies for decades, is working toward testing a small-scale demonstration in the near future.
12
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- JAPAN
SPECIFICALLY, JAPAN IS DEVOTING MASSIVE RESOURCES TO DEVELOPING SBSP
Tim Hornyak, Japan-based freelance journalist, Scientific American, 7/1/08 Farming Solar Energy in Space Shrugging off massive
costs, Japan pursues space-based solar arrays
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=farming-solar-energy-in-space&page=2
Kakuda, japan—In a recent spin-off of the classic Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, the depletion of fossil fuels has
forced humanity to turn to space-based solar power generation as global conflicts rage over energy shortages. The sci-fi saga is set in
the year 2307, but even now real Japanese scientists are working on the hardware needed to realize orbital generators as a form of
clean, renewable energy, with plans to complete a prototype in about 20 years.
The concept of solar panels beaming down energy from space has long been pondered—and long been dismissed as too costly and
impractical. But in Japan the seemingly far-fetched scheme has received renewed attention amid the current global energy crisis and
concerns about the environment. Last year researchers at the Institute for Laser Technology in Osaka produced up to 180 watts of laser
power from sunlight. In February scientists in Hokkaido began ground tests of a power transmission system designed to send energy
in microwave form to Earth.
The laser and microwave research projects are two halves of a bold plan for a space solar power system (SSPS) under the aegis of
Japan’s space agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Specifically, by 2030 the agency aims to put into
geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a large
nuclear power plant. The energy would be sent to the surface in microwave or laser form, where it would be converted into electricity
for commercial power grids or stored in the form of hydrogen.
“We’re doing this research for commonsense reasons—as a potential solution to the challenges posed by the exhaustion of fossil fuels
and global warming,” says Hiroaki Suzuki of JAXA’s Advanced Mission Research Center, one of about 180 scientists at major
Japanese research institutes working on the scheme. JAXA says its potential advantages are straightforward: in space, solar irradiance
is five to 10 times as strong as on the ground, so generation is more efficient; solar energy could be collected 24 hours a day; and
weather would not pose a problem. The system would also be clean, generating no pollution or waste, and safe. The intensity of
energy reaching Earth’s surface might be about five kilowatts per square meter—about five times that of the sun at noon on a clear
summer day at midlatitudes. Although the scientists say this amount will not harm the human body, the receiving area would
nonetheless be cordoned off and situated at sea.
At a facility in Miyagi, Suzuki and JAXA researchers are testing an 800-watt optical-fiber laser that fires at a receiving station 500
meters away. A mirror reflecting only 1,064-nanometer-wavelength light directs it into an experimental solar panel. (He chose that
frequency of light because it easily cuts through Earth’s atmosphere, losing no more than 10 percent of its pop.) A key task will be
finding a material that can convert sunlight into laser light efficiently. A leading candidate is an yttrium-aluminum-garnet ceramic
material containing neodymium and chromium.
13
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- JAPAN
China hates Japanese hegemony more than US hegemony – that means the probability of conflict is that
much higher.
(Alastair Iain Johnston, Laine Professor of China in World Affairs in the Government Department at Harvard University, 2003, “Is
China a Status Quo Power?” International Security 27.4 (2003) 5-56, Project MUSE)
Second, there has been much debate in China over what the trend toward multipolarity means. Typically since the early 1990s, the
official claim has been that international power trends showed a movement away from the bipolarity of the Cold War and toward
multipolarity. Left unstated, however, is whether the current transition period is objectively one of unipolarity, with the United States
as the sole remaining superpower. 54 For instance, some conservative nationalists have argued that the world is indeed unipolar and
that the official terminology is laughable. This means that China has to be cautious in the short run in challenging U.S. power, but that
the long-run goal should be to develop the strategic and diplomatic alliances to do so. 55 Some moderate voices agree that the current
era is essentially one of U.S. unipolarity, 56 but that this is not [End Page 31] entirely to China's disadvantage. U.S. hegemony is
preferable to Japanese hegemony, for instance. 57 Moreover, even though the United States is the sole superpower, China can benefit
from economic relations with the United States and from the relative global stability that U.S. hegemony affords. As one analyst put it,
although China does not like an international system governed by U.S.- and Western-designed rules, it still has to admit that China can
free ride on the provision of certain international and regional public goods. 58 Another concluded that although China supports a
more just and reasonable international order, "China is by no means a challenger to the current international order. Under the current
international system and norms, China can ensure its own national interests." 59 Still another analyst argued that China is neither a
challenger nor a blind follower of the U.S.-defined international order. Rather China should focus its attention on helping to build
international institutions and organizations, particularly among the great powers. 60 If there is policy advice from this group of
moderates, it is that China should use international institutions—multilateralism more so than military power—to constrain U.S.
behavior. 61 [End Page 32]
If China perceives an increase in Japanese hegemony, nationalism will overwhelm the country – that
leads China to attempt to take over Taiwan.
(Edward Friedman, Hawkins Chair Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, 8/2003, A Publication of the
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs by Stephen J. Flanagan and Michael E. Marti, “The People's Liberation Army and
China in Transition National Strategic Studies,” National Defense University, Chapter Five: Chinese Nationalism: Challenge to U.S.
Interests, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/pla-china_transition_01_toc.htm)
Consequently, the president of a democratic Taiwan entering the 1990s, Lee Teng-hui was interpreted in super-patriotic China as the carrier, if not the embodiment, of pro-
Japanese tendencies (an immorality akin to being pro-Nazi), which in the PRC felt like treason, insanity, or worse. President Lee gave an interview to a Japanese reporter in
Japanese, noting his long-time embrace of and admiration for Japanese culture. To patriotic Chinese, totally ignorant of the pacifist and
antinuclear strains in Japan's postwar political culture or of Taiwanese political development, it seemed as if Japan's East Asian coprosperity
sphere was reviving. The vile language aimed at President Lee and his successor President Chen from Beijing is understandable only in terms of the ill-
informed yet palpable political will in China to avoid the worst evil, a return of brutal Japanese hegemony in Asia, as in the imperial era
of Hirohito. In China, Japan is still represented by the image of Showa-era wartime General Tojo . One cannot overstate the surge of
nationalistic fire in Chinese bellies crying out for action against a possible return of the Japanese evils of old . Chinese patriots will even
dismiss President Jiang Zemin's embrace of Wang Wei, the pilot who went down after he collided in April 2001 with a routine U.S. reconnaissance flight over international waters,
demanding to know why President Jiang silenced the commemoration of the Hong Kong Chinese martyr who earlier died in protesting the alleged imperialist expansionism of
Japanese chauvinistic rightists at China's Diaoyutai Islands (actually Japan's Senkaku islets). Few Chinese patriots praise their president as a proper nationalist. Instead, he is seen
as weak, a virtual American toady, the leader of the pro-American faction. Nationalists demand military action against the enemies of China, supposedly as
Mao would have done earlier. Given Jiang's actual promotion of military modernization combined with both Mao's and Deng's orders after 1953 to avoid military conflict with
America, this patriotic demand for a Chinese leader tougher on Americans than Jiang cannot help but be worrisome . Many informed Chinese
insist that after President Jiang is gone, real patriots will finally come to power in China. Jiang, in power, to obtain what he wants in other realms, keeps conceding to hawks on the
other Taiwan issue. Something very worrisome is happening in China. The Chinese government, by stoking hate-filled anti-Americanism,
is riding on the back of a tiger. As with Islamicist regimes<CONTINUED>
14
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- JAPAN
<CONTINUED>
in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which try to buy legitimation by supporting fundamentalist, anti-Western education of the young, a chauvinistic force also is being
created in China that could one day attack the rulers for being insufficiently patriotic. The political atmosphere in this China precludes
accurate descriptions of Japan, America, or Taiwan and makes self-interested, common-sense compromises by the Chinese government seem, to many Chinese, to be
virtual treason. Therefore, the Chinese do not readily appreciate how others see their foreign policies. The Chinese do not believe that their missile threat to Taiwan is offensive
intimidation that undermines peace in the region, which it is, but instead merely a deterrent preventing Taiwanese independence. Patriots in China demand more. They
insist on action against an allegedly new separatist threat . In Beijing, the rise of Taiwanese presidents, first Lee Teng-hui and then Chen Shui-bien, is seen as but
the tip of a surging Taiwan independence movement. The Chinese are never told that President Chen has always wrapped himself in the symbolism of the Republic of China, not
an independent Taiwan. This Chinese understanding of Taiwan separatism as a growing threat is pure militaristic chauvinism. It does not relate to any reality in Taiwan. There is
no independence movement on Taiwan. The one pro-independence party never gets more than a couple of percent of the popular vote. The three main parties on Taiwan are all
moderate status quo parties. They contend that the Republic of China, which was born in 1911 under Sun Yat-sen's aegis, continues on Taiwan as a sovereign entity. Therefore, a
declaration of independence would be redundant and unnecessary. Independence would only be triggered by a Chinese military offensive against Taiwan. The government on
Taiwan seeks peace and mutually beneficial cooperation. In short, the Chinese missile threat to Taiwan is the opposite of what it claims to be. It alienates Taiwan from China. It is
not a deterrent precluding Taiwan independence, since independence is not on the mainstream political agenda in Taiwan. Chinese nationalism is worrisome because its blinding
passion can keep rulers in Beijing from acting as their interests would otherwise dictate. This super-patriotism has an irrational and dangerous quality to it.
Chinese chauvinism consequently has to make others in the Asia-Pacific region anxious and vigilant . The dynamic of the new Chinese
nationalism aimed at Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region is deep and angry. It assumes America will grow tired with the cost of its efforts in
Asia and therefore is plotting one day to leave Japan in its place. Since Japanese predominance in Asia, understood as a return of Japanese militarism,
is immoral and unacceptable for historically victimized Chinese nationalists, the only moral alternative is Chinese hegemony in that
Asia-Pacific region. This goal is beyond debate, and to challenge it is to reveal oneself a traitor to China . The imagined future for Chinese nationalists
thinking of a glorious hegemonic 21st century includes enrichment facilitated by the incorporation of a wealthy Taiwan and the
resource-rich South China Seas into the PRC such that a subordinated Japan and a respectful set of lesser nations in Asia will do
nothing to challenge China's interests and predominance in the Asia-Pacific region. Ruling groups in Asia instead will submit , as a South
Korean journalist did at the October 2001 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shanghai, polite, prearranged questions so that China's political leadership can
present its view of Asia's future as unchallenged, at least in Asia. Such an accomplishment would undermine basic American interests in the region, but not because of any
American interest in hegemonic domination. Rather, the United States seeks a balance of power in which democracies can flourish without fear of
being rolled back by an antidemocratic, anti-human rights, hegemonic China. America, therefore, hopes to preclude a region subordinated to an anti-
American and antidemocratic China.
15
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- JAPAN
A US-China war over Taiwan escalates into global nuclear war.
The Straits Times (Singapore) June 25, 2000 2K
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the
US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war
becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility
of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics
support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the
Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not
end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to
redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south
Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a
full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which
fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US
from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its
implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened
war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the
latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons.
The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared
to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use"
principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies,
told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by
that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons
mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention . Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass,
we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon
over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
16
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- SOLVENCY
SBSP needs a coordinated national program in order to be effective

Arthur Smith, Co-Founder at Alternative Energy Action Network, Editor at Open Directory Project (AOL - DMOZ), Manager,
Database Group at American Physical Society, 10/10/07
“New Space Solar Power Report from DoD NSSO” Alternative Energy Action Network
http://www.altenergyaction.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129
The charter given at the start was to find out "how space-based solar power can help the United States in the first half of the 21st
century". The report found it does indeed have potential to provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, expandable
(essentially inexhaustible) energy for the people of the US, and the world. Focus areas for the study included: - science and technology
- policy and legal issues - logistics and infrastructure - the business case. The overarching conclusions were that SBSP provides a
strategic opportunity for the US by potentially advancing our security, capability, and freedom of action. SBSP merits significant
further study and demonstration on the part of the United States so that the commercial sector can step in. Challenges remain, and the
business case does not close with present technology. The report advocates a government-led proof-of-concept program, starting in
small incremental steps to a large-scale demonstrator. Examples of incremental steps include transmitting power on the ground across,
say, 200 nautical miles. Transmitting power in space, space-craft to space-craft. Beaming power from space to a ground station.
Ultimately providing 5-10 MW in GEO to spur commercial development. There is a clear need for reusable launch vehicles to reduce
the cost to orbit. It needs a coordinaed national program with high-level resources and leadership on a level with ongoing efforts to
harness fusion, or the efforts to build the Interational Space Station.
A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE

SBSP WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME
The NSSO study shows the possibility of closing the energy business case for some markets within just 10-15 years, not the 50
years people sometimes talked of. The energy market is a trillion dollar/year market (just in the US). If this takes off, the
Apollo, space shuttle, and ISS will look like college science projects next to the real space age it will bring about. The reason the
business case can close so soon is the existence of near-term customers who have no other option potentially willing to pay $1-2/kWh
for beamed-in power. In particular, DoD field operations that currently rely on long and deadly supply chains to bring in fuel oil. They
are paying more than that for electricity at some bases in Iraq now, not even including the cost in lives lost. This military need changes
the economic equation. So there's DoD interest at a tactical level just for this reason. There's also DoD interest at the strategic level -
doing this may be key to preventing future wars and disasters. The recommendations are for reasonable and appropriate steps taken by
the federal government: become an "anchor tenant", reduce the technical risks. Take other reasonable steps to reduce risks and
incentivize development. Loan guarantees for instance, the same incentive that's been given to nuclear operators for years. Extend
pollution offsets and renewables subsidies to this. Investment tax credits for this and for development of reusable launch vehicles.
With these reasonable steps, within 10-15 years the case will close. And some people think it will be even sooner.
17
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- SOLVENCY
PLAN IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT NASA TECHNOLOGY

John Gartner 06.22.04
www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913
“NASA Spaces on Energy Solution”
"It has fallen neatly through the cracks, as it has for decades," Mankins said. He said that NASA's development of space solar power
would likely determine whether or not satellites ever send energy to Earth. "Given how critical NASA is to all the space and related
technologies required, it's hard for me to see how it could happen" without NASA.
Arthur P. Smith, a physicist who has written about solar power from space for the American Physical Society (PDF), said that interest
in beaming solar power from satellites has waxed and waned since it was first proposed more than 30 years ago. Smith said that
research funding was highest during the oil crisis in the Carter administration, but after gas prices retreated the program was shelved
for almost 20 years.
Pursuing solar power from space "should be part of our plan for energy independence," Smith said. He said that if NASA invested $10
billion in research over the next 10 years, the technology would likely become cost-effective enough to begin launching satellites.
SBSP PROVIDES THE BEST INCENTIVES FOR A GLOBAL SHIFT TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Consistent with the US National Security Strategy, energy and environmental security are not just problems for America, they are
critical challenges for the entire world. Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local
and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy scarcity as the foremost threat to national security. Conflict prevention
is of particular interest to security‐providing institutions such as the U.S. Department of Defense which has elevated energy and
environmental security as priority issues with a mandate to proactively find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic
security is preserved. The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant
consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States
almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth
orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for
use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon
fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit
experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional
oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic
development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those
nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.
18
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
1AC- SOLVENCY
Increasing federal funding incentivizes private development of solar technology
Congressional Budget Office, 9/06, “Evaluating the Role of Prices and R&D in Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions,”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7567/09-18-CarbonEmissions.pdf
Researchers generally conclude that the appropriate price for carbon would be relatively low in the near term but would rise
substantially over time, resulting in relatively modest reductions in emissions in the near term followed by larger reductions in the
future. Phasing in price increases would allow firms to gradually replace their stock of physical capital associated with energy use
and to gain experience in using new technologies that emit less carbon. Firms would have an incentive to invest in developing new
technologies on the basis of their expectations about future prices for emissions. Federal support could be provided for the
research and development of technologies that would lead to lower emissions. Such technologies could include improvements in
energy efficiency; advances in low- or zeroemissions technologies (such as nuclear, wind, or solar power); and development of
sequestration technologies, which capture and store carbon for long periods. Federal support would probably be most cost-effective
if it went toward basic research on technologies that are in the early stages of development. Such research is more likely to be
underfunded in the absence of government support because it is more likely to create knowledge that is beneficial to other
firms but that does not generate profits for the firm conducting the research. The Interaction and Timing of Policies Pricing and
R&D policies are neither mutually exclusive nor entirely independent—both could be implemented simultaneously, and each would
tend to enhance the other. Pricing policies would tend to encourage the use of existing carbon-reducing technologies as well as
provide incentives for firms to develop new ones; federal funding of R&D would augment private efforts; and successful R&D
investments would reduce the price required to achieve a given level of reductions in emissions. Neither policy alone is likely to be as
effective as a strategy involving both policies. Relying exclusively on R&D funding in the near term, for example, does not appear
likely to be consistent with the goal of balancing costs and benefits or the goal of minimizing the costs of meeting an emissions
reduction target. At any point in time, there is a cost continuum for emissions reductions, ranging from low-cost to high-cost
opportunities. Unless R&D efforts virtually eliminated the value of near-term reductions in emissions (an outcome that appears
unlikely given reasonable assumptions about the payoff of R&D efforts), waiting to begin initial pricing (to encourage low-cost
reductions) would increase the overall cost of reducing emissions in the long run. Near-term reductions in emissions achieved with
existing technologies could be valuable even if fundamentally new energy technologies would be needed to prevent the buildup of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from reaching a point that triggered a rapid increase in damages. Near-term reductions could take
advantage of lowcost opportunities to avoid adding to the stock of gases in the atmosphere and could allow additional time for new
technologies to be developed and put in place. That additional time could prove quite valuable, given that R&D efforts are highly
uncertain and that the process of putting new energy systems in place could be slow and costly.
19
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
INHERENCY
NO FUNDING FOR SBSP NOW
Database Group at American Physical Society,
Aug 11, 2003 “The Case For Space Based Solar Power Development solar energy on Earth and in space might be the first large scale
space industry” www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html
The potential for power from space has been recognized for over thirty years (1). Studies in the late 1970's by NASA and the
Department of Energy produced a reference design for solar power satellites using then-current technology that showed technical
feasibility, but also high cost. NASA returned to the subject with an exploratory study from 1999 to 2001.
A review by the National Research Council (2) found the program to have a credible plan which required significant funding
increases. Rather than strengthening the program, however, all funding for the space solar power group ceased after September 2001,
and essentially no R&D work on power from space is now being done in the US.
Worldwide over a trillion dollars a year goes to the energy industry, and utilities routinely construct multi-billion-dollar power plants.
The energy industry has a bigger wallet than the entire US federal discretionary budget.
Money is not directly the problem here; profitability is. The two essential factors in the cost equation are the cost per delivered Watt of
the solar power components, and the cost per delivered Watt of getting those components to their final destination in space.
NO PROGRAM NOW
Scientists from around the world will soon gather to discuss how satellites could be used to address the world's energy needs by
relaying solar power to Earth. But the U.S. government's decision to abandon research in 2001 could prevent the alternative energy
source from ever seeing the light of day.
Solar panels on Earth are inherently limited in their ability to collect energy by two things -- the lack of direct sun at night and
atmospheric interference from weather. NASA's now-abandoned Space Solar Power program would avoid these terrestrial
impediments by launching satellites that would collect solar radiation and beam the energy to Earth. These satellite systems could each
provide gigawatts of electricity, enough power for tens of thousands of homes.
Interest in solar space power peaked in 2000, when NASA officials testified before the House Committee on Science that by 2006 test
satellites could be wirelessly transmitting energy from space. After three years of studying the challenges and a favorable report from
the National Research Council, in 2001 NASA requested and received new funding for the space solar power program. But later that
year, NASA canceled the program (the website was last updated in August 2001) and withdrew the funding.
20
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
INHERENCY
NO SBSP NOW- CONFUSION OVER WHICH AGENCY SHOULD DO R&D
Jeff Foust 2007 editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and
Personal Spaceflight weblogs. 8/13/07 “A renaissance for space solar power?” www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1
Another big problem has been finding the right government agency to support R&D work on space solar power. Space solar power
doesn’t neatly fit into any particular agency’s scope, and without anyone in NASA or DOE actively advocating it, it has fallen through
the cracks in recent years. “NASA does science, they do astronauts, and they do aeronautics, but they don’t do energy for the Earth,”
Mankins said. “On the other side, the Department of Energy doesn’t really do energy for space.” That situation, at least in regards to
those two agencies, shows little sign of changing. Marty Hoffert, a New York University professor who has been a long-time advocate
of space solar power, contrasted the current plight with that of fusion, the one other energy source Hoffert believes could provide
energy security to the world. While space solar power goes virtually unrecognized by the US and other governments, an international
consortium is spending up to $20 billion on a test fusion reactor, ITER, in France. “For half that money I think we could deliver a
working solar power satellite, whereas ITER is just going to show the proof of feasibility” of controlled nuclear fusion without
generating any power, he said.
21
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Funding = Incentives
Small investments in the public sector snowball into the private sector
The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by the US Government is likely to catalyze substantially
more investment by the private sector. This opinion was expressed many times over from energy and aerospace companies
alike. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that even the activity of this interim study has already provoked significant activity
by at least three major aerospace companies. Should the United States put some dollars in for a study or demonstration, it is
likely to catalyze significant amounts of internal research and development. Study leaders likewise heard that the DoD could
have a catalytic role by sponsoring prizes or signaling its willingness to become the anchor customer for the product. These
findings are consistent with the findings of the recent President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
report which recommended the federal government “expand its role as an early adopter in order to demonstrate commercial
feasibility of advanced energy technologies.”
22
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: SPACE COLONIZATION BAD

SPACE COLONIZATION WOULD NOT BE A LARGE SHIFT FROM LIVING ON EARTH
In their letters to me, some individuals wrote that people would not be able to endure the kind of engineered environment that would
exist in the space settlements and that they wouldn’t be able to bear not living close to nature as they do on Earth. Who lives close to
nature here on Earth? There are millions of people on Earth who are never close to nature. I know; I live in the middle of Manhattan. I
admit, I can look out the window and see Central Park from a distance, but I don’t venture into it often. I think people should
remember that the space settlements will probably be engineered to accommodate the comforts of the Earth’s inhabitants. It is possible
that people will be closer to nature in these settlements than in many places on the Earth today. People also wrote that the existence of
space settlements would be unfair to the wretched of the Earth because the educated people would go into space and leave the less
advanced people behind. That is probably precisely the reverse of what might happen. If we use the United States as an example,
which classes of people came to this country? Obviously, the European ruling classes did not come; they were comfortable where they
were. Why should they have left their homelands? The people who came to the United States were precisely those who hoped for
something better, even if it meant a great deal of risk. Think of the passage engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty: Give me
your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. I know those lines,
you see, because in 1923, I was one of the wretched refuse who passed through Ellis Island. I’ve never forgotten 1923 because it was
the last year in which people could enter this country without question. After that, the word went through the hallowed halls of
Congress, Asimov is in… close the golden door. In 1924, the first strict quotas were placed on immigration. If I had tried to come a
year later, I might not have been allowed to enter.
I imagine that when the time comes to begin emigrating to the space settlements, it will be hard work to make sure that not only the
wretched of the Earth but also the educated people with usable skills are included. It’s going to be just the reverse of what people are
afraid of. In fact, I have also been told in some letters that space colonization would be unfair because only those nations with a
heritage of rocket travel, space flight, or of high technology would be able to take advantage of this new frontier, leaving the rest
behind. Again, that idea flies in the face of historical fact. As an example, when my father decided to come to the United States, he
hadn’t the slightest idea of what the ocean looked like; he had never seen it. He had no heritage of ocean travel. I don’t think he had
any idea what a ship looked like unless he had seen a picture of one, and even when he was on the ship, he didn’t know what kept it
afloat or how anyone on the ship could tell where they were going when they were in the middle of the ocean. I’m not sure I know,
frankly. Yet he managed to get to the United States without any tradition or knowledge of seafaring because he had something else. I
will tell you what people will need to get to a space settlement: it isn’t a background in rocketry, it isn’t technological know-how, it
isn’t any tradition of high technology. I’ll tell you what it is if you will pay close attention because it’s rather subtle. What they will
need is a ticket, because someone else is going to take them.
23
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER MAKES EARTH-TO-MARS TRANSPORTATION MORE
EFFICIENT
JOHN C. MANKINS, MANAGER, ADVANCEED CONCEPTS STUDIES OFFICE OF SPACE FLIGHT, AUGUST 97
www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml
Lastly, there are a number of potential applications of these technologies in future human exploration missions, including the moon,
Mars and asteroids in the inner solar system. These include: megawatt-class SEPS Lunar cargo space transfer vehicles Lunar orbit
WPT for Lunar surface power affordable human Mars mission transportation systems. Of these, the concept of using multi-megawatt-
class space solar power systems to achieve very low cost Mars mission concepts appears to have particular leverage. By using systems
that are amenable to low-cost, multi-unit, modular manufacturing, even though the overall system masses are not lower, the cost
appears to be significantly lower. Example: The "SolarClipper". An especially intriguing opportunity is that of using affordable
megawatt-class space power for interplanetary space missions. It appears to be possible to reduce the cost for Earth surface-to-Mars
orbit transportation dramatically through the use of very advanced, large-scale space solar power in a solar electric propulsion system
(SEPS) approach. The basic architectural strategies of the SolarClipper concept are straightforward: 1. Use low-mass/high-
efficiency space solar energy, rather than nuclear energy, as the basic power system; 2. Modularize transportation systems into
packages of less than 40,000 pounds each to enable launch of all but selected surface systems, with resorting to heavy lift launch
vehicles (HLLVs); 3. Fabricate multiple identical SEPS systems to enable effective mass production at dramatically lower cost per
unit weight of purchased hardware; and, 4. Use "brilliant" systems architectures that can assemble themselves in Earth orbit with
little more than autonomous rendezvous and docking technologies; 5. Exploit the higher fuel efficiency ("specific impulse" of
electric propulsion to offset the mass associated with modularity of systems and interconnections between systems assembled in space.
Because the majority of a mission's mass could be transported to Earth orbit on lower cost vehicles, a substantial savings (perhaps a
factor of 2-to-3) in launch costs might be achieved. Because most system elements are mass-produced, costs per unit weight could be
reduced by as much as a factor of 10. As an added advantage, SolarClipper cargo transfer vehicles can - once they reach Mars orbit -
be deployed for use as operational solar power satellites using wireless power transmission to provide essential energy to surface
operations (thus eliminating the need for Mars surface nuclear reactors). This combination of SEPS for Earth-Mars transport, and SPS
WPT at Mars, could make possible non-nuclear exploration architectures (at least within the inner solar system).
FAILURE TO COLONIZE SPACE RESULTS IN EXTINCTION

James Oberg, 2-year veteran of NASA mission control, he is the author of numerous books on space 2001
“The Impact of Space Activities Upon Ordinary Citizens and the World” www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-
CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from opposing coalitions with
great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our species has
ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that
a country comprised of people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets,
warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must venture
into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high costs that are involved in
manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already
identified dozens of asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion,
the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares humans to
the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will wander space because we possess a
compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part
emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our
allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment
of more than our country.
24
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SPACE COLONIZATION ADV
SPACE COLONIZATION IS A PRIORITY- ONLY SBSP PROVIDES A DIRECT ROUTE INTO

SPACE EXPLORATION
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly supports the articulated goals of the U.S. National Space Policy and
Vision for Space Exploration which seeks to promote international and commercial participation in exploration that furthers U.S.
scientific, security, and economic interests, and extends human presence across the solar system.
No other opportunity so clearly offers a path to realize the Vision as articulated by Dr. Marburger, Science Advisor to the President:
“As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not.
Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that,
‘The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration
program.’ So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.” No other opportunity is likely to tap a multi-trillion
dollar market that could provide an engine to emplace infrastructure that could truly extend human presence across the solar system
and enable the use of lunar and other space resources as called for in the Vision.
25
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SOFT POWER I/L

SPACE BASED SOLAR POWER IS VITAL FOR SOFT POWER PROJECTION
Dr. Eligar Sadeh, Associate Director for the Center for Space and Defense Studies at the United States Air Force Academy. Sadeh has
more than twenty-five years of experience in the space community. He serves as a Research Associate with the Space Policy Institute
at George Washington University, 6/9/08 “Space policy questions and decisions facing a new administration”
Issue: United States government leadership in space is not seen as productive by others. The United States government cannot be a
leader if no one will follow. Today, the United States is not seen as a good partner in space. Discussion * The position of the
United States in world affairs is influenced by leadership in space. Given the many issues and challenges the space community faces,
leadership is by no means assured. * In order to identify and meet the challenges in security, commercial, and civil space
productive United States government space leadership is indispensable. * Leadership requires that the United States develop a
strategic vision for space to guide space policy decisions, which is supported by strong executive leadership, and effective interagency
and government-industry partnerships. * International participation in security space is important. There is a need for the United
States to think more about international engagement in the strategic response to the domain of space. It is not a “go-it-alone problem.”
The United States government has not given sufficient indication that the strategy is to include allies in national space policy. *
Space represents a “soft power” foreign policy tool. Space is an international drawing card that engenders national prestige, prevents
conflict, and is a domain for international cooperation. Policy Choice: Facilitate space leadership through the current approach that is
committed to bilateral space cooperation or expand prospects for space leadership through multilateral international engagement and
soft power. * A commitment to the policy of bilateral space cooperation as the primary means to project space leadership offers
greater political flexibility for the United States government in determining courses of action to meet national interests. Multilateral
engagement limits national security space options. Bilateral approaches do, at times, make United States space leadership ineffective,
but this is a trade-off with the ability to better retain operational flexibility in space. * A commitment to multilateral international
engagement facilitates a means to address a number of challenges from space protection, global space commerce, space governance,
and civil space exploration. For space protection, a multilateral approach allows for collective security approaches and rules of road to
mitigate the vulnerabilities of space assets. Space governance and global space commerce are supported through multilateral
engagement on establishing international standards that address space environmental issues. Civil space exploration benefits from
lending political support to the Global Space Exploration Strategy that helps to advance the United States Space Exploration Policy.
* Productive United States space leadership requires a commitment to smart power. Smart power in this context is the integration of
hard power and soft power in the demonstration of spacepower. Leadership through hard power is addressed by a multilateral
approach to space protection. The key for soft power is a global perspective. This necessitates a renewed commitment to space
diplomacy and strategic communications with soft power ends. Space leadership is exhibited through soft power by partnering with
other states to address global space-related challenges, like orbital debris proliferation and potentially hazardous Near Earth Objects.
26
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SOFT POWER I/L

Solar Satellite development yields Soft Power

The interim review did not uncover any hard show‐stoppers in the international legal or regulatory regime. Many nations are
actively studying Space‐Based Solar Power. Canada, the UK, France, the European Space Agency, Japan, Russia, India, and
China, as well as several equatorial nations have all expressed past or present interest in SBSP. International conferences
such as the United Nations‐connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject and there is even a UN‐affiliated
non‐governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is dedicated to promoting the study and development of
SBSP. The International Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at least one document supporting the concept, and a
study of the subject by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is presently ongoing. There seems to be
significant global interest in promoting the peaceful use of space, sustainable development, and carbon neutral energy
sources, indicating that perhaps an open avenue exists for the United States to exercise “soft power” via the development of
SBSP. That there are no show‐stoppers should in no way imply that an adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a
regime must address liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and
parking orbits, and transit corridors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space Situational Awareness, data‐
sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some significant similarities to the International Civil Aviation
Organization’s (ICAO) role for facilitating safe international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate
regime will take as long as the satellite technology development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work
on the construction of such a framework immediately.
27
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
COMPETITIVENESS ADV
Alternative energy investments are key to US technological innovation and private sector development.
(CHRIS MOTTERSHEAD, Director of the Carbon Trust in London and the Center for Clean Air Policy, 9/20/06,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PLAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS, HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH
CONGRESS SECOND SESSION, Serial No. 109–62,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy29851.000/hsy29851_0f.htm)
BP is involved in many discussions in the U.S. about climate change. Our objective is to establish how we might most effectively
contribute to the task of providing the energy that is necessary to underpin economic growth, while avoiding dangerous
interference in the climate system. While the debate continues around the long-term goal and identifying a full set of policy options,
we should take action where there does appear to be agreement. One of these areas is technology. Other policy instruments will be
necessary to address climate change, but technological innovation is central. The development of the Strategic Plan clearly
recognizes this critical role of technology. The Climate Change Technology Program's Strategic Plan is comprehensive and well
considered. It acknowledges the important role of technology in reducing GHG emissions, providing a framework for identifying,
developing and deploying technologies. I would like to briefly touch on what we view as important components of the Plan, and touch
upon what we view as opportunities to improve the Plan. We share the stated ultimate goal of the Strategic Plan—the stabilization
of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. Of course, there are
uncertainties in the science, there always will be, but we believe that based on current science it is only prudent to take action. The
Strategic Plan is an acknowledgement of this need to take action. The Plan acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of GHG
emissions will be associated with equipment and infrastructure that has yet to be built, but once built will constrain our future options.
So while we recognize the importance of getting started, and the need for short-term emission reductions, we believe the primary
focus should be on future investment decisions, ensuring that the best technological options are available and used. By 2030 the
world's consumption of electricity is expected to double, as economies grow. However, the power sector is already the largest
single source of GHG's emissions, and as demand grows so will emissions. This growth in demand for electricity is a business
opportunity, as over half of the power plants that will be needed have yet to be built. The Plan helps to determine what the
technological options are for these investments. The same is true for the transport sector, where we must develop and invest in
both the best available vehicle and fuel technology, as well as looking to improve mobility more generally. The Plan recognizes that
we need research on both renewable and fossil fuels. Solar, wind, biofuels and other alternative energy sources one day will be
able to meet a significant part of U.S. and world energy demand. But we also need to develop the technology that allows the U.S.
to utilize fossil fuels, and particularly coal. Fossil fuels currently supply about 80 percent of all primary energy and will remain
fundamental to global and U.S. competitiveness and energy supply for many decades. BP is taking action in many areas, including
major investments in both the power and transport sectors. BP Alternative Energy provides clean power from wind, solar, gas-fired
and hydrogen power. We have already committed to investing $8 billion over the next 10 years in this business. We are pleased to see
that these alternatives are comprehensively addressed in the Strategic Plan. As an example let me briefly talk about Carbon Capture
and Storage technology, which sits at the heart of our new hydrogen power business. Over the next 10 years BP, in partnership with
GE, aims to develop 10 to 15 hydrogen power projects. BP, together with Edison Mission Energy, has already announced its plans for
a hydrogen power plant in Southern California, an investment of over $1 billion dollars. The facility will utilize a low value by-
product of the refining process, petroleum coke, to generate much needed supplies of electricity to the Southern California market.
The project will accomplish this by gasifying the petroleum coke and using the resulting hydrogen to drive a turbine to generate
electricity. The CO produced by the process will be transported by pipeline to a California oil field where it will be injected deep
underground, both stimulating domestic oil production and permanently storing the CO. Where we see opportunity to improve the
Strategic Plan is in increased clarity about the scale of the task, the emphasis we would place on Learning-By-Doing, and finally a
clearer definition of the necessary public and private partnership. While it is not the role of Plan to determine stabilization goal,
without one it is difficult to know whether the plan will deliver sufficient emission reductions at an optimal cost. Many
technologies already exist, and we would like to see greater focus upon deployment and diffusion of these technologies, particularly
engineering cost reduction, removal of institutional barriers and the building of material new markets. Many barriers are institutional
and behavioral and, as such, the social sciences can make a significant contribution. <CONTINUED>
28
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
COMPETITIVENESS ADV
<CONTINUED>
Finally, the opportunity exists to better define how government will interact with the private sector. Government and
business each play key but distinct roles in developing and deploying technology. We would like to see more thought given to
encouraging innovative public-private partnerships. In conclusion, let me say that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
make a determination as to whether the Strategic Plan, by itself, is capable of meeting the President's goal of reducing GHG intensity.
The answer to this question depends largely on the level of success of individual technologies, having the proper regulatory
frameworks in place, public acceptance, and an environment in which companies can feel comfortable making long-term investments
in these technologies at the necessary scale.
The technological leader is currently unknown
Michael D. Griffin, Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 29 October 2007 The Chicago Council on
Global Affairs, “Space Exploration: A Measure of American Competitiveness “
We have only recently begun developing the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares rockets, which will ferry
astronauts to and from the Space Station and, more importantly, allow us once again to go beyond low Earth orbit to the
moon. We plan to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010, but this new capability will not come on-line until 2015, according to
current budget projections. With an operational stand- down like this, I am concerned that even more highly-skilled aerospace
engineers will simply exit the field altogether, as happened at the end of the Apollo program. Worse, between now and then
NASA will pay over $700 million, and possibly a good deal more, to the Russian Space Agency to support the ISS with their
Soyuz and Progress crew and cargo vehicles. Other countries, like Malaysia and South Korea, and certain wealthy individuals
are already paying the Russians for trips to the International Space Station. So, fifty years after Sputnik, and thirty-five years
after the last American footprint on the moon, I must ask: who is currently the recognized leader in spaceflight? China has also
emerged as one of the three spacefaring nations, because they understand the value of space activities as a driver for
innovation and a source of national pride in being a member of the world's most exclusive club. China today not only flies its
own taikonauts, but also has plans to launch about 100 satellites over the next five to eight years. It should be no surprise, especially to
those who have read Tom Friedman's book "The World is Flat" or John Kao's "Innovation Nation", that this environment in China is
breeding thousands of high-tech start-ups. The Chinese have adapted the design of the Russian Soyuz to create their Shenzhou
spacecraft. However, the similarity between the two ends at the out mould line; the Shenzhou spacecraft is both more spacious and
more capable. They plan to conduct their first spacewalks and orbital rendezvous operations, and to build their own space station -
admittedly simpler than ours - in the coming years. While they have not stated an intention to do so, the Chinese could send a mission
around the moon with the Shenzhou spacecraft, as we did with the Apollo 8 mission, which inspired our nation and the world during
the Christmas season of 1968. China could easily execute such a mission with their planned Long March V rocket, currently under
development and reportedly rivaling any expendable rocket in the world today. I have no doubt that they will have it in use, as they
plan, by around 2012.
29
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
COMPETITIVENESS ADV
Technological competitiveness spurs the economy and way of life
Let me return to the astronaut-selection statistics I mentioned earlier. NASA has selected 321 people to become astronauts -
but tens of thousands have applied! From a national perspective, it might well be said that the most important aspect of the
competition to become an astronaut is that thousands upon thousands of young men and women have been inspired to acquire
the education and training to become one. Our nation produces many thousands more of our best aviators, engineers, and
scientists who, whether selected as astronauts or not, eventually turn their talents to developing innovative technologies,
conducting world-class research, and solving complex engineering problems. This work enriches our economy, increases our
productivity, and improves our way of life.
Because of the excitement inherent to human spaceflight, and the historic nature of the scientific advances we make, NASA enjoys
very high public approval, and extraordinary "brand recognition". With this comes an interesting fact; when polled, most Americans
believe our budget to be much higher than it is, comparable to that for the Pentagon. In fact, NASA's budget is less than 0.6% of the
overall Federal budget, and is only a few percent of that allocated to DoD. Some critics question the value of even this investment in
NASA, an amount which many of my fellow engineers would typically refer to as "rounding error" in the grand scheme of things.
Space investment power in world economy
It is my goal to get these critics to recognize that the development of space is a strategic capability for our nation, a view
completely in keeping with the founding principles of the American nation - pushing back the frontier. There was a time when
the land upon which we stand here in Chicago lay far beyond our western frontier. Today, that frontier lies in space. We've sent out
the first few explorers, and they returned with wondrous tales. In President Kennedy's famous words, "Now is the time to take longer
strides". The geography of our solar system dictates that these next strides will again be to Earth's moon - three days journey away.
But this time, a lunar outpost will follow soon afterward, allowing us to exploit its resources and its vantage point. Tonight, as you
leave here, I ask you to look up at our moon and recall that twelve Americans once walked upon its surface, and imagine a future
where even more are living and working there on a new American frontier. For about a half-cent of every federal dollar, our nation's
investment in exploring that frontier and, one day, colonizing other worlds, also ignites the development of technologies that benefit
us here on Earth. It produces space-based capabilities like communications, weather monitoring, remote sensing, and GPS navigation
that have been estimated to contribute $220 billion/year to our economy. More importantly, this investment in NASA inspires millions
of people to pursue careers in science and technology, enormously benefiting our nation's broader economy. Today's investment in
NASA is a down payment on our nation's future in many different dimensions, from ensuring a presence on humanity's
frontier to ensuring a commanding presence in the world economy.
30
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
ECON ADV
US ECONOMY COLLAPSING NOW
Kevin Phillips, Staff writer for the Washington Post, “The Old Titans All Collapsed. Is the U.S. Next?”
5/18/08 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603461
More than 80 percent of Americans now say that we are on the wrong track, but many if not most still believe that the history of
other nations is irrelevant -- that the United States is unique, chosen by God. So did all the previous world economic powers: Rome,
Spain, the Netherlands (in the maritime glory days of the 17th century, when New York was New Amsterdam) and 19th-century
Britain. Their early strength was also their later weakness, not unlike the United States since the 1980s. There is a considerable
literature on these earlier illusions and declines. Reading it, one can argue that imperial Spain, maritime Holland and industrial Britain
shared a half-dozen vulnerabilities as they peaked and declined: a sense of things no longer being on the right track, intolerant or
missionary religion, military or imperial overreach, economic polarization, the rise of finance (displacing industry) and excessive debt.
So too for today's United States. Before we amplify the contemporary U.S. parallels, the skeptic can point out how doomsayers in
each nation, while eventually correct, were also premature. In Britain, for example, doubters fretted about becoming another Holland
as early as the 1860s, and apprehension surged again in the 1890s, based on the industrial muscle of such rivals as Germany and the
United States. By the 1940s, those predictions had come true, but in practical terms, the critics of the 1860s and 1890s were too early.
Premature fears have also dogged the United States. The decades after the 1968 election were marked by waves of a new national
apprehension: that U.S. post-World War II global hegemony was in danger. The first, in 1968-72, involved a toxic mix of global trade
and currency crises and the breakdown of the U.S. foreign policy consensus over Southeast Asia. Books emerged with titles such as
"Retreat From Empire?" and "The End of the American Era." More national malaise followed Watergate and the fall of Saigon. Stage
three came in the late 1980s, when a resurgent Japan seemed to be challenging U.S. preeminence in manufacturing and possibly even
finance. In 1991, Democratic presidential aspirant Paul Tsongas observed that "the Cold War is over. . . . Germany and Japan won."
Well, not quite. In 2008, we can mark another perilous decade: the tech mania of 1997-2000, morphing into a bubble and market
crash; the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; imperial hubris and the Bush administration's bungled 2003 invasion of Iraq. These were
followed by OPEC's abandoning its $22-$28 price range for oil, with the cost per barrel rising over five years to more than $100; the
collapse of global respect for the United States over the Iraq war; the imploding U.S. housing market and debt bubble; and the almost
50 percent decline of the U.S. dollar against the euro since 2002. Small wonder a global financial crisis is in the air. Here, then, is the
unnerving possibility: that another, imminent global crisis could make the half-century between the 1970s and the 2020s the
equivalent for the United States of what the half-century before 1950 was for Britain. This may well be the Big One: the multi-decade
endgame of U.S. ascendancy. The chronology makes historical sense -- four decades of premature jitters segueing into unhappy
reality. The most chilling parallel with the failures of the old powers is the United States' unhealthy reliance on the financial sector as
the engine of its growth. In the 18th century, the Dutch thought they could replace their declining industry and physical commerce
with grand money-lending schemes to foreign nations and princes. But a series of crashes and bankruptcies in the 1760s and 1770s
crippled Holland's economy. In the early 1900s, one apprehensive minister argued that Britain could not thrive as a "hoarder of
invested securities" because "banking is not the creator of our prosperity but the creation of it." By the late 1940s, the debt loads of
two world wars proved the point, and British global economic leadership became history.
31
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
ECON ADV
Dependence on foreign oil has crippled US growth and development, putting the US on the brink of a
global security crisis. Plan key to reverse trend

The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to
include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic
idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m 2) , collect
gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via
direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity
broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar
flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.
This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental
stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP
capability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by
comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). The
first major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was
proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative to
other lower‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995‐1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the concept
relative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technology
vectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for various
reasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. The
post‐9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a
decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now under
threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by
emerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, often
imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologies
to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets
and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.
32
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
ECON ADV
Solar Satellites benefit the economy and will ultimately turn a surplus in tax revenue
Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP, however, may create new
markets and the need for new products that will provide many new, high‐paying technical jobs and net significant tax
revenues. Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to
themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars. The energy market is trillions of
dollars, and there are many billions of people in the developing world that have yet to connect to the various global markets.
Such a large export market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to mature SBSP
are similarly likely to have significant economic spin‐offs, each with their own independent revenue stream, and open up or
enable other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use of off‐
world resources. Not all of the returns may be obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility. Estimating the value
of utilities is difficult since they benefit society as a whole more than any one user in particular—consider what the
contribution to productivity and GDP are by imagining what the world would be like without electric lines, roads, railroads,
fiber, or airports. Not all of the economic impact is immediately captured in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the services and
products that spring up to support those workers and their communities. Historically such infrastructure projects have
received significant government support, from land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural electrification, to development of
atomic energy. While the initial capability on-ramp may be slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very significant portion of
the world energy portfolio by mid-century and beyond.
Technological innovation causes economic growth
NASA is in the inspiration business, and the resulting technological innovation drives our nation's growth. If America is to
remain a leader in the burgeoning global competition, I contend that we must continue to be a nation known for our
innovation, and we must continue our work on the New Frontier of space. This cannot happen without a continuing supply of "the
best of the best", and so this evening, I must explore with you some alarming trends, and seek your help in finding some answers. Our
children and grandchildren are not as inspired by space exploration as they once were. Today, some young people actually question
whether we ever went to the moon, and if the Apollo program was all a hoax. It has been almost thirty-five years since Gene Cernan
and Jack Schmitt were the last astronauts to leave their mark there. That is ancient history to today's younger generation. A recent
report by the National Academy of Engineering, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm", cites some alarming statistics. Fifty years ago,
almost twice as many bachelor's degrees in physics were awarded in the United States than in 2004. Last year, the United States
produced more undergraduates in sports exercise than in electrical engineering. About a third of U.S. students who plan to study
engineering when they entered college switch majors before graduating; they probably are not switching to mathematics or theoretical
physics. Today, there are more software engineers in Bangalore, India than in Silicon Valley. In 2000, 38% of all U.S. science and
technology Ph.D.s were conferred upon foreign-born graduate students, most of whom return to their home countries.
33
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
ECON DECLINE EXTINCTION

Economic decline causes global nuclear war
Mead 92 Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28
What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict:
South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear
weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s .
Economic decline leads to extinction

Bearden, Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army, 2000
(Tom, June 24, ttp://w\vw.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm. Accessed 9/11/03)
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 (WMDs) now
possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea 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 (some) 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 to 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, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed are
already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it and perhaps
most of the biosphere:, at least for many decades.
34
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
LEADERSHIP ADV
FEDERAL ACTION ON SPACE RESEARCH KEY TO PRESERVE U.S. LEADERSHIP

The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in
the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long‐
term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several
decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold
War…Government policies and investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation
does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure
investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort.
Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace
technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to
encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that
Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base,
workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained
investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation
will have to be a space‐faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that our freedom, mobility, and
quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace
technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and
that NASA and DoD need to make the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to
revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on
government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space.
Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal
government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It
suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition
of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its
long‐term research programs, and
industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary
barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to
enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most
burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It
also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so
recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic
aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace
capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production.
Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain
advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in
basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the
establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It
concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and
scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain
leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.
35
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
LEADERSHIP ADV
Plan key to US leadership and space development

It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of
transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing
insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged
the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other
initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and
procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐
public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities
in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and
significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the
workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems
with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to
conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the
warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe
aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included
reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national
and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the
obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this
imperative.g
36
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
LEADERSHIP ADV
US leadership down, because of space
I hope you agree with me that America's economic growth is driven by technological innovation, and that societies which foster
such innovation become leaders in the world. But as NASA begins its next fifty years, I am deeply concerned about our
nation's "bench strength" in carrying out our mission of space exploration, as well as other technical endeavors. We need "the
best of the best of the best" in more than just the astronaut corp. The alarming statistics I have quoted here tonight have
broad implications for our ability to maintain economic and technological leadership in today's world. Specific to the realm of
spaceflight, I am concerned that America's real and perceived leadership in the standing of the world's spacefaring nations is
slipping away. As Admiral Hal Gehman noted in his report of the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation Board a few years
ago, "previous attempts to develop a replacement vehicle for the aging Shuttle represent a failure of national leadership."
Tech. investment needed in space to acquire competitive leadership
I am pointing out such things, matters of engineering capability, because I believe that it is important to understand our
strategic competitors as well as those with whom we wish to collaborate. We must also understand ourselves, and the
framework of our real and perceived leadership in the world. As John Kao couches the issue, we are currently facing a "Silent
Sputnik" where "many countries are racing for a new innovation high ground while our own advantages are showing signs of
serious wear." All this being said, I believe that America's greatest days in space exploration lie always ahead of us. However, this
can only be true if we recognize such problems and strive with some concerted energy to fix them. So how do we inspire young
people to be more interested in science and engineering, in space exploration, rather than the many and varied distractions of today's
popular culture? Such efforts must be great and small. They can start with taking our children and grandchildren to places like
Chicago's Museum of Science & Industry or the Adler Planetarium. Trips like this inspired Chicago native Ed Weiler, now the
Director of NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center, to purchase his first 2.5-inch Tasco refractor telescope at the age of eleven. He went
on to study astronomy at nearby Northwestern University, and a few years later was instrumental in building the Hubble Space
Telescope. Later came NASA's other Great Observatories, the Mars The art, science, engineering, and business of space
exploration is the hardest thing we do as a people. With it, we turn science fiction into reality. This is rocket science. Quite
simply, space exploration is the highest expression of human imagination of which I can conceive. Thus, it troubles me - and I
hope it concerns you as well - that I see America losing its competitive edge in this field. It matters greatly.
37
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
JAPAN ADV
Japan is developing SBSP now

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/07/japans-space-agency-planning-space-based-solar-power-arrays/
Endgaget.com, 2/7/08 at 5:47PM “Japan's space agency planning space-based solar power arrays”
We've seen some pretty out there solar installations, but JAXA, the Japanese space agency, is about to get really far out with its latest
project: a space-based solar array that beams power back to Earth. The agency is set to begin testing on the microwave power
transmission system on February 20th, with an attempt to beam enough power over the 2.4GHz band to power a household heater at
50 meters (164 feet). That's certainly not the sort of large-scale sci-fi power system we were hoping for, but fret not -- if the tests are
successful, JAXA's plan is to eventually launch a constellation of solar satellites, each beaming power to a 1.8-mile wide receiving
station that'll produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and power 500,000 homes.
EUROPE AND JAPAN SPENDING MILLIONS ON SBSP. US SCIENTISTS ARE BEHIND

JAXA and ESA have been spending several million dollars each year researching satellite solar power, but in the United States,
scientists volunteer their spare time because there is no public- or private-sector funding. "These are not wild-eyed environmentalists,"
Brandhorst said. "This is a dedicated community that wants to see something happen."
Japanese hegemony limited now.
(Deborah L. Haber, Phoenix College Political Science Professor, 9/1990, “The Death of Hegemony: Why "Pax Nipponica" Is
Impossible,” Asian Survey, Vol. 30, No. 9, (Sep., 1990), pp. 892-907, University of California Press,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2644528)
China and India are used as case studies in barriers to Japanese hegemony because of their position as the two largest powers in Asia,
both in terms of geographical area and regional political influence. Hegemonic strength vis-A-vis other nations begins most logically
with neighboring countries; thus, if Japan is to become a hegemonic power, it must first bring its largest Asian neighbors under its
influence. Japan may prove dominant in its relationships with the ASEAN nations and even the newly industrialized countries (NICs)
of Asia, but if it fails to dominate China and India, it cannot expect to become the next world hegemon. While Japan's global influence
has increased in the last decade, we cannot ignore the evidence of problems in its relations with the rest of Asia. Further- more, China
and India both exemplify the phenomenon of rising regional powers that serve to limit hegemony in general, and specifically Japanese
hegemony. The conclusions the article will draw, therefore, will not be limited merely to explicating the constraints on Japanese
power, but will illustrate that the notion of hegemony is an obsolete one in today's global politics.
38
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
JAPAN ADV
The US fears Japanese hegemony as much as Chinese hegemony – that causes military conflicts in the
China Sea.
(John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, 2002, “Realist View of
China,” Through the Realist Lens, Harry Kreisler Moderator, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Mearsheimer/mearsheimer-
con0.html)
Now, if China tries to dominate all of Asia, which I expect it will do for good strategic reasons related to realpolitik, the question you
have to ask yourself is how will the United States react to that? Well, again, as I emphasized before, the United States has long wanted
to be the hegemon in its own region, and to make sure that it has no peer competitors. If China becomes a hegemon in Asia, it is a peer
competitor by definition. My argument is that the United States will go to great lengths to make sure China does not become a peer
competitor. It will go to great lengths to contain China and cut China off at the knees, the way it cut Imperial Germany off at the knees
in World War I, the way it cut Nazi Germany off at the knees in World War II, the way it cut Imperial Japan off at the knees in World
War II, and the way it cut the Soviet Union off at the knees during the Cold War. The United States has a long and clear record of not
tolerating peer competitors in either Asia or Europe, and, therefore, I think there is no reason to believe that we would tolerate Chinese
hegemony in Asia any more than we would tolerate Japanese hegemony in Asia. Now, what does that mean? What do you think we
will do or we should do to prevent that inevitability from coming about? There are two things, I think, that we will do. One is, I think
that we'll go to considerable lengths to slow down Chinese economic growth, once it becomes apparent that they're headed toward the
Hong Kong model. I'm not exactly sure what policies we'll pursue, and I tend to believe that it will be almost impossible -- I don't
have a lot of hard evidence to support this, but I think it will be almost impossible to slow down Chinese economic growth. It will be
impossible. It will be almost impossible. Yes, it will be very difficult, at the very least, to slow down Chinese economic growth. The
second thing that we will do, which I think will be more effective, is that we'll put in place a containment policy, similar to the
containment policy that we had against the Soviet Union in the Cold War, to prevent China from actually dominating Asia. And the
balancing coalition will look like this: it will be Japan, Vietnam, Korea, India, Russia, and the United States. You can already see the
first stirrings of that balancing coalition. The fact that the United States and India, who were not rivals, but basically soft adversaries
during the Cold War, the fact that those two countries have now moved much closer to each other and are much more friendly with
each other, is, I believe, due to the common threat of China. I think you will see the same thing happening with Russia. I don't think
Russian-American relations will be as bad over the next twenty years as they were during the 1990s, in large part because a growing
China will push us together. Now, what particular form, or what particular action, will these alliances take? In other words, is the
worry here that China will be on the move militarily, and these coalitions will stop it? What form will this balancing take? Will it be
political? Will it be cultural? Or what? It will be mainly political and military. Just to give you a couple of examples to highlight the
potential problems that are out there. There's a dispute between Russia and China as to exactly where the border is between them, but,
more importantly, there has been massive illegal Chinese immigration into Russia. It is possible that a border dispute could break out
between Russia and China at some point in the distant future. The United States, I think, will go to great lengths to back up the
Russians and to prevent that from happening, because the United States would not want a situation where China conquered any large
portion of Russian territory. To take another example, Japan, as you well know, is an island state that is highly dependent on imports
and exports that come across water. Therefore, the Japanese are very concerned about the sea lines of communication that they're so
dependent on. The Chinese, on the other hand, troll those same waters. In the scenario we're describing, they are sure to build a very
large navy, and the Japanese and the American navies on one hand and the Chinese navy on the other hand are likely to move about in
places like the China Sea. And one can hypothesize all sorts of scenarios where they crash into each other.
39
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
HEGE- LUNAR MATERIALS I/L

Space solar power allows for the mining of key minerals on the moon.
(Mark Hempsell, University of Bristol, 10/06, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica,
Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, Science Direct)
In current times there is a greater concentration on pollution induced problems such as global warming , however, earlier
warnings of anthropogenic collapse tended to highlight rates of resource depletion . The original global dynamic modelling work of Forrester
[34] demonstrated that with only very small changes in the modelling parameters collapse due to pollution effects could be interchanged with collapse due to resource
depletion. In the later high profile work by Meadows et al. [35], the “standard run” was a resource depletion collapse. Bond and Varvill [36] have explored a
concept for mining metal on the Moon on a scale that would meet the world's demand for most common metals aluminium,
silicon titanium, iron and possibly nickel. The argument made was not that there was a shortage of these metals but that the energy used in
refining metals from their ores is one of the highest contributors to humanity's energy consumption . Therefore an extraterrestrial
metal supply would have a considerable impact on the Earth's total energy requirements . To produce hundreds of Mega-tonnes of iron
and tens of Mega-tonnes of aluminium an operation would require 100 GW on a continuous basis. Bond and Varvill assumed this would be provided by SPSs in L4 or
L5 Lagrange points—20 reference SPSs would be required to supply this—allowing continuous mining and refining operations. The material would be sent to Earth
using a electromagnetic accelerator the energy required to do this is between 6% for steel and 1% for aluminium of the energy required to mine and refine the metal.
Thus the transport element is not a significant extra burden. The overall concept is shown in Fig. 2. Bond and Varvill's solution to the final return to Earth was to shape
the ingots into an aerodynamic disk shown in Fig. 2. Each disk is 80 m diameter and 8 m deep with a mass of 3000 tonnes. The ballistic coefficient ensures heat loads at
atmosphere entry do not melt the ingot and that the final impact speed with the ground is 100 m/s slow enough to ensure the ingot stays in one piece for salvage. Of
course one of the first major users of lunar materials would be the SPS systems itself as highlighted by O’Neil [37], so it is likely that the technology for
lunar metal extraction would be part of the SPS legacy and not require separate development.
Lunar minerals are strategic minerals that are key to US leadership and military prowess.
(Alex Michael Bonnici, Queens College of the City University of New York (CUNY) Bachelors Physics and Education and
Atlantica Expeditions EU Liaison, 9/10/07, “We Must Choose To Return to the Moon and Do the Other Things,”
http://discoveryenterprise.blogspot.com/2007/09/we-must-choose-to-return-to-moon-and-do.html)
We can no longer remain a nation held captive by our political and ideological foes by solely relying on strategic mineral and
energy resources controlled by nations and despotic regimes that neither share our democratic values nor our love for individual human liberty. A
common definition of a strategic mineral is a mineral that would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential
civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency . Furthermore, they are not found or produced in the United States
in sufficient quantities to meet this need. We can no longer allow ourselves to remain bound by this status quo. Nor should we relinquish nor endanger our
leadership as defenders of the free world by making political and diplomatic compromises with these same nations. And, neither should we allow ourselves to be forced
to engage in reckless military actions that would compel other nations to question our real commitment to democratic values throughout the rest of the world in order to
secure our hold on these resources. Our nation must commit itself to a long term program of energy independence and give up its
debilitating addiction to Mid-eastern oil and its dependency on strategic minerals located in the most politically unstable and
volatile regions of the World. A crucial first step in meeting these objectives is to embark and commit our nation to a long
term space program with the clear objective of developing the mineral and energy resources of cis-lunar space . And, by choosing to
return to the Moon we will have taken the first step in attaining these goals. We must focus our efforts towards utilising the mineral resources of
the moon and near earth asteroids, exploiting space based solar power and committing our nation to the settlement of space .
Only such a long term roadmap can ensure the security of our nation and its allies. In the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: “The exploration of space will go
ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay
behind in the race for space. Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern
invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--
we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a
hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with
instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In
short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to
solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation”. <CONTINUED>
40
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
HEGE- LUNAR MATERIALS I/L

<CONTINUED>
Kennedy saw, as few political leaders have before or since, that our leadership in the high frontier of space is very much linked to our
leadership as defenders of the free world. We as a people must make our political leadership understand this and state clearly
that as Americans we can not allow our nation to flounder in the backwash of history. Neither should our ideas of individual freedom and
free enterprise be left behind on Earth to decay and wither in the face of global tyranny by allowing other nations to go in our stead. It is up to our generation to ensure
that our most cherished values be taken to the stars where they can continue to flourish. This can be made so only by avowing ourselves to the goal, before this decade
is out, that the United States remains first and foremost amongst spacefaring nations.
41
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
RESOURCE WAR ADV

Solar Satellites prevent international and regional conflagration over energy stocks
National Security Space Office 10-10-07

(http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)
Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21 st
Century, and many see energy scarcity as the foremost threat to national security. Conflict prevention is of particular interest
to security‐providing institutions such as the U.S Department of Defense which has elevated energy and environmental
security as priority issues with a mandate to proactively find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic
security is preserved. The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant
consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the
United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and
intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and
receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into
manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers
Space solar power helps military engagements and prevents resource scarcity
(CNN, 6/1/08, “How to harvest solar power? Beam it down from space!”
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html?eref=rss_space, Lara Farrar)
The study also concluded that solar energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military operations and deliver
energy to disaster areas and developing nations. "The country that takes the lead on space solar power will be the energy-exporting
country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said. Russia, China, the European Union and India, according to
the Pentagon report, are interested in the concept. And Japan, which has been pouring millions of dollars into space power studies for
decades, is working toward testing a small-scale demonstration in the near future.
42
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
RESOURCE WAR ADV

Space solar power solves water scarcity – it effectively maps water distribution and allows for massive
desalination projects.
(DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM, PRESIDENT OF INDIA, 11/2003, Speech 90th INDIAN SCIENCE CONGRESS, “VISION FOR
THE GLOBAL SPACE COMMUNITY: PROSPEROUS, HAPPY AND SECURE PLANET EARTH,”
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/1950da/1950DA_Kalam_90th_Indian_Congress.pdf)
The era of wood and bio-mass is almost neared its end. So to the age of oil and natural gas would soon be over even within the
next few decades. Massive burning of the remaining reserves of coal would surely lead the world in ecological disaster. Nuclear
power especially a breakthrough in nuclear fusion may be a path. But sustainable economic development and perennial sources of
clean energy which would then heal the wounded planet earth's environment and ecology is the only massive use of the solar
energy. Water for future generations More than 70% of earth surface is having water; but only one percent is available as fresh
water fro drinking purposes. Currently, more than half of the world's six billion population is without access to safe drinking
water and sanitation. Twenty thousand children are dying every day due to polluted drinking water more than the total mortality due
to cancer, aids, wars and accidents. By the year 2025 when the world population touches eight billion, as many as seven billion will
be living under conditions moderate, high and extreme water scarcity. There is a four-fold path towards safe, fresh drinking
water. The first is to re-distribute water supply; the second is to seek new sources; the third is to save and reduce demand for water;
and the fourth is to recycle used water supplies. Space science and technology can surely find sustainable regional solutions for
abundant and perennial supply of fresh drinking water. In our country, redistribution of water supply through networking of
rivers is now being taken up as a critical mission. Remote sensing to survey and evolve optimum water routes, environmental
mapping and afforestation requirements, and continuous monitoring of the networked water flow through all seasons and at
all times may require a dedicated satellite constellation for our networked river systems. Space technologies for new sources of
fresh water Seeking new water supply sources may also be yet another thrust area for space science and technologies. Reverse
osmosis technologies for sea water desalination in new energy efficient manner is rapidly evolving. Space based solar power
stations have six to fifteen times greater capital utilization than equivalent sized ground solar stations. Linking Space solar
power to reverse osmosis technology for large-scale drinking water supplies to coastal cities is thus yet another major
contribution which could be made by space technologies for sustainable economic development through regional solutions for the
impending drinking water crisis.
43
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
RESOURCE WAR ADV

Solar desalination solves Gaza water shortages that cause major instability.
(Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation TREC, 9/15/2006, “A Solar Water&Power Source for Recovery of Gaza,”
http://www.desertec.org/downloads/proposal_gaza.pdf)
The conflicts for land, water, and “security” in the Middle East cannot be solved by brute force or confrontation. In addition,
the rapidly growing population in MENA countries and the frictions of religions are aggravating the situation. A new chapter
in the relations between countries and parties involved in and affected by these conflicts is urgently needed. Here we will propose an
attempt of turning the mounting water crisis into a turning point from confrontation to cooperation. Energy and water security, and
even sustainable prosperity in the Middle East and in North Africa can be achieved by a joint effort for large-scale utilization
of solar energy. Gaza is a hotspot of needs and conflicts. It is running out of drinking water by overextracting the aquifers.
This may lead to a critical situation. There is little hope that this crisis will be resolved from inside. It is rather certain that it will
escalate and send shock waves to the world around it. If things just continue Gaza might quite rapidly become a source of
escalating violence with disastrous and costly implications, inside and beyond its borders – may be with a global reach. Here we
propose a technical solution for the Gaza water crisis: Instead of fighting for insufficient resources of water and energy the region
and its human forces could concentrate on creating new ones. The proposal We propose that Palestine and Egypt, and
potentially also Jordan, Israel and the EU engage in constructing a solar water and power source (SW&PS) for Gaza as a multi-
national effort. This can be done with existing technologies, human labour and ingenuity, available technology and existing financial
resources, and with the over-abundant sources of sunlight and seawater. With energy from concentrating solar collectors (Fig. 2
and 3) combined power and desalination plants can transform deserts along shore lines into inexhaustible sources of power
and water with unlimited capacity. This will give those countries a new horizon for their development. Primarily the Gaza
SW&PS will produce power, water and optionally also cooling for buildings for the mounting demand coming up in Gaza for a
population expected to reach 3 Million within a few decades. The full project may be accomplished within 10 to 15 years. That’s why
the Gaza Solar Water&Power Source effectively would give to humanity an efficient tool to end global warming and to avoid global
energy scarcity. It is a global sustainability project.
44
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
RESOURCE WAR ADV
Solar desalination in Gaza builds infrastructure and international cooperation while solving regional
tensions.
(Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation TREC, 9/15/2006, “A Solar Water&Power Source for Recovery of Gaza,”
http://www.desertec.org/downloads/proposal_gaza.pdf)
Gaza in the poverty trap The population of Gaza is unlikely to be able to pay normal (i.e. unsubsidized) prices already before
Gaza has recovered from extreme poverty to normal conditions. One might speculate that Gaza waits for cost reduction of solar
technology to happen somewhere else. This, however, may delay the recovery program of Gaza by several years. On the other hand,
the proposed project would accelerate the cost reduction to the benefit of the MENA region, and it would provide an
opportunity to bring this technology into the hands of sunbelt countries. External beneficiaries For many reasons the best strategy
for Gaza and for the whole MENA region would be to implement the Gaza SW&PS as fast as possible. Low cost power and water
and just the existence of such a pro-gram could attract further investments to Gaza. A number of urban regions in MENA, for
instance the Yemenite cities Taizz and Sana’a, could then take advantage of an accelerated cost reduction process. All MENA
countries could profit from reduced power costs sooner. According to the development scenario in the MED-CSP study by DLR
(www.dlr.de/tt/med-csp), 2500 TWh electricity may be pro-duced by CSP plants in MENA in the year 2050. A cost reduction by 1
ct/kWh would then translate into a saving of 25 billion $/year. Also Europe could benefit, since solar power at reduced costs could
then be transmitted to Europe. Since there are a number of economical beneficiaries of the Gaza project outside of Gaza, we
propose that the outside world makes a contribution to this project. To this end we propose to organize an international effort.
An International Gaza Recovery Agency There are many ways of handling international support for development, some being more
and others less successful. A proven financing method for bringing renewable energy technologies into the market is a feed-in
regulation which guarantees take-in, here of power and water, at guaranteed prices over a guaranteed period of years. Prices for
power and water have to be set such that they attract investors. This task could be accomplished by an international agency
for the recovery of Gaza, which is to be formed and financed by countries and institutions with a positive interest in the Gaza
recovery and with a benefit from access to low-cost, secure and clean energy. By an international contract they establish the legal
body Gaza Recovery Agency (GARAGE). It should include regional bodies like the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) and Arab Fund
for Economic and Social Development (AFESD). GARAGE acts as the contractor for long term purchase agreements with investors
for water and power from plants erected for the Gaza SW&PS. GARAGE buys water and power for agreed prices from the plants in
Egypt and sells these products to the city or citizens of Gaza for a (lower) price, which meets the buying power of Gaza citizens. The
plants on Egyptian soil will be erected in compli-ance with regulations set by Egyptian authorities. The proposed Gaza Recov-
ery Agency and its func-tions are in analogy to the German feed in regulation, a proven tool for successful advancement of renewable
energies. The role of the national German feed-in law is here taken by the Gaza Recovery Agency. The financial volumes GARAGE
will need for making the project go are to be determined in a targeted study. Summary of general benefits of the project. 1. The water
stress could be taken away from the Palestine-Israel region. 2. It could pave the way for the Sana’a Solar Water project and for
water&power projects at many other (actually: most) urban areas of the MENA region, which are about to outgrow their natural water
resources. 3. A technology can be advanced which can become world-wide a powerful tool for secure power supply (see Fig. 6)
and for stopping global warming. 4. It furthers international cooperation for water and energy, and for environmental and
interna-tional security: a. Egypt may become a preferred producer of components and materials (glass and iron) for the
collectors. Egypt might develop to a center for solar technology in and for the MENA region. b. Jordan and Israel might contribute
know-how on solar collector technology and on project management. c. EU could contribute technology and funds, and
experience in project realization. d. Other international donors, in particular Arab financial institutions or oil-rich countries could
participate in investments. 5. It could facilitate constructive co-operation for peace and for a sustainable future among peo-ples from 3
world religions. 6. Gaza could become a producer of solar collector components for a world market, and thus get a long term
perspective for its economy, for the employment situation, and opportunities for young people. 7. The augmentation of energy and
water sources could enhance the perspectives for peace and for sustainable prosperity in this conflict ridden region and in
many parts of the world. Such benefits may justify a classification of this project as a “World Sustainability Project”.
<CONTINUED>
45
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
RESOURCE WAR ADV

<CONTINUED>
The proposed Gaza Recov-ery Agency and its func-tions are in analogy to the German feed in regulation, a proven tool for successful
advancement of renewable energies. The role of the national German feed-in law is here taken by the Gaza Recovery Agency. The
financial volumes GARAGE will need for making the project go are to be determined in a targeted study. Summary of general
benefits of the project. 1. The water stress could be taken away from the Palestine-Israel region. 2. It could pave the way for the
Sana’a Solar Water project and for water&power projects at many other (actually: most) urban areas of the MENA region, which are
about to outgrow their natural water resources. 3. A technology can be advanced which can become world-wide a powerful tool for
secure power supply (see Fig. 6) and for stopping global warming. 4. It furthers international cooperation for water and energy, and
for environmental and interna-tional security: a. Egypt may become a preferred producer of components and materials (glass and iron)
for the collectors. Egypt might develop to a center for solar technology in and for the MENA region. b. Jordan and Israel might
contribute know-how on solar collector technology and on project management. c. EU could contribute technology and funds, and
experience in project realization. d. Other international donors, in particular Arab financial institutions or oil-rich countries could
participate in investments. 5. It could facilitate constructive co-operation for peace and for a sustainable future among peo-ples from 3
world religions. 6. Gaza could become a producer of solar collector components for a world market, and thus get a long term
perspective for its economy, for the employment situation, and opportunities for young people. 7. The augmentation of energy and
water sources could enhance the perspectives for peace and for sustainable prosperity in this conflict ridden region and in many parts
of the world. Such benefits may justify a classification of this project as a “World Sustainability Project”.
Poverty is structural violence that outweighs nuclear war
Mumia Abu-Jamal, is a badass activist, 9-19-98, http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html)
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a
kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan
observes; By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of
society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a
function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to
distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by
which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such
as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence:
Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian,
corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--
really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a
nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty
throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an
ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade,
throughout the world.
46
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FOREIGN DEPENDENCY ADV.

Solar Satellites are capable of produce almost as much energy in a year as all the remaining oil in the
world combined, ending reliance

A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212
terawatt‐years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on
Earth today (approximately 250 TW‐yrs). The enormous potential of this resource demands an examination of mankind’s
ability to successfully capture and utilize this energy within the context of today’s technology, economic, and policy realities,
as well as the expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space‐based solar power (SBSP) indicates that there is
enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space faring, improved
environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess such a capability.
Energy from Space Satelites can replace Oil in the transportation industry (link to oil DA if underlined
differently)

To the extent mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the rate at
which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to
transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to both mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation
infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground
transportation, a movement toward plug‐in hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to
be powered by SBSP electricity. For those applications that favor or rely upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels, America’s national
labs are pursuing several promising avenues of research to manufacture carbon‐neutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct
solar thermal energy or radiated/electrical SBSP. The lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently split energy‐
neutral feedstocks or upgrade lower‐grade fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid hydrocarbons . Put
plainly, SBSP could be utilized to split hydrogen from water and the carbon monoxide (syngas) from carbon dioxide which
can then be combined to manufacture any desired hydrocarbon fuel, including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. This
technology is still in its infancy, and significant investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of
technical readiness and meet economic and efficiency goals. This technology enables a carbon‐neutral (closed carbon‐cycle)
hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable sources of power, which can utilize the existing global fuel infrastructure
without modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil companies. The ability to use renewable
energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a carbon neutral cycle, is a “total game changer” that deserves
significant attention.
47
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FOREIGN DEPENDENCY ADV.

SBSP IS THE MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF ENERGY PRODUCTION. ITS ADOPTION
IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR FOSSIL FUELS
Brandhorst said satellites in geosynchronous orbits -- and always in sunlight -- could continuously collect solar radiation and safely
beam the energy to Earth as microwaves or through lasers. He said the satellites could be repositioned to deliver energy to receiving
stations in multiple locations.
Because there is energy loss during the process of beaming the energy to Earth and converting it back to electricity, it may not be
more cost-effective than placing solar panels in places with ample sunlight. However, Brandhorst said the satellites would be most
beneficial in providing energy to places that are not easily accessible, do not receive extensive sunlight or do not have sufficient
energy-distribution infrastructure.
Brandhorst said that beaming solar power from space is essential for space exploration, which according to President Bush is now
NASA's priority. Brandhorst said that it is not feasible to carry enough fuel into space to develop settlements on the moon, so solar
energy is the best alternative.
Bush has repeatedly said that the United States must become less reliant on foreign sources of energy as a matter of national security,
but his administration has given solar power from space the cold shoulder. While his administration has allocated millions of dollars
for research into alternative fuel sources such as nuclear fusion and hydrogen, according to John Mankins, assistant associate
administrator of advanced systems at NASA, there has been no funding for space solar power since 2001.
Mankins said that because the technology blurs the lines between governmental agencies, it does not have a true champion. "To
NASA, it's not fish, nor fowl, nor red herring -- it's not our mission," Mankins said. NASA does not explore terrestrial energy sources,
and the Department of Energy does not research satellites, according to Mankins.
CONTINUED DEPENDENCY ON FOSSIL FUEL LEADS TO MULTIPLE SCENARIOS OF

NUCLEAR WAR AND DEVASTATING CLIMATE CHANGE CULMINATING IN EXTINCTION
Bill Henderson, 24 February, 2007 “Climate Change, Peak Oil And Nuclear War”
http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-henderson240207.htm
Damocles had one life threatening sword hanging by a thread over his head. We have three: The awakening public now know that
climate change is real and human caused but still grossly underestimate the seriousness of the danger, the increasing probability of
extinction, and how close and insidious this danger is - runaway climate change, the threshold of which, with carbon cycle time lags,
we are close to if not upon. A steep spike in the price of oil, precipitated perhaps by an attack on Iran or Middle East instability
spreading the insurgency to Saudi Arabia, could lead to an economic dislocation paralyzing the global economy. Such a shock coming
at the end of cheap oil but before major development of alternative energy economies could mean the end of civilization as we know
it. And there is a building new cold war with still potent nuclear power Russia and China reacting to a belligerent, unilateralist
America on record that it will use military power to secure vital resources and to not allow any other country to threaten it's world
dominance. The world is closer to a final, nuclear, world war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 with a beginning
arms race and tactical confrontation over weapons in space and even serious talk of pre-emptive nuclear attack. These three immediate
threats to humanity, to each of us now but also to future generations, are inter-related, interact upon each other, and complicate any
possible approach to individual solution. The fossil fuel energy path has taken us to a way of life that is killing us and may lead to
extinction for humanity and much of what we now recognize as nature.
48
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NEG OR HARD POWER ADV.

Other nations fear space solar power – they think the capability of beaming energy to mobile troops
justifies anti-satellite responses.
(Geoffrey Styles, Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC, 10/12/07, “Power from Space,” Energy Outlook,
http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2007/10/power-from-space.html)
Finally, although our perspective on national security and its energy security dimensions has expanded since 9/11, the potential
linkage of SSP to military applications raises the prospect of international opposition to a project that could probably only
proceed as an international initiative. I appreciate the benefits of having an "anchor customer" that puts a high premium on the ability
to deliver power to any point on the planet. The advantages for the military would also be significant, given the expense and risk
it incurs delivering energy to the "battlespace." However, the basic architecture of SSP will inevitably raise concerns about its
inherent military potential, whether that potential is real or merely perceived. This is an issue that would have to be navigated
very cautiously, particularly since other nations with anti-satellite capabilities might regard an SSP beaming power to a war
zone as a legitimate military target.
49
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
COOLING ADDON
Space solar power can prevent global cooling that could cause famine, disease, and catastrophic deaths.
One of the common features of past natural global catastrophes is a cooling of the Earth's climate, which is the key vector
triggering famine, disease and other causes of death. In cases of NEO impact and caldaria volcanoes this is caused by material in
the atmosphere and lasts for over a year. The cause of the cooling during the little ice age is less certain but it lasted for a considerable
period of time. A system to counter this cooling would have widespread applicability and great efficacy in these cases, and
could in itself prevent the majority of deaths. The system would not have to heat the whole Earth but rather selectively target
regions where cooling induced effects create a hazard. Examples might be heating plague reservoirs regularly to above 25° to
prevent breakout of the disease, ensuring snow melt in early spring in high latitude countries (so ice reflectivity does not reduce solar
heating) reducing occurrence of frost in high-yield agricultural areas, and the heating of ocean regions to ensure viable rainfall. If a
significant SPS capability existed that used microwave power transmission, then heating could be achieved by defocusing the
transmission antenna and pointing the power beam at the area that requires heating. That is to use the SPS as a microwave
oven. This is clearly a “zero cost” option as no new systems are required and one 5 GW unit could provide 10 mW/cm2–500 km2
(a circle 25 km diameter at the equator). In practice, the target areas are more likely to be in the order several 100 km in diameter so
tens of SPS would need to be used together. However, the use of SPS for direct ground heating has two drawbacks. The first
drawback is that demand for power is likely to significantly increase during a global catastrophe event as discussed above so it may
prove impractical to remove a significant fraction of the world's main power generating capability to perform other roles. The second
drawback is that to produce any serious warming levels the power levels would have to be above 10 mW/cm2, which would be
controversially high. The NASA reference system produces levels outside the rectenna of below 0.01 mW/cm2 and “official health
agencies worldwide agree that levels such as View the MathML source are safe for indefinite exposure” [25]. Osepchuk [25] argues
that most national exposure limits show a trend to harmonise at 1 mW/cm2, but this is at least an order of magnitude below levels that
would produce appreciable ground heating. In the past, some nations have set maximum exposure levels as high as 10 mW/cm2 and
no proven ill effects are noted at these levels, but there is scientific uncertainty in the matter and there is likely to be considerable
public resistance to such high levels. Thus, it may be an option that can be exercised only in extreme circumstances. An alternative is
to construct a specialist system that does not use microwaves, since the main objective is to replace missing sunlight a direct
reflector system would be the approach with the least environmental problems. Such a system would lie between Ehricke's
concepts for Lunetta (lunar light levels) and Soletta (sun light levels) [26]. Low level light supplement concepts have been widely
discussed (e.g. recently by Bekey [27]) and there has even been an in-orbit technology demonstration of mirror deployment on
Progress M-15 in 1993. Power levels comparable to the Sun are often seen as less credible in the near term (e.g. [28]), but in the
context of a working SPS system it would be viable. Direct solar reflectors cannot produce spots better than 0.5° due to the angular
size of the Sun. Bekey [27] considers other errors to be negligible but given the reflecting surface will not be perfect and there will be
pointing errors the total illuminated area can be taken as around 1° when several separate reflectors are combined. From a reflector
system in geostationary orbit the illumination spot would be over 600 km, which may be a little large and there is no reason why the
system should be in geostationary orbit. In a lower orbit one system can reach the whole of the Earth over time. As an example, a
reflector in a circular 8 h orbit would produce a spot on the ground of around 240 km diameter. A system of 30 such reflectors (a
similar number to the NASA reference system) and each the size of a NASA reference SPS View the MathML source spaced at 1°
intervals can produce an increase in sunlight of around 1.5%, that could be up to 15 W/m2 on the ground in clear conditions. Fig. 1
shows the percentage increase over a day on a target site timed to maximise the early afternoon value to maximise the highest
temperature of the day.
50
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
**CITES** WARMING ADV.

Space solar power is the only method that guarantees permanent solvency for global warming
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space
and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not
just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on
Earth with very little environmental impact.
The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5
billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's
output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is
routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power
transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet.
SBSP has zero negative environmental impact

The technologies and infrastructure required to make space solar power feasible include: Low-cost, environmentally-friendly launch
vehicles. Current launch vehicles are too expensive, and at high launch rates may pose atmospheric pollution problems of their own.
Cheaper, cleaner launch vehicles are needed. Large scale in-orbit construction and operations. To gather massive quantities of
energy, solar power satellites must be large, far larger than the International Space Station (ISS), the largest spacecraft built to date.
Fortunately, solar power satellites will be simpler than the ISS as they will consist of many identical parts. Power transmission. A
relatively small effort is also necessary to assess how to best transmit power from satellites to the Earth’s surface with minimal
environmental impact. All of these technologies are reasonably near-term and have multiple attractive approaches. However, a great
deal of work is needed to bring them to practical fruition. In the longer term, with sufficient investments in space infrastructure, space
solar power can be built from materials from space. The full environmental benefits of space solar power derive from doing most of
the work outside of Earth's biosphere. With materials extraction from the Moon or near-Earth asteroids, and space-based manufacture
of components, space solar power would have essentially zero terrestrial environmental impact. Only the energy receivers need be
built on Earth. Space solar power can completely solve our energy problems long term. The sooner we start and the harder we work,
the shorter "long term" will be.
Sbsp solves fossil fuel dependency

Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers few vehicles today, hybrids
will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells
improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation — but only if we can generate the
enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use
fossil fuels again to generate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any
future electric transportation system.
51
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
WARMING ADV.
SOLAR ENERGY IS BETTER COMPARED TO ALL OTHER FORMS OF ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY
We are going to have to find some other sources of energy, and the only two sources of energy that will last as long as the Earth does
are fusion energy and solar energy. I don’t mean that we are going to have to depend solely on one or the other; there are other sources
of energy that can be developed as well. There is geothermal energy, energy from under the Earth. There is biomass energy, the
energy of the plant world. There is the energy of tides, wind, waves, and running water. All these can and will be used, but they are all
relatively limited and there is no likelihood that they will supply all the energy we need. So, in addition to all these sources, we will
need forms of energy that we can rely on in huge quantities forever. That brings us back to fusion energy and solar energy. We don’t
have fusion energy yet, although we’ve been working towards it for more than 30 years. We’re not sure exactly what difficulties might
exist between demonstrating it in the laboratory and developing huge power plants that will supply the world. We do have solar
energy, but it’s difficult to get in large quantities because it is spread thinly over the world. If we could get millions of photovoltaic
cells (a kind of silicon cell that sets up a small electric current when exposed to light) and stretch them over half of Arizona (I only
mention Arizona because there is usually a lot of sunshine there), we could perhaps supply enough energy for America’s needs. If we
did that in other parts of the world as well, we could supply the entire world. There is no doubt, however, that setting up solar cells
(photovoltaic cells) on the Earth’s surface is not very efficient. For one thing, there is no solar energy for the cells to absorb during the
night. Even in the daytime under the best conditions (for example, in a desert area without fog, mist, or clouds), clear air absorbs a
substantial portion of the sunlight, especially if the Sun is near the horizon. And of course, you also have the problem of maintaining
these cells against nature’s effects and against vandalism.
For these reasons it might be more reasonable to build a solar power station in space. Under such conditions, we could make use of the
entire range of solar energy 98 percent of the time, because the stations could easily be positioned so they would fall into the Earth’s
shadow only 2 percent of the time, at the equinoxes. A chain of these stations around the Earth would allow most of them to be in the
sunshine all the time. Optimists have calculated that in space, a given area of solar cells will provide 60 times more energy than on the
Earth’s surface. We can then imagine this chain of power stations circling the Earth in the equatorial plane at a height of
approximately 22,000 miles above the Earth’s surface. At this distance their orbital position will just keep time with the surface of the
Earth as it rotates about its axes. If you stood on a spot at the equator and looked up at the sky with a sufficiently strong telescope, you
could see the solar power station apparently motionless above you. I feel a certain proprietorship toward this idea of a space station. It
was advanced about 20 years ago by people at the AVCO Corporation in Massachusetts, but about 40 years ago I wrote a story called
Reason in which I talked about just such a power station. Of course, I missed the important point of having it in orbit around the Earth.
I described it in an orbit similar to Mercury’s around the Sun so that it could get even more energy. I ignored the fact that it would be
awfully difficult to aim it at Earth from such a distance; in science fiction stories, you can dismiss such problems by saying that an
advanced technology won’t find it difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, solar power stations are my idea, and I’m proud of it!
The Plan would result in a massive net decrease in Global Warming

The final global effect is not obvious, but also important. While it may seem intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat
into the biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the opposite. All energy put into the electrical grid will
eventually be spent as heat, but the methods of generating electricity are of significant impact for determining which
approach produces the least total global warming effect. Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and
greenhouse gases, while terrestrial solar and wind power also emit significant amounts of waste heat via inefficient
conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is that the
most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the biosphere to be radiated into space. The losses in the atmosphere are very
small, on the order of a couple percent for the wavelengths considered. Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with
the exception of initial manufacturing and launch fuel emissions), it does not contribute to the trapping action and retention of
heat in the biosphere.
52
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
WARMING ADV.
Space solar power is uniquely key to reversing global warming – it can provide the energy to actively
remove CO2 from the environment.
The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the atmosphere would
clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual production rate of around 30 Gtonnes
a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To remove a tonne of the gas over a year and split the carbon from the oxygen
would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a removal and processing plant would remove 5 million tonnes a
year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current production rate. Taking a scenario of the expanded reference system with
around 200 SPS in place providing most of the world's energy needs without any carbon dioxide being produced there would
still be a need to remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and dedicated to CO2
removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the current production rate. Such a system (doubling
mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be operational for a thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy
dependence on energy from fossil fuels. Another proposal to address global warming is the use of a space-based “parasol” to
block enough sunlight to counter the effect of greenhouses gases [30] and [31]. It has been shown that the Sun–Earth L1 is the
optimum position for such a system [32] and an optimisation study by Macinnes [33] derives a shield 1824 km in radius with a mass
of 410 Mtonnes to produce a 2 K drop in global temperatures. While the scale of this shield is 200 times greater than a reference SPS,
as there is only one screen the total system mass and scale is only an order of magnitude greater and comparable to the expanded
reference system.
53
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
**CITES** SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY
Better than earth-based solar power

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/space-based-solar-power/ June 10th, 2008 American scientist Peter Glaser proposed the
idea of using space solar power in 1968. The fast depleting conventional energy resources renewed the interest for trapping the solar
power via satellites. Right now the usual alternative energy methods have their own shortcomings. Hydro power plants disrupt
ecosystems and human habitats. Minimum rain threatens hydro power. Clouds block the sun and sunlight. Wind can choose not to
blow at the desirable speed. Alternative energy plants provide intermittent power supply, thus forcing us to store energy. All these
factors increase the complexities of using alternative fuels. If we are able to harness space based solar power, we can overcome these
shortcomings. Recently rising fuel prices and at the same time fast depleting conventional energy sources are drawing the interest of
NASA and PENTAGON to conduct further studies in the area of space solar power. If a satellite can be placed at an appropriate
height it can remain unaffected by the earth’s shadow and the drifting power plant can beam solar energy to ground based receivers
whole year. A 2007 report released by the Pentagon’s National Security Space Office, encouraged the U.S. government to spearhead
the development of space power systems states: “A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough
solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on earth
today.” But the trillion-dollar question is how to make this technologically and economically viable? Four factors can make a big
difference: The feat can be achieved at considerably low cost. Governments and industries realize that the cost and disadvantages of
using fossil fuels are far greater than the effort and costs involved in generating solar power from space. The cost of conventional
energy increases to a great extent. We run out of conventional energy sources. Read: Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security
SBSP is the better than all other alternative energies

While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other
energy sources.
Advantages of Space Solar Power (also known as Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP)
Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases.
Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources.
Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm land or depend on natural-gas-
derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider.
Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds
of years.
Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It
works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or wind speed.
Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not provide easy targets for terrorists.
Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, space solar power does not require environmentally problematic mining operations.
54
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY

Better than land based solar energy- land prices
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 used for
other things. Rooftop space may not be valuable, but acres of farmland are. There is also only a limited number of 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.
55
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
**TAG AND CITE** SOLVENCY

Pentagon, no date given, “Space-Based Solar Power - Harvesting Energy from Space”
http://www.azocleantech.com/Details.asp?ArticleId=69
The deployment of space platforms that capture sunlight for beaming down electrical power to Earth is under review by the Pentagon,
as a way to offer global energy and security benefits - including the prospect of short-circuiting future resource wars between
increasingly energy-starved nations. Imagine providing the Earth or a moon base with harnessed solar power, or traveling in space
without returning to Earth for fuel. That’s the idea behind space-based solar power generators such as this SunTower. Depending upon
size, two small panels on a tall tower could power a communications satellite, four panels might power a robotic interplanetary probe,
six a manned spacecraft, while 20 panels might supply energy down to Earth or for a lunar base. (Image source: NASA) A proposal is
being vetted by U.S. military space strategists that 10 percent of the U.S. baseload of energy by 2050, perhaps sooner, could be
produced by space based solar power (SBSP). Furthermore, a demonstration of the concept is being eyed to occur within the next five
to seven years. A mix of advocates, technologists and scientists, as well as legal and policy experts, took part in Space Based Solar
Power - Charting a Course for Sustainable Energy, a meeting held here September 6-7 and sponsored by the United States Air Force
Academy's Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies and the Pentagon's National Security Space Office. Energy from Space
"I truly believe that space based solar power will become the first sellable, tradable commodity that's delivered by space that
everybody on the planet can have part of," said Colonel (Select) Michael Smith, Chief, Future Concepts in the National Security Space
Office and director of the SBSP study. To bolster such a vision, establishing a partnership of government, commercial and
international entities is under discussion, he added, to work on infrastructure development that, ultimately, culminates in the fielding
of space based solar power. The U.S. Department of Defense has an "absolute urgent need for energy," Smith said, underscoring the
concern that major powers around the world - not just the United States - could end up in a major war of attrition in the 21st century.
"We've got to make sure that we alleviate the energy concerns around the globe," he said. "Energy may well be the first tangible
commodity returned from space," said Joseph Rouge, Associate Director of the National Security Space Office. "Geopolitics in
general is going to be a large issue. I don't think there's any question that energy is going to be one of the key next issues, along with
water ... that's going to be the competition we're going to fight." Rouge said that moving out on the proposed SBSP effort would be
the largest space venture yet, making the Apollo Moon landing project "look like just a small little program." As a caveat, however, he
noted that the U.S. Department of Defense is cash-strapped and is not the financial backer for such an endeavor. "But do look to us to
help you develop the technologies and developing a lot of the other infrastructure," Rouge advised, seeing SBSP, for instance, as
helping to spur a significant reduction in the cost of routine access to space for the U.S. and its allies. Space Based Solar Power:
Trends of Concern There is a compelling argument of synergy between energy security, space security and national security,
observed Col. Michael Hornitschek, Co-Chair of the National Security Space Office Architecture Study on Space Based Solar Power.
Hornitschek flagged "trends of concern" in dealing with the world-wide energy challenge, citing global population and escalating
energy demands, as well as the portent of climate change. He also referred to U.S. loss in global market share and leadership, in
addition to declines in research and development investments and a skilled workforce. Although space based solar power has been
studied since the 1970s - by the Department of Energy, NASA, the European Space Agency, as well as the Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency - Hornitschek said that the idea has generally "fallen between the cracks" because no organization is responsible
for both space programs and energy security. Over the last few decades, the march of technology useful to SBSP has been significant,
said Neville Marzwell, Manager of Advanced Concepts and Technology Innovation at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
California. "We have made tremendous progress in technology from 1977 to 2007," Marzwell reported. He pointed to advances in
micro and nano-electronics, lightweight inflatable composite structures, ultra-small power management devices, as well as laboratory
demonstration of photovoltaic arrays that are close to 68 percent conversion efficiency. Still, there's work to be done, Marzwell
emphasized, specifically in wireless power beaming. By modularizing SBSP platforms, the work can start small and foster batch
production to keep price per unit costs down while evolving a bigger energy market, he said.
56
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FED KEY
ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REMOVE THE NECESSARY ECONOMIC

BARRIERS TO MAKE SBSP COST-EFFECTIVE
The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future,
including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to
increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission
concluded that the nation will have to be a spacefaring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century—that our freedom,
mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in
aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and
that NASA and DoD need to make the investments
necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide
Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to
commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global
marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term,
national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an
acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by
providing insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged
the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives
that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies
represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness.
57
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FED KEY
Government funding is required in all stages of solar powered satellite development.
(Paul Eckert, Ph.D. International & Commercial Strategist The Boeing Company - Space Exploration, and John Mankins,
President Artemis Innovation Management Solutions LLC, 7/28/06, “Bridging the Gap From Earth Markets to New Space Markets,”
An Industry Roundtable Las Vegas, Nevada 17-19 July 2006, www.spaceinvestmentsummit.com/lcr3/lcr3-full_report.pdf)
Case 1: Energy for Earth from Space — Solar Power Satellites. The market potential for SPS is extremely large, ranging to many
hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and involves a large already existing global demand for energy (e.g., about 20% of the global
economy). Margins in existing markets have traditionally been modest, depending on demand and technology. Moreover, in this case,
the type and sources for investments are expected to shift over time: (1) during the research phase, including early co-
investment by government and industry, as well as private capital sources; (2) during systems development, including both
industry and government agencies (e.g., civil space, other); and (3) during the deployment and operations phase, including large
scale commercial and public capital, and industry. Also, the nominal timeframe for full- scale SPS market infusion is the far term
(i.e., 2030 and beyond), with an initial, full- scale SPS pilot plant possible by the 2025 timeframe. (Note: an uncertainty of these dates
of ± 6-8 years was identified.) Finally, a number of areas of risk were identified, including Technical risk—significant
perceptions/concerns (development, operations); • Price risk (e.g., related to government policies such as carbon credits); including
market competition risks (e.g., a breakthrough in a competing area); • Financial risk—e.g., potential need for debt support government
policies; • Public perception risks; • Regulatory risk due to spectrum allocation, etc.; • Infrastructure-related risks (e.g., need for Earth-
to-orbit and in-space systems), and • Other factors, such as the influence of corporate strategic planning (e.g., future business risks
and/or directions), and corporate decisions concerning disruptive innovation
58
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FED KEY
Government support for space solar power is key to prevent competition and garner integral private
sector support.
(Paul Eckert, Ph.D. International & Commercial Strategist The Boeing Company - Space Exploration, and John Mankins,
President Artemis Innovation Management Solutions LLC, 7/28/06, “Bridging the Gap From Earth Markets to New Space Markets,”
An Industry Roundtable Las Vegas, Nevada 17-19 July 2006, www.spaceinvestmentsummit.com/lcr3/lcr3-full_report.pdf)
The purpose of the roundtable was not to frame formal recommendations but rather to document options emerging from an
exceptionally rich dialogue among international industrial innovators. During the course of the two and a half days of the event,
promising future commercial space prospects were identified in virtually every sector addressed. Opportunities ranged from specific
new systems and technologies to possibilities for creation of entirely new industries. Also identified were important challenges
requiring pragmatic responses. What emerged from many discussions was the sense that growth of new space markets will require
action by government as well as industry—in the US and across the globe. Clearly, a wide variety of options exist for more active
government promotion of space commerce. Options for Government-Industry Cooperation Avoid Competition between Government
and Industry. It is important that system development and operations programs be established so as to avoid direct competition
between government programs and industry players. Similarly, government and university activities should be collaborative
rather than competitive, especially in the conduct of advanced technology R&D. Create Public-Private Partnerships. Methods of
collaboration between industry, government, and academia should be actively explored, leading to development of true partnerships,
in which all parties play a significant role. Wherever possible, industry should be actively involved in planning innovative system
development projects, in order to facilitate the creation of new space industries employing those systems. In the early stages of major
projects, special international industry structures should be considered (e.g., the experience of ComSat Corporation or IntelSat in the
early years of the telecommunications satellite industry). Engage Non-Aerospace Industry and Investors. There is a need to engage
nonaerospace players (in industry, the financial community and in government) in planning and investing in new space enterprise
opportunities—particularly with regard to major new industry sectors such as energy, lunar surface activities, etc. Revive the NACA
Model. There is a need to revisit the US National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) model, as future commercial
space initiatives are contemplated. NACA had a synergistic relationship with industry. The Committee carried out large- Page 51 -
51 - scale research studies and developed fundamental technologies, which were clearly oriented toward industry needs but which
companies could not afford to pursue independently. Strengthening the federal role in industry-relevant but precompetitive R&D, in
coordination with university efforts, could help stimulate the growth of space commerce. Promote Creative Business Approaches.
NASA should go to the business schools to find ways to incubate new ideas. Opportunities should be created to allow for external
review and funding of any proposals for which NASA funding is unavailable. More opportunity for creative ventures would be
consequently be introduced into the system. Options for Government Purchasing and Investment Balance Government and Industry
Financial Risks. Government policies and programs should be established that clearly and effectively mitigate the expected
business-related financial risks in pursuing future commercial space ventures. However, risk assumed by the public sector should
be balanced with that borne by private companies, so that appropriate risk sharing is maintained. In effect, sharing risk involves
“pooling”— dividing risk into manageable areas and apportioning these areas across government and industry. Tools available to
government include government-backed bonds, tax breaks, investment tax credits, and similar financial incentives. Pursue Anchor
Tenancy. There is a need to revisit policies concerning ”anchor tenancy” in the development of new space systems and infrastructures,
as well as in the conduct of space operations. Particularly important are advance purchase commitments by government
agencies to obtain commercially provided services and systems. These commitments are vital because they help enable
companies to attract private investment, thereby avoiding exclusive—and potentially permanent—reliance on government
funding. An important version of anchor tenancy involves leasing by government of commercially-developed facilities, with a proviso
that companies can concurrently lease any excess capacity to nongovernment customers. Such an arrangement could help ensure that
space assets would be commercially maintained, through nongovernment leasing fees, beyond an initial government lease period.
Optimize Acquisition Practices. Government policies and programs should support the maintenance of a level playing field in
advancing space exploration and development— particularly with regard to the opportunities for large companies vis-à-vis
those for entrepreneurial start-ups. In addition, careful consideration should be given to the choice between ‘fixed price’ contract
vehicles and ‘cost plus’ contracts (with change orders), keeping in mind that <CONTINUED>
59
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FED KEY
<CONTINUED>
the degree of development risk is a key factor in this decision. Commit to Infrastructure Investment. There are numerous
interdependencies among the systems and infrastructures that would be necessary for ambitious future space Page 52 - 52 - scenarios
to be realized. Ultimately, a significant government role in funding the development of basic infrastructure may be a key factor
in the success of commercial space ventures. Government investment of this type would involve multiyear funding
commitments. Government should frame and follow policies in support of an industry- oriented roadmap for infrastructure
development.
For example, a lunar surface infrastructure roadmap should include experiments, demonstrations, and “pilot plants” (more or less full
scale) involving various business sectors. Pursue Technology R&D and System Development. To advance novel systems and
operations concepts, technology development and demonstrations are needed. Government and industry should plan for possible co-
funding of high-risk demonstrations and development efforts, including those related to enabling services (e.g., transport) for
commercial payloads. Government Strategic Planning Options Select System Concepts that Facilitate Commerce . Architectures and
systems being developed and deployed by government programs must support—not inhibit— commercial markets that are as
“broad as possible”. Examples include use of the same propellant types across multiple systems (e.g., liquid oxygen-hydrogen) and,
as noted earlier, utilization of common in-space refueling equipment on a variety of vehicles and platforms. Promote Commercial
Space Access. Governments should encourage the use of commercial space transportation wherever possible—not only for Earth-to-
orbit launch but also for use in space beyond low Earth orbit. Enhance Affordability and Sustainability. In all areas of future space
exploration (i.e., U.S. and international, government and industry), emphasis must be placed on decisions leading to development of
infrastructure and programs that are both affordable and sustainable. Such an approach is particularly important in achieving the U.S.
Vision for Space Exploration’s goal of permanent human presence on the Moon and beyond. Legal, Regulatory, and Policy Options
Make Regulatory Policy More Commerce-Friendly. It is crucial that government create a commerce-friendly legal and regulatory
framework. For example, the growth of space solar power markets will be significantly affected by regulatory approaches to
commercial launch service availability and spectrum allocation for solar power satellites. Establish International Standards.
Government and industry should collaborate on a global scale in the early establishment of consistent and internationally
recognized Page 53 - 53 - standards. Such standards should address selected interfaces and design parameters, at both the system and
subsystem level. Examples where standard-setting could be particularly important include interfaces for autonomous rendezvous and
docking, fuel servicing, and docking with Earth-orbiting or in-space platforms. Adjust Export Control Measures. Laws and policies
related to export control (e.g., ITAR - the International Traffic in Arms Regulations) should be revised to facilitate international efforts
to advance new space industries. Plan For the Privatization of Government-Developed Systems. Government and industry should
plan collaboratively for appropriate and timely transfer of key government systems and/or infrastructure to commercial
ownership and use. Protect Private Ownership of Technology and Intellectual Property. Early and ongoing attention should be paid to
technology ownership and intellectual property (IP) rights. In particular, there is a need for explicit government support for private
ownership of IP— even for government-funded programs. Clarify Property Rights Issues. Private property rights constitute an
essential prerequisite for most industry investment decisions. Retention of such rights can enable use of property as collateral, as well
as protect companies from loss of valuable assets. Consequently, there is a need for timely resolution of existing uncertainties
concerning property-related rights, associated with the commercial utilization of space resources and locations. Such resolution must
involve a coordinated effort among international governments. Resolve Operational Liability Issues. Appropriate steps should be
taken to resolve potential liability issues that might arise during the initial stages of new space industry operations. For example, it
will be important to address the possible need for government-supported, affordable indemnification against the risk that in-
space servicing of one satellite might result in damage to another. Such issues will require consideration on an international level
60
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FED KEY
Government funding of space solar power is the key starting point – investors will fill in any gaps in
funding.
(Kathleen E. Lusk-Brooke, American Society of Macro Engineering, and George H. Litwin, Ever-Changing Organization,
5/17/2K, “Organizing and managing satellite solar power,” Science Direct, Space Policy, Volume 16, Issue 2, 15 May 2000, Pages
145-156)
The total cost of SSP is substantial; estimates range from 40 billion to more than 100 billion over the next 25 years. Thus the
primary task of the Investment Organization must be to attract the widest possible investment base, including both public and
private sources from all geopolitical regions. In the traditional functional organization, the investment task is managed by the Finance
Department — perhaps the CFO and one or two officers are involved in generating investment; most of the finance function is
dedicated to cost management, payment systems and accounting. While these functions need to be performed at project and program
levels, we have dedicated our principal organization to the task of generating and managing the total investment required. The two
major subtasks of the Investment Organization are quite different. Stated simply, these two tasks are: 1. Attracting public investment
in the infrastructure and engineering of the core systems; 2. Creating vehicles for private investors that encourage risk investment in
companies and technologies that improve efficiency and decrease the ongoing cost of SSP. Indeed, the alternative sources of capital
available in the global economy are such that one major thrust must be toward institutional investors (banks, funds, etc.), who
will most likely provide the debt financing in the form of bonds guaranteed by a government body or bodies, while a separate
thrust may involve private capital formation in the form of offerings of various classes of stock in the proposed Solar Power Satellite
Corporation or in high tech spin-offs and preferred supplier companies in which the corporation takes an ownership interest. 3.2.
Organization form: differentiated to fit the investor audience In each of the financial areas identified above, the audiences are
different. Moreover, the methods of operation are also different. The only thing that links these activities is the integrated financial
analysis and positioning needed to let the parts of the organization work separately but in support of each other. To simplify the issues,
we can say that we need experienced public sector executives to oversee public financing; we need investment bankers to guide the
placement of debt vehicles and stock with a consortium of institutional investors; and we need the new breed of high-tech venture
capitalists and traders to guide the formation of companies and stock offerings to attract equity investment. Further, these groups will
have to be organized and managed in a way that is familiar to their primary constituencies. 3.3. Public investment starts with funding
R&D With regard to public investment, SSP must be defined as a social investment, the allocation of capital to an organization
or activity concerned with advancing the economic well-being of people [22]. Certainly, public investment in power generating
resources is a well-accepted public purpose. To assure support from a broad spectrum of the public, such investment must be
characterized by the following. • economic delivery of power to the community; • assurance of power to all (e.g. low income); •
strong community representation and influence over decisions; • positive impact on employment; • no perceived threat to the
environment; and • sensitivity to cultural and ethnic characteristics of the community served (adapted from [22]). 3.4. The Public
Investment Group The Public Investment Group might include government finance experts from Asia, Africa, Europe, South America
and the United States, along with an aerospace and environmental R&D tracking team to provide information about technology
progress and priorities [23. Ngamtippan C. The role of Thailand in solar power satellites: a feasibility study. The Purrington
Foundation, 2000;45(2).23]. It is likely that the Group might also include experienced former NASA and DOE project managers, as
well as those from other countries and systems. Given the need for initiation leadership, it is feasible that an individual nation
such as the United States might well begin the financial and technical commitment, and therefore, the seed team should include
Congressional budget and staff officers, because US government financing by appropriations would require strong and
continuous support within the Congress. While some US government investment is expected in space construction technology
and engineering, for example, the allocation in FY 1999 by the US Congress to NASA of $12 million for SSP investigations, it is
“difficult to imagine the requisite continuity of support to support the vicissitudes of the annual appropriations process over decades”
[12]. In any case, it is necessary and desirable to make sure that from the start the Public Investment Group will include government
finance and technical experts from other interested countries — notably Europe, Russia, China and Japan. The Group will seek
endorsement and R&D support from these countries as well — in exchange for participation in the Solar Power Satellite Corporation.
Saeed has pointed out the potential economic benefit of such public sector investment in renewable resources .
61
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
FED KEY
[LUSK BROOKE AND LITWIN CONTINUE…]
[24]. 3.5. The Institutional Investment Group The institutional investment program is critical to the success of SSP. As
Sellers [12] and others have pointed out, public investment will be necessary, but will not be sufficient to finance the entire program.
Institutional investors must underwrite the long-term construction bonds if SSP is to remain a private utility, albeit a utility
supported by substantial public investment in R&D. While institutional investors may be attracted by the promise of SSP, they
will seek to minimize business risk. Experiences with macro-engineering projects such as Eurotunnel have demonstrated the risks of
cost overruns slowing utilization and payback [25].
The Institutional Investment Group will include leading investment bankers and fund managers who understand the needs and
concerns of their colleagues, and will have the authority to create the kind of investment vehicles required to finance construction and
operating expense. Such vehicles might include long-term bonds, convertible notes, technology ownership and lease-back, and
revenue-sharing. The vehicles will have to be shaped to fit the market, and thus continued communication with institutional investors
is essential. In the absence of rapid development of fusion energy, SSP may become, at some point, the most cost-effective and
environmentally attractive source of renewable energy for the planet. As this point is clarified through planning and discussion,
financing of SSP technologies and facilities will become an attractive investment, “as easy to finance as coal-fired plants are now”
[12]. 3.6. The Capital Formation Group The task of the Capital Formation Group is to create the kind of stock offerings (and other
investment vehicles) that will attract widespread corporate and public investment. As Davidson [26] has stated: I have been
agreeably surprised by the receptiveness of investment bankers to new ideas and projects. It is better to speak to the underwriters early
in the game, before mountains of reports have been written. Both corporations and investment bankers need to be consulted about the
empowering legislation itself, and about the investment opportunity. As Sellers has pointed out with regard to Comsat, the support of
large corporations such as AT&T gave credibility and value to the public offering of stock. Thus the Capital Formation Group would
attempt to involve corporations with long-term interests in space power technology to become alliance partners and investors. Beyond
issuing and selling stock in Solar Power Satellite Corporation, the Capital Formation Group would be responsible for creating spin-
offs utilizing licensed technology, and for investing in preferred supplier companies. Such secondary investment could provide
vehicles for venture capital investments, and an additional source of capital funding [27]. After having proven the technological
concept, the providers and suppliers of SSP could turn to commercial exploitation of the technologies [28], providing high returns to
initial investors. 3.7. The Internet Trading Group The fastest growing segment of the investment world is online investing and trading.
Web-based trading software and databases give investors world-wide direct access to market information and investment advice, as
well as buy–sell options. Certainly the future value of SSP is such that there could be online equity buying and selling. The advantage
of such widespread investment would be sociopolitical as well as economic. Investors all over the planet would become more
educated and involved, thereby increasing support for public investment. Currently utility.com is offering electricity contracts online,
and HoustonStreet.com provides for trading of power contracts online. And this is only the beginning. Deregulation of utilities has
created competitive opportunities in power generation and distribution. Negotiating for electric power will be a regular part of our
lives. The Internet Trading Group will be authorized to sell stock offerings online, and may in the future offer SSP contracts. Stock in
an SSP distribution subsidiary could be convertible to SSP electric power contracts. Generating investment in SSP through Internet or
other public campaigns might benefit from a Sustaining Partner program. In such an approach, members pledge to have an agreed
amount charged to their credit card every month (or every quarter), thus allowing on-going participation in such a way that the
enterprise can plan on these funds. In the United States, National Public Radio (e.g. WGBH, Boston, 1999) is using the Sustaining
Partner program to fund member-supported public broadcasting. The widespread use of credit cards makes such an approach very
possible, and using the Internet to support such transactions is making good use of a powerful new medium. Such online
offerings will serve two important purposes: • providing capital for SSP programs not easily covered by public or institutional
investment, e.g. financing global education on the advantages of SSP, funding technology companies that will support SSP; •
building public support and interest in SSP — by providing online information and opportunity to a well educated, influential
audience: Internet users around the globe.
62
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
Investors get worried when incentives and subsidies for solar power stop – that destroys the industry and
means the CP can’t solve case.
Reuters/International Herald Tribune, 6/2/08
[Nichola Groom and Matt Daily, “Alternative Energy on Edge in U.S.,”

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1411912/alternative_energy_on_edge_in_us/]
Anxiety is setting in among companies specializing in solar and wind power, and the investors that are backing them, as U.S.
lawmakers delay the extension of tax credits deemed critical for the burgeoning renewable energy industry. After several failed
attempts by Congress to prolong alternative energy subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year, companies are bracing for the
worst by cutting jobs and trying to increase their sales in Europe, where generous government incentives are more certain. "It
certainly is affecting business," said Mike Splinter, chief executive of Applied Materials, a maker of solar equipment. "It's a major
issue for the solar industry," Splinter said. "We've seen hundreds of cities and many states start to adopt their own rules, and we can't
pass even the simplest, smallest of incentives." The alternative energy industry still relies heavily on subsidies to make prices of
renewable power competitive with electricity generated from coal and natural gas. Several attempts to extend the tax credits have
failed in recent months as lawmakers argue over how to pay for them. In February, the House of Representatives approved an
extension by taking away billions of dollars in tax credits from big oil companies, but the measure was opposed by the Senate. The
latest bill includes about $20 billion of incentives that extend for one year the federal tax credit for companies that produce electricity
from wind, and extend it for three years for power generated from biomass, geothermal, hydropower, landfill gas and solid waste.
Businesses and homeowners would also be able to offset 30 percent of the cost of solar or fuel-cell equipment purchased before 2014
with a one-time tax credit. The measure passed in the House last month, but the White House threatened to veto it. Democrats have
said election-year pressures and soaring gasoline prices will eventually lead to an extension of the subsidies. But that confidence is not
shared by the industry. Akeena Solar, a maker of solar power systems, recently cut 8 percent of its work force and warned of
weaker demand this year, in part because of a pullback in large-scale projects that would not be completed by the end of the year.
Tom Werner, chief executive of SunPower, has said that his company was ready to move business into markets outside the United
States, including Italy, to offset a potential policy-driven drop in demand in the United States. The Solar Energy Solutions division of
Sharp, the Japanese electronics company, is seeing a strong increase in demand as its clients scramble to finish projects before the
U.S. tax credits expire, said Ron Kenedi, vice president of the division. But he warned that projects would be halted if an extension of
the credits did not materialize. "When you have a stoppage it gets tough to invest, and you get people thinking about, 'Maybe I
shouldn't do it now' - and that's not a good thing," Kenedi said. Uncertainty about the subsidies has contributed to the volatility in
renewable energy stocks this year. Akeena's shares, for instance, are down about 60 percent from the all-time high of $16.80 they
reached in January. Erik Olbeter, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities, said in a research note on May 14 that failure to extend the tax
credits soon would hurt companies with large exposures to the U.S. market, like the solar companies Akeena and SunPower and wind
turbine manufacturers like Vestas Wind Systems of Denmark.
63
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
Allocating new frequencies to solar is an incentive for private investment – that’s key to solar success.
Only the federal government can do it because the FCC has control.
(Space Daily, 8/11/2003, Arthur Smith, “The Case For Space Based Solar Power Development,”
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html)
Energy policy is in the news again, with debates in Congress, statements from presidential candidates, consternation over our
dependence on the Middle East for oil, and a California recall election traceable in part to energy supply problems for that state. Use
of energy, whether fuel for transportation, electrical energy running the internet, or the destructive energy released in weapons, is
central to our economy and security. It is with good reason that the technical term for energy use per unit time, "power", suggests
control in the human world as well. Three actions taken now - working to reserve radio spectrum for power transmission, focusing on
reductions in costs for space launch, and investing in space solar power system research - hold the promise of opening up vast new
sources of power within the next 10-15 years. Space is big - there is an awful lot of energy out there, and the crumbs we fight about
here on Earth are laughably tiny in comparison. Zettawatts from the Sun pass just through the region between Earth and Moon - that's
enough energy for each man, woman and child in the US to sustainably power an entire US economy all to themselves. Even our
terrestrial energy choices, fossil or renewable, fission or wind, almost all derive from the energy profligacy of our Sun and other stars
before it. Gathering power in space and transmitting it to Earth should not be a mystery to us in this 21st century. Communications
satellites already do it routinely. One significant obstacle to power applications, however, is regulatory: there is no spectrum allocated
to power transmission, as there is for communications. Since frequency of operation has a significant impact on transmitter design
which may alter the design of the overall solar power system, the earlier we have a frequency allocation decision, the better. The
Federal Communications Commission and the International Telecommunications Union should be prodded to start work on this issue
now. The potential for power from space has been recognized for over thirty years (1). Studies in the late 1970's by NASA and the
Department of Energy produced a reference design for solar power satellites using then-current technology that showed technical
feasibility, but also high cost. NASA returned to the subject with an exploratory study from 1999 to 2001. A review by the National
Research Council (2) found the program to have a credible plan which required significant funding increases. Rather than
strengthening the program, however, all funding for the space solar power group ceased after September 2001, and essentially no
R&D work on power from space is now being done in the US. Worldwide over a trillion dollars a year goes to the energy industry,
and utilities routinely construct multi-billion-dollar power plants. The energy industry has a bigger wallet than the entire US federal
discretionary budget. Money is not directly the problem here; profitability is. The two essential factors in the cost equation are the
cost per delivered Watt of the solar power components, and the cost per delivered Watt of getting those components to their final
destination in space. Current costs put the capital investment needed for a space solar power system well above the $2/Watt of
competitive terrestrial options such as fission plants and wind turbines. R&D work is needed to bring these costs to where the vast
energy resources of space are within reach of a large utility project. The cost of components is the first problem here. Current prices
for solar electric power systems are about $2.50 per peak Watt, a price that has been declining about 7% per year for the last few
decades. The day/night cycle, non-ideal sun angles, weathering, and cloud cover reduce power output enough to make the final cost
per average Watt $10 or more. Terrestrial solar power is still too expensive for wholesale utility use, but it is now competitive for
home owner installation in many areas. In space you can get peak power almost all the time. The $2.50/Watt homeowner systems are
not space-rated, but the space market is still small; with a larger market suitable photovoltaic elements could be produced at
comparable cost. Transmitting power from space will have somewhat higher losses than transmitting from a terrestrial power plant.
Nevertheless, component costs are potentially much closer to wholesale utility requirements for space solar power than they are for
terrestrial solar, and with continued improvement in prices, in another 10 to 15 years component costs should not be an obstacle to
large-scale installation. The other cost of concern is delivery to orbit. Typical communications satellite solar panels have a mass per
kW of about 20 kg, so with current launch costs of $10,000/kg that comes to $200/Watt, or a hundred times too large to be
competitive at the utility level. Bringing that number down requires both improvements in mass per kW, and cheaper access to space.
Mass per kW is sensitive to solar power system design (3). The NASA/DOE reference design came to 10 kg/kW; more recent studies
of light-weight design options have suggested mass could be as low as 1 kg/kW (4). Significantly more R&D effort to validate these
designs and settle on a few cost-effective approaches would be extremely helpful here. The lower the mass requirement, the less we
need to bring down launch costs to break the $2/Watt barrier. Lower launch costs is a major goal of all space advocates.
<CONTINUED>
64
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
<CONTINUED>
The X Prize contenders, Musk's Space-X, even the major aerospace "EELV" program all have the intention of significantly reducing
launch costs. Whether any rocket based system will succeed remains to be seen - perhaps we will have to wait for space elevators to
see much reduction in cost to orbit. But there are some indicators that we could see a factor of 3-5 improvement, and perhaps more,
over the next decade with a sufficiently large and competitive launch market. Competition in the commercial launch market already
has some providers such as Sea Launch offering $4000-$5000 per kg prices to low earth orbit. Use of solar electric propulsion allows
higher orbits at only slightly higher cost. Given the multi-trillion-dollar potential market for space-based power, increased funding for
launch systems development to accelerate these improvements would also be a worthy investment. There is another way to reduce
launch costs. In David Criswell's Lunar Solar Power proposal (5), instead of launching the final components from Earth,
manufacturing facilities are sent from Earth to the Moon to build the solar power system components there. And to save even further
on launch costs, the solar components stay on the Moon and transmit power directly from there. The initial capital investment is
higher than for an Earth-launched system primarily due to the much larger antennas needed to transmit power efficiently from Moon
to Earth, but overall costs per delivered Watt should be much lower, and the costs for such an approach are less dependent on reducing
launch costs from Earth. Component and launch will not be the only costs - for example we need to learn how to cost-effectively put
together very large (kilometer-scale) objects in space. Improved robotics and computational capabilities should make this much less
expensive now than was true for the 1970's era designs, but it is another area where we need some experience to be confident in cost
estimation. Further R&D in robotics may also be needed. Looking at the major cost areas again, for the wholesale utility market space
solar power is currently about a factor of 2 too expensive with regard to cost of materials and components, and at least a factor of 10
on the launch cost side. Both cost barriers have realistic chances of being overcome in the next decade. The prospects for space-based
solar power are at least as bright as for fusion power; these two options were identified as the only long-term sustainable energy
sources in a report published in Science magazine last year (6). While space solar power has received essentially no government
funding for two decades, fusion gets close to $1 billion/year. The ITER fusion project scheduled for completion in 2014 will cost $5
billion for a research reactor that produces only thermal power - in contrast the 1995 "Fresh look" (7) study for space solar power
found some systems with an estimated cost of $6 to $8 billion, producing 250 MW electric available for commercial sale, readily
expandable to several GW and a profitable return on investment. With some further research those numbers can likely be improved
upon, but the funding has been terminated rather than increased. We already have an immense fusion reactor working for us in our
solar system, ultimately responsible for almost all our energy choices. All we really need to do is make better use of it by tapping into
it more directly. Any rational energy policy for the United States must support the steps needed to make that happen: increased
investment in reducing launch costs, reserving radio frequency spectrum for power transmission, and moving towards a billion dollars
per year in a robust and diverse program of R&D on space solar power
Court injunctions would force the states to stop violating federal law immediately.
(Honolulu Advertiser, 11/7/2007, Treena Shapiro, “Hawaii violates equal-access law, ACLU says,”
https://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0711&L=net-gold&P=24225)
The state violates a federal law that mandates equal access to education for homeless students by making them switch schools when
they move and not letting them enroll in new schools without documentation, according to lawyers suing the school system.
Lawyers for Equal Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai'i yesterday went to court seeking an order that would
immediately stop the state from enforcing laws and policies they claim make it hard for transient students to find stability in their
schooling. The move comes as part of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of three homeless families who have to commute for
hours or were denied geographic exceptions to keep their children in the same school each time they move.
65
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
Courts allow private citizens to sue states when states violate federal law.
(Courtney E. Flora, Articles Editor Environmental Law, Fall 1997, “CHAPTER: AN INAPT FICTION: THE USE OF THE EX
PARTE YOUNG DOCTRINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SUITS AGAINST STATES AFTER SEMINOLE TRIBE,” 1997
Lewis & Clark Law School Environmental Law, 27 Envtl. L. 935, p. Lexis)
The Seminole Tribe Court's inquiry into whether Ex parte Young should be applied to the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act (IGRA)
focused largely on whether Congress, had it realized it had no power to abrogate state immunity under the Commerce Clause, would
have nevertheless intended for state officials to be liable under Ex parte Young. The Court found that the specific remedial scheme in
IGRA precluded other private remedies. n149 Though Congress clearly intended states to be liable in IGRA, "the fact that Congress
chose to impose upon the State a liability which is significantly more limited than would be the liability imposed upon the state officer
under Ex parte Young strongly indicates that Congress had no wish to create the latter." n150 The ironic result of this analysis is that
though Congress has no power to make states, vis-a-vis their officials, liable to citizens under Commerce Clause statutes, the question
of a court-imposed remedy under Ex parte Young will depend on whether Congress intended such a remedy in the statute. [*958]
After Seminole Tribe's denial of congressional authority to abrogate state immunity under the Commerce Clause and endorsement of
the Ex parte Young doctrine in environmental citizen suits, citizens need to rely heavily on the Ex parte Young remedy because it is
the only means through which a citizen can seek relief against a state. Caltrans is a prime example. When the Ninth Circuit allowed
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to sue the head of the California Department of Transportation for violating the
Clean Water Act (CWA), the court observed that the citizen suit provision in the CWA specifies that it applies "to the extent permitted
by the Eleventh Amendment" n151 and that, therefore, "it would seem reasonable...that Congress implicitly intended to authorize
citizens to bring Ex parte Young suits." n152 This reasoning implies that Ex parte Young operates as an inherent facet of the Eleventh
Amendment - not as an exception used in extraordinary situations. In overlaying the Eleventh Amendment fiction with the Ex parte
Young fiction, the Ninth Circuit has been forced down the cumbersome avenue paved by the Supreme Court. The Caltrans court
reached its decision by relying on Almond Hill, Coeur d'Alene, and primarily, Seminole Tribe. Although the court could find language
in Ninth Circuit cases advocating Ex parte Young use whenever a state violates a federal law, the court indicated that its decision
was based on the recent Seminole Tribe decision. n153 In the absence of Seminole Tribe, it is doubtful that the stretch from the Ninth
Circuit's previous use of Ex parte Young accompanied by a plausible 1983 claim to its use in Caltrans for a simple permit violation
would have been taken lightly by the court. In Caltrans, Judges O'Scannlain and Kleinfeld asserted that they were uncomfortable with
the use of Ex parte Young to grant relief in this Clean Water Act case. Judge O'Scannlain stated, "[the Ninth Circuit] took a wrong
turn in Almond Hill, which Coeur d'Alene follows." n154 These two cases serve as the ostensible justification for the Caltrans
decision. The "wrong turn" Judge O'Scannlain alluded to is the court's assumption that the Ex parte Young doctrine applies to federal
statutes as well as constitutional violations. While both these cases have this broad holding, the relief sought was actually premised on
individual constitutional rights. Thus, the use of Ex parte Young in these two cases differs from the use in Caltrans. Almond Hill and
Coeur d'Alene are distinguishable from Caltrans because a state's violation of an CWA permit would not likely be regarded as directly
implicating individual rights concerns. Though these preceding Ninth Circuit cases were important authority for the Caltrans holding,
Caltrans, with its simplified factual basis lacking even an arguable constitutional claim, is a more expansive interpretation of the Ex
parte Young doctrine. [*959] The First Circuit, in Strahan v. Coxe, has recently used the same post-Seminole Tribe analysis as
Caltrans in a suit brought by a conservationist against state officials to enjoin them from permitting the use of gillnets which
jeopardize several species of endangered whales. n155 The court held that "Ex parte Young, even as refined by Seminole Tribe,
continues to provide an exception from the Eleventh Amendment " in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) context. n156 This
conclusion is encouraging for environmentalists, especially in light of the defendants' assertion in this case that the Seminole Tribe
holding applied with the same force to the ESA as it did to IGRA. n157 The court agreed with Justice Rehnquist's Seminole Tribe
footnote, stating "the Defendants overestimate the breadth of Seminole Tribe's impact on Ex parte Young...Young does not affect the
statutes in the present action whose remedial schemes are not similar to the one provided for in IGRA." n158 The court stressed that
when citizen suit provisions authorize suit against "any person" who is alleged to be in violation of the relevant Act, n159 the
limitation in Seminole Tribe does not apply because Congress intended for state officials to be liable in the statutes. This case, and
Caltrans, portends the best-case scenario for the future of environmental citizen suits against states after Seminole Tribe. Superficially,
the Supreme Court's solution solves the problems inherent in the Eleventh Amendment and Ex parte Young fictions.
66
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
States/private actors wouldn’t be able to do space solar power – treaties say sovereign states have to
regulate space, states can’t allocate radio frequencies that are key to power transmission, launch licenses
can only be provided by the federal government, and military projection would be circumscribed.
(Paul B. Larsen, Georgetown University Law Center, 5/17/2K, “Current legal issues pertaining to space solar power systems,”
Space Policy, Volume 16, Issue 2, 15 May 2000, Pages 139-144, Springer Link)
1.1. Space solar power in the 21st century This paper describes the 21st century outer space legal environment into which a space solar power system would fit. Underlying this
paper is the assumption that non-renewable earthly sources of energy (oil, coal and natural gas) will significantly decline during the 21st century and that an outer space solar
power system (SSPS) will be established to collect solar energy in space, convert it to electricity and transmit it to Earth via microwave beams. The solar energy collecting
satellites would be placed in orbit around the Earth. They would provide renewable energy to Earth. The collecting satellites would be of extensive mass and area. Because of the
great cost of uplifting such massive cargo from the Earth, it is possible that the collecting satellites would be built from the Moon from available lunar resources. Lunar
construction is particularly likely if a large number of collecting satellites are built, sufficient to provide a significant amount of electric power around the Earth. Space solar power
systems may be built in stages, possibly beginning with a demonstration project as described at the 1999 International Astronautical Congress by Professor H.H. Koelle [1 and 2].1
1.2. Legal regime in space governing solar power The existence of solar power satellites in outer space will be governed by a combination of
international and national laws. On the fundamental sovereignty-in-space issue, 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 (commonly known as the 1997 Outer Space Treaty)2
expresses that: (1) outer space is not sovereign territory (Art. II); (2) it is governed by international laws, including the UN Charter (Art. III); (3)
states “bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, ” (Art. VI); (4) states are obligated to supervise activities of
their non-governmental organizations in outer space (Art. VI); (5) states retain jurisdiction over the objects that they launch into outer
space (Art.VIII); and (6) ownership rights are not changed by their existence in outer space (Art. VIII), so US-owned space objects remain US-owned when in outer space. The
1967 Outer Space Treaty is further amplified by the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects.3 This treaty makes the launching state liable
for damage caused by space objects which it launches.4 The 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space obligates states to register their space
objects.5 States retain jurisdiction and control over their registered space objects.6 SSPS operators will communicate by use of radio frequencies with solar power satellites. Use
of radio frequencies is coordinated within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in accordance with the ITU Convention .7
Solar power systems are also subject to national laws to the extent that these do not conflict with international laws. Often the national
laws, for example the US Commercial Space Launch Act,8 implement international laws . It is likely that a space solar power system
will have varying legal relationships with a number of different countries depending on competition requirements, local needs for
electricity, national security considerations, liability and other special situations [3]. 1.3. International commercial entity A solar power system will be
so massive that it is likely to be an international commercial entity. That entity could be international treaty organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency or
Intelsat.9 It could be an international private commercial entity such as Iridium. It is less likely to be an entirely state-operated service such as the US Global Positioning System
(GPS) although it is possible that, for national security reasons, the United States could find it necessary to build a solar power system in the same way that it spent $11 billion to
build the GPS system. GPS is a global system which is accessible all over the world. Another possible model is the European navigation and positioning system, Galileo, planned
to be operated as a public-private partnership (PPP); it is intended to be operational in the year 2008 [4]. Galileo is planned to be a global service. Another solar power system
operating analogy could be with the non-governmental satellite remote sensing organizations; several global remote sensing services exist, for example SPOT-Image, EOSAT, and
others. The space solar power system may become subject to the kind of international operating guiding principles (supported by the United States and all other countries) adopted
by the UN General Assembly regarding remote sensing.10 The UNGA Resolution mandated respect for sovereignty of individual states (analagous to
beaming into a sovereign state by microwave), international cooperation with other states, technical assistance for developing countries, environmental protection, non-
discriminatory access to the electrical solar power system (on reasonable cost terms); and the right of consultation among states regarding disagreements. The UNGA
resolution stressed the operating states’ international responsibility for their remote sensing activities . Similar international operating principles
were developed in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for Global Navigation Satellite Systems.11 These kinds of principles are becoming
standard for outer space services. They have worked well for the commercial remote sensing industry. There is a strong possibility that such
international operating guiding principles also will be established for international commercial solar power systems. 2. SSPS oversight responsibility 2.1. Launch license Launches
of government-owned space objects do not require a launch license in the United States or other states. However, a private launch of SSPS space objects requires a
US launch license under the US Commercial Space Launch Act for launches in the United States and for US citizens to launch abroad
(unless the foreign country agrees to assume jurisdiction over the launch). The launch license is issued by the US Department of Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration. Launches may lift off from existing governmental launch sites or from private launch sites and will be
monitored by the Department of Transportation. Launches are also subject to regulation by the 50 individual states within the USA. SSPS launches from the Moon
by US citizens could be considered a foreign launch requiring a US launch license.12 2.2. Construction of SPS satellites Construction of solar power satellites from the Moon
would be governed by 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.
Construction on the Moon is legally possible; however, appropriation of land on the Moon by claim of sovereignty, by use or by occupation and by any other means, is not legal
(Art. II). Production of solar power satellites from the Moon by non-governmental entities “shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to
the Treaty” (Article VI).<CONTINUED>
67
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
<CONTINUED>
Consequently, construction of solar power satellites on the Moon by US citizens would be subject to US oversight pursuant to Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty. US treaty
obligations could be satisfied by a construction license analogous to a launch license described above. 2.3. Operation of solar power satellites in space Operating solar energy-
collecting satellites in space would be legally possible. Functioning of the satellites would be governed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. In consequence of the treaty, Article II, the
space occupied by a solar power satellite could not become a permanent appropriation. However, that would not preclude a solar power satellite from collecting solar power on a
continuing basis as long as it does not interfere with other uses of space. It would not be in the interest of an operator to place a solar power satellite where it would conflict with
other uses of space because that could limit the use of the satellite itself (see discussion on Section 5). 3. SSPS property rights in space Legal rights in property in outer space were
fairly uncomplicated when most space activities were performed by governments. However, commercial space activities are increasingly performed by private entrepreneurs
whose activities are based on commercial demand for their services. Ownership and financing of private enterprises is much more intricate than that of public enterprises. Legally,
the issue of solar power satellite ownership is left to national law because the 1967 Outer Space Convention, Article VIII, states that: Ownership of objects launched into outer
space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their
return to the Earth. The 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, Article II, requires that: When a space object is launched into Earth orbit or
beyond, the launching State shall register the space object by means of an entry in an appropriate registry which it shall maintain. Each launching state shall inform the Secretary-
General of the United Nations of the establishment of such a registry. In addition to state registration, the Registration Convention, Article IV, requires the recording of vital
statistics in a United Nations registry concerning each space object launched. Only one country may register a space object; thus an international cooperative SSPS (analogous to
Intelsat) or a privately owned international cooperation would have to select one country to register its space objects. However, analogous to the international space station, the
several countries participating in an SSPS enterprise could arrange jurisdictional issues among themselves. The Registration Convention does not require space objects to be
marked with serial numbers or similar identification signs; however Article V requires that if a space object has been so marked then the markings shall also be transmitted to the
United Nations registry. The SSPS property of non-governmental organizations and of private enterprises is likely to be financed by financial institutions which will require
security in the launched space objects in the same way that a car is financed by a bank subject to a bank lien or mortgage in the car itself. Most financing of space objects takes
place in the USA under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) [5].13 The UCC is not Federal legislation. It is state legislation made virtually uniform in all 50 states. UCC Section
9-103 regulates the perfection of security interests. UGC Section 9-304 provides for registration of security interests in the state registries. The purpose of such registration is that
“a good faith search would reveal the presence of the secured creditor's claim.”14 Registration leads to the establishment of priorities among holders of security interest ( Section
9-312(5)). An international registry of all space assets may be established by a UNIDROIT convention on security interests (see 13). 4. Environmental laws and regulations
International legal regulation of space objects in outer space is very limited. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, Article IX, merely provides that states shall
avoid harmful contamination of space and of the Earth's environment. Art. VI of the Treaty requires states to exercise oversight over their
commercial enterprises; within that oversight function the US Commercial Space Launch Office considers the possible environmental
impact of proposed commercial launches of space solar power satellites. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major federal actions which have potential adverse impacts on the environment.15 NEPA applies in US territory. While there
is no case law directly holding that NEPA applies in outer space, the Federal Court of Appeals expressed in the case of the Environmental Defense Fund v. Massey, 986 F. 2d 528
(D.C. Cir. 1993), that the National Environmental Policy Act applies to Antarctica. By analogy NEPA would also apply to outer space. See excellent discussion in Purvis [6 and
7]16. The environmental laws of the state in which a launch takes place would apply to launches in that state. 5. Communication law issues Space solar power satellites
would be controlled by use of radio frequencies. The satellites in orbit need constant monitoring and corrective intervention in order to
remain in place. Radio contact with the satellite needs to be free of radio interference from the many other satellites in orbit and free
from physical interference (collision) with other satellites and debris. Location of a solar power satellite without prior consideration of these two factors could seriously
threaten economic investment in SSPS. For that purpose the solar power satellites need to be placed at a distance from other satellites sufficient to avoid both radio interference and
physical interference (collisions). Because of recent technological progress it is possible to place satellites more closely together; but they need extensive coordination in order to
fulfill their purpose in space. The ITU is the major international forum for coordinating the use of radio frequencies and slots by its many member nations. Most important in this
coordination process is the ITU Radio Communication Service (RCS) registration of radio frequencies and slots so that the users may know existing uses of radio frequencies and
the slots currently used. With this knowledge, solar power satellite operators can begin to plan to avoid radio frequencies and slots in current use and look for openings.
Furthermore, they can begin to negotiate with existing users to make adjustments in order to make room for solar power satellites. Solar power satellites placed in
orbit will be affected by the International Telecommunication Treaty which states that the geostationary orbit and radio frequencies
are scarce resources which must be used efficiently and economically so that countries may have equitable access, taking the special
needs of developing countries into account (see 7, ITU Constitution, Article 44) [8]. Because ITU was established by international treaty, only
governments can claim their rights in ITU under that treaty. Private SSPS operators have to ask their governments to act for them in
ITU. Most government action is in the form of ITU conferences called World Administrative Radio Conferences (WARCs) which meet
frequently to discuss current issues. The Department of State represents the United States in international negotiations; however, the State Department consults extensively with all
potential users in presenting US views in ITU. Other governments do likewise. Decision making in ITU would tend to be favorable to SSPS establishment, considering that all the
countries of the world would be in need of electric energy. However, the SSPS operator would have to convince them that SSPS power is in their interest. Countries voting in ITU
may tend to be more favorably disposed if they not only were to receive solar energy but if they or their citizens also were to have a share in the SSPS business. The US
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)17 regulates uses of radio frequencies in the United States under the Federal
Communication Act. The FCC acts more in a regulatory than in a coordinating role and in this respect differs from ITU . However, the
FCC's regulatory policy is consistent with US international policy in ITU and with domestic policy favoring deregulation. 6. Legal liability Liability would be a major
consideration of the SSPS operators and users. SSPS operators could be exposed to damage claims in many different ways. The 1972 Convention on International Liability for
Damage caused by Space Objects would not govern most damage claims because that convention is interpreted to apply to actual collisions with other satellites, aircraft in flight or
with the Earth's surface.18 It is unlikely that many damage claims would arise under the Convention, except for possible collisions with debris. However, it is possible that any
international agreement regarding SSPS should fashion a liability regime for the particular damages that are likely to be caused by SSPS [3, p. 436]. 6.1. Negligent construction of
satellites Negligent manufacture of a solar power satellite may cause it to fail with resultant damages. The manufacturer's liability depends on who the users are. If the user is a
private company then the manufacturer may be<CONTINUED>
68
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: STATES CP
<CONTINUED>
held strictly liable for faulty products.19 If the US government contracts for the manufacture of the solar power satellite then the manufacturer may come under the umbrella of
governmental immunity. The manufacturer may be able to claim that not only were the government's acts discretionary under the US Federal Torts Claims Act,20 but the
manufacturer's acts were discretionary because the manufacturer was a government contractor; if the solar power satellite were built to government specification it may be unfair to
hold the manufacturer liable for the government's faulty design. This is an even better defense if the manufacturer warned the government of potential defective design, but the
government insisted on manufacture in conformity with specifications. 6.2. Negligent operation of satellites Solar power satellites in orbit would be under the direction of ground
control. Liability of the ground controller depends on whether ground control is operated privately or by the government. If it is private then the ground controller could be liable
for torts on a regular negligence theory [9]. However, if the ground control is the US government then the government is entitled to governmental immunity unless the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA) permits liability. Under the FTCA the federal government may be held liable for negligent acts which are not discretionary, similar to air traffic control
activities. However, the negligent acts must have happened in the United States. Negligence by the US government in other countries is not entitled to a waiver of government
immunity.21 Negligent transfer of power to the surface of the earth resulting in personal injury, for example to passengers on an airplane or on the earth's surface, would be
governed by the same laws. 7. Military issues Use of solar power systems in outer space for peaceful purposes is permitted. However, SSPS
could be used in outer space for military purposes, in particular for military activities requiring very great concentration of electrical
power. Use of SSPS for military uses in outer space is circumscribed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty , as follows (Article IV): States Parties to
the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on
celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for
peaceful purposes. Consequently, use of SSPS in weapons of mass destruction is not permitted. Furthermore, 1958 US legislation established policy dedicating outer space
activities to peaceful uses for all mankind's benefit.22 8. 1979 Moon Treaty This paper does not extensively discuss the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the
Moon and other Celestial Bodies, because that treaty has not been adopted by most spacefaring states.23 The 1979 Moon Treaty, Article 8 (2), clarifies that states may land their
space objects on the Moon and may launch them from the Moon. Article 11 provides that participating states have the right to use the Moon, including its resources, (and other
celestial bodies as well), but the Moon may not become the property of states or individuals. The parties to the treaty agree to establish a future international regime on exploitation
of the Moon and its natural resources. However, this regime has not yet been negotiated, thus placing the treaty in limbo. Most spacefaring nations, including the USA, Russia,
UK, France and Germany do not intend to ratify the treaty in its present form. Nevertheless, the treaty is in force, having been ratified by the required number of states. The States
Parties could use the treaty in its present form to regulate SSPS resources. They could also use it to object to uncoordinated outer space exploitation by non-member states. When
will the unfinished business regarding international agreement to govern uses of the Moon's resources be resolved? Perhaps this unfinished business will be influenced by decisions
of nations on seabed resources, including the concept of common heritage of mankind in the seabed. The 1979 Moon Treaty is a reminder that outer space
resources are different from domestic resources because outer space resources are not in sovereign territory . These space resources are held in
common by all the states in the world, but these resources may be used by individual states. The treaty illustrates that exploitation of outer space resources, including solar power
collecting systems in space, require international coordination and cooperation for their very existence. It also illustrates the difficulty of arranging international agreement on use
of outer space resources when virtually all states have to be in agreement on such a project. 9. Conclusion This paper surveys a range of legal issues that need to be considered in
planning a space solar power system. The survey contains a basic checklist, but is far from exhaustive. Its focus is on international legal issues because the solar power satellites
will be placed in an international environment. It stresses that it is in the interest of an SSPS operator to seek extensive international coordination
and cooperation regarding the project. Conflicts with other uses of space would limit the utility of the SSPS project and make it difficult to finance. Proper legal
planning will smooth the way.24
69
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: PRIVATIZE CP
Plan impossible without government action
Followup question: Can private industry do it on its own, or is government needed? Charles Miller: the report goes into detail on that:
there's a need for public-private partnership. Nothing is going to happen without government because you can't close the business
case. If the government does the things we recommend: risk reduction, technology demo, etc. then the business case is there.
Followup question: it cannot be done without government help? Charles Miller: that is the conclusion of the report. The business case
cannot close yet without that partnership. We need government to make the reasonable steps in the report. Question [Aviation Week]:
How could the space station be used to demonstrate this? John Mankins: the station is a tremendous infrastructure; "a new national
laboratory" in space. It provides the capability to test a wide variety of devices and component technologies far more rapidly than you
could anywhere else in space right now. We could use it to validate key concepts of operations: automated assembly, repair,
maintenance; it could be a staging point for larger-scale demonstrations.
70
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: PRIVATIZE CP
SBSP FAILURE GUARANTEED WITHOUT GOVERNMENT COOPERATION- ONLY
GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES MAKE THE PLAN EFFECTIVE
Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low‐cost space access and a
supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn
also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and
eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the
delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will
need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early
technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space ‐borne
proof‐of‐concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to
gigawatts‐class systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and
organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial ‐commercial, government ‐
commercial, and government‐government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a
direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy
systems coming on‐line today.
71
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NASA KEY
NASA KEY TO MAXIMIZE EFFECTIVENESS
When asked about the decision to pull the plug on the program, former NASA Director Dan Goldin, who resigned his post in
November 2001, said in an e-mail that he does not comment on NASA policy issues.
"It was a done deal, the money was there," said Henry Brandhorst, director of space research at Auburn University. Brandhorst said
that NASA decided to use the money for the space shuttle and International Space Station programs instead. "It was a policy change."
Without NASA's resources and funding, the technology will never be sufficiently evaluated to determine its true potential, said
Brandhorst, who has studied the technology for nearly 30 years. "It must be studied until there are proven to be better options," he
said.
ONLY NASA HAS THE PERSONNEL NECESSARY TO SOLVE

Jim Hodges quoting Martin Hoffert, a retired professor of physics and the former chair of the Department of Applied Science at New
York University Technological Optimist' Sees Role for NASA in Alternative Energy Future
4/1/08 www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_martyhoffert.html
Don't count Martin Hoffert among those who believe the world will end when global warming melts enough ice to drown the
planet's homes. Or even when the carbon dioxide content of the air stifles us and our food until we breathe our last or starve to
death. "I'm a technological optimist," Hoffert told a Colloquium assembly at the Reid Center on Tuesday. "I believe we can
know the answers to the questions that are facing us, but even if we don't know, we are continually working toward that
answer. And the way I know it is the technical society we live in." Hoffert, a retired professor of physics and the former chair
of the Department of Applied Science at New York University, came to NASA Langley in answer to a call for "green lecture"
speakers, but also in search of some of those answers. "We have to transform our energy technology system and we have a
time constraint," Hoffert said. "By the middle of the century, we have to transform our energy system to one that's based on
something other than fossil fuels that emit CO2 into the atmosphere, to something based on 'X,' and we don't know what 'X' is."
Marty Hoffert.Image right: Martin Hoffert says, "NASA has a pool of talented innovators, of scientists and engineers, thinkers
about technology, thinkers about complex systems." Credit: Sean Smith. The solutions aren't political, Hoffert said, except for
the need for enlightened politicians. "Many of their solutions are superficial, and they mainly represent sort of an economic
approach like a trade policy or a carbon tax, how to pay for it," he said. "Most of the political leaders aren't very knowledgeable
about science and engineering. Primarily their background is legal, and they know something about economics." The last
scientifically enlightened president of the United States was Jimmy Carter, Hoffert added. Carter was a nuclear engineer. The
answer also isn't industry. "The truth is that you can't expect venture capitalists or even progressive corporations … to make
investments in the future beyond which they can justify to their stockholders," Hoffert said, citing a requirement that most such
investments have to pay off in three to five years. The answer is some sort of combination of the two, with government leading
through an energy policy and scientific and technological investment. "That's what I hope will happen by energizing the
scientists and engineers of this country and of the world," Hoffert said. In that, NASA can take a role in helping to "mine"
space, he said. "I believe it's time for Americans to understand that we derive benefits from space by exploiting the
environment of space." But, he added, "the most important thing is that NASA has a pool of talented innovators, of scientists
and engineers, thinkers about technology, thinkers about complex systems." The problem in finding energy solutions isn't
money, Hoffert said, perhaps surprisingly. "My opinion is that paying for it is the easy part," Hoffert said. "The hard part is
doing it." The U.S. invests about $120 billion a year in research and development, much of that spent on the military. Energy
gets about $3 billion of that, he said. The need is for about $30 billion a year. Without it, and without the will to invest in
alternative fuels and fuel technology, society will exist through the end of the available petroleum, just beyond the end of the
century. But "if we do make it, is it going to be worth being here, or are we going to have so severely depleted a planet that it
isn't worth it?" he wondered. Hoffert said the world will survive and it will be worthwhile. A "technical optimist" has to
believe as much.
72
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NASA KEY
ONLY NASA HAS THE APPOROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY BASE TO ENSURE SOLVENCY.
LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER, Thursday, April 19, 2001
www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4564
Developing renewable energy technologies- NASA data-supported software tool receives international interest
PRESS RELEASE Date Released: Thursday, April 19, 2001 Source: Langley Research Center - Comments Comments NASA's
global satellite data are helping people around the world design and develop new technologies for exploiting natural renewable energy
sources. Particularly well-suited for under-developed countries, these technologies better enable the conversion of sunlight, for
example, into electricity for cooking food, lighting homes, refrigerating medicines, and a host of other practical uses. One product
supported by NASA data is receiving international attention at the Summit of the Americas meeting, April 19-22. Data from the
Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy (SSE) Project are essential to the global application of RETScreenÆ, a software tool
developed by CANMET Energy Diversification Research Laboratory (CEDRL) for Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) to help
evaluate the viability of implementing renewable energy technologies. NRCan, which has used SSE data since November 1999, will
promote RETScreenÆ at the Summit in Quebec City, Canada. This meeting, with 34 heads of state scheduled to attend, will stress the
development of a focused agenda to meet collective challenges, including approaches to energy issues, for nations in the Western
Hemisphere. This topic is particularly relevant today as local, state, and national governments grapple with issues of cost and
distribution of electricity. Even as there are rolling blackouts across California and states are debating energy deregulation issues,
there are millions of people in lesser-developed countries who must spend more money on fuel for cooking than they spend on food
itself. "This has been a great effort by NASA, and they deserve a lot of credit for making their very valuable data available in a user
friendly format to users around the globe," said Gregory L. Leng, section head of the Renewable Energy Capacity-Building Program
in CEDRL. The SSE Project found a way to translate satellite data into formats that are readily usable by commercial companies, like
NRCan. This was a major breakthrough for engineers who design systems that convert natural energy into electricity because these
data not only provide a global perspective, they also fill the voids from remote areas where there are no ground-based monitoring
stations and therefore no available data. "The goal of the SSE Project is to put state-of-the-art, satellite derived solar and meteorology
data into the hands of individuals who are involved in the research and analysis of the feasibility of renewable energy technologies,"
said Roberta DiPasquale, the SSE marketing manager. The SSE Project, managed by NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton,
Virginia, works with other government and private organizations to develop the commercial potential of NASA satellite
measurements. RETScreenÆ is just one of the many ways the SSE team achieves their goal. "The SSE data set has been incorporated
into coursework at educational institutions around the world, used by students for thesis papers and analyzed by grassroots and
international organizations for possible solar cooking and rural electrification projects. It has even been accessed by architects and
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning engineers," DiPasquale said. The SSE team converts scientific measurements into data
useful to the renewable energy community. Users can create resource maps based on global satellite and ground data for a specific
area at a certain time. SSE data are available via an innovative data delivery system at http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/. Since June
1999, the SSE Web site has generated 315,000 hits, and approximately 2000 registered users have downloaded over 22,600 data
documents.
73
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NO NASA EXTINCTION
INCREASED NASA SUPPORT KEY TO PREVENT EXTINCTION
Joseph N. Pelton, Research Professor with the Institute for Applied Space Research at the George Washington University. He also
holds concurrent appointments as a Member of the College of Teachers at the International Space University of Strasbourg, France
and as Professor of Telecommunications at the University of Colorado at Boulder
“COMMENTARY: Why Space? The Top 10 Reasons”
9/12/ 2003 www.space.com/newscommentary_top10_030912.html
NASA as well as national space programs around the world are today isolated from the man-in-the-street. This gap needs serious
and urgent attention by Congress, the president and the leadership of NASA. Actually the lack of a space program could get us all
killed. I dont mean you or me or my wife or children. I mean that Homo sapiens as a species are actually endangered. Surprising to
some, a well conceived space program may well be our only hope for long-term survival. The right or wrong decisions about space
research and exploration may be key to the futures of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren or those that follow. Arthur C. Clarke,
the author and screenplay writer for 2001: A Space Odyssey, put the issue rather starkly some years back when he said: The dinosaurs
are not around today because they did not have a space program. He was, of course, referring to the fact that we now know a quite
largish meteor crashed into the earth, released poisonous Iridium chemicals into our atmosphere and created a killer cloud above the
Earth that blocked out the sun for a prolonged period of time. This could have been foreseen and averted with a sufficiently advanced
space program. But this is only one example of how space programs, such as NASAs Spaceguard program, help protect our fragile
planet. Without a space program we would not know about the large ozone hole in our atmosphere, the hazards of solar radiation, the
path of killer hurricanes or many other environmental dangers. But this is only a fraction of the ways that space programs are crucial
to our future.
74
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: DOD CP
DOD OFFICIALS PREFER CONSUMERSHIP, NOT LEADERSHIP IN RELATION TO SBSP
Jeff Foust 2007 editor and publisher of The Space Review. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site and the Space Politics and
Personal Spaceflight weblogs. 8/13/07 “A renaissance for space solar power?” www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1
However, he added those plans could change depending on developments of various technologies that could alter the direction space
solar power systems would go. “That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.” The idea of a
demonstration satellite was endorsed by Shubber Ali, an entrepreneur and self-described “cynic” who also participated on the
NewSpace panel. “The first step in this case needs to be a cheap, simple satellite, just to prove that we can beam power back down,”
he said. A satellite that generated just 10 kilowatts of power—less than some commercial GEO communications satellites—could be
developed for on the order of $100 million, he said. If space solar power is to become a reality, Smith said, it will have to be because
of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will play a small, but not leading, role. Ali said there needs to be a “coalition of
the willing” that includes the DOD and other government agencies like NASA and DOE, as well as “the usual suspects” in the
commercial space sector, to help advance space solar power if it appears it can be feasible. That group, he said, should also include oil
companies. “We like to think of ‘Big Oil’ as a big, ugly, evil set of companies that are just taking our money at the gas tank,” he
explained, “but the reality is that they are not idiots and they do take the long view.” Smith agreed, and noted that his team had
already met with some representatives off major oil companies, in part because “we realized we didn’t want to get ‘Tuckered’ out of
the business,” a reference to Preston Tucker, who clashed with the established Detroit automakers in the 1940s. If space solar power
is to become a reality, he said, it will have to be because of a “massive collaborative effort” in which the DOD will play a small, but
not leading, role. “This is not the Department of Defense’s job. We do not want to be in the energy business, we don’t want to be a
producer of energy,” he said. “We just want to be a customer of a clean energy resource that’s out there.”
MULTIPLE REASONS WHY SBSP COULD NOT BENEFIT THE DOD

AD ASTRA, Magazine of the National Space Society, SPRING 2008 “Why the U.S. Military is Not Interested in Solar Power
Satellites as Weapons”
When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a spacebased solar power (SBSP) satellite,
people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful weapon?” Depending on their bias that could either be a good thing:
developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to space. But the NSSO is not
interested in spacebased solar power as a weapon. 1. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments capabilities. Its motivation
for studying SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a reasonable cost anywhere in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge
amount of infrastructure needed to support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become
increasingly costly. 2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much lessexpensive options. For
example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy large enemy targets. 3.
SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that reaches the ground is less than a
quarter of noon-sunlight; a worker could safely walk in the center of the beam. The physics of microwave transmission and deliberate
safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre-determined maximum intensity level. Additionally,
by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot
signal lock ever be lost or disrupted. 4. SBSP would not be a precision weapon. Today’s militaries are looking for more precise and
lower collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot
individual targets—even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm. 5. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing
technical expertise in its military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over
energy scarcity, lessens the need to intervene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty
to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change. Solving the long-term
energy scarcity problem is too vital to the world’s future to have it derailed by a misconception that space solar power might somehow
be used as a weapon. That is why it is so important to educate people about this technology and to continue to conduct the research in
an open environment. –The NSSO SBSP Study Group, a.k.a. The Caballeros
75
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: DOD CP
DISPITE BEING WELL RESEARCHED AND PREPARED BY MULTIPLE EXPERTS, THE NSSO
REPORT IS WRONG ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE DOD SUPPORTS SBSP
Dwayne A. Day
“Knights in shining armor” Monday 6/9/08
www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1
. If the Department of Defense wants advice on, say, options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct the study
such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their existing advisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform the work. Even if the study is performed by a committee of
volunteers, there are still travel, printing, staff support, overhead, and other expenses.
Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in the many tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few million
dollars. In contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power had no actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and
labor. This reflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by the Pentagon leadership. It is nonsensical for members of
the space activist community to claim that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had no
money, produced by an organization that has no clout. If all this is true, why is the space activist community so excited about
the NSSO study? That is not hard to understand. They all know that the economic case for space solar power is abysmal. The
best estimates are that SSP will cost at least three times the cost per kilowatt hour of even relatively expensive nuclear power.
But the military wants to dramatically lower the cost of delivering fuel to distant locations, which could possibly change the
cost-benefit ratio. The military savior also theoretically solves some other problems for SSP advocates. One is the need for
deep pockets to foot the immense development costs. The other is an institutional avatar—one of the persistent policy
challenges for SSP has been the fact that responsibility for it supposedly “falls through the cracks” because neither NASA nor
the Department of Energy wants responsibility. If the military takes on the SSP challenge, the mission will finally have a home.
But there’s also another factor at work: naïveté. Space activists tend to have little understanding of military space, coupled with
an idealistic impression of its management compared to NASA, whom many space activists have come to despise. For
instance, they fail to realize that the military space program is currently in no better shape, and in many cases worse shape, than
NASA. The majority of large military space acquisition programs have experienced major problems, in many cases cost
growth in excess of 100%. Although NASA has a bad public record for cost overruns, the DoD’s less-public record is far
worse, and military space has a bad reputation in Congress, which would never allow such a big, expensive new program to be
started. Again, this is not to insult the fine work conducted by those who produced the NSSO space solar power study.
They accomplished an impressive amount of work without any actual resources. But it is nonsensical for members of
the space activist community to claim that “the military supports space solar power” based solely on a study that had
no money, produced by an organization that has no clout.
76
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: DOD CP- SECRECY SOLVENCY DEFICIT

http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2003/10/100903.html
SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2003, Issue No. 87 October 9, 2003
* SECRECY ORDERS IMPOSED ON PRIVATE INVENTORS RISE * NAS PANEL PROPOSES REVIEW OF
BIOTECH RESEARCH * ENERGY TASK FORCE SECRECY CASE GOES TO SUPREME COURT * WHITE
HOUSE MEMOS ON LEAK INVESTIGATION SECRECY ORDERS IMPOSED ON PRIVATE INVENTORS RISE
Over the past year, 133 secrecy orders were imposed on new patent applications, limiting or preventing their disclosure on
grounds that they could be "detrimental to the national security." More than half of the new orders affected private inventors
who developed their inventions without government funding or support. The legal authority for patent secrecy orders
derives from the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, which provides for government review of patent applications related to a wide
range of military technologies, and authorizes the government to regulate or prevent their disclosure. At the end of fiscal
year 2003, there were a total of 4,838 secrecy orders still in effect, according to statistics released this week by the Patent and
Trademark Office under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html The Invention Secrecy Act and the Atomic Energy Act are the only
statutes that assert a government right to prevent the publication of privately-generated information, a provision that appears to
be at odds with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Secrecy orders imposed on such private inventors are termed
"John Doe" orders. Last year, an unusually large 75 of the 133 new secrecy orders were John Doe orders. The nature of these
secret inventions could not, of course, be ascertained. Further information on the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, including
the declassified 1971 edition of the "patent security category review list" (newly posted) which defines the technology areas
subject to patent secrecy, may be found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/index.html
www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/index.html
Invention Secrecy
The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 requires the government to impose "secrecy orders" on certain patent applications that contain
sensitive information, thereby restricting disclosure of the invention and withholding the grant of a patent. Remarkably, this
requirement can be imposed even when the application is generated and entirely owned by a private individual or company without
government sponsorship or support.
There are several types of secrecy orders which range in severity from simple prohibitions on export (but allowing other disclosure for
legitimate business purposes) up to classification, requiring secure storage of the application and prohibition of all disclosure.
At the end of fiscal year 2007, there were 5,002 secrecy orders in effect.
The Armed Services Patent Advisory Board (ASPAB), which performed security review of patent applications on behalf of the
Department of Defense, was terminated in 1997 under section 906 of Public Law 105-85, and its functions were transferred to the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DoD Directive 5105.62, 9/30/98, sect. 5.4.5).
77
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: DOD CP- AIR FORCE TRADE OFF DA

DOD SPACE FUNDING TRADES OFF WITH AIR FORCE BUDGET
Benjamin S. Lambeth August 2003, Vol. 86, No. 8
How can the Air Force keep funding two major mission areas—air and space? Footing the Bill for Military Space
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/0803milspace.asp
Of all the uncertainties that currently affect the Air Force’s prospects for realizing the near-term promise of military space, none is
more crucial than the basic question of how—and at what opportunity cost—those prospects will be financed.
Under current arrangements, USAF has increasingly come to shoulder the burden of funding what are, in effect, two major military
mission areas—air and space—with an annual budget share intended for only one. Although all of the services benefit from the space
product ultimately provided, military space funding comes almost entirely out of the Air Force’s budget.
One reason the other services have so readily acquiesced in the Air Force’s long-standing dominance of military space is that USAF’s
provision of virtually the entire military space product essentially has allowed them a free ride. It should scarcely be surprising that the
other services would have such voracious appetites for space support when they do not have to pay for such costly benefits
themselves.
For its part, however, the Air Force has become increasingly hard pressed to uphold both air and space responsibilities with a constant
one-third share of overall annual US defense spending. Meanwhile, demands for space support and space force enhancement by all
services have grown steadily since military space first came of age during Operation Desert Storm.
Recognizing this growing Air Force predicament, the Congressionally mandated Space Commission concluded in January 2001 that
America’s military space capabilities are “not funded at a level commensurate with their relative importance.” The commissioners
voiced special concern that the Army and the Navy are the defense community’s largest users of space products and capabilities, but
the budget activities of those two services “consistently fail to reflect the importance of space.” This pointed up a “dichotomy between
the importance of space to the Army and the Navy [and] the funding commitment these services make” which “needs to be
addressed.”
MILITARY SPACE AND AIR FORCE SPENDING ARE ZERO SUM

Benjamin S. Lambeth August 2003, Vol. 86, No. 8
How can the Air Force keep funding two major mission areas—air and space? Footing the Bill for Military Space
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/0803milspace.asp
Zero-Sum Game?
Clearly, the Air Force can never make good on its obligations to exploit military space unless it begins sinking more money into that
effort. Yet the nation’s space priorities must not blot out equally vital air-related mission needs. Not even the service’s most senior
space leaders would argue that the Air Force can afford to abandon its existing core air mission responsibilities simply to free up more
money for space.
At present, there is a zero-sum competition going on between military space priorities and other USAF spending requirements,
including its force-projection needs. Should the Department of Defense continue its current resource apportionment practices with
respect to space, the Air Force will, in the words of one former senior space officer, find itself faced with “the untenable option of
capitalizing space with its increasingly limited resources.”
As one serving space officer declared, “Today’s zero-sum budget environment does not provide enough money for organizations to
support both their core competencies and other essential, though ancillary, functions. ... Under today’s configuration, the Air Force is
expected to equally prioritize funding opportunities for its own direct warfighting capabilities as well as its own and its customers’
[space] support needs.”
She added, “These space services represent non-core, non-warfighting services that carry some of our nation’s largest must-pay bills.”
.
<<AIR FORCE KEY TO HEGE>>
78
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: NOT FOR 50 YEARS

SBSP will happen within a decade- technology is advanced enough now
Since the "Fresh Look" over 10 years ago, innovation and progress have continued, in some cases at an even faster pace than they
projected: - solar cell efficiencies, now over 40% available - software systems - robotics and electronics - light-weight materials -
space assembly. There are now new models of how space solar power can be pursued. Broader markets are available: synthetic fuel
production, for example, or addressing power to remote off-grid or unstable regions. A number of challenges still remain: -
Exceptionally low-cost access to space is essential - Modular/intelligent space systems need development - In-space assembly -
efficient in-space transportation - wireless power at larger scale - power generation, power management, thermal, attitude control -
generally: mass, cost, lifetime and availability issues. But there is now an opportunity for near-term action: a large-scale
demonstration is achievable within a decade, not 50 years away now. A short video was then presented, showing a SBSP satellite
system end-to-end. Video was from Kris Holland of Mafic studious; the images shown here are stills from the video provided by NSS
and Mafic.
SBSP could happen in the next decade

There were several questions from members of the press in the audience: Question: What's the timeline? Lt.Col. Damphousse: we can
start work on the demonstration projects I outlined immediately. It's not a stretch to prepare equipment to put on the space station to
demonstrate beaming, to test other components. Charles Miller: with government support this could take off in less than 10 years with
very large amounts of power starting in about that time frame. This would bring in billions of dollars of private industry investment.
79
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO

Space solar power technology available within the next two years – private company tests prove.
(BusinessGreen, 11/7/2007, “Is space solar power closer than we think?” James Bloom, http://www.vnunet.com/business-
green/analysis/2202907/space-solar-power-closer-think)
It might be easy to dismiss as a sci-fi fantasy, but a recently published Pentagon report claims that beaming solar power
from orbiting satellites to the earth could soon become commercially viable. 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." But while the Pentagon reckons the technology is
decades away from commercial use there are several private companies aiming to launch a prototype SSP platform
within the next two years and one of these companies, California-based start-up Space Island Group, predicts it will
supply space-generated electricity to the UK domestic market at competitive rates as early as 2012. Advocates of the
technology reckon recent advances in ion thrusters and thin-film solar cells have made such a prototype project viable today.
Wireless energy transmission over distances of up to one mile has been successfully demonstrated since the 1970's, and some
experts argue that subsequent improvements in transmission efficiency mean it would be perfectly feasible to beam
power down from orbital solar power stations. One approach would be to use a laser for transmission that could beam
continuously to existing photovoltaic panels, cutting energy storage costs. However, the infra-red beam would experience
interference on overcast days and as a result a microwave-based system that would be far less sensitive to distortion from the
atmosphere looks the likeliest solution. The ground antenna array used to collect the energy from a microwave beam would
also be far more efficient than solar cells, leaking less heat to the surrounding area and ensuring that a 10 megawatt operation
could in theory cover just one-tenth of a square kilometre. As for potential health risks, Damphousse insists that "by the time
the beam has reached the surface, it has spread out considerably. The energy density is one-sixth that of the noon-day sun."
The major remaining commercial obstacle is the high cost of space transport. However, according to various viability
studies a ten-fold increase in launches per year would create an economy of scale that would make SSP competitive
with other renewable energy technologies. The US and Europe each currently launch around 10 to 15 space flights a
year, but Space Island Group CEO Gene Meyers thinks his company alone will soon be launching close to one rocket
a week. The company has almost completed financing for a prototype system that it claims will be in orbit within 18
months, at a total cost of $200 million. "The satellite will deliver between 10 to 25 megawatts of power," says Meyers. "It
will 'site-hop' across base stations in Europe, beaming 90 minutes of power to each one by microwave." If the test proves
successful, a 1 gigawatt installation for the UK domestic market would be the next step, he adds. However, Space Island
Group is not alone in its ambitions for an orbital power station. Kevin Reed, chief marketing officer at Welsom Space
Power, a recently-formed consortium including a large US aerospace company and a leading Swiss thin-film solar cell
manufacturer, says the company is planning to put a 1.2 megawatt satellite in orbit by 2010 with an eight megawatt
operation scheduled for 2012. "Smaller versions of our thin-film solar cell arrays will be tested for space heritage first,"
says Reed. "We are talking to the government of Palau about Helen Island as the test area for the service. It sits next to a
coral reef, which is very sensitive to heat, so it's an excellent test area." The test satellite will be situated in a low 'Molniya'
orbit and will pass over a number of islands during a daily cycle. The plan is to have one base station connected to the grid on
Helen Island, and an additional one thousand handheld rechargers distributed among the populace. "They can use them to
power their cellphones or laptops," Reed says. "The amount of power required is very minimal, something like 2 watts."
<CONTINUED>
80
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO

<CONTINUED>
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.
81
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: NO TECH NOW
The technology for space solar power already exists – the key barrier is bureaucratic.
145-156)
2.1. The technology exists; organization systems are needed The US Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)
has established a Task Group on Satellite Power Stations that has found no insurmountable obstacles to a Satellite Power System.
Within the SSP concept, a range of feasible technological alternatives has been identified [6]. The key technology for gaining access
to solar energy in space is Wireless Power transmission (WPT). Microwave power transmission has been extensively
investigated. Laser power transmission is an interesting possibility because of the ability to deliver power in amounts as low as 100
mw to Earth-based sites [7]. The basic technologies that underlie SSP are already available. The challenge is the creation and
management of a solar power energy organization to harness and utilize these technologies [7]. The feasibility of solar power
satellites was established as early as 1980 by a Department of Energy (DOE)/NASA Concept Development and Evaluation Program
[8]. The issues of who should guide the global SSP effort remain open for discussion.
82
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: NSSO INDICTS

The Military and Pentagon Supports Solar Powered Satellites
Dan Cho, New Scientist Staff Writer, October 2007 (New Scientist Environment Energy and Fuels Expert coverage on topics such
as Energy and Fuels Electricity climate change wind turbine oil hydrogen natural gas)
A futuristic scheme to collect solar energy on satellites and beam it to Earth has gained a large supporter in the US military. A report
released yesterday by the National Security Space Office recommends that the US government sponsor projects to demonstrate solar-
power-generating satellites and provide financial incentives for further private development of the technology. Space -based solar
power would use kilometre-sized solar panel arrays to gather sunlight in orbit. It would then beam power down to Earth in the form of
microwaves or a laser, which would be collected in antennas on the ground and then converted to electricity. Unlike solar panels based
on the ground, solar power satellites placed in geostationary orbit above the Earth could operate at night and during cloudy conditions.
"We think we can be a catalyst to make this technology advance," said US Marine Corps lieutenant colonel Paul Damphousse
of the NSSO at a press conference yesterday in Washington, DC, US.
Experts Approve of Space Solar Power

Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, 17 October 2001, “Bright Future for Solar Power
Satellites”( http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html)
Overall, the NRC experts gave NASA's SSP approach a thumbs-up. The space agency's current work is directed at technical
areas "that have important commercial, civil, and military applications for the nation." A top recommendation is that
industry experts, academia, and officials from other government agencies -- such as the Department of Energy, Defense
Department, and the National Reconnaissance Organization -- should be engaged in charting SSP activities, along with NASA.
The panel said that significant breakthroughs are required to achieve the final goal of SSP cranking out cost-competitive terrestrial
power. The ultimate success of the terrestrial power application of powering-beaming satellites critically depends on "dramatic
reductions" in the cost of transportation from Earth to geosynchronous orbit, the group reported. Furthermore, the SSP reviewers call
for ground demonstrations of point-to-point wireless power transmission. NASA should study the desirability of ground-to-space and
space-to-space demonstrations. In this area, the International Space Station could act as a platform to test out SSP-related hardware,
the study group said.
83
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: SPENDING
ECONOMIC COSTS OF NOT DOING SBSP OUTWEIGH
National Security Space Office 10 October 2007 “Space Solar Power Limitless clean energy from space”
Disadvantages of Space Solar Power High development cost. Yes, space solar power development costs will be very large, although
much smaller than American military presence in the Persian Gulf or the costs of global warming, climate change, or carbon
sequestration. The cost of space solar power development always needs to be compared to the cost of not developing space solar
power.
Solar Satellites could be operational within a decade with relatively little funding

The SBSP Study Group found that individual SBSP technologies are sufficiently mature to fly a basic proof‐of‐concept
demonstration within 4‐6 years and a substantial power demonstration as early as 2017‐2020, though these are likely to cost
between $5B‐$10B in total.
84
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: CHINA MILITARIZATION

China won’t militarize – it supports arms control in space.
(Jeffrey Logan, CRS Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division, 5/21/08, “China’s Space Program:
Options for U.S.-China Cooperation,” CRS Report for Congress, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22777.pdf)
China’s Space White Paper of 2006 states that Chinese space activities are subservient to domestic social and economic
development goals, which include national security.2 China has been a strong proponent of an arms control regime in space
and has argued for the peaceful use of outer space in the United Nations’ Conference on Disarmament and at the Prevention of an
Arms Race in Outer Space dialogue. Some claim that China takes this stand in order to prevent further progress by the United States in
space while allowing it to covertly catch up.3 China’s spending on space is growing, although details are often not available. The
CNSA reports to have a budget about one-tenth the size of NASA’s.4 Western experts estimate Chinese space spending at $1.4-2.2
billion per year, on par with France and Japan.5 Chinese budget opacity, the dual-use nature of most space technology, and currency
conversion difficulties make direct comparisons uncertain. China collaborates with other countries on civilian space activities, but
it is not considered a key member of the international space community.6 Currently, China collaborates with Russia, the
European Union (EU), Brazil, Canada, Nigeria, and others. The Russian partnership is probably the most active and has benefitted
China’s manned space effort significantly. A China-EU collaborative framework on space has been in place since 1998. This includes
cooperation on the EU-led Galileo satellite positioning system, but progress on this has been slow and sometimes controversial.
Competition in space also exists among China, India, Japan, and South Korea. Although there may be military implications to this
competition, each country seems more focused on building national pride by displaying technology prowess.
85
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: CHINA MILITARIZATION

China wants cooperation with the US.
China and the United States have a limited history of both civilian and military collaboration in space. China has publicly
pushed for more dialogue and joint activities. Mistrust of Chinese space intentions grew in the mid-1990s when U.S. companies
were accused of transferring potentially sensitive military information to China.12 Since then, cooperation has stagnated, often
roiled by larger economic, political, and security frictions in the U.S.-China relationship. In September 2006, NASA
Administrator Michael Griffin visited his Chinese counterpart, Laiyan Sun, in China. He couched the visit as a “get acquainted”
opportunity rather than the start of any serious cooperation in order to keep expectations low. No follow-on activities were
announced after the trip, although the Chinese issued a fourpoint proposal for ongoing dialogue between the two organizations that
stressed annual exchanges and confidence building measures.13 On January 11, 2007 China conducted its first successful anti-
satellite (ASAT) weapons test, destroying one of its inactive weather satellites.14 No advance notice of the test was given, nor has
China yet explained convincingly the intentions of the test.15 The international community condemned the test as an irresponsible act
because it polluted that orbital slot with thousands of pieces of debris that will threaten the space assets of more than two dozen
countries, including China’s, for years. Understanding the nuances of China’s intent in conducting the test is important, but remains
open to interpretation. How was the decision made to conduct a test that would contradict Beijing’s publicly-held position on the
peaceful use of outer space, and that would almost certainly incur international condemnation? Some speculate that the United
States’ unilateral positions encouraged China to conduct the test to demonstrate that it could not be ignored.16 In particular, the U.S.
National Space Policy issued in September 2006 declares that the United States would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of
space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”17 Given China’s apparent commitment to space, the growing U.S. dependence on
space for security and military use, and Chinese concerns over Taiwan, the ASAT test may have been a demonstration of strategic
Chinese deterrence.18 Others saw a more nefarious display of China’s space capabilities, and a sign that China has more ambitious
objectives in space.19 Still others speculate that the engineers running China’s ASAT program simply wanted to verify the technology
that they had spent decades developing and significantly underestimated the international outrage the test provoked.20 The Chinese
ASAT test seemed to derail any movement to build on the meeting between NASA and CNSA. Some believe that China’s ASAT
test will continue to dampen momentum that might have been building for the two countries to expand cooperation, while
others argue that it is a pressing reason to boost dialogue.21
86
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
US-China Space Cooperation Bad

Cooperation in space with China leads to no benefits for the US and illicit tech transfer that will result in
attacks on the US.
Challenges of Cooperating with China. Some of the most important challenges of expanding cooperation in space with China
include: ! Inadvertent technology transfer. From this perspective, increased space cooperation with China should be avoided
until Chinese intentions are clearer. Joint space activities could lead to more rapid (dual-use) technology transfer to China, and
in a worst-case scenario, result in a “space Pearl Harbor,” as postulated by a congressionally appointed commission led by Donald
Rumsfeld in 2001.22 ! Moral compromise. China is widely criticized for its record on human rights and non-democratic
governance. Any collaboration that improves the standing of authoritarian Chinese leaders might thus be viewed as
unacceptable. Ineffectiveness. Some argue that increased collaboration will not produce tangible benefits for the United States,
especially without a new bilateral political climate.23
87
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
China-US Space Cooperation Good

Cooperating with China cuts costs while preventing it from working against US interests.
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.
88
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SPACE SOLAR INTL COOPERATION

Space solar power encourages international cooperation.
145-156)
2.2. Global interest demands multinational cooperation There is growing interest in SSP in many countries. In Japan, SSP is
given a high ranking of importance (i.e., more than 40% of 100 specialists gave SSP the highest importance ranking) [9].
Soviet/Russian scientists have also investigated the transfer of energy to Earth [10]. Erb has proposed a US Government–Industry
Council on Space Solar Power to Earth to develop a National Space Power Plan, with analogous efforts in other spacefaring
countries [11]. Sellers suggests that Comsat/Intelsat might be a model for the operating structure and financing of a solar power
satellite [12]. With the globalization of the Internet, as well as consolidation and partnering in aerospace, telecommunications, and
high technology, we now have truly global systems of information exchange, dialogue and decision making. Management studies of
decision making and distributed intelligence in global business organizations demonstrate the enormous power of such
organizations when they utilize collective decision-making arrangements to take advantage of resource availability and unmet
demands [4, 5 and 13. D.G. Goehle, Decision marking in multinational corporations. , UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor, MI
(1980).13].
89
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SPACE SOLAR LAND SOLAR

Space solar power leads to land-based solar power by developing new technology.
(Geoffrey A. Landis, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 2/04, “Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite,”
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2004-NASA-ReinventingTheSolarPowerSatellite.pdf)
Space and Ground Solar Power Analyses of space solar power often assume that ground solar power is a competing technology,
and show that space solar power is a preferable technology on a rate of return basis. In fact, however, space solar power and
ground solar power are complementary technologies, not competing technologies. These considerations were initially discussed in
1990 [4]. Low-cost ground solar power is a necessary precursor to space solar power: Space solar power requires low cost, high
production and high efficiency solar arrays, and these technologies will make ground solar attractive for many markets. The
ground solar power market, in turn, will serve develop technology and the high-volume production readiness for space solar power.
Since ground solar is a necessary precursor to space solar power, an analysis of space solar power should consider how it interfaces
with the ground-based solar infrastructure that will be developing on a faster scale than the space infrastructure. Some possible ways
that this interface could be optimized include: 1. Integrate solar and microwave receivers on ground. This will allow the space solar
power to use the pre-existing land that has already been amortized by ground solar power receivers, and tie in to power conditioning
and distribution networks that are already in place. 2. Use solar power satellites to beam to receivers when ground solar is unavailable.
By "filling in" power when ground solar is unavailable, space solar power will serve as the complement to solar. This requires an
analysis of the match between solar availability, power demand, and power availability from space. So in addition to the five
requirements for economic analysis given earlier, a desirable additional requirement is: • Analyze the space solar power system
keeping in mind that it must complement the ground solar infrastructure.
90
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
SOLVENCY- LAUNDRY LIST

Space solar power prevents major threats to human survival – global warming, asteroids, and resource
scarcity.
Global catastrophes (events that cause the death of more than a quarter of world population) can credibly be caused through
either natural events or human activity. It has been argued that space industrialisation generally offers a response to the risks
involved by this class of event and should be the key focus of space infrastructure development. Space power has always been
argued as the only energy generating option that avoids depletion of non-renewable resources or pollution induced problems—
in particular global warming. However, there are many other potential roles for a solar power capability and the infrastructure
associated with it can play in the prevention of global catastrophes and this paper examines this wider application. A very preliminary
examination indicates the Solar Power Satellite (SPS) infrastructure can also support strategic defence, Near-Earth Object
defence, climate modification, and major resource provision. Combined these may give the capability to deal with all the main
threats to human civilisation.
Space solar power solves all major threats to human survival by providing global cover and developing
new tech.
Global catastrophes (events that cause the death of more than a quarter of world population [1] D. Morrison et al., The impact
hazard. In: T. Gehrels, Editor, Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids, University of Arizona Press (1994).[1]) can credibly be caused
through either natural events or through human activity. Indeed global catastrophes due to natural events have occurred several
times in human history with devastating consequences both in terms of human life and social organisation [2]. The probability of
naturally caused global catastrophe events is high, with an average separation of around a thousand years and have a typical
mortality at least a third of the population. This makes the probability of death caused by a natural global catastrophe 0.024, that
is five times larger than the probability of death in a road accident in the UK [3]. To the risk of natural events must now be
added the risk of anthropogenic catastrophes. The ability of mankind to produce effects on a global scale is recently acquired
and is growing rapidly. It follows that the probability of an anthropogenic global catastrophe cannot be determined from history or
reliably from analysis and is a matter of opinion. However, many works considering current threats place the probability much
higher than the historical natural figures—for example, Rees [4] suggests a 0.5 probability. Given the high probability of a
global catastrophe, and that in addition to the large mortality, these events also put the fabric of society at risk; it has been
argued that this should be among the highest priority of governments [5]. Previous work has drawn attention both to the
complexity of global catastrophe events and to the commonality of the agents involved regardless of the cause [2], enabling some
blanket preparations to cover a wide range of possible events. A correctly targeted capability can be a “comprehensive insurance
cover” for many potential threats. Given that global catastrophes, by definition, encompass the whole of the Earth, such provisions
need to be of a global scale and be as immune as possible to the chain of events. Elsewhere, it has been argued that these
requirements are best met by space industrialisation which can be the most effective response to the risks involved and should be
the key focus of space infrastructure development [5]. This paper looks specifically at the role space generated power can play in
this regard. The potential role of a space power capability falls into two broad classes. The first class is the direct use of energy
produced by the systems to directly deal with the undesirable consequences of a developing catastrophe event. The second
class of impact is consequential; the technology and infrastructure required to implement a significant space power capacity will, by
serendipity, significantly affect the general capability to address global catastrophe events.
91
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: SPACE MIL TURNS

Space solar satellites don’t have the launch capabilities to carry weapons – that rules out militarization.
The use of space-based systems to intercept and nullify strategic missiles and thus prevent the destruction caused by a nuclear
war is the only seriously funded attempt to prevent global catastrophe using space systems after President Regan established
strategic defence initiative (SDI) in 1983 [14]. The history of this programme highlights the key problem with all potential space
solutions to global catastrophes. The SDI programme explored numerous different technologies and approaches. A simplistic
history would be the early period was characterised by an emphasis on directed energy weapons such as lasers and neutral particle
beams, and the later stages were characterised by an emphasis on kinetic weapons, in particular “Brilliant Pebbles” [15]. The directed
energy weapons typically would each have mass around 100 tonnes with tens required in lower Earth orbit, both the mass and the
launch rate required are well beyond the capabilities of the current launch capability. This was addressed with a programme to
produce a heavy launcher called the advanced launch vehicle (ALV) [16]. Although a USAF programme with some NASA interest
[17], it was initiated by SDI [18] and the schedule seemed to driven by SDI requirements [19]. The change of SDI's emphasis to
Brilliant Pebbles also raised launch capability issues. While the kinetic systems are far smaller they are required to be deployed in
thousands [15]. So while the requirement for a heavy lift capability was lost, the required launch rate is much higher, and that leads to
a need for a reusable launcher with aircraft type operations. This requirement led to the single stage rocket technology programme
[20] that culminated in the DC-X experimental vehicle flight programme. The lesson that can be drawn is that existing launch
infrastructure systems cannot support any form of orbital ballistic missile defence, however, in comparison with the launch
requirements required for an SPS system it would be two orders of magnitude lower. While the infrastructure requirements
would be met, the SPS would provide little of the technology development required for a viable system.
Solar Satellites neither pose any threat as a weapon nor can they do any serious harm to human life

The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale make the beam very unsuitable
as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an inspection regime and better space situational awareness
capabilities. The distance from the geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power
concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot signal even to
concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed
with additional failsafe cut‐off mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if
occurring would be extremely anti‐climactic.
92
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
AT: SPACE MIL TURNS
Solar not militarize – nuclear coming now.
(Karl Grossman, Professor of American Studies at the State University of New York, Summer 1996, Covert Action Quarterly,
issue no. 57, http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/commentaries/risk.htm, “Risking the World: Nuclear Proliferation in Space”)
There have been three accidents out of the 24 known US space missions involving nuclear power. The Soviet failure rate is even
higher: six of their 39 nuclear missions failed. In 1978, a Cosmos 954 satellite disintegrated as it crashed to Earth over northwest
Canada leaving a 124,000-square kilometer swath of nuclear debris. The most recent US missions involving RTGs lofted many times
the plutonium of the earlier flights. The Galileo, launched in 1989, carried 49.25 pounds of plutonium fuel on a mission to Jupiter; the
7390 Ulysses took 25 pounds on its orbit around the sun. Those missions had been postponed after the January 28, 1986 Challenger
explosion. The Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice and other parties brought lawsuits to block the nuclear launches and organized
protests at the Kennedy Space Center. Even so, "[the] American people don't realize that on the very next mission after the Challenger
accident, the Ulysses spacecraft, was supposed to be sent into outer space with 25 pounds of plutonium," notes Dr. Raku. "Now
imagine that very same Challenger with the Ulysses spacecraft exploding on our television screens." (36) Had that rocket blown up
instead of the Challenger, far more people than seven astronauts could have perished. Despite the enormous danger, NASA is
committed to nuclear technology in space. And despite advances in solar power, it continues to insist--in fact, its witnesses swore in
court--that Galileo could only be completed with plutonium RTGs. Yet, two weeks after the 1989 launch, in response to a Freedom of
Information Act request I had filed two years earlier with NASA and DoE, I received reports from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
acknowledging that solar energy could substitute for nuclear power. "Based on the current study, it appears that a Galileo Jupiter
orbiting mission could be performed with a concentrated photovoltaic solar array power source without changing the mission
sequence or impacting science objectives," one report began. (37) A year later when Ulysses was launched, NASA actually admitted
in its pre-launch Final Environmental Impact Statement that solar could substitute for nuclear power but would require a "redesign."
(38) Nuclear Madness Driving this seemingly mad policy is a combination of corporate, bureaucratic, and military interests. By the
early 1980s, with the advent of the Reagan Star Wars program, the military- was no longer resisting ordering nuclear rockets, as
Nucleonics had complained about two decades earlier. And NASA, with the end of its Apollo man-on-the moon flights and fearful of
decreased funding, jumped into bed with the Pentagon: The shuttle was developed in large part to fulfill military missions. NASA,
DoD and DoE in 1991 set up a joint Office for Nuclear Propulsion. Also, NASA and DoE moved to limit the US government's
financial exposure in the event of the inevitable: further accidents involving nuclear space hardware. In 1991, the agencies signed a
"Space Nuclear Power Agreement" restricting death or damage benefits from an accident caused by a US space nuclear device to the
limits of the Price-Anderson Act. That law, passed in 1957, supposedly on a temporary basis, now caps US payouts at $7.3 billion and
as signed a mere $100 million for all damage to other countries and their people. (39) "Nuclear energy in outer space," says Dr. Kaku,
is the linchpin of the US space program and the key to the militarization of space. "We have nuclear weapons on the land. We have
nuclear weapons in the ocean. We have nuclear weapons in the air." And now, Kaku warns: "What we are headed for is a nuclear-
propelled rocket with nuclear-propelled lasers in outer space. That's what the military and that's what NASA would really like to do.
With a Timberwind rocket, a booster rocket to hoist large payloads in outer space, we are talking about the ultimate goal of all of this
madness. First, we have small little reactors called the SNAP reactors. Then, we have the RTGs and Galileo and Cassini. Then we
have the big Timberwind projects. And ultimately what they would like to do is have nuclear-powered battle stations in outer space.
That's what all of this is leading up to." Kaku went on to say that it is up to environmentalists, activists, and concerned citizens, "to
stop this now before it reaches the point of militarization of outer space." "We have to stop these Cassinis. We have to stop these
Ulysses now before we have full-blown Timberwinds, before we have Alpha lasers, before we have genuine nuclear booster rockets
and nuclear power plants in outer space. That's why we have to send a signal to Congress. We have to send a signal to NASA, and a
signal to the United States Pentagon that we're not going to tolerate the nuclearization of outer space, and it stops now." (40) The
Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space intends through a variety of planned actions--from organizing protests
to circulating petitions to political activities--to press on sending that signal, to "continue the resistance," says Gagnon, "to this sheer
and utter madness.'' (41)
93
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NEG: SBSP would require massive political capital

DESPITE DoE FUNDS FOR RESEARCH, CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT STALLED BY
POLITICAL APATHY
Whatever happened to solar power satellites? by David Boswell Monday, August 30, 2004 High cost of launching Another 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.”
94
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NEG: PRIVATIZE CP
Private sector has sufficient technology- timeframe is one year
BG, Business Green, 30 Apr 2008, BusinessGreen is a multimedia publication for firms intent on improving their environmental
credentials, “Satellite solar panels promise grid parity power by next year”( http://www.businessgreen. com/business
-green/news/2215513/satellite-solar-panels-promise)
Solar Concentrator Company Sunrgi is planning to undercut conventional grid electricity prices within twelve months, using
the same solar technology designed for satellites. Sunrgi is planning a technology combining solar concentrators with space-class
solar technology based on germanium, which it claims will produce energy costing five cents per kilowatt hour when amortised over
20 years. The company would not reveal the initial investment required in the equipment, which will be initially sold to utilities and
large-scale industrial organisations. The technology, which uses lenses to focus sunlight onto solar material, has an efficiency of
37.5 per cent, the company said, compared to around 15 per cent for conventional crystalline solar panels. With sunlight
generating 1MW per square metre, that means it can harvest 375 watts, said Sunrgi CEO Paul Sidlo. The company is using solar chips
from Boeing Spectrolabs as the basis for the solar concentrator system. Spectrolabs has previously been credited with developing
high-efficiency multi-junction solar material. The lenses used by the company will focus the power of 2,000 suns onto the solar
material, said Sidlo, creating temperatures of 3,400 degrees. He added that the technology rests on two key pieces of intellectual
propery. Firstly, Sunrgi uses a proprietary cooling technology to stop the intense heat from the lenses vapourising the solar material.
"We have a nanomount on the back of the chip that has a tremendous ability to move thousands of thermal watts of energy
away from the chip," explained Sidlo. "It uses nanotechnology that we developed." Once removed from the chip by the
nanotechnology, the heat eventually reaches an aluminium heat sink that can help to move it out of the solar array. In future versions,
the company is considering harvesting the waste heat and converting it back into power. The other proprietary technology is a
tracking system that will minutely adjust the array's position to track the sun, increasing the energy that a unit will be able to
harvest from the sun on a daily basis. The company said it hopes to begin commercial production in within 12 to 15 months.
95
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NEG: JAPAN CP
JAPAN IS POURING MILLIONS INTO SBSP DEVELOPMENT

Tim Hornyak, , Scientific American
July, 2008 Farming Solar Energy in Space
Shrugging off massive costs, Japan pursues space-based solar arrays
Kakuda, japan—In a recent spin-off of the classic Japanese animated series Mobile Suit Gundam, the depletion of fossil fuels has
forced humanity to turn to space-based solar power generation as global conflicts rage over energy shortages. The sci-fi saga is set in
the year 2307, but even now real Japanese scientists are working on the hardware needed to realize orbital generators as a form of
clean, renewable energy, with plans to complete a prototype in about 20 years.
The concept of solar panels beaming down energy from space has long been pondered—and long been dismissed as too costly and
impractical. But in Japan the seemingly far-fetched scheme has received renewed attention amid the current global energy crisis and
concerns about the environment. Last year researchers at the Institute for Laser Technology in Osaka produced up to 180 watts of laser
power from sunlight. In February scientists in Hokkaido began ground tests of a power transmission system designed to send energy
in microwave form to Earth.
The laser and microwave research projects are two halves of a bold plan for a space solar power system (SSPS) under the aegis of
Japan’s space agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). Specifically, by 2030 the agency aims to put into
geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a large
nuclear power plant. The energy would be sent to the surface in microwave or laser form, where it would be converted into electricity
for commercial power grids or stored in the form of hydrogen.
“We’re doing this research for commonsense reasons—as a potential solution to the challenges posed by the exhaustion of fossil fuels
and global warming,” says Hiroaki Suzuki of JAXA’s Advanced Mission Research Center, one of about 180 scientists at major
Japanese research institutes working on the scheme. JAXA says its potential advantages are straightforward: in space, solar irradiance
is five to 10 times as strong as on the ground, so generation is more efficient; solar energy could be collected 24 hours a day; and
weather would not pose a problem. The system would also be clean, generating no pollution or waste, and safe. The intensity of
energy reaching Earth’s surface might be about five kilowatts per square meter—about five times that of the sun at noon on a clear
summer day at midlatitudes. Although the scientists say this amount will not harm the human body, the receiving area would
nonetheless be cordoned off and situated at sea.
At a facility in Miyagi, Suzuki and JAXA researchers are testing an 800-watt optical-fiber laser that fires at a receiving station 500
meters away. A mirror reflecting only 1,064-nanometer-wavelength light directs it into an experimental solar panel. (He chose that
frequency of light because it easily cuts through Earth’s atmosphere, losing no more than 10 percent of its pop.) A key task will be
finding a material that can convert sunlight into laser light efficiently. A leading candidate is an yttrium-aluminum-garnet ceramic
material containing neodymium and chromium.
96
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
NEG- BUSH GOOD LINK (AFF BUSH BAD LINK TURN)

PLAN PASSAGE REQUIRES BUSH TO OVERCOME THE OVERWHELMING POLITICAL
CLOUT OF THE FOSSIL-FUEL LOBBY
Neville Marzwell, advanced concepts innovation technology manager at NASA, spent five years researching methods of improving a
satellite's ability to collect solar energy before his program was cut. Marzwell claims that politics played a part in the decision to kill
the space solar power program.
The United States "doesn't have the political will to fund the research" because of pressure from fossil-fuel lobbyists, Marzwell said.
"We could have become the Saudi Arabia of the world electricity market," Marzwell said. But because the coal and oil industries don't
want threats to their profits, they applied political pressure, causing the program to be scrapped, according to Marzwell.
Auburn's Brandhorst hopes that NASA's emphasis on sending astronauts to Mars will lead to renewed interest in space solar power.
"For a time, exploration was a bad word at NASA. Now it's a mandate," Brandhorst said, and the program should receive money
because it "has clear repercussions for exploration."
97
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
POLITICS
Bush pushed for NASA and failed, Congress likes to cut it.
The Planetary Society 1-31-06, Congressional Appropriators cut NASA funding; Moon Program, New Launch Vehicle, and
Science all cut, http://rrgtm.planetary.org/news/2007/0131_Congressional_Appropriators_Cut_NASA.html
The House Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the 2007 federal government budget. In it, funding for NASA was cut
by $550 million (approximately 3.2%) from the amount proposed by the Bush Administration last February.
NASA failed to get the needed Political Capital from Bush causing it to get cut, Congress find the
program to long term
Gannett News Service, 3-13-06, Scientists: NASA programs lack adequate funding,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-03-13-nasa-funding_N.htm
President Bush has failed to back up his broad vision to revive the nation's interest in space exploration with adequate funding or even
public support, a leading scientist told lawmakers Thursday. "The money that was promised to execute the mission has not been
provided, and it's hard to say that the vision has generated much excitement, particularly among the young, who are expected to
benefit the most," said Lennard Fisk, chairman of the National Research Council Space Studies Board. The 2004 vision outlined by
Bush included plans to retire the aging space shuttle, return Americans to the moon and explore Mars through robotic and human
missions. I encourage you to ask whether there was a flaw in the vision that we did not realize at the time," Fisk told members of the
House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. "The vision is about the future, extending our civilization
into space, but there is little of immediate concern to the taxpayer." The congressional hearing, which focused specifically on NASA's
space and Earth science programs, was the latest held to examine the proposed 2009 budget Bush has recommended for the agency.
Committee chairman Mark Udall called NASA's science programs the "crown jewels" of the agency but expressed his longstanding
concern over whether they have been adequately funded.
The public and space advocates overwhelmingly like the plan
National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S.
energy, 10-10-07, "Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,"
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation
(SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group
(ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period. here is reason to think
that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted
in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response
was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular
response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) /
Mars(10%).
98
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Major power war over oil possible.
(Dr. Michael T. Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, 11/6/2006,
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/1/154940/816, “An Interview with Michael Klare”)
DC: Finally, will you comment on the likelihood of fossil fuel resource wars in the future? Here, I have in mind actual military
conflict. Perhaps you could also touch on some regions I haven't mentioned above such as the FSU countries in and around the
Caspian Basin, the South China Sea, etc. MK: I assume you're distinguishing here between civil wars over the allocation of resource
rents, like those now under way in Iraq and Nigeria, and full-scale war between the major powers over access to oil-producing areas.
Wars of the first kind are happening now, and I would expect more of them in the future. As for the second, I think we have to
consider the problem of "unintended escalation." I do not think that any of the major powers will deliberately choose to provoke a war
over oil, as when Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies in 1941 (and bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive move against likely
American retaliation), but I do think that they may engage in provocative behavior that could lead to accidental escalation under
conditions of panic, confusion, and over-reaction (as in the circumstances that triggered World War I). A possible flashpoint for such a
scenario is the East China Sea, where both China and Japan have deployed military ships/planes in a disputed energy zone and
employed them in a threatening manner, risking potential panic fire and escalation to actual war - a situation that could get out of hand
quickly and lead to full-scale war. So yes, in this sense, I think war over oil and gas is entirely possible.

Lack of space solar power leads to food shortages – other alternatives use massive amounts of land and
trade off with agriculture.
(Martin I Hoffert, Physics Professor NYU, and Seth D Potter, Engineer at The Boeing Company, 10/1997, “Beam It Down:
How the New Satellites Can Power the World,” Extracted from "Solar Power Satellites: A Space Energy System for Earth", edited
byPeter Glaser, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/beam_it_down_how_the_new_satellites_can_power_the_world.shtml)
The demand for space-based solar power could be extraordinary. By 2050, according to some estimates, 10 billion people will inhabit
the globe--more than 85 percent of them in developing countries. The big question: How can we best supply humanity's growing
energy needs with the least adverse impact on the environment? Dependence on fossil fuels is not the answer because burning coal,
oil, and gas will pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, raising the risk of global climate change. (And of course these resources
will not last forever.) Nuclear fission reactors avoid the greenhouse problem but introduce the so-far intractable problem of disposing
of nuclear waste. Controlled nuclear fusion might someday provide an inexhaustible supply of clean energy--but after forty years of
continuous funding, a practical fusion reactor is still not in sight. That leaves the menu of renewable energy sources. But terrestrial
renewables pose environmental problems because of their relatively large land requirements. Hydropower, the most exploited
renewable thus far, has significantly disrupted ecosystems and human habitats. Solar, biomass, and wind farms would similarly
compete with people, agriculture, and natural ecosystems for land were they the basis of a global energy system. Moreover, ground-
based renewable energy systems, such as terrestrial photovoltaics and biomass fuels, generate fewer than 10 watts of electricity per
square meter, on a continuous basis. To generate enough electricity to meet demand could require developing countries either to divert
land from agricultural use, and thus diminish the supply of food, or to destroy natural ecosystems, a move that could hasten the onset
of global warming. Solar power satellites would require far less land to generate electricity. Each square meter of land devoted to the
task could yield as much as 100 watts of electricity. And the power-receiving rectenna arrays--a fine metallic mesh--would be visually
transparent, so their presence would not interfere with crop growth or cattle grazing.
99
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
MISC (POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES)
Shifting attention of Arabs and Israelis through focus on water scarcity and cooperation using
international donors solves conflict.
(Hans Gunter Brauch, Free University Berlin Otto-Suhr-Institute of Political Science, 2006, “Potential of Solar Thermal
Desalination to Defuse Water as a Conflict Issue in the Middle East: Proposal for Functional Cooperation in the Gulf of Aqaba,”
Edited by Benoit Morel and Igor Linkov, Book: Environmental Security and Environmental Management: The Role of Risk
Assessment, Springer)
100
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
The Middle East has ample space for ground-based solar.
In many places, space solar power isn’t competitive because of ground-based solar – in these areas
ground based solar can fill in.
(The Space Review, 8/30/2004, David Boswell, “Whatever happened to solar power satellites?”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1)
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. The idea of generating
power in space has been around for a while, but has never really gotten off the ground. 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 used for other things. Rooftop space may not be valuable, but acres of
farmland are. There is also only a limited number of 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.
101
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Grants and cooperation to solve water shortages solve Middle East conflict.
102
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Space Military Cooperation Possible

Even on military issues cooperation in space is possible.
(Randall Correll, Science Applications International Corporation, 5/1/2004, “Military Space Cooperation: Aligning the Balance of
Power and Building Common Interest,” Astropolitics 2: 133–147, 2004, Taylor and Francis,
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713634457)
Of greatest interest in the future of military space cooperation are new programs where information from space systems or their
information products are planned, developed, fielded and even operated in a cooperative manner. The challenge of how to explore the
broad spectrum of active cooperation on emerging space capabilities12 was put before an international group of space professionals in
a recent workshop.13 The participants discussed a number of topics including the task of identifying potential cooperative projects.
They identified two important guiding principles for initial cooperative international security space projects. The first is that tangible
cooperation and transparency of space systems, in themselves, reduce suspicion and make data and interpretation more trustworthy.
The second is that there is plenty of commercially available technology that can be used, which should minimize concerns over
proliferation of sensitive technologies. With these guiding principles, the participants found a number of potential candidate projects
that would have real benefit and would be suitable for cooperative national or international security projects: . Global environmental
monitoring system – where participating nations contribute data from existing systems and possibly develop new systems with open
designs and technology to share routine or emergency environmental data with the global community. . Space environmental
monitoring system – where participating nations share data or develop new sensors to monitor and report space environment data. The
utility of such a system becomes more valuable as more space-faring nations emerge. . Crisis monitoring system – where participating
nations contribute data or develop new sensors to provide imagery and communications which can be openly shared with the global
community in time of crisis. . Treaty verification system – where space-based verification systems could be conceived and provided
by participating nations with open architectures and technologies to provide the international community with technical verification
means for proposed treaties. . Global communications on-demand system – where global communications systems, and replacement
systems to partially reconstitute capability in times of degradation, could be provided and managed by the international community.
Global communications, free and unfettered, provide the best long-term hope of an open exchange of ideas and redress of grievances
for all of mankind. . Navigation and timing on-demand system – where global navigation and timing systems, which are becoming
more pervasive and integrated in the global economy, could be provided, managed and reconstituted by the international community. .
Low-cost research platforms – where national and international security technologies could be rapidly and inexpensively tested in
space prior to being further developed or deployed in mission critical applications. While this list only begins to explore the
possibilities, it represents a list of potential cooperative projects that would rate high on utility and the building of good will, with
relatively low-cost and few security or policy concerns. Way Ahead: Striking the Balance in Military Space Cooperation If one
accepts the case made in the foregoing discussion that cooperative military activities can contribute to national security, and that
military space programs are recognized as providing at least equal benefits as traditional land, sea and air forces to such cooperation, it
would be helpful to suggest guideposts to planners and policy makers so they can navigate the variety of options. The initial objective
is that cooperative activity improves the effectiveness of military capability and enhances the security and defense of each partner. It is
not difficult to think of ideas on how to do so, and initial pathfinders are recommended above. However, there are important caveats.
Regarding arms control, agreements that are specific in the type, intent and duration of prohibition being addressed will be more
readily acceptable to policy makers than ones that offer broad prohibitions. Regarding sharing of space systems and data, it is
important that each party be able to protect the secrecy of sensitive technology and operations. Cooperative projects which use
commercially available unclassified technologies make it easier to meet this requirement. Additionally, military space planners should
look for opportunities where potential partners can make meaningful contributions to the cooperative activity. As more nations
develop their space technology, this will be easier to do, especially if one considers that the overall system capability is comprised of
satellites in space, control stations on the ground and analysis centers throughout the participating countries. Projects where other
nations are relied upon for critical dependencies may carry unacceptable risks. Projects where partners contribute complementary
capabilities, without critical dependencies, carry much lower risks and hence are ideal candidates for initial pathfinder projects. While
the above suggestions emphasize the art of the possible, it is not meant to advise that only easy problems be addressed. With more
countries entering space, there now exists the opportunity to move military space capabilities out from behind a veil of secrecy to
explore cooperation in ways that provide benefit to national and international security with manageable risk. Military space
103
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
cooperation can thus provide a powerful tool in aligning the balance of power and building common interest in the twenty-first
century.
US space solar power builds US-Russian relations – it’s a key area of potential cooperation. Action now is
key – it’s a time of uncertainty in relations.
(Alexander G. Savelyev, Department of Strategic Studies, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, 3/20 04,
“Prospects for US-Russian Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense and Outer Space Activities,” The Journal of Slavic Military
Studies, Volume 17, Issue 1 March 2004 , pages 99 – 109)
Space presents realistic opportunities for US-Russian cooperation. But how can the two countries cooperate while also protecting their
own national interests? Can the US afford to go it alone in space? What will be the long-term effect of the commercialization of
space? Faced with ever declining space-technology budgets, Russia needs international cooperation if its space industry is to survive.
At the same time, the US has shifted its interests away from cooperation and toward the military aspects of space. Further, the author
says, the US has been inclined to solve problems unilaterally. But the author contends that the US is critically dependent on Russian
launchers and that both countries would benefit from mutual efforts and expertise. Potential areas for joint work include ballistic-
missile defense, protecting space-based systems, and data exchange on space objects. All of the foregoing, the author notes, would
support national and international security. The history of cooperation in outer space between the US and the USSR, and the US and
Russia, proves that successful and effective joint work between the two leading space states is possible and that it can lead to
implementation of different space-related projects of various levels. But despite the fact that since the early 1990s the geo-political
situation has opened qualitatively new perspectives for cooperation among the participants in space exploration, there are still more
questions than answers regarding partnership between the US and Russia. These questions include: how to achieve a high level of
effectiveness in this cooperation while preserving each partner's national interests? How can this cooperation contribute to global
stability? What role can the partnership play in developing space-based information and communication systems for the creation of a
new framework of strategic stability? How will the process of the 'commercialization' of space activities affect the development of the
US-Russian strategic partnership, including the creation of space-based information systems with the characteristics comparable to
those of military devices? Yet, most of these questions do not have a unanimous answer. Moreover, there exist quite opposite points
of view on the prospects for US-Russian cooperation in this area. The reason is the growing gap in the two states' technical and
economic capabilities, as well as the still lingering uncertainties about the very nature of the strategic relations between our countries.
Quite naturally, none of these factors help stimulate partnership relations between Russia and the US in either commercial or military
fields of space exploration. Nevertheless, in my view, the potential for such cooperation remains high. If the parties can overcome
existing difficulties and differences, this potential can be implemented with a relatively high level of effectiveness. RUSSIAN
POTENTIAL The Russian space industry, unlike many others, possesses very favorable opportunities and potential for entering the
world market. Starting in about 1993, Russia's participation in international space programs and projects became a very important
factor for the development of Russian space programs and also a necessary condition for it. It was international cooperation that
helped preserve the space branch of Russian industry in a situation where state support of space activities was constantly declining.
Thus, between 1989 and 2002, state support for space activities declined by 20 times. At the same time, this industry's share in the
GDP fell from 0.73 per cent in 1989 to 0.12 per cent in 2001.1 Thus, at present international cooperation in outer space is one of the
main directions of the activities of the Russian Aerospace Agency ('Rosaviakosmos'). This cooperation covers practically all the
activities mentioned in the Federal Space Program of Russia.2 In spite of these serious financial difficulties, for the foreseeable future
(until at least the end of the next decade) Russia still has a good chance of preserving its place among the leading space states of the
world. The Russian missile and space industry has always been a place of concentration of the most modern technologies. In the early
1990s the former USSR occupied a leading position in approximately 50 per cent of space technologies. During the 1990s period of
economic crisis, Russia lost many of these technologies (around 300 technologies, according to some estimates), as well as time and
rates of development. But the potential of the space technology branch remains high. Thus, Russian achievements in engines that use
different fuel types, electrical systems, orbital stations, composition materials, hydrogen technologies and others, are well known. In
addition, there are still heavy 'intellectual investments' in the sphere of advanced technologies, including adaptive optics, and others.
Today many experts predict a coming multifaceted technological breakthrough in space technologies. If Russia devotes more attention
to space technologies, it will be able to maintain its leading role in some of them. At present (2002) Rosaviakosmos' annual program
is approximately 35 times lower than NASA's budget, and 3.5 times lower than the annual budget of the European Space Agency as
approved for the period 2002-06. In the US, the annual space budget is about 80 billion dollars; in Japan - 3.6 billion dollars; in
104
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Europe - 3 billion dollars; in France - 2.5 billion dollars; China - 1.9 billion dollars; and in India - 0.55 billion dollars; but in Russia -
only 0.193 billion dollars3. So, the characteristic feature of the present stage of Russian space activities is that financial support is not
consistent with the real potential of this branch. We can offer some figures to prove this conclusion. If we take the total of the US and
Russian figures and represent space activities as 100 per cent, we see the following picture for 2000:4 Non-military space budget:
Russia - 9%; US - 91%; Number of satellites in orbit: Russia - 22%; US - 78%; Overall spending on space activities up to 1997:
Russia - 38%; US - 62%; Overall spending on land-based infrastructure up to 1997: Russia - 43%; US - 57%; Satellite launch
capabilities (annual): Russia - 67%; US - 33%. US-RUSSIAN PARTNERSHIP IN OUTER SPACE After quite an optimistic stage
of space cooperation between 1993 and 2000, when such projects as the international orbit station, the sea-launch system and others
took place, the current situation in US-Russian non-military cooperation in outer space could be described, if not as stagnation, as
uncertainty. One can say that the optimism of the 1990s was not realized. Moreover, beginning with the new millennium the US
obviously lost interest in cooperation in space with Russia, having shifted its attention to the military aspects of space exploration. It is
symbolic that, for the first time, in May 2002, issues of US-Russian cooperation in outer space received practically no reflection in the
final documents of the summit of the two presidents (G. Bush and V. Putin). After the 'Discovery' tragedy, the US began to pay more
attention to the prospects for US-Russian cooperation in this sphere. Thus, according to the US Deputy Secretary of State for Arms
Control, S. Redmaker, the US is critically dependent on Russian launchers.5 Nevertheless the real prospects for such cooperation
remain unclear. A number of factors play a negative role in this situation. The Russian-American Commission on Economic and
Technical Cooperation, established in April 1993 (at a summit in Vancouver), has ceased to exist. Issues of the US-Russian
partnership in outer space occupied a very serious place in the agenda of this commission.6 Throughout the 1990s this commission
played the role of the main coordinating body for US-Russian cooperation in outer space. Another negative factor is the passivity of
the Special Committee on Prevention of An Arms Race in Outer Space - PAROS.7 This committee was established back in 1985
within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament. The activity of this committee is all but blocked, since the participants still
cannot reach a consensus on the format of the negotiations. Finally, the most important factor preventing further development of the
US-Russian cooperation in this sphere is the position of the US. The US still does not express much interest in this issue and attempts
to solve the main problems unilaterally.8 It is absolutely clear that the US has great superiority in space technology and possesses the
most modern scientific, technical and industrial base in this area. Nevertheless, one should not consider this superiority a constant
factor. Technical changes under circumstances of rapid scientific progress, accompanied by political and military factors, as well as
the increasing importance of space systems for all aspects of the development of other countries (many of which try to obtain
independent capabilities for space exploration), can lead to a situation in which the US not only changes its position on these issues,
but also loses its number-one place in this area. One should mention that the list of potential areas of US-Russian cooperation in outer
space can be quite long. Thus, in the sphere of information alone there are potential projects in the following areas, among others:
developing a global space information security system; joint efforts to reduce the vulnerability of space-based systems; joint analysis
and data exchange on space objects; the protection of 'space information streams'; joint monitoring of informational threats to space
systems; and monitoring the space in general (including radiation, intensity of the 'sun wind', the characteristics of the magnetic field
and other factors which influence the transmission of information to and from space), and so on. The realization of prospective space
technologies will make it possible to begin implementing large civil space projects by the end of the next decade. For example, a large
portion of the efforts will go toward developing 'great space energy' programs, whose goal is to prevent a coming energy and
environmental crisis. In this connection, building and using orbital solar power stations and transmitting energy to the earth will be
on the agenda of international cooperation in outer space. Space technologies can also help solve the problem of 'weather control',
including the control of typhoons, and other unpleasant 'surprises'. According to the views of some Russian experts, lasers under
development for military use could also be used for such purposes. In particular, the Russian Rocket and Space Corporation, 'Energia'
(Energy), is studying such possibilities.9 In addition to the aforementioned, a number of other projects, such as 'space isolation' of
nuclear and toxic waste, counter-meteorite programs, production in space and others have good prospects. After 2020 manned flights
to Mars and the construction of moon bases will also sound much less fantastic than today.

Space is the key area for US-Russian cooperation.
105
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
(Alexander G. Savelyev, Department of Strategic Studies, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, 3/20 04,
“Prospects for US-Russian Cooperation in Ballistic Missile Defense and Outer Space Activities,” The Journal of Slavic Military
Studies, Volume 17, Issue 1 March 2004 , pages 99 – 109)
Space, for many very understandable reasons, is the most realistic arena in which Russia and the US could try to overcome the
historical obstacles in the path of promoting world security and strategic stability through cooperation in practically all current and
prospective areas. Joint responsibility on the part of Russia and the US in this field could help solve many problems that the two
countries face in the new century. Cooperation between Russia and the US can play the central role in solving the task of global
monitoring of outer space using national information assets, including early-warning satellites and ground-based ABM systems. Data
exchange on space objects, the environment and other matters, can also contribute to strategic stability and international security.
Cooperation in the field of space control could help to work out a legal basis for international inspections of all space systems to be
launched into orbit, as well as for international data exchange on hostile activities against these systems and their elements. However,
in order to move toward broad and successful USRussian cooperation (to which, in principle, there are no serious alternatives) that is
both stable and forward-looking, not only must the parties choose the optimal nature of their behavior, they must also create a new
model of inter-governmental links. The basis of such a model must be the agreed-upon joint responsibility of the two states for global
peace and stability, and for the character, ways and the consequences of the development of international space activities. Regarding
US-Russian cooperation in the ABM sphere, it is too early to speak of some large-scale program in this field. But that conclusion does
not exclude the possibility of stable movement toward the development of a new international security system, with the participation
not only of the two 'great space states', but also of other interested parties that are ready to share the responsibility for creating a new
world order. Such cooperation would raise the general level of security relations and could become a decisive limiting factor against
an arms race in outer space. It would also stimulate the process of developing a positive strategy for space exploration.

Space solar power forces US-Russia cooperation – only Russia has adequate launching capabilities.
(Hideo Matsuoka, Teikyo University, & Patrick Collins, Azabu University, 7/2004, “Benefits of International Cooperation in a
Low Equatorial Orbit SPS Pilot Plant Demonstrator Project,” 4th International Conference on Solar Power from SPACE, SPS '04,
Granada, Spain, 30 June - 2 July 2004, proceedings to be published by ESA,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/benefits_of_international_cooperation_in_a_low_equatorial_orbit_sps_pilot_plant_demonstrator
_project.shtml)
A decision was made by ESA in 2003 to build a new launch pad for the Russian made Soyuz rocket at the ESA launch site in Kourou,
in South Guiana from where the first Soyuz flight is planned for 2007 [11]. Although the first launch will be a cargo flight, the new
Soyuz launch infrastructure has been designed to ensure that it can be smoothly adapted for human spaceflight, should this be decided
upon [11]. (Soyuz rockets have been used for both crewed and uncrewed flights longer than any other spacecraft.) The launch sites
used to date for crewed flights from Russia, USA and China are all too far from the equator to enable existing crew-carrying space
vehicles to reach low equatorial orbits. Consequently, the start of Soyuz flights from Kourou will create the possibility, for the first
time in more than 40 years of space flight activities, of launching crews into equatorial orbits. In principle, crews launched from
Kourou could provide back-up trouble-shooting capability for the automatic deployment of an SPS pilot plant satellite in low
equatorial orbit. Consequently, the new capability being developed at Kourou could resolve the main outstanding technical risk of the
"SPS 2000" demonstrator system. The nominal altitude of 1100 km, if kept as part of the system specification, would require Soyuz
crew vehicles to fly significantly higher than they have hitherto. The implications of this for their operation would need to be the
subject of detailed system studies. Among other advantages, launching from near the equator will give Soyuz a substantial payload
advantage over launching from Baikonur in Kazakhstan. For example, a Soyuz-2 (a new version of the Soyuz) will be able to place up
to 3 tonnes into geostationary transfer orbit, as opposed to the 1.7 tonnes that can be launched from Baikonur using the standard Soyuz
[11]. In order to carry more propellant, tools or consumables, Soyuz could also fly with 2-person crews. Modifications to the Soyuz
vehicle could also be made if necessary, such as the 6-person module reportedly being developed for passenger use. The task of
providing crewed backup to the deployment of several hectares of solar panels and microwave power transmitting antenna panels can
be considered essential in order to realise a multi-MW SPS pilot plant in low orbit. Such a project in equatorial orbit would provide a
unique requirement for crewed flights from Kourou, for which there is no substitute. It would therefore seem that more detailed
analysis of this possibility is desirable. The staff responsible for the SPS 2000 system design would be pleased to collaborate with staff
106
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
from ESA and RSA in providing appropriate design data, and working on the redesign that would be necessary in order to make the
system compatible with crew-tended deployment. Indeed, the overall satellite design might well change significantly in order to fulfil
the more complex requirements of such an international collaborative project. If this approach was found to be technically feasible,
the European and Russian space industries would thereby have the opportunity to play a key role in testing the feasibility of power
delivery from space to Earth. It is to be hoped that the European and Russian governments would then make a proposal to the Japanese
government to collaborate in realising an equatorial pilot plant as an essential step towards assessing this possible new energy source.
Space solar power builds US-India and US-China relations – both countries want the technology to be
developed.
(Hideo Matsuoka, Teikyo University, & Patrick Collins, Azabu University, 7/2004, “Benefits of International Cooperation in a
Low Equatorial Orbit SPS Pilot Plant Demonstrator Project,” 4th International Conference on Solar Power from SPACE, SPS '04,
Granada, Spain, 30 June - 2 July 2004, proceedings to be published by ESA,
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/benefits_of_international_cooperation_in_a_low_equatorial_orbit_sps_pilot_plant_demonstrator
_project.shtml)
Another possible form of international collaboration which could have important benefits and would require significant system design
changes is participation by India and China. To date, the SPS 2000 satellite system design specified a phased-array microwave power
transmitting antenna from which the beam could reach terrestrial receivers (rectennae) only within 3 degrees of the equator. This
limits the countries that could participate; in particular it prevents the siting of rectennas in India and China, although colleagues from
both countries have expressed interest in participating [12]. Both of these countries have advanced space capabilities; both have
grown into major electricity producers during the 15 years since the start of the SPS 2000 project; and both are due to grow by several
hundred percent in coming decades to become the dominant energy-using nations. Timely experience in using solar-generated electric
power delivered from space would be the most effective means of enabling these two countries to evaluate the option of space-based
solar power for themselves. It therefore seems desirable to consider altering the current SPS 2000 system design appropriately in
order to raise the maximum permissible latitude of the rectennae so as to enable participation by these two countries. Achieving a
greater offset angle of the microwave beam from the satellite's power transmitting antenna and/or using a higher altitude orbit could
contribute to this. Even if somewhat difficult technically, from the point of view of world energy and environment policy,
participation by India and China is extremely desirable, and so worth considerable effort to achieve. It would be a friendly gesture,
demonstrating capability for technical leadership from a global perspective, for the Japanese government to invite their respective
governments to perform a joint study of their possible participation
Even if NASA does the R&D for space solar power, the government would enter into anchor tenancy,
developing the technology for the private sector.
(Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future, et. al., 3/2K, “Can Power from Space Compete? The Future of Electricity
Markets and the Competitive Challenge to Satellite Solar Power,” Resources for the Future,
citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/18950/http:zSzzSzwww.rff.orgzSzdisc_paperszSzPDF_fileszSz0016.pdf/macauley00can.pdf)
Thus far, we have described the future market for power. In addition to this focus, during the course of our report, we had the opportunity to share methods and
conclusions with the engineering working groups analyzing the technical design of SSP. The uniqueness of dialog among economists and engineers at an early stage of technology
development prompts us to include here a brief discussion about the usefulness of this exchange of information. Accordingly, in this section we depart from discussion of
electricity markets to focus on economic modeling in support of the SSP program. Such modeling can shed light on the future marketplace in which SSP is likely to operate,
providing key feedback for SSP design and engineering. One example is the importance of supply reliability and geographic coverage to electricity customers. These factors
clearly bear on the technical design of SSP. Another example is the trend toward decentralized management and private-sector ownership and operation of electricity supplies. This
factor, too, has implications for technical design. Economic models also can establish the potential economic benefits to the nation that may result from a government investment in
technology development and provide a formal means for structuring an efficient long-term, multiphase technology funding program. To date, detailed modeling of the economics
of SSP has been limited in several respects (see Feingold and others 1997). The existing models of SSP might be improved to include formal use of uncertainty and risk analysis
techniques or, as minimum, the use of expected values for the important variables. In addition, further exercise of these models might allow the implications of key assumptions—
107
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
such as those related to the cost of robotic assembly, refurbishment and maintenance, and on-orbit operations—to be explicitly considered. In using economic modeling to ascertain
the potential national benefits of SSP, we caution against metrics of “job creation.” Jobs are more properly treated as a cost and not a benefit unless the nation’s unemployment rate
is especially high.25 Instead, we urge that consideration be given to the relative return on taxpayer investment in SSP compared with other
publicly financed energy technologies (such as photovoltaics) and other more general taxpayer investments. If future studies of SSP design
suggest that it can be competitive with terrestrial energy sources and that reasonable benefits are likely to result from its development and use, then additional economic analysis
will become useful in the planning and structuring of an efficient technology development and demonstration program. For example, a decision analytic approach could consider
the economics of alternative mission designs, consider the possibility of failure and termination rules for SSP investment, and allow for data to be provided by experts that have
disparate backgrounds (that is, no single research discipline—be it engineering or economics—may understand in depth the entire program).26 To this end , SSP research
should continue to involve interdisciplinary teams, convening regularly, with NASA sponsorship. IV. Roles of Government and the Private
Sector Governments in the United States and abroad have become active in promoting many activities to foster the commercial
development of space. Generally speaking, a host of factors may discourage private-sector financing of new technologies, such as large
capital requirements, long lead times to commercial operation, lengthy payback periods, perceived high technical risks, and the
inability to capture proprietary benefits of developing the technology. These hurdles have led governments to pursue, with mixed success,
various programs and policies to underwrite commercial business ventures . For example, governments have funded or performed basic
and applied research and development (R&D); established or encouraged the building of public infrastructure, such as roads, railroads,
airports, and harbors; become early adopters or “anchor tenants” of new products and services, helping to establish the market; and
enacted and enforced standards and regulations in areas such as safety and environmental protection . Cohen and Noll (1991) and Rose (1986)
discuss these and other approaches to government intervention in the cases of commercialization of several technologies, including space activities. Box 6 illustrates some of these
approaches. Our view is that in the case of SSP as a source of terrestrial power, it is premature for government to make commitments
such as anchor tenancy, cost sharing, low interest loans, or loan guarantees . SSP is at such an early stage of development that these options are
inappropriate at this time. For example, anchor tenancy can significantly reduce market risk, but the government cannot enter into such an
arrangement until a commercial entity has chosen a system design and committed to building it . For similar reasons, cost sharing is also premature;
it requires agreement on system concepts and designs, a development timetable, detailed system cost estimates, and, above all, a well-grounded expectation by government that a
commitment of taxpayer funds serves the public good. As we noted earlier, we urge that decisions on continued public funding of SSP consider the relative return on taxpayer
investment compared with other energy technologies in particular, and other public sector investments in general. Also, past projections of large market penetration of new power-
generation technologies (such as nuclear and solar power) have not been borne out by experience.27 With regard to low-interest loans and loan repayment guarantees, they, too,
await an industry commitment to a more advanced stage of development. For several reasons, it seems reasonable to invite industry (especially electric utilities) to be involved in
the technical and economic analyses that assess the commercial viability of SSP and the mix of R&D that might be appropriate to spur development of technologies intended for
the commercial SSP market. One reason for this view is that trends toward electricity deregulation in the United States and abroad favor the private sector as the ultimate manager
and operator of SSP systems. In addition, utility and energy companies can provide important insights regarding the technical and financial
interface of SSP with terrestrial power systems. These companies also will be interested in the development of technical components
that serve both space and terrestrial power needs (for instance, solar cells and power transmission). This terrestrially based use of SSP aside, important applications
of SSP may include provision of power to nonterrestrial systems such as the International Space Station, other large orbiting platforms, lunar bases, or deep space probes. In
addition, space-based commercial markets might include SSP as a “power plug in space” for communications and remote sensing satellites. These opportunities should be
investigated in the course of future analyses of SSP. Importantly, such discussion should include interested commercial entities.
Solar and alternative energy companies are not doing well now – investors are bailing.
(The Motley Fool, 7/1/2008, “Solar's Inconvenient Truth,” Toby Shute, http://www.fool.com/investing/high-
growth/2008/07/01/solars-inconvenient-truth.aspx)

Many solar companies aren't remotely as profitable as their accounting numbers let on. I've been thinking this dangerous little thought
for a while now. Cash flow concerns have cropped up in my writing on Yingli Green Energy's (NYSE: YGE) year-ago IPO, stunted
China Sunergy (Nasdaq: CSUN), and capital-craving ReneSola (NYSE: SOL), but I haven't really addressed what is a sectorwide
issue. Some trusted investor friends of mine have publicly tackled this matter in recent weeks, pointing to not only the chasm between
various firms' net income and operating cash flow, but also things like the fragility of Solarfun Power's (Nasdaq: SOLF) framework
agreements and SunPower's (Nasdaq: SPWR) exposure to third-party financing. To help me visualize the cash strain in the space, I
put together a spreadsheet of every solar company's key financials, alongside capital expenditures. Companies reporting positive net
income and negative cash flow get red-flagged. Companies with expenditures far in excess of cash flows get flagged as well. There's a
lot of red on my screen. These companies are highly dependent on the continued ability to raise outside capital. This is an
increasingly risky proposition given the current strain on the world's financial institutions, combined with potentially rising risk
aversion among investors as we border on bear market territory. The idea that solar investors should have serious cash flow concerns
finally went mainstream today with a research note by Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). Here, an analyst singled out Trina Solar (NYSE:
TSL) for "weak working capital management," but the same could be said for many competitors. I urge Fools to give their solar
stocks a good hard look. The upside is easy enough to envision, but also think about what would happen if the capital markets closed
108
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
up shop for a while. Would your company be able to meet its take-or-pay agreements with suppliers? Could it pay the contractors
executing its multi- or centi-million dollar expansion? In some cases, I believe the answer will be "no." Related Foolishness: *
Here's another potential sharp elbow to your solar stock. * More on why you might want to avoid solar in 2008. * Free cash flow
is king. Here's how to place a value on it.
Space solar power, for national security reasons, would be controlled by the US and distributed.
(Paul B. Larsen, Georgetown University Law Center, 5/17/2K, “Current legal issues pertaining to space solar power systems,”
Space Policy, Volume 16, Issue 2, 15 May 2000, Pages 139-144, Springer Link)
A solar power system will be so massive that it is likely to be an international commercial entity. That entity could be international
treaty organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency or Intelsat.9 It could be an international private commercial
entity such as Iridium. It is less likely to be an entirely state-operated service such as the US Global Positioning System (GPS)
although it is possible that, for national security reasons, the United States could find it necessary to build a solar power system in the
same way that it spent $11 billion to build the GPS system. GPS is a global system which is accessible all over the world. Another
possible model is the European navigation and positioning system, Galileo, planned to be operated as a public-private partnership
(PPP); it is intended to be operational in the year 2008 [4. European Commission, Galileo, Involving Europe in a New Generation of
Satellite Navigation Services, 9 February, 1999.4]. Galileo is planned to be a global service. Another solar power system operating
analogy could be with the non-governmental satellite remote sensing organizations; several global remote sensing services exist, for
example SPOT-Image, EOSAT, and others.
SSP is amazing for the US military – energy conservation, resource war prevention, energy transmission
to forces, economic benefits, modeling, food wars, and international cooperation.
(M.V. ‘Coyote’ Smith, Air Force Colonel-Select and Leader of National Security Space Office Study on Solar Power, 9/1/2007,
““Why is the DoD interested in this?” Security at all levels!” Space Solar Power - Space Frontier Foundation,
http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/why-is-the-dod-interested-in-this-security-at-all-levels/)
Yesterday at one of my alternate work locations (okay…another one of D.C.’s Irish pubs) a space skeptic asked me to write down all
the security reasons that explain why the DoD is interested in space-based solar power. Fair enough. So this is what I wrote on the bar
napkin: (I share it with you because that’s what I do!) Immediate military tactical and operational needs: 1. Dramatically reduce the
energy logistics train to forward operating bases and reduce the need to secure massive energy convoys and stores in: 1. Disaster
relief efforts 2. Nation building efforts 3. Combat zones 2. Beam power directly to vehicles in all operating media for the
following reasons 1. Reduce weight of carrying fuel 2. Increase range and loiter time 3. Eliminate need for refueling
and reduce the need for refueling vehicles 4. Reduce the need for consuming local energy supplies 5. Reduce size and
signature 3. Use SSP for liquifaction of carbon-neutral fuels for current generation of liquid-fueled systems 1. Continue to
exploit current liquid fuel infrastructure, using carbon neutral fuels 2. Gain independence from foreign liquid fuel providers
Urgent national security strategic goals: 1. Assist in achieving national energy independence from current liquid fuel providers
1. Reduce level of national interest in unstable regions 2. Reduce national dependence on unfriendly foreign governments
3. Reduce the risk of energy competition wars in the 21st Century 2. Assist allies in achieving their national energy independence
1. Develop and strengthen broad international partnerships 2. Participate in international energy consortia and alliances 3.
Economic: Become an energy exporter 1. Increase national ability to influence or avoid geopolitical events 2. Increase
GNP, wealth of the nation, and increase tax revenue 3. Use energy earnings to pay off national debt 4. Environmental:
Dramatically reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere 1. Prevent food wars which might happen if global warming
continues 2. Enhance soft power and green credibility around the world 3. Lead the international clean energy movement
by example So you can see, this is a disruptive technology for security operations, but far more importantly, it will redefine
geopolitical relationships and removes energy competition as the major driver for wars. Personally, I think war prevention is the
highest form of security. The other key to improving security with this concept is moving it quickly into the commercial sector at the
109
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
earliest possible time. The DoD merely wants to be a customer of a commercially available product–energy. We do NOT want to
trigger false security dilemmas. This will drive multinational partnering and international engagement, which is called for in our
National Space Policy. This is one of the key reasons why we initiated this study on the Internet and in the media–to provide
openness.

Lack of renewable energy causes resource conflicts between major powers – non-renewable energy won’t
fill in.
(Nader Elhefnawy, University of Miami Grad Student Previously Published in Astropolitics, 2/23/2006, Parameters (US Army
War College), “Toward a Long-Range Energy Security Policy,” http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13481, US: Army War College
on energy security)
The consequences of a shortfall in oil supplies on the scale of such predictions are as obvious as they are terrifying. A prolonged
economic contraction and possibly a desperate scramble for resources that might bring major powers to blows are not out of the
question, especially when the cost of other problems likely to place more pressure on the energy base (climate change, water
shortages, population growth, etc.) are taken into account.3 In the absolute worst case, modernity might simply grind to a halt, a
catastrophe that James Howard Kunstler describes in his recent book on the subject, The Long Emergency. Of course, linear
projections have their limitations, and any number of developments could throw them off—unanticipated changes in the character of
economic productivity, or an economic slowdown, for instance. Actual oil reserves are likely larger than the proven figure, which
would delay the crunch for some years. Rising energy needs will mean higher prices and shorter supplies, which will stretch out the
supply by encouraging conservation.4 They also will produce increased efforts to supplement oil with more plentiful coal, “heavy oil,”
and natural gas. The degree to which these alternatives can pick up the slack, however, is a subject of intense disagreement, as all
these resources will mean higher energy prices.5 Moreover, they do not eliminate the problem of the finite amount of these resources,
with natural gas reserves particularly unlikely to last all that much longer than oil. In short, the oil age may end within a generation
given the present economic picture, with potentially dire consequences. The prospects of alternatives to fossil fuels are therefore the
key issue, such as the expanded use of nuclear energy or, ideally, renewable energy sources. Many observers predict that it will be
decades at the very least before these inherently more difficult energy sources can be exploited on a sufficiently large scale to meet the
needs of advanced societies. The use of renewables has expanded rapidly in recent years, but these energy sources still supply only a
small part of overall consumption, even in leaders like Denmark, where wind energy provides 10 to 15 percent of that country’s
electricity. If anything, given the scope of the problem and the length of time for which it has been around, the pace of actual progress
has been frustratingly glacial. While the pace may be accelerating, a gap between desired levels of energy output and those actually
attainable through these means is conceivable.
Any disadvantage to new tech is outweighed by the impacts to oil exhaustion.
on energy security)
Nonetheless, the doomsday scenario posited by Kunstler and others is not a necessary outcome. The problem is not that substitutes do
not exist, but that they are, in the view of many analysts, too expensive or too unwieldy to support desired levels of economic
productivity and living standards. There is little doubt that there would be some significant transition costs, as there are in every major
economic change. Observers hostile to these technologies, however, routinely play on popular fears that any change in the status quo
will force Americans to give up their cars, or kill economic growth. Their exaggerations aside, such arguments conveniently neglect
the fact that the exhaustion of oil resources in an unprepared world will be incalculably more devastating than any plausible
adaptation, and that the earlier the transition begins, the easier it will be to spread the costs over time.
110
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO

Doubting technological capabilities of alternative energy is wrong – quick developments are inevitable
and critics are biased.
on energy security)
More important, such analyses tend to suffer from three major deficiencies that exaggerate the difficulties involved with alternatives.
The first is that calculating the costs and benefits of oil against other energy sources is far more complicated than studies pointing to
the cost-ineffectiveness of renewables admit. Many costs of fossil fuel use are easily externalized, distorting the picture. The cost of
pollution, military expenditures aimed at securing oil sources, and other kinds of subsidies mask the actual price of “cheap” oil—as do
the very low gasoline taxes Americans enjoy.6 Certain savings from the distributed energy production that renewables might allow,
while potentially substantial, are not easily or automatically factored into such calculations.7 Moreover, solar, wind, and other sources
will become relatively less expensive as oil prices rise. And it also should be noted that many experts regard wind power as already
competitive with fossil fuels in some geographically favorable areas. The tendency to underestimate the gains that alternatives may
bring is reinforced by a broader tendency to stress costs more than benefits, not only on the part of oil industry boosters, but generally
due to the changing nature of political debate.8 The potential for a rapid changeover also tends to be underestimated, observers
forgetting that comparably large transformations have happened before in a relatively short period of time. Oil became cheaper than
coal only in the mid-1950s, a mere 50 years ago. As a result, coal went from generating 100 percent of Europe’s thermal electricity to
less than half by 1973, oil picking up much of the slack even as overall energy production grew substantially.9 The second problem
with such predictions is their built-in assumption that the relevant technologies will be static. Future improvements cannot be taken for
granted, but are a near-certainty nonetheless, given the prolonged drop in the price of solar- and wind-generated energy since the
1970s, and the prospects for both continued research and development and mass production. The already low price of wind power can
drop further still, given the potential of innovations like flying wind generators. Capable of exploiting the jet stream and returning the
electricity to the ground through a tether, a few clusters of six hundred each could meet the entire energy needs of an industrial nation
like Canada.10 There are even strong indications that electricity produced by photovoltaic solar cells will, assuming sufficient effort,
become competitive in price with even subsidized, deceptively cheap oil and gas in a matter of years rather than decades. This may be
due to new, low-cost materials; designs which use a greater part of the electromagnetic spectrum; more efficient use of their surface
area; easily installed, self-assembling liquid solar cell coatings; and architectural structures maximizing output.11 Several of these
developments could be flashes in the pan, something to which energy production has sadly been prone; for half a century fusion power
has been “30 years away.” Nevertheless, given the long-term trend of improvement and the number of directions from which the
problem is being attacked, some approaches will likely pay off.
Even an incomplete transition to solar solves – it will serve as a cushion until new tech is developed.
on energy security)
A third problem is the tendency to view the matter as a choice between the outright replacement of fossil fuels or nothing at all. The
reality, however, is that partial solutions can provide a cushion until a more complete transition can be brought about. This being the
case, it matters little if renewable energy production will at first be undergirded by more traditional supplies. Solar cells and wind
turbines will be made in factories powered by oil-burning plants. To state this as proof that alternatives to oil are unrealistic is
nonsense. The energy base of the future will have to be created using the energy base existing now, just as the oil-based economy was
built using previously existing sources. Of greater concern, many schemes for a hydrogen economy involve the extraction of hydrogen
from natural gas or other fossil fuels, with power supplied by traditional electricity sources like oil, coal, and nuclear generators.
111
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
Hydrogen, however, also can be extracted directly from water through photoelectrochemical processes or electrolysis, which could be
powered by cheap wind and solar energy.12
Fossil fuel shortages cause resource wars, nuclear proliferation, and failed states.
on energy security)
Even without taking into account related problems like the greenhouse effect , the security problems posed by the exhaustion of
supplies of easily accessible, cheap oil and gas are highly varied and daunting. The likely result would be the exacerbation of familiar
problems like resource conflict, weapons proliferation, and state failure. However, other problems are more novel, not least of all the potential for changes
in the international balance of power based not only on which countries control the lion’s share of the world’s fossil fuel supplies, but which are most dependent on those supplies.
New Resource Wars The most obvious concern is a reinvigoration of resource conflict. As the oil deposits believed to lie under a disputed
piece of ground or sea floor become more valuable economically, governments might be more prepared to fight for them . Since the War on
Terrorism began in 2001, China, seeing itself in a more vulnerable strategic position, has been more willing to negotiate its claims over the
South China Sea.14 However, the issue has yet to be resolved, and an oil-hungry China can yet take a harder line, especially if this
becomes more profitable. China also has behaved provocatively elsewhere, sending naval vessels into Japanese claims around the Senkaku
Islands.15 Similar conflicts remain unresolved in other regions, including sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America .16 Moreover, even states
unlikely to go to war over territory would face greater prospects of involvement in an armed conflict, and find a powerful incentive to
develop and deploy long-range power-projection capabilities. Resource wars also can be a cause of internal conflicts or unrest. The war in
the Indonesian region of Aceh is partly driven by the government’s determination to hold onto an oil-rich region, and the resentment of the inhabitants has been partly a response to
the damage oil production has done to local communities. Oil also was at stake in the fight over East Timor, which on the first day of its
independence concluded a deal with Australia regarding its oil-rich offshore claims. The problem may in fact be exacerbated by
certain solutions to the world’s energy problems. To give one example, the development of new technologies which permit cost-effective
drilling for oil in deeper waters could create new flash-points. Cheaper deep-water drilling, for instance, would make the oil under the South China Sea a more
valuable prize.17 As certain kinds of alternative energy technologies are developed, the value of certain resources is also likely to become more strategically important (like
platinum for hydrogen fuel cells), with similar results. As the situation stands, two-thirds of what were the high seas in 1958 have been “territorialized” to some degree. The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea extended territorial waters from three to 12 miles, recognized 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones and
350-mile continental shelf claims, and permitted the enclosure of the internal waters of archipelagic states like Japan.18 At the same time, the mineral wealth of these regions has
remained largely unexploited. While the ambitious ocean mining schemes of 30 or 40 years ago amounted to little, rising energy costs and
improved technology could give them a future—and make the right to profit from them a new cause of conflict . Increased Disorder Resource
conflict, however, is likely to be confined within particular regions. The economic effects of an oil shortage would be global. With less energy at their
disposal, societies and governments everywhere will have more difficulty coping with problems likely to be of a more severe character
—burgeoning populations, climate change, and shortages of such critical resources as water and arable land . The problem of the salinated and
damaged farmland on which a third of the world’s crops is presently grown is a case in point. Aside from expensive repair, costly methods like drip-irrigation will be needed to
keep such lands arable, necessitating more, not less energy.19 Another likely ramification of such an energy shock is a new wave of debt crises and state failures. As in the 1970s,
those most vulnerable would be developing nations short on hard currency and dependent on oil imports, which might see their
development progress strangled by a spike in prices. If the prospect of 2050s America resembling a Mad Max movie is far-fetched and extreme, it is not so for
less fortunate regions where such regressions have already happened, as in Somalia.20 Lacking appropriate or adequate capital, institutions, and technical knowledge, their
situations will much more readily degenerate to the point of collapse.21 And, as events in recent years have demonstrated, advanced nations will not easily insulate
themselves from these problems, given the refuge for criminal activity and terrorism such areas will provide, as well as the waves of refugees they may generate. It may
even be possible for practitioners of a radical ideology to seize power in a major state. Even without that happening, we could see an inward turn on the part of major powers
seeking to establish self-contained economic empires, as happened during the Great Depression.22 Nuclear Proliferation Alternatively, oil shortages, or the prospect of them,
may put pressure on states to follow France’s path in the 1970s and invest heavily in nuclear technology. The problems posed by
greater nuclear proliferation (or poorly built and operated reactors) need little elaboration. Perceiving a heightened threat environment amid more widespread
resource conflict and state failure, states may be more likely to seek out such systems regardless of the inherent dangers. With greater insecurity and the need for alternatives to
fossil fuels feeding each other, the nonproliferation regime will be under greater pressure than it is today. A Return to 1973? America’s dependence on foreign oil (a
problem that Arctic oil drilling will not even come close to solving) makes
the nation susceptible to foreign leverage, and the Middle East aside, other
major oil-producers may have strategic interests or goals conflicting with those of the United States .23 Given the present diversity of suppliers, a
future version of the OPEC embargo may be unlikely, but the contraction of oil supplies is still likely to mean shocks ahead. Moreover, it must be noted that the pain of a shock
will not be felt evenly. Efficient energy users will suffer less, and vice-versa. At present, that would be to the disadvantage of the United States relative to other developed nations
like Germany.24 Correspondingly, states which derive a higher proportion of their energy from renewables would be less vulnerable economically, a condition easier to achieve if
energy use is already efficient. This raises another issue of particular concern for the position of the United States, one generally given short shrift. The hype about information
technology in the 1990s contributed to a complacent assumption of American technological dominance, which is simply baseless where renewable energy is concerned.25 The
112
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
small but rapidly growing world market in photovoltaics, fuel cell-based vehicles, and wind turbines is dominated by Europe and Japan, where the most promising research
continues. In fact, America’s profile has actually shrunk in this area, with its share of the world market in photovoltaics falling to 11 percent in 2004 from 25 percent just five years
earlier.26 One result is that, short of a change in this situation, a conversion of the national energy base will likely expand the already massive
US trade deficit, rather than constituting a new opportunity for American growth. The possibility must therefore be considered that an
oil shock may hurt the United States more severely than the other developed nations, weakening its international position relatively as
well as absolutely.
Oil shortages lead to conflict with China over Taiwan.
(Michael T. Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire, 8/4/2005, “Tomgram: Michael Klare on Entering
the Age of Resource Wars,” http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/10216/michael_klare_on_entering_the_age_of_resource_wars)
From what is known of this exercise, "Oil Shockwave" did not consider the use of military force to deal with the imagined
developments. But if recent history is any indication, this is sure to be one of the actions contemplated by U.S. policymakers in the
event of an actual crisis. Indeed, it is official U.S. policy -- enshrined in the "Carter Doctrine" of January 23, 1980 -- to use military
force when necessary to resist any hostile effort to impede the flow of Middle Eastern oil. This principle was first invoked by
President Reagan to allow the protection of Kuwaiti oil tankers by U.S. forces during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and by President
Bush Senior to authorize the protection of Saudi Arabia by U.S. forces during the first Gulf War of 1990-91. The same basic principle
underlay the military and economic "containment" of Iraq from 1991 to 2003; and, when that approach failed to achieve its intended
result of "regime change," the use of military force to bring it about. A similar reliance on force would undoubtedly be the outcome of
at least one of the key imagined events in the Oil Shockwave exercise: a major terrorist upheaval in Saudi Arabia leading to the mass
evacuation of foreign oil workers and the crippling of Saudi oil output. It is inconceivable that President Bush or his successor would
refrain from the use of military force in such a situation, particularly given the historic presence of American troops in and around
major Saudi oilfields. In setting the stage for its simulated crisis, Oil Shockwave identified a set of conditions that provide a vivid
preview of what we can expect during the Twilight Era of Petroleum: *Global oil prices exceeding $150 per barrel *Gasoline
prices of $5.00 or more per gallon *A spike in the consumer price index of more than 12% *A protracted recession *A decline
of over 25% in the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index *A crisis with China over Taiwan *Increased friction with Saudi Arabia
over U.S. policy toward Israel Whether or not we experience these precise conditions cannot be foreseen at this time, it is
incontestable that a slowdown in the global production of petroleum will produce increasingly severe developments of this sort and, in
a far tenser, more desperate world, almost certainly threaten resource wars of all sorts; nor will this be a temporary situation from
which we can hope to recover quickly. It will be a semi-permanent state of affairs. Eventually, of course, global oil production will
not merely be stagnant, as during the Twilight Era, but will begin a gradual, irreversible decline, leading to the end of the Petroleum
Age altogether. Just how difficult and dangerous the Twilight Era proves to be, and just how quickly it will come to an end, will
depend on one key factor: How quickly we move to reduce our reliance on petroleum as a major source of our energy and begin the
transition to alternative fuels. This transition cannot be avoided. It will come whether we are prepared for it or not. The only way we
can avert its most painful features is by moving swiftly to lay the foundations for a post-petroleum economy.
Linking space solar power to water desalination solves water shortages.
(A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, President of India, 4/13/2007,“Address through Multi-Media Tele-Conference to the symposium on 'the
future of space exploration: solutions to earthly problems'” boston University, USA, at RB Multimedia studio, New Delhi,
http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=26889)
Water for future generations More than 70% of earths’ surface is water; but only one percent is available as fresh water for drinking
purposes. By 2050 when the world population will exceed 9 billion, over 6 billion may be living under conditions of moderate, high
and extreme water scarcity. There is a four-fold method towards providing safe and fresh drinking water for large population. The first
is to re-distribute water supply; the second is to save and reduce demand for water; the third is to recycle used water supplies and the
fourth is to find new sources of fresh water. Space technologies for new sources of fresh water In India earth observation satellites
113
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
having unique resolution are being deployed for the survey of water bodies, their continuous activation so that water storage during
rainy season is maximized. Establishing new water supply sources using advanced reverse osmosis technologies for seawater
desalination on large scales is a cost effective method of providing a new source of safe and fresh drinking water. However,
desalination is an energy intensive process. Hence, the use of renewable energy through space solar satellites can bring down the cost
of fresh water substantially. Space based solar power stations have six to fifteen times greater capital utilization than equivalent sized
ground solar stations. Linking Space solar power to reverse osmosis technology for large-scale drinking water supplies could be yet
another major contribution of Space.
114
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
(Taylor Dinerman, Journalist for WSJ, American Spectator, and Part-Time DOD Consultant, 10/22/2007, “China, the US, and
space solar power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)
Now that the National Security Space Office’s (NSSO) space solar power study has been released and shows that the technology is
well within America’s grasp, a set of decisions have to be made concerning how the US government should proceed. The idea that the
government should fund a series of demonstration projects, as the study recommends, is a good place to start. Another aspect should
be to study the impact that this technology will have on the political and economic future of the world. The biggest factor in world
affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power status. Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent
in any communist regime, the greatest danger to China’s future prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According
to an International Energy Agency estimate, demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from 2003
and 2025. At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly
unprepared. Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. China is already experiencing
shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and Zhijiang and contributes almost 20%
of China’s GDP, faced capacity shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to
develop new power sources, including dam building and new coal-fired power plants, China’s economic growth is outstripping its
capacity to generate the terawatts needed to keep it going. While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the
Communist Party leadership is certainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another
Communist superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not without strong safety
measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build. Wind power and terrestrial solar power will not be
able to contribute much to meeting China’s demand and certainly not without government subsidies which a relatively poor nation
such as China will be reluctant to provide. At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for
which it will be almost certainly unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures,
the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a
massive recession. Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global repercussions
would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to generate enough clean energy to satisfy
China’s mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. The capital costs for such systems are gigantic, but when compared with
both future power demands and considering the less-than-peaceful alternative scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain. For
the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the ability of private US or multinational firms to offer China a reliable supply
of beamed electricity at a competitive price would allow China to continue its economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful
world power structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this
would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe when the NIMBY
(Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project. Experiments have demonstrated, at least on a
small scale, that such receivers are safe and that cows and crops can coexist with them. However, there are persistent doubts and it
would be wise to plan for a world in which rectenna placement on land will be as politically hard as putting up a new wind farm or
even a nuclear power plant. China, like its neighbors Japan and Korea, has a land shortage problem. This may seem odd when one
looks at a map, but the highly productive industrial regions of China are confined to a limited coastal area. These areas also overlap
with some of the nation’s most fertile agricultural lands. Conflicts caused by hard choices between land use for factories and housing
and for food production are now common. Building the rectennas at sea would help alleviate some of these disputes. China and its
neighbors could compete to see who could build the most robust and cost-effective sea-based rectennas. They would also be able to
export these large systems: a system that can survive the typhoons in the South China Sea can also handle the monsoons of the Bay of
Bengal or the hurricanes of the Caribbean. Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get as China and other nations
attain Western lifestyles. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. In spite of the major
advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be many years before they can realistically contemplate
building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a lunar-based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is
right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel
manufacturing facility up there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated. If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it
would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same
advantages described in the NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for international
partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Information about planned demonstration projects,
particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and
Commerce departments should brief all of the major spacefaring nations, including China. Our world’s civilization is going to need
all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when China, India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding
115
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
lifestyles comparable to those they now see the West enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale
alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physics and politics.
Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these nations. As a matter of US national
security it is imperative that this country be able to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is in
everyone’s interest.
(Taylor Dinerman, Journalist for WSJ, American Spectator, and Part-Time DOD Consultant, 5/19/2008, “NASA and space solar
power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1)
NASA has good reason to be afraid that the Congress or maybe even the White House will give them a mandate to work on space
solar power at a time when the agency’s budget is even tighter than usual and when everything that can be safely cut has been cut.
This includes almost all technology development programs that are not directly tied to the Exploration Missions System Directorate’s
Project Constellation. Not only that, the management talent inside the organization is similarly under stress. Adding a new program
might bring down the US civil space program like a house of cards. In the mid-1990s, urged on by the new chairman of the House
Science Committee’s space subcommittee, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), NASA did conduct a so-called “Fresh Look” study of space
solar power. According to John Mankins, one of the world’s greatest authorities on space solar power, “Several innovative concepts
were defined and a variety of new technology applications considered including solid state microwave transmitters, extremely large
tension stabilized structures (both tether and inflatable structures), and autonomously self assembling systems using advanced in-space
computing systems.” Concluding his 2003 paper on the study, Mankins wrote: The economic viability of such systems depends, of
course, on many factors and the successful development of various new technologies—not least of which is the availability of
exceptionally low cost access to space. However the same can be said of many other advanced power technologies options. There was
no follow-up to this study, partly because of a lack of urgency in the era of cheap energy that existed a decade ago and also because
NASA did not, and does not today, see itself as an auxiliary to the Department of Energy. NASA does science and exploration and not
much else. Along with its contractors it can develop new technologies that apply directly to those two missions, but outside of that it
will resist being forced to spend money on projects that it does not see as falling within those two missions. NASA will resist being
forced to spend money on projects that it does not see as falling within its missions of science and exploration. Technology
development in general has been cut back. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has been closed. There is a minimal ongoing
effort to build up some technologies that may in the future be useful for reusable launch vehicle development, but it is hard to see how
this fits into a coherent future program. The agency has its priorities and is ruthlessly sticking to them. NASA is not the US
Department of Spatial Affairs: it does not have the statutory authority to control, regulate, or promote commercial space activities such
as telecommunications satellites, space tourism, space manufacturing, or space solar power. Such powers are spread throughout the
government in places like the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the Department of Commerce, and elsewhere. Even
if NASA were somehow to get the funds and the motivation to do space solar power, these other institutions would resist what they
would recognize as an encroachment on their turf. Until the shuttle is retired and NASA has a new and secure method of getting
people into space, either with the Orion capsule on top of the Ares 1 or perhaps another rocket, or using the SpaceX Dragon capsule
and Falcon 9 combination, there is no room for any other major programs. It will require all they can do to cope with their current
programs and to deal with a new president and his or her administration. They don’t need any more distractions right now. Eventually
NASA will have to play a role, even if a small one, in the development of space solar power. The best option is that it will be as part
of an interagency process directly supervised from the White House, with lots of Congressional and private sector input. The debate
on this new energy source has hardly begun and these are lots of very smart people with very strong opinions on the subject. At some
point within the next four years the president is going to have to decide whether to go ahead with this new and potentially unlimited
source of energy or to put it back into limbo. The case for it is growing stronger every time the price of oil goes up or, more to the
point, every time we suffer from a blackout or a near-miss. For example, a couple of months ago many large electric customers in
Texas were asked to shut down their operations because there was not enough wind to spin the numerous wind turbines that have been
sprouting up all over that state. The case for space solar power is growing stronger every time the price of oil goes up or, more to the
point, every time we suffer from a blackout or a near-miss. Obviously space solar power could provide a reliable, non-polluting, and
very large-scale source of energy. The biggest question is, can it be done economically? Frankly, with its history of problematic cost
estimates, NASA (or any other government institution) is not going to provide us with a trustworthy answer. The decision to go ahead
will be a shot in the dark. If we can clearly see that low-cost access to space via the private sector is going to be a reality, then
whoever is president will have a solid basis on which to proceed. If SpaceX’s Falcon 1 rocket succeeds in the next launch, then there
is hope that space solar power can be made to work economically within a reasonable time frame. If not, then it will be even harder to
sell the whole idea.
116
SBSP AFF
DDI 2008 CO
117

45 CO Space Based Solar Power Affirmative

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

45 CO Space Based Solar Power Affirmative

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SBSP AFF

DESPITE DoE FUNDS FOR RESEARCH, CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT STALLED BY

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

Economic growth and competitiveness are the backbone of US hegemony

DECLINE IN HEGE CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

U.S. SPACE DOMINANCE IS THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE A GLOBAL ETHIC OF

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

A US-China war over Taiwan escalates into global nuclear war.

The Straits Times (Singapore) June 25, 2000 2K

SBSP needs a coordinated national program in order to be effective

A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE

PLAN IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT NASA TECHNOLOGY

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

AT: SPACE COLONIZATION BAD

SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

FAILURE TO COLONIZE SPACE RESULTS IN EXTINCTION

SPACE COLONIZATION ADV

SPACE COLONIZATION IS A PRIORITY- ONLY SBSP PROVIDES A DIRECT ROUTE INTO

SOFT POWER I/L

SOFT POWER I/L

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

The technological leader is currently unknown

Space investment power in world economy

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

Technological innovation causes economic growth

ECON DECLINE EXTINCTION

Economic decline leads to extinction

(Tom, June 24, ttp://w\vw.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm. Accessed 9/11/03)

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

Tech. investment needed in space to acquire competitive leadership

Japan is developing SBSP now

EUROPE AND JAPAN SPENDING MILLIONS ON SBSP. US SCIENTISTS ARE BEHIND

Japanese hegemony limited now.

HEGE- LUNAR MATERIALS I/L

HEGE- LUNAR MATERIALS I/L

RESOURCE WAR ADV

National Security Space Office 10-10-07

RESOURCE WAR ADV

RESOURCE WAR ADV

RESOURCE WAR ADV

RESOURCE WAR ADV

Poverty is structural violence that outweighs nuclear war

Mumia Abu-Jamal, is a badass activist, 9-19-98, http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html)

FOREIGN DEPENDENCY ADV.

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

FOREIGN DEPENDENCY ADV.

CONTINUED DEPENDENCY ON FOSSIL FUEL LEADS TO MULTIPLE SCENARIOS OF

NEG OR HARD POWER ADV.

**CITES** WARMING ADV.

SBSP has zero negative environmental impact

Sbsp solves fossil fuel dependency

The Plan would result in a massive net decrease in Global Warming

National Security Space Office 10-10-07 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

**CITES** SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY

Better than earth-based solar power

SBSP is the better than all other alternative energies

SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY

**TAG AND CITE** SOLVENCY

ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REMOVE THE NECESSARY ECONOMIC

AT: STATES CP

Reuters/International Herald Tribune, 6/2/08

CITES WARMING ADV.

CITES SOLVENCY V. OTHER ALT ENERGY

TAG AND CITE SOLVENCY