Hehehehaw AC
AC – Plan
Plan: States ought to ban the appropriation of outer space for mining activities by
private entities and the exclusive permanent usage of Low Earth Orbit via satellite
constellations by private entities.
The plan solves and stops circumvention – authorization, supervision, and liability
ensure compliance – potential for liability causes self-regulation.
Johnson 20 [Chris, Space Law Advisor for Secure World Foundation, 9 years of professional experience
in international space law and policy. J.D. from New York Law School; 2020; “The Legal Status of
MegaLEO Constellations and Concerns About Appropriation of Large Swaths of Earth Orbit,”
https://swfound.org/media/206951/johnson2020_referenceworkentry_thelegalstatusofmegaleoconstel
.pdf] brett
Authorization and Continuing Supervision The second sentence of Article VI then gives States a positive
obligation to undertake authorization and continuing supervision of nongovernmental entities. The
activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require
authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. Consequently, it is not
merely sufficient that governments allow private actors to access and explore space. States have a duty
to authorize and supervise them. Looking again at the first sentence of Article VI, above, gives some indication
as to what standard this supervision must meet. The first sentence of Article VI ends with “... and for assuring
that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present
Treaty.” Consequently, States must authorize and supervise private entities to make sure that these private
entities conform with the Outer Space Treaty. Additionally, Article III of the Outer Space Treaty creates a link between the
treaty and the rest of international law, including the UN Charter. Therefore, and to the extent that other sources of international law
create norms applicable for private entities in outer space, all national activities – including private, nongovernmental
activities – must conform with said laws. Some of these other sources include the other UN treaties on outer space, such as the 1968 Astronaut
Rescue and Return Agreement, the 1972 Liability Convention, and the 1975 Registration Convention. Other specialized treaties on outer space,
like the international telecommunications regime of the International Telecommunications Union Convention and Constitution, international
enviromental law, international humanitiarian law, and other special regimes also form the rest of the normative order for outer space.
Potential Liability Supplemental to international responsibility for acts in space committed by private
entities is the potential for liability for damage resulting from their activities. Article VIII of the Outer Space
Treaty establishes a liability provision, and the 1972 Liability Convention expands the mechanisms for
dealing with liability claims. Liability is a requirement to pay compensation to an injured party for the
damage or suffering that has been caused to them. In space law, liability is for physical damage to a space
object by another space object. These provisions on liability have not yet been enforced relating to any actual claims of damage in
space. However, and just like the obligation to be internationally responsible for private actors mentioned in Article VI, the potential for
liability serves as a strong motivator and incentive for States to oversee, monitor, and regulate what
private actors are doing in space.
AC – Africa
Africa mining is growing despite hinderances – it’s critical for the African economy but
private space mining decks it.
Oni 19 [(David, a space industry and technology analyst at Space in Africa. He’s a graduate of Mining
Engineering from the Federal University of Technology Akure.) “The Effect of Asteroid Mining on Mining
Activities in Africa,” Africa News, 9/24/19, https://africanews.space/the-effect-of-asteroid-mining-onmining-activities-in-africa/]
In terms of mineral resources, Africa has the most abundant of reserves. Currently, Africa hosts 30% of
the world’s mineral reserve, 55% of the world’s diamond comes from Botswana and Congo, 60% of
the mining in Africa is gold mining but to mention a few. Given that the mining industry is consistently
rising across sub-Saharan Africa, it is good news for the African mining sector as mining companies are
beginning to expand operations, countries are already looking into improving regulatory frameworks
that will enhance activities and also attract more investors. But recent breakthroughs in space
technology have led to many space scientists and engineers looking to explore alternatives to sustaining
the earth while generating massive revenue and improving life generally. Currently, there are various
comprehensive research documents on the Space Mining market, with detailed insights on growth
factors and strategies. With the current advances and cutting edge technologies developed in
preparation for the first stages of asteroid mining, one might want to ask if it is indeed good news for
the African continent. Apart from the environmental impacts, major mining activities are largely
hindered in Africa by a handful of other factors such as access to energy, health and safety volatility of
commodity prices, etc. Other issues such as political uncertainty, economic instability, religious and
tribal wars, industrial unrest, and the fickle nature of regulatory bodies have also rendered foreign direct
investment increasingly unattractive to global investors. Furthermore, most African countries have a
relatively undeveloped infrastructure for exploiting resources effectively. At the moment, Asteroid
mining poses no threat to terrestrial mining; however, this will not hold for long. The space industry is
progressing at such a rapid pace, and the prospects are unequivocally mouth-watering. The big
question is, will asteroid mining lure away investors in Africa? The planetary resources company
estimates that a single 30-m asteroid may contain 30 billion dollars in platinum alone and a 500m rock
could contain half the entire world resources of PGM. Considering the abundance of minerals in
asteroids, once asteroid mining materialises, it will severely affect the precious metals market, usurp
the prices of rare earth minerals, and a whole lot more because minerals that are usually somewhat
scarce on earth will be easily accessible on asteroids. While foreign investors run the majority of the
large-scale mining activities in the region, reports say that many African countries are dangerously
dependent on mining activities. For some African countries, despite massive mineral wealth, their
mining sectors are underdeveloped, and this is as a result of much focus on oil resources and a couple of
other challenges. The million-dollar question is, what will become of the mining activities in Africa?
Economic decline means Africa war
Tollefsen 17 [(Andreas Forø, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and Ph.D. in Human Geography
from the University of Oslo) “Experienced poverty and local conflict violence," Conflict Management and
Peace Science, 12/21/17,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320740608_Experienced_poverty_and_local_conflict_violen
ce]
Civil wars are more frequent than any other type of conflict in the modern era, with the majority
occurring in low-income countries (Hegre and Sambanis, 2006; Jakobsen et al., 2013). While most
country-level studies find that poverty and inadequate economic development increase the risk of
conflict—a relationship that appears to be causal (Braithwaite et al., 2016)—we lack consensus on the
precise mechanisms driving this phenomenon (Justino, 2009). Researchers have explained a correlation
between low GDP per capita and conflict using diverse hypotheses, including lowered opportunity costs for individuals to rebel
(Collier et al., 2009) and responses to a state’s weak capacity (Fearon and Laitin, 2003). However, as argued by Hegre (2016), development’s
highly correlated indicators make it difficult to distinguish between the theoretical mechanisms underlying the development– conflict nexus.
Moreover, previously proposed models often represent processes operating on various geographical scales at individual, group, and state
levels. Few researchers have backed up theoretical expectations with data at scientifically fitting levels of analysis, consequently ignoring intracountry variations of explanatory variables and outcomes. Furthermore, aggregated measures are incapable of capturing significant variations
in economic conditions (Elbers et al., 2003) and conflict intensity (Rustad et al., 2011) within countries. In addition, conflict areas are, in general,
atypical of a nation as a whole (Buhaug and Lujala, 2005), which calls for a subnational level analysis. Addressing these disconnects—and the
subnational
variations in poverty determine the locations within a country where conflicts break out (Buhaug et al.,
fact that most conflict operates at a local level (Rustad et al., 2011)—a recent body of studies has focused on how
2011; Hegre et al., 2009; Østby et al., 2009). To date, their findings are largely mixed, with no consensus yet on strength, direction, or
mechanisms behind the relationship. The problem here may be the use of varying proxies for poverty that are only loosely linked to the
rationale for conflict and/or insufficient attention on the local sociopolitical context. The present study’s empirical contributions seek to help
rectify the inadequate measures of poverty that have come to characterize the literature. To begin with, the article improves our understanding
of whether and where a local poverty–conflict nexus exists by deploying experiential data on individuals’ actual wellbeing—which I argue is
more closely connected to people’s motives and rationale for taking up arms. Second, the article examines the sociopolitical context’s
individuals’ perceptions surrounding
the quality of their local institutions, the presence of group grievances, and local unemployment
rates. These factors, I argue, are more closely linked to reasons for fighting than are common proxies
such as night-time luminosity and estimates of economic activity, both of which are often derived from
dividing GDP per capita by local population counts. Poverty—a state in which individuals’ basic needs go
unmet—has been shown to motivate people to join rebellions. Humphreys and Weinstein (2008), for
instance, found that poverty predicted inscription in the Revolutionary United Front during Sierra
Leone’s civil war. Barrett (2011) similarly saw how promises of loot lured the poor to enlist in the
1997– 1998 dispute in Nigeria’s local government area known as Toto. Combatants of the Toto conflict
were also more likely to join the rebellion if they stood to gain personal protection, food, and shelter.
For the present study, I developed a dataset by aggregating survey responses from the pan-African
Afrobarometer survey to subnational districts and combining the results with information on postsurvey violent conflicts. The dataset consists of 4008 subnational districts, spanning 35 African
countries. As most districts were only assessed once, thus restricting study of within-unit variation,
survey responses were also aggregated to higher-order subnational regions, resulting in a dataset of 111
regions that were surveyed at least twice; this permitted a region-level fixed-effects model design. Using
a pooled cross-sectional dataset of districts, I found that high levels of poverty were linked to
increases in local conflict-based violence. Districts with a large share of poor individuals, both in absolute terms and relative to
conditioning effect on the poverty–conflict nexus. This is achieved by including data on
country average, had a higher risk ofconflict than more affluent areas. This relationship held in a coarsened exact matching setup, as well as in a
region-level fixed effects design with repeated measurements across time. While the results reveal a local poverty–conflict link, they do not aid
in uncovering underlying mechanisms. Using interactions models, I found that poverty increased the risk of conflict, although
only where local institutions are weak. The results also show that poverty-stricken areas in which individuals strongly perceive group injustice
have a greater risk of conflict than similarly impoverished regions with no aggrieved population. A departure from the local individual
opportunity cost explanation, local economic opportunities do not seem to condition the poverty–conflict nexus. In sum, the results suggest
that while poverty is significantly connected to conflict, high-quality institutions and inclusiveness of ethnic groups can prevent violence.
Although a wide range of robustness checks and alternative model specifications were implemented, including matching and fixed-effects
models, the issue of endogeneity could not be ruled out; doing so would require some kind of exogenous instrument, which I have been unable
to identify. The remainder of this article elaborates on the theoretical framework linking subnational poverty to local conflict-based violence.
This is followed by a discussion of existing methods for measuring local poverty and their potential shortcomings. Next presented is the study’s
research design and modeling strategy, followed by a discussion of empirical results. The conclusion considers the study’s limitations and
A connection
between low income and risk of conflict is among the most robust findings in the literature on civil
wars (Hegre and Sambanis, 2006). However, there is little consensus on the mechanisms through which
poverty may produce conflict. Collier and Hoeffler (1998) claimed that low per-capita income lowers the
opportunity cost of rebellion because when they have less to lose from taking up arms, poorer
individuals become more inclined to rebel. Fearon and Laitin (2003) observed that poorer countries
experience more conflict because they are unable to monitor and control all of their territory, thereby
creating pockets of hospitable conditions for insurgents; Tollefsen and Buhaug (2015) identified a
similar scenario at the local level.
proposes avenues for future research on poverty in locations that support rebel groups. Poverty and conflict A direct link
Africa goes nuclear – brings in Middle East, terrorism, and nuclear powers
Mead 13’ [(Walter Mead is a James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities, Bard
College) “Peace in The Congo? Why the World Should Care,” The American Interest, December 15, 2013.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/15/peace-in-the-congo-why-the-world-should-care/
[MNHS JS]
One of the
biggest questions of the 21st century is whether this destructive dynamic can be contained, or whether the
demand for ethnic, cultural and/or religious homogeneity will continue to convulse world politics, drive new generations of
conflict, and create millions more victims. The Congo conflict is a disturbing piece of evidence suggesting that, in Africa at
least, there is potential for this kind of conflict.
The Congo war (and the long Hutu-Tutsi conflict in neighboring countries) is not, unfortunately alone. The secession of South Sudan from Sudan proper, the
wars in what remains of that unhappy country, the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia and the rise of Christian-Muslim tension right across Africa (where religious conflict often is fed by and intensifies “tribal”—in Europe we would say “ethnic” or “national”—conflicts) are strong
indications that the
potential for huge and destructive conflict across Africa is very real.
But one must look beyond Africa. The Middle East of course is aflame in
religious and ethnic conflict. The old British Raj including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka offers countless examples of ethnic and religious conflict that sometimes is contained, and sometimes boils to the surface in horrendous acts of violence. Beyond that, rival
the potential for new conflicts on the
scale of the horrific wars of the 20th century is very much with us today.
nationalisms in East and Southeast Asia are keeping the world awake at night. The Congo war should be a reminder to us all that the foundations of our world are dynamite, and that
The second lesson from this conflict stems from the realization of how much
patience and commitment from the international community (which in this case included the Atlantic democracies and a coalition of African states working as individual countries and through various international institutions) it has taken to get this far towards peace. Particularly at a
time when many Americans want the US to turn inwards, there are people who make the argument that it is really none of America’s business to invest time and energy in the often thankless task of solving these conflicts. That might be an ugly but defensible position if we didn’t live in
such a tinderbox world. Someone could rationally say, yes, it’s terrible that a million plus people are being killed overseas in a horrific conflict, but the war is really very far away and America has urgent needs at home and we should husban d the resources we have available for foreign
The problem is that these wars spread. They may start in places that we don’t
care much about (most Americans didn’t give a rat’s patootie about whether Germany controlled the Sudetenland in 1938 or Danzig in
1939) but they tend to spread to places that we do care very much about. This can be because a revisionist great
power like Germany in 1938-39 needs to overturn the balance of power in Europe to achieve its goals, or it can be because instability in a
very remote place triggers problems in places that we care about very much.
waves
of insurgency and instability that threaten to rip nuclear-armed Pakistan apart or with trigger wider
conflict India. Out of the mess in Syria a witches’ brew of terrorism and religious conflict looks set to
complicate the security of our allies in Europe and the Middle East and even the security of the oil
supply on which the world economy so profoundly depends. Africa, and the potential for upheaval
there, is of more importance to American security than many people may understand. The line
between Africa and the Middle East is a soft one. The weak states that straddle the southern approaches of the Sahara
are ideal petri dishes for Al Qaeda type groups to form and attract local support. There are networks of
funding and religious contact that give groups in these countries potential access to funds, fighters,
training and weapons from the Middle East. A war in the eastern Congo might not directly trigger these other conflicts, but it
policy on things that have more power to affect us directly.
Out of Afghanistan in 2001 came both 9/11 and the
helps to create the swirling underworld of arms trading, money transfers, illegal commerce and the rise
of a generation of young men who become experienced fighters—and know no other way to make a
living. It destabilizes the environment for neighboring states (like Uganda and Kenya) that play much
more direct role in potential crises of greater concern to us.
AC – Debris
Asteroid mining spikes the risk of satellite-dust collisions trigging massive debris.
Scoles 15 [(Sarah Scoles, freelance science writer, contributor at Wired and Popular Science, author of the books Making Contact and
They Are Already Here) “Dust from asteroid mining spells danger for satellites,” New Scientist, May 27, 2015,
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630235-100-dust-from-asteroid-mining-spells-danger-for-satellites/] Study this is citing – Javier
Roa, Space Dynamic Group, Applied Physics Department, Technical University of Madrid. Casey J Handmer, Theoretical Astrophysics, California
Institute of Technology. Both PhD Candidates. “Quantifying hazards: asteroid disruption in lunar distant retrograde orbits,” arXiv, Cornell
University, May 14, 2015, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.03800.pdf
NASA chose the second option for its Asteroid Redirect Mission, which aims to pluck a boulder from an
asteroid’s surface and relocate it to a stable orbit around the moon. But an asteroid’s gravity is so weak
that it’s not hard for surface particles to escape into space. Now a new model warns that debris shed
by such transplanted rocks could intrude where many defence and communication satellites live – in
geosynchronous orbit. According to Casey Handmer of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena
and Javier Roa of the Technical University of Madrid in Spain, 5 per cent of the escaped debris will end
up in regions traversed by satellites. Over 10 years, it would cross geosynchronous orbit 63 times on
average. A satellite in the wrong spot at the wrong time will suffer a damaging high-speed collision
with that dust. The study also looks at the “catastrophic disruption” of an asteroid 5 metres across or
bigger. Its total break-up into a pile of rubble would increase the risk to satellites by more than 30 per
cent (arxiv.org/abs/1505.03800).
Earth observation satellites are key to warming adaptation
Alonso 18 [(Elisa Jiménez Alonso, communications consultant with Acclimatise, climate resilience
organization) “Earth Observation of Increasing Importance for Climate Change Adaptation,” Acclimatise,
May 2, 2018, https://www.acclimatise.uk.com/2018/05/02/earth-observation-of-increasingimportance-for-climate-change-adaptation/]
Earth observation (EO) satellites are playing an increasingly important role in assessing climate
change. By providing a constant and consistent stream of data about the state of the climate, EO is not
just improving scientific outcomes but can also inform climate policy. Managing climate-related risks
effectively requires accurate, robust, sustained, and wide-ranging climate information. Reliable
observational climate data can help scientists test the accuracy of their models and improve the
science of attributing certain events to climate change. Information based on projections from models
and historic data can help decision makers plan and implement adaptation actions. Providing
information in data-sparse regions Ground-based weather and climate monitoring systems only cover
about 30% of the Earth’s surface. In many parts of the world such data is incomplete and patchy due to
poorly maintained weather stations and a general lack of such facilities. EO satellites and rapidly
improving satellite technology, especially data from open access programmes, offer a valuable source
information for such data-sparse regions. This is especially important since countries and regions with
a lack of climate data are often particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. International efforts
for systematic observation The importance of satellite-based observations is also recognised by the
international community. Following the recommendations of the World Meteorological Organization’s
(WMO) Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) programme, the UNFCCC strongly encourages
countries that support space agencies with EO programmes to get involved in GCOS and support the
programme’s implementation. The Paris Agreement highlights the need for and importance of effective
and progressive responses to the threat of climate change based on the best available scientific
knowledge. This implies that climate knowledge needs to be strengthened, which includes continuously
improving systematic observations of the Earth’s climate. To meet the need of such systematic climate
observations, GCOS developed the concept of the Essential Climate Variable, or ECV. According to
WMO, an ECV “is a physical, chemical or biological variable or a group of linked variables that critically
contributes to the characterization of Earth’ s climate.” In 2010, 50 ECVs which would help the work of
the UNFCCC and IPCC were defined by GCOS. The ECVs, which can be seen below, were identified due to
their relevance for characterising the climate system and its changes, the technical feasibility of
observing or deriving them on a global scale, and their cost effectiveness. The 50 Essential Climate
Variables as defined by GCOS. One effort supporting the systemic observation of the climate is the
European Space Agency’s (ESA) Climate Change Initiative (CCI). The programme taps into its own and its
member countries’ EO archives that have been established in the last three decades in order to provide
a timely and adequate contribution to the ECV databases required by the UNFCCC. Robust evidence
supporting climate risk management Earth observation satellites can observe the entire Earth on a daily
basis (polar orbiting satellites) or continuously monitor the disk of Earth below them (geostationary
satellites) maintaining a constant watch of the entire globe. Sensors can target any point on Earth even
the most remote and inhospitable areas which helps monitor deforestation in vast tropical forests and
the melting of the ice caps. Without insights offered by EO satellites there would not be enough
evidence for decision makers to base their climate policies on, increasing the risk of maladaptation.
Robust EO data is an invaluable resource for collecting climate information that can inform climate risk
management and make it more effective.
Warming causes extinction – no adaptation and each degree is worse
Krosofsky ’21 [Andrew, Green Matters Journalist, “How Global Warming May Eventually Lead to
Global Extinction”, Green Matters, 03-11-2021, https://www.greenmatters.com/p/will-global-warmingcause-extinction]
Eventually, yes. Global
warming will invariably result in the mass extinction of millions of different
species, humankind included. In fact, the Center for Biological Diversity says that global warming is currently
the greatest threat to life on this planet. Global warming causes a number of detrimental effects on
the environment that many species won’t be able to handle long-term. Extreme weather patterns are shifting
climates across the globe, eliminating habitats and altering the landscape. As a result, food and fresh water sources are
being drastically reduced. Then, of course, there are the rising global temperatures themselves, which
many species are physically unable to contend with. Formerly frozen arctic and antarctic regions are melting, increasing
sea levels and temperatures. Eventually, these effects will create a perfect storm of extinction conditions. The melting
glaciers of the arctic and the searing, unmanageable heat indexes being seen along the Equator are just the tip of
the iceberg, so to speak. The species that live in these climate zones have already been affected by the
changes caused by global warming. Take polar bears for example, whose habitats and food sources have been so greatly
diminished that they have been forced to range further and further south. Increased carbon dioxide levels in the
atmosphere and oceans have already led to ocean acidification. This has caused many species of
crustaceans to either adapt or perish and has led to the mass bleaching of more than 50 percent of
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, according to National Geographic. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the current
trajectory of global warming predicts that more than 30 percent of Earth’s plant and animal species will face extinction by 2050. By the end of
the century, that number could be as high as 70 percent. We won’t try and sugarcoat things, humanity’s own prospects aren’t looking that
great either. According to The Conversation, our
species has just under a decade left to get our CO₂ emissions
under control. If we don’t cut those emissions by half before 2030, temperatures will rise to
potentially catastrophic levels. It may only seem like a degree or so, but the worldwide ramifications
are immense. The human species is resilient. We will survive for a while longer, even if these grim global warming predictions come to
pass, but it will mean less food, less water, and increased hardship across the world — especially in lowincome areas and developing countries. This increase will also mean more pandemics, devastating
storms, and uncontrollable wildfires.
AC – Asteroids
Constellations sabotage modern astronomy – tweaks like DarkSats don’t solve. That
guts asteroid detection and preparedness. Supercharges the probability of collision.
Grush 20 “The true impact of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation on astronomy is coming into focus” Loren
Grush [science reporter for The Verge] Mar 24, 2020
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-constellationastronomy-coating SM
Ever since SpaceX launched its first batch of internet-beaming satellites last year, astronomers have
watched with dread as the company continued to blast more spacecraft into orbit. Could this ballooning
constellation of bright satellites fill the night sky with artificial light and muck up observations of the Universe for years to come? Now, new
data is partially validating what many astronomers have feared since that first launch. Up until now, people
have been somewhat in the dark about the true impact of SpaceX’s internet-from-space project called Starlink, which envisions nearly 12,000 of
these satellites orbiting Earth. SpaceX’s satellites are super bright compared to others, and astronomers have been worried that with so many
luminous satellites in the sky, the odds of one passing in front of a telescope and obscuring an image will increase. It turns out, some
astronomers have reason to be concerned. Certain types of astronomy may be more negatively affected
than others, one peer-reviewed study shows, particularly those kinds that scour large swaths of the sky
over long periods of time looking for faint, faraway objects. That means scientists looking for distant
objects beyond Neptune — including the hunt for the mysterious Planet Nine — might have trouble
when Starlink is complete. Additionally, Starlink may be much more visible during twilight hours, or the
first few hours of the night, which could be a major problem in the hunt for massive asteroids headed
toward Earth. “It depends on what science you’re doing, and that’s really what it comes down to,” Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist
at Harvard and spaceflight expert who wrote the study accepted by Astrophysical Journal Letters, tells The Verge. Meanwhile, scientists are also
learning if SpaceX’s effort to mitigate the brightness of its satellites is actually going to work. The company coated one of its satellites in an
attempt to make it appear less visible in the sky. Now, the first observations of that satellite are being published, and the coating is working
— but it might not be enough to make everyone happy. “It doesn’t solve the issue,” Jeremy Tregloan-Reed, a researcher at the
University of Antofagasta and lead author on the study, which is undergoing peer review at Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters, tells The
Verge. “But it shows that SpaceX has taken on board astronomers’ concerns, and it does appear to be trying to solve the situation.” HOW
STARLINK WILL AFFECT THE ASTRONOMERS For
astronomers, light is everything. Observing celestial objects in
different wavelengths of light is the best method we have for exploring the Universe. That’s why adding
artificial light to the sky freaks out so many scientists. Some astronomers take long-exposure images of the sky, gathering as
much light as possible from distant objects — and when a bright satellite reflecting light from the Sun passes overhead, it can leave a long white
streak that ruins the picture. Of course, the sky is a big canvas, and one tiny satellite isn’t going to be a major headache. A host of factors
dictate exactly how and when satellites will be a problem. A satellite’s size, shape, height, and path around Earth all affect exactly how much
light it reflects from the Sun and where people will see it the most. Meanwhile, the time of year and the time of night determine how much
sunlight is shining on a satellite at any given moment. To figure out Starlink’s exact impression on the night, McDowell made a comprehensive
simulation based on what we know about where all of the Starlink satellites are going. Ahead of launching its constellation, SpaceX had to file
multiple requests with the Federal Communications Commission, detailing where the company planned to send all of its spacecraft. Using that
information, McDowell came up with a snapshot of which areas will see the most satellites overhead and what times of night will be the worst
for observations. In the more northern and southern latitudes, Starlink satellites will dominate the horizon during the first and last few hours of
the night. In the summertime, it’ll be much worse, with hundreds of satellites visible for those in rural areas away from city light pollution.
“Where I live in [Boston], I can see the planes hovering over Logan [Airport] on the horizon,” says McDowell. “That’s what it will look like, but
it’ll be satellites and it’ll be a lot of them.” SpaceX declined to comment for this story. While
people living in cities and towns
won’t really notice, this spells bad news for those hunting really distant faint objects using long
exposures. “The longer that you have the shutter open for, the more that you’re likely to have an observation impeded by one of these
streaks that are quite bright,” Michele Bannister, a planetary astronomer at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand who helped McDowell
with his research, tells The Verge. That
means those hunting Planet Nine and objects at the edge of the Solar
System have some cause for alarm. Additionally, asteroid hunters are going to be extra affected by this
constellation, says McDowell. “They’re really hosed, because they need to look at twilight,” he says. Scientists
looking for asteroids orbiting near Earth often look for these objects near the Sun; they observe just
after sunset when they can see the part of the sky near the Sun that’s too bright to see during the day.
“That’s where the problem with illuminated Starlink satellites is the worst,” he says. “Even from regular 30degree latitude observatories, they’re going to have serious problems.” As for what that means for these
astronomy fields, one obvious concern is that a potentially hazardous asteroid could go unnoticed until
it’s too late to act appropriately. It’s also possible observers will have to take expensive countermeasures to get the kinds of images
they want. “It may mean you have to observe twice as long, if you have to throw away half your data,” says McDowell. “So that’s expensive. Or
you may need to make changes to your telescope design, to stop reflections from a satellite.” The silver lining here, at least, is that McDowell’s
study found that Starlink may not really have a big effect on a lot of other astronomers’ work, especially those who only look at small slices of
the night sky for certain periods of time. But his work does fly in the face of what SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said about Starlink and its
astronomy repercussions. “I am confident that we will not cause any impact whatsoever in astronomical discoveries. Zero,” Musk said during a
space conference at the beginning of March. “That’s my prediction. And we’ll take corrective action if it’s above zero.” Despite
Musk’s
brazen proclamation, the truth is SpaceX has already taken some corrective action, but new research
shows it may not be enough to silence all of the company’s critics. A COAT OF NO COLORS On its third Starlink
launch in January, SpaceX included a satellite that had been painted with an experimental coating,
meant to darken the spacecraft’s reflectivity. Nicknamed DarkSat, the spacecraft has been of particular interest to
amateur satellite trackers. Various observatories have taken images of DarkSat as it’s passed overhead to gauge just how much fainter it
appears compared to its cohort. The answer, it seems, is that DarkSat is indeed darker but only slightly. Once it reached its final
orbit, the satellite appeared 55 percent fainter compared to another bright Starlink satellite, according to Tregloan-Reed’s study. That’s based
on the initial observations he made using a telescope at the Ckoirama Observatory in Chile. “The DarkSat coating does push the satellite beyond
being able to be seen with the naked eye,” says Tregloan-Reed. That’s a big reduction, but 55
percent may not be enough for
some observatories. The Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile is still under construction, but it has the massive task of
surveying the entire night sky. “It’s going to be able to give us the history of the Solar system in absolutely intricate and amazing detail,” says
Bannister of the survey. “And I think that’s definitely something that is under
threat.” People at the observatory have
estimated that the Starlink satellites would need to be even fainter than DarkSat in order to truly stay
out of the way and not saturate the images gathered. The good news is that SpaceX has hinted that more extreme
countermeasures may be on their way. During its latest launch, a SpaceX employee noted that while the coated satellite showed “a notable
reduction” in brightness,
a future Starlink satellite may be equipped with a sunshade to further reduce
reflectivity. “We have a couple other ideas that we think could reduce the reflectivity even further, the most promising being a sunshade
that would operate in the same way as a patio umbrella, or a sun visor — but for the satellite,” Jessica Anderson, a lead manufacturing engineer
at SpaceX, said during the live stream. Tregloan-Reed says he’s hopeful about some kind of shade. “If that was to work then in theory it would
block out the sunlight completely,” he says. Still, that
doesn’t solve every single astronomy problem because even a
darkened satellite can still be a nuisance. Astronomers searching for planets beyond our Solar System,
for instance, often take very sensitive measurements of distant stars, looking for dips in their brightness
that might indicate a foreign planet passing by. If a satellite, even a dark one, were to pass in front of a
star someone was observing, it could throw off the search for these alien worlds. No matter what, it
seems that a giant constellation is going to have some kind of negative impact on someone — it can’t be
helped. And looking at the big picture, SpaceX isn’t alone in its attempt to create a mega-constellation of
satellites. The company just gets the most attention because it’s proposing the largest number of spacecraft, and its vehicles are big, bright,
and lower in the sky compared to other proposed constellations. Others like OneWeb and Amazon want to also fill the sky with internetbeaming vehicles. Such a large influx of artificial bright spots is really the heart of the issue. “I understand the
importance of Starlink; I can see the benefits of worldwide internet,” says Tregloan-Reed. “It’s just the sheer numbers that are worrying me.”
Collision means extinction – it’s worse than nuclear winter.
Edwards 22’ (1/30/22, Charlotte Edwards, The Sun, New York Post, “What would happen if an
asteroid hit Earth today?”, https://nypost.com/2022/01/30/what-would-happen-if-an-asteroid-hitearth-today/) //MNHS JS
An asteroid isn’t expected to crash into Earth anytime soon but space agencies keep an eye out for them just in case. Depending on the size of
the space rock, an asteroid impact could be an extinction level event and researchers have created simulations to see how
bad it could be. What would happen if an asteroid hit Earth? If you’ve seen the Netflix film Don’t Look Up, you may be concerned about
potential asteroid impacts. However, not all asteroids would mean the end of humanity. The space rock would have to be pretty large to kill us
all. Scientists think the asteroid that wiped
out the dinosaurs was about 7.5 miles wide. If an asteroid that size hit Earth
would instantly change due to the force of the impact and its knock on effect on the
environment. Experts think we’d experience fires, shock waves, heat radiation, a large crater, acid rain
and giant tsunamis if the asteroid hits water. Britt Scharringhausen, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at Beloit
College, told Inverse: “All of the ash from the fires and all of the finer-grain debris from the impact will hang
out in the atmosphere for a long time, and we get what’s called an impact winter. “It’s going to block
the sunlight, and all that ash falling into the ocean acidifies the top layers. “So you burn things, kill
everything in the ocean, and freeze the Earth, and it goes through about two years of constant winter.”
today, things
Scharringhausen doesn’t think that all life on Earth would die after a large asteroid impact. Some small creators survived the asteroid strike that
killed the dinosaurs. If humans took the right precautions, it is possible that they could survive too. Scharringhausen explained: “Not everything
will die. If we’re thinking about people, the way to survive would be to get underground. “You could maybe ride it out in a bunker if you’ve got
you can’t grow any edible food. “Maybe the finicky crops that
humans like to grow won’t come through it so well, but there’s that seed repository, so if those are well-protected enough,
the supplies to make it through that period of winter where
you could get agriculture restarted”.
AC – Hacking
Constellations independently causes cyberwar and satellite hacking which escalates.
Falco 19 “Opinion: Our satellites are prime targets for a cyberattack. And things could get worse.”
Gregory Falco [Gregory Falco is a cyber research fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and a
postdoctoral security researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. He is the founder and chief executive of NeuroMesh, a tech security
company.] May 7, 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-satellites-are-prime-targetsfor-a-cyberattack-and-things-could-get-worse/2019/05/07/31c85438-7041-11e9-8be0ca575670e91c_story.html SM
One minute. That’s how long it took me last month to demonstrate to a major broadcasting company and production team how to
access and restart a leading satellite Internet provider’s control system. Five minutes is how long it took
me to demonstrate how to gain full control of it. Hackers are always improving their ability to break into
our digital infrastructure. Yet the computer systems running our satellites haven’t kept up, making them prime targets for an attack.
This makes our space assets a massive vulnerability — and it could get much worse if we’re not careful.
This past weekend, SpaceX won approval from the Federal Communications Commission to increase the
number of low-flying satellites as part of its Starlink project so that they can provide faster Internet
access to the world. Unfortunately, access will be faster for both legitimate users and hackers alike. The
FCC does not require applicants to publicly demonstrate how they will secure these satellites or the Internet they plan to provide. SpaceX,
like other private space companies, has shared virtually no information about its cybersecurity efforts or
plans. This is extremely disconcerting, considering the potential ramifications of a satellite being hacked. The most
mundane outcome is that the satellite will no longer function, but the other extreme is for an attacker to break into a satellite
and take over any thrusters (which SpaceX has insisted its satellites will have) and then propel the satellite into critical
infrastructure and military satellites in other orbits. In other words, attackers could possibly use the
hacked satellite as a kinetic weapon. There has long been a void of attention to securing space
infrastructure, ranging from space-faring rovers to satellite ground-control systems that manage all the space-based assets. Virtually no
policy or oversight agency exists concerning securing space assets — something I’ve discussed with government leadership to little avail. While
the FCC regulates communications, it should not necessarily be responsible for all things space security. Perhaps the new Space Development
Agency could be. This
leaves space security in the hands of the private sector, which is exploiting the recent
ease of access to space. The advent of small satellites known as CubeSats offers the chance to launch a satellite into orbit for as little
as $30,000 . And because the government wants to encourage economic activity in this area, requirements to do so are extremely light. This
leaves those who are creating the satellites responsible for the cybersecurity of their assets, which is not
usually part of the rocket scientist’s traditional skill set. As a space cybersecurity researcher, I am excited about the
renewed interest in space from both the commercial and exploratory perspectives. But we need to be strategic about the security of these
space systems. Unlike “Internet of things” devices such as baby monitors, which we purchase for less than $100 and discard or sell once a new
model comes out, satellites
often remain in orbit for much longer and are less dispensable. So if we don’t
consider the cybersecurity of the space asset now, we’ll likely be dealing with the ramifications of that
for several years to come. The lack of government intervention in satellite security does not mean that
we can ignore cybersecurity as an issue. Private space companies such as SpaceX, OneWeb and Blue Origin need to join the
conversation about cybersecurity and help consumers understand that they are taking it seriously (if they are). (Blue Origin’s founder and
owner, Jeff Bezos, also owns The Post.) Right now, there are several job openings for information security analysts at private space companies,
indicating that they are likely hurting for talent and are behind in figuring out their security. This isn’t surprising given that space is hard, and
traditional IT experts don’t have the right skill sets for a space cybersecurity job. Space systems have unique requirements that are more akin to
an industrial control system, such as an energy smart meter, than to an email server. Private space companies need to start a dialogue with the
security research community about their particular challenges so that we can help. They should also be transparent with the FCC that they need
help in securing their infrastructure. The
last thing we need is for China or Russia to take over SpaceX’s satellites
and wreak havoc on our space assets.
Goes nuclear
Blatt 20 [Talia, joint concentration in Social Studies and Integrative Biology at Harvard, specialization in
East Asian geopolitics and security issues] “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race,”
Harvard International Review, May 26, 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-weapons-and-theemerging-space-arms-race/ TG
Despite their deterrent functions, ASATs are more likely to provoke or exacerbate conflicts than dampen them, especially given the risk they
pose to
early warning satellites. These satellites are a crucial element of US ballistic missile defense,
capable of detecting missiles immediately after launch and tracking their paths. Suppose a US early
warning satellite goes dark, or is shut down. Going dark could signal a glitch, but in a world in which other countries
have ASATs, it could also signal the beginning of an attack. Without early warning satellites, the United States is
much more susceptible to nuclear missiles. Given the strategy of counterforcing—targeting nuclear silos
rather than populous cities to prevent a nuclear counterattack—the Americans might believe their
nuclear weapons are imminently at risk. It could be twelve hours before the United States regains
satellite function, which is too long to wait to put together a nuclear counterattack. The United States,
therefore, might move to mobilize a nuclear attack against Russia or China over what might just be a
piece of debris shutting off a satellite. Additionally, accidental warfare, or strategic miscalculation, is
uniquely likely in space. It is much easier to hold an adversary’s space systems in jeopardy with destructive ASATs than it is to
sustainably defend a system, which is expensive and in some cases not technologically feasible because of limitations on satellite movement.
Space is therefore considered offense-dominant; offensive tactics like weapons development are
prioritized over defensive measures, such as improving GPS or making satellites more resistant to
jamming. As a result, countries are left with poorly defended space systems and rely on offensive posturing,
which increases the risk that their actions are perceived as aggressive and incentivizes rapid, risky
counterattacks because militaries cannot rely on their spaced-based systems after first strikes. There
are several hotspots in which ASATs and offensive-dominant systems are particularly relevant. Early warning satellites play a
central role in US readiness in the event of a conflict involving North Korea. News of North Korean
missile launches comes from these satellites. Given North Korea’s history of nuclear provocations,
unflinchingly hostile rhetoric towards the United States and South Korea, and diplomatic opacity, North
Korea is always a threatening, unknowable adversary, but recent developments have magnified the risk.
With the health of Kim Jong-un potentially in jeopardy, a succession battle or even civil war on the peninsula raises the chances of loose
nukes. If the regime is terminal, traditional MAD risk calculus will become moot; with nothing to lose,
North Korea would have no reason to hold back its nuclear arsenal. Or China might decide to seize military assets and
infrastructure of the regime. If the US does not have its early warning satellites because they have been taken out in an ASAT
attack, the US, South Korea, and Japan are all in imminent nuclear peril, while China could be in a position
to fundamentally reshape East Asian geopolitics. The South China Sea is another hotspot in which ASATs could
risk escalation. China is developing Anti-Access Area Denial (A2/AD) in the South China Sea, a combination of
long range radar with air and maritime defense meant to deny US freedom of navigation in the region.
Given the disputed nature of territory in the South China Sea, the United States and its allies do not
want China to successfully close off the region.
Nuke war ultimately means extinction – best ev.
Starr 14 [Steven, Senior Scientist for Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr.org) and Director of
the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri. Starr has published in the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction (STAR) website of the Moscow Institute of
Physics and Technology, June 5, “The Lethality of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear War has No Winner,”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lethality-of-nuclear-weapons-nuclear-war-has-no-winner/5385611]
//rc js69
Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning
in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA,
John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that
evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios
fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals.
They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic
disruptions of global climate[i] and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer[ii]. These and
more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a
global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. [iii] These
peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be
without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear
weapons would destroy the human race.[iv] In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term
damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life. A recent article in the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war”,[v] begins by stating: “A
nuclear war
between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START,
could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.” In 2009, I
wrote an article[vi] for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament that summarizes the findings of these
studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global
stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy
the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth[vii]) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather
conditions that would last 10 years or longer. Following a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below
freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer.
No crops
could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.
Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all
modern electronic devices[viii], including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear
reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more
radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil-off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the
US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway. Once nuclear weapons were
introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war”
and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic.[ix] In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit
preemptive nuclear attack; in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it
essentially unchanged. Furthermore, Counterforce
doctrine – used by both the US and Russian military –
emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear war begins. Both sides would be under
immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced,
especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield. Both the US and Russia each
have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear
warheads,[xi] which can be launched with only a few minutes warning.[xii] Both the US and Russian
Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase”, which allows them
to transmit the permission order to launch in a matter of seconds.
AC – Space War
Asteroid mining furthers tensions and destroys treaties between the US, China and
Russia and escalates to space war
Jamasmie 21 Cecilia Jamasmie [Cecilia has covered mining for more than a decade. She is particularly interested in Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR), Diamonds and Latin America. Cecilia has been interviewed by BBC News and CBC among others and has been a guest
speaker at mining conventions, including MINExpo 2016 and the World’s Copper Conference 2018. She is also member of the expert panel on
Social License to Operate (SLO) at the European project MIREU (Mining and Metallurgic Regions EU). She holds a Master of Journalism from the
University of British Columbia, and is based in Nova Scotia.], 2-2-2021, "Experts warn of brewing space mining war among US, China and
Russia," MINING, https://www.mining.com/experts-warn-of-brewing-space-mining-war-among-us-china-and-russia/ DD AG
A brewing war to set a mining base in space is likely to see China and Russia joining forces to keep the
US increasing attempts to dominate extra-terrestrial commerce at bay, experts warn.
The Trump
Administration took an active interest in space, announcing that America would return astronauts to the moon by 2024
and creating the Space Force as the newest branch of the US military.It also proposed global legal
framework for mining on the moon, called the Artemis Accords, encouraging citizens to mine the
Earth’s natural satellite and other celestial bodies with commercial purposes. The directive classified outer space as a “legally and physically unique
domain of human activity” instead of a “global commons ,” paving the way for mining the moon without any sort of
international treaty. Spearheaded by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Artemis Accords were signed in October by
Australia, Canada, England, Japan, Luxembourg, Italy and the United Emirates “Unfortunately, the Trump Administration exacerbated a national security threat and
risked the economic opportunity it hoped to secure in outer space by failing to engage Russia or China as potential partners,” says Elya Taichman, former legislative
director for then-Republican Michelle Lujan Grisham. “Instead, the Artemis Accords have driven China and Russia toward increased cooperation in space out of fear
and necessity,” he writes.Russia’s space agency Roscosmos
“There
was the first to speak up, likening the policy to colonialism.
have already been examples in history when one country decided to start seizing territories in its
interest — everyone remembers what came of it,” Roscosmos’ deputy general director for international cooperation, Sergey Saveliev, said at the time.China,
which made history in 2019 by becoming the first country to land a probe on the far side of the Moon, chose a different approach. Since the Artemis Accords were
first announced, Beijing
has approached Russia to jointly build a lunar research base. President Xi Jinping has
also he made sure China planted its flag on the Moon, which happened in December 2020, more than 50 years after the US reached
the lunar surface.
Space wars also go nuclear
Adams ’18 – Former Staff Writer at Digital Trends, journalist Dallon. “Weaponized Satellites and the
Cold War in Space,” Digital Trends, May 1, 2018, https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/weaponizedsatellites-and-the-cold-war-in-space/.
On October 27, 1962, a nuclear-armed
Soviet submarine had been spotted patrolling near the U.S. blockade
line around Cuba, kicking off the Cuban Missile Crisis. In an attempt to bring the submarine to the surface, a U.S.
destroyer began dropping non-lethal depth charges. The captain of the submarine mistakenly believed
these charges were an attack and ordered his crew to arm the nuclear-tipped torpedo for launch. If this
launch occurred, the U.S. would have presumably retaliated with a barrage of nukes launched at
predetermined locations across the USSR. Per Soviet protocols, all three of the Russian submarine’s commanding officers needed to
agree unanimously on the decision to launch the warhead. The second in command, Vasili Arkhipov, refused to consent to a launch. The
commanding officers eventually brought the submarine to the surface and returned to Russia without incident. In essence, one
man’s
last-minute decision prevented what could easily have been the beginning of World War III. This is
perhaps as close the world has ever come to a doomsday scenario, and it’s chilling to think a moment of
indeterminacy would have meant instant annihilation for millions. But unfortunately, the potential for a
grave accident due to misinterpretation is dreadfully ripe in the space-age Cold War we’re currently
entrenched in. “In regards to indeterminacy of an attack: Bingo! Attribution is tremendously difficult,” says Samson. “If a
satellite stops working in orbit, it’s not always apparent why. It could be because of faulty parts, solar
flares, or deliberate interference.” Let’s say, for instance, a U.S. intelligence satellite is taken out by a solar
flare or fleck of debris while a Chinese or Russian satellite with suspected ASAT potential floats
haphazardly nearby. The U.S. would have every reason to believe this was a possible preemptive strike
to diminish U.S. GPS capacity before a larger attack. Would defense officials wait calmly with such
crucial satellite assets potentially in the crosshairs? Probably not. While there is currently tremendous potential for a
military battle to begin in space, the ensuing war would extend to earth soon thereafter. This unnerving warning
was echoed by General John Hyten, head of the U.S. Air Force Space Command. “If war does extend into space
someday — and I hope it never does — the first response is not going to be in space,” he warned. All things considered, it
could easily be argued that the risk of an existential threat on this pale blue dot has never been higher. It’s
incredible that a nuclear weapon hasn’t been used on civilians in more than 70 years, but most military
experts would agree it is a matter of when, not if. Without meaningful legislation to prevent such a
disaster, life on this planet could disappear as quickly as a blip on a radar screen, with only the
artificial halo of orbiting trash left to tell the tale.
AC – Capitalism
Private mining expands capitalism into space and will only benefit the elites.
Woolfe 20’ (“Asteroid Mining and Capitalism in Space” Sam Woolfe, Freelance Writer, Blogger &
Journalist, I cover a range of subjects, including philosophy, ethics, psychology, mental health,
psychedelics, travel, and art., https://www.samwoolfe.com/2020/03/asteroid-mining-spacecapitalism.html) //MNHS JS
Asteroid mining is the exploitation of raw materials from asteroids and bringing these resources back to Earth. With an exponentially rising global population, precious resources are quickly
becoming depleted. Luckily, asteroids contain many materials that we need and so mining them could set us on the path to a sustainable future. There are, however, some important political
asteroid mining, such as whether it will be subject to the forces of capitalism, and what
effects – either negative or positive – will result from the privatisation of these celestial bodies. This is a
form of ‘space capitalism’ that deserves critical analysis. Mining Asteroids for Precious Resources Asteroids can contain a variety of valuable
implications involved with
resources, including water (which would be useful for long-duration space missions), nickel, cobalt, gold, and platinum. In addition, these materials are often found in much higher
concentrations than on Earth. According to some estimates, an asteroid one-kilometre in diameter may contain up to 7,500 tonnes of platinum. The greatest cost involved in mining asteroids
will be transporting the materials back to Earth. So the mining will need to be extremely lucrative in order to make these expenditures worth it. But that could easily be the case. After all,
7,500 tonnes of platinum is worth upwards of $150bn. According to one estimate, the total value of a single asteroid, based on its concentration of rare earth and platinum-group metals, is
over $20tr (yes, trillion). Asteroid mining will, therefore, be an unavoidably attractive endeavour for profit-hungry corporations. We haven’t yet mined an asteroid, so to do so would be an
immense historic achievement, a way of making science fiction a reality. There’s no reason, nonetheless, that the same techniques used for mining on Earth can’t also be applied to asteroids.
Some other, more novel approaches are being assessed, however. For instance, the aerospace company TransAstra Corporation has proposed using highly concentrated sunlight to break up
asteroids and extract their precious metals. It’s not clear when the first asteroid will be mined. One expert says that we will witness the historic occasion in the next 10-20 years, although other
industry experts believe we will have to wait much longer than that. The Asteroid Mining Company, on the other hand, hopes to start asteroid mining operations by 2030. Legal Issues
Associated With Asteroid Mining There are some interesting legal challenges to consider when it comes to asteroid mining. For instance, if we allow companies to possess, own, transport, use,
and sell resources from asteroids, this may violate the Outer Space Treaty (1967), which is the foundation of international space law, with 109 countries as parties to the treaty. It states:
“Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” Thus, nations cannot own a celestial body like an
asteroid, but they can, according to the Treaty, “use” outer space, so long as this is done in a way to “benefit all mankind”. But the Treaty is ambiguous. It refers to nations, whilst making no
mention of private companies. For this reason, space mining companies may be able to claim ownership of the minerals they extract and amass capital for themselves in the process. There is
also the Moon Treaty, finalised in 1979, which mandates that all resources extracted from space should be shared among nations. However, most countries (including the US) never signed or
ratified it. Conversely, we have seen the introduction of legislation that favours space capitalism. In 2015, the American Space Act was passed, which allows for the private ownership of space
resources (on the basis of ‘finders keepers’) but this only applies to companies owned by US citizens. Then, in 2017, Luxembourg passed the first EU space mining law, which provides legal
certainty that mining companies will be able to own the resources they take from asteroids, and unlike the US legislation, the mining company’s stakeholders don’t have to be based in
Luxembourg; they only need to have an office in the country. The Outer Space Treaty designated outer space as a res communis omnium (a thing of the entire community). Outer space
belongs to the “province of mankind”. The Treaty espouses, then, space as a commons. Oscar Schachter, a professor of international law, similarly argued that we should extend the principles
we apply to the high seas to outer space as well. In a companion contribution titled Who Owns the Universe? (1952), Schachter said, like the high seas, space should be “the common heritage
of humanity”, allowing “free and equal use rather than exclusive possession”. This ‘common heritage of mankind’ principle, applied to the seabed and ocean floor, was codified in the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, which underlined that any exploitation of the sea must benefit humanity as a whole, with resources and profits equally distributed. Yet in
spite of defences of outer space as a commons (including in the Outer Space Treaty), we find that other pieces of legislation (such as those in the US and Luxembourg) act against the notion of
Furthermore, the asteroid mining industry already exists, with various corporations getting
ready to profit from space mining endeavours. The extension of capitalism into outer space, indeed, is
well underway. Space Capitalism: Perspectives From Critical Theory The arrival of the commercialised space age has been referred to as the age of ‘NewSpace’. This is in contrast
space communism.
to ‘Old Space’, the Cold War-era form of space relations where nation states tried to dominate outer space. Victor L. Shammas and Tomas B. Holen apply perspectives from the critical theory
tradition to the issue of space capitalism in their paper One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space (2019). They describe NewSpace as follows (it deserves quoting in
full): But how are we to understand NewSpace? In some ways, NewSpace signals the emergence of capitalism in space. The production of carrier rockets, placement of satellites into orbit
around Earth, and the exploration, exploitation, or colonization of outer space (including planets, asteroids, and other celestial objects), will not be the work of humankind as such, a pure
species-being (Gattungswesen), but of particular capitalist entrepreneurs who stand in for and represent humanity. Crucially, they will do so in ways modulated by the exigencies of capital
accumulation. These enterprising capitalists are forging a new political-economic regime in space, a post-Fordism in space aimed at profit maximization and the apparent minimization of
government interference. A new breed of charismatic, starry-eyed entrepreneurs, including Musk’s SpaceX, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, and Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, to
name but a selection, aim at becoming ‘capitalists in space’ (Parker, 2009) or space capitalists. Neil Armstrong’s famous statement will have to be reformulated: space will not be the site of
‘one giant leap for mankind’, but rather one giant leap for capitalistkind. With the ascendancy of NewSpace, humanity’s future in space will not be ‘ours’, benefiting humanity tout court, but
will rather be the result of particular capitalists, or capitalistkind, toiling to recuperate space and bring its vast domain into the fold of capital accumulation: NewSpace sees outer space as the
domain of private enterprise, set to become the ‘first-trillion dollar industry’, according to some estimates, and likely to produce the world’s first trillionaires (see, e.g., Honan, 2018)—as
opposed to Old Space, a derisive moniker coined by enthusiastic proponents of capitalism-in-space, widely seen to have been the sole preserve of the state and a handful of giant aerospace
privatisation of space will serve the interests of a
small number of space capitalists, rather than benefit humankind as a whole, in the way that you hope asteroid mining would, given
the potential to supply the world with essential minerals. As capitalism extends to outer space, so might many of the issues we see with
corporations, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in Cold War-era Space Age. The worry, then, is that the
terrestrial capitalism, such as the over-exploitation of precious resources, monopolisation, and crony capitalism. And where does this extension of capitalism end? After all, NewSpace doesn’t
just relate to asteroid mining; the space capitalists are also involved in space tourism and the colonisation of Mars, and – assuming we make it this far into the future – the colonisation of other
planets.
This expansion saves capitalism from current decline and reinvigorates it.
Shammas and Holen 19 [(Victor L, a sociologist working at the Department of Sociology and Human
Geography, University of Oslo; Tomas B., independent scholar in Oslo, Norway) “One giant leap for
capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space,” 1-29-2019, pg. 5-6]
No longer terra nullius, space is now the new terra firma of capitalistkind: its naturalized terroir, its next
necessary terrain. The logic of capitalism dictates that capital should seek to expand outwards into the
vastness of space, a point recognized by a recent ethnography of NewSpace actors (Valentine, 2016, p. 1050). The operations of
capitalistkind serve to resolve a series of (potential) crises of capitalism, revolving around the slow, steady
decline of spatial fixes (see e.g., Harvey, 1985, p. 51–66) as they come crashing up against the quickly vanishing
blank spaces remaining on earthly maps and declining (terrestrial) opportunities for profitable investment
of surplus capital (Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a, p. 49–78).
A ‘spatial fix' involves the geographic modulation of capital accumulation, consisting in the outward
expansion of capital onto new geographic terrains, or into new spaces, with the aim of filling a gap in the
home terrains of capital. Jessop (2006, p. 149) notes that spatial fixes may involve a number of strategies,
including the creation of new markets within the capitalist world, engaging in trade with non-capitalist
economies, and exporting surplus capital to undeveloped or underdeveloped regions. The first two address the
problem of insufficient demand and the latter option creates a productive (or valorizing) outlet for excess capital. Capitalism must regularly
discover, develop, and appropriate such new spaces because of its inherent tendency to generate surplus capital, i.e., capital bereft of
profitable purpose. In Harvey’s (2006, p. xviii) terms, a spatial fix revolves around ‘geographical expansions and restructuring…as a temporary
solution to crises understood…in terms of the overaccumulation of capital'. It is a temporary solution because these newly appropriated spaces
will in turn become exhausted of profitable potential and are likely to produce their own stocks of surplus capital; while ‘capital surpluses that
otherwise stood to be devalued, could be absorbed through geographical expansions and spatio-temporal displacements' (Harvey, 2006, p.
xviii), this outwards drive of capitalism is inherently limitless: there is no end point or final destination for capitalism. Instead, capitalism
must continuously propel itself onwards in search of pristine sites of renewed capital accumulation. In this
way, Harvey writes, society constantly ‘creates fresh productive powers elsewhere to absorb its
overaccumulated capital' (Harvey, 1981, p. 8).
Historically, spatial fixes have played an important role in conserving the capitalist system. As Jessop (2006, p.
149) points out, ‘The export of surplus money capital, surplus commodities, and/or surplus labour-power outside the space(s) where they
originate enabled capital to avoid, at least for a period, the threat of devaluation'. But these new spaces for capital are not necessarily limited
to physical terrains, as with colonial expansion in the nineteenth century; as Greene and Joseph (2015) note, various
digital spaces,
such as the Internet, can also be considered as spatial fixes: the Web absorbs overaccumulated capital,
heightens consumption of virtual and physical goods, and makes inexpensive, flexible sources of labor
available to employers. Greene and Joseph offer the example of online high-speed frequency trading as a digital spatial fix that furthers
the ‘annihilation of space by time' first noted by Marx in his Grundrisse (see Marx, 1973, p. 524)..
Extinction and destroys value to life.
Duzgun 20’ (Eren Duzgun (teaches Historical Sociology and International Relations at Leiden
University, Netherlands), 4-5-2020, "Capitalism, Coronavirus and the Road to Extinction," Socialist
Project, https://socialistproject.ca/2020/04/capitalism-coronavirus-and-road-to-extinction/) //MNHS JS
Covid-19, by contrast, has begun its journey and taken its biggest toll thus far in the most advanced and affluent parts of the world. This is to say, the contagion is no longer limited to the
persistently undernourished, underdeveloped, and war-torn parts of the world; its impact is no longer restricted to a distant wet market or a third world country alone. Instead, it has emerged
and expanded in the very heart of the capitalist world order at a time when capitalism has not only been already firmly established across the globe but has been testing the eco-biological
limits of the entire planet. Should things remain the same, Covid-19 and its future cousins are likely to claim the lives of not just ‘some’ people as they did in the past, but of humanity as a
whole. In this sense, perhaps for the first time in modern history, the biological blitzkrieg activated by the coronavirus has thrown into sharp relief the immediately
existential and
undeniably global contradictions and consequences generated by capitalism. Contradictions on a Global Scale Critical biologists
and epidemiologists have put the blame on industrial agriculture as the root cause of the emergence of new pathogens since the 1990s. According to Rob Wallace, giant agribusiness and
resource extraction firms have now reached the last virgin forests and smallholder-held farmlands in the world, subordinating them to the logic of capitalist markets. The loss of the ecological
diversity and complexity of these huge tracts of land has increasingly forced wild food operators to hunt in previously untouched parts of the jungle, which, in turn, has increased “the
interaction with, and spillover of, previously boxed-in pathogens, including Covid-19.” Likewise, global warming has forced or allowed pathogens to escape their natural habitat. As a result,
new viruses against which we have no immunity “are being sprung free, threatening the whole world.” In short, as John Vidal writes, “we disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from
their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.” That some agribusiness firms have been blatantly risking lives for profit would not come as a surprise to the
critical reader. Even Bill Gates has been sounding the alarm about the potentially deadly consequences of irresponsible business practices and new viruses. Yet, what tends to remain
underemphasized in these debates is that the blame belongs neither solely to ‘greedy’ firms that have driven viruses out of their natural habitat, nor to ‘short-sighted’ politicians who have not
That is, we may
go extinct as a result of the ‘successes’ of the very system ‘we’ created in the first place, i.e., capitalism.
How did we end up losing control of an ‘economic’ system of our own making? This is indeed an anomaly in human history.
invested enough in vaccine technology or national health systems. Instead, the problem is rooted in the very structure and rationality of the system as a whole.
The conception of the ‘economy’ as an autonomous sphere dictating its own rules over society did not exist in non-capitalist societies. As the economic anthropologist Karl Polanyi put it,
“neither under tribal, nor feudal, nor mercantile conditions was there… a separate economic system in society.” The economy either “remained nameless” or had “no obvious meaning,” for
the economic process and prices were instituted through non-market means, such as kinship, marriage, age-groups, status, political patronage, etc. Even “where markets were most highly
developed, as under the mercantile system,” the economic system, as a rule, “was absorbed in the social system” and showed “no tendency to expand at the expense of the rest.” In this
sense, the market with a distinctive logic, autonomy, and dynamic of its own was completely unknown to our ancestors, and indeed, the emergence of the idea of ‘self-regulating’ markets
In order for ‘self-regulating’ markets to ‘self-regulate’, a
variety of political and institutional arrangements had to be initiated to progressively eliminate the nonmarket survival strategies that humans previously relied upon. Most notably, the age-old communal systems of social and moral regulation
represented a complete reversal of the way in which past economies functioned.
needed to be eradicated, a process that systematically subordinated the ‘natural and human substance of society’, i.e., land and labour, to market relations for the first time in history. Rise of
At the heart of the rise of capitalism, therefore, rested a ‘political’, legal, and violent process that
led to the historically unprecedented characterization of land and labour as commodities. Without
commodifying land and labour, i.e., without treating the planet’s living substance as commodities, it would have been impossible to view the ‘economy’ as an institutionally and
motivationally self-regulating sphere of life, an almost robotic creature functioning at the expense of human lives and livelihoods. Capitalism presupposed from the very beginning a
radical transformation in the human use of nature as well as in the provision of life’s essential requirements. In this sense, the danger of global extinction which
we have been going through is not a temporary hiccup in an otherwise smoothly operating capitalist
ecosystem but has always been a possibility built into the very structure of market society. On the one hand, by
Capitalism
treating land and labour as commodities, by subjecting people’s utilization of land and enjoyment of life to their ability to continuously increase market competitiveness and productivity,
capitalism has enabled massive technological advancements in all spheres of life. This, in turn, has generated, above all, an unprecedented potential to feed, clothe, and accommodate an everincreasing world population.
AC – AI
Asteroid mining necessitates the incorporation of AI
Valantin 18 (Dr Jean-Michel Valantin (PhD Paris) leads the Environment and Security Department of
The Red Team Analysis Society. He is specialised in strategic studies and defense sociology with a focus
on environmental geostrategy. He is the author of "Menace climatique sur l’ordre mondial" (Climatic
threat on the world order), "Ecologie et gouvernance mondiale" (Ecology and world governance),
"Guerre et Nature, l’Amérique prépare la guerre du climat, "(War and nature: America gets ready for
climate war) and of "Hollywood, the Pentagon and Washington".3-19-2018, "Space Mining, Artificial
Intelligence and Transition?," Red Team Analysis Society, https://redanalysis.org/2018/03/19/spacemining-artificial-intelligence-and-transition/) //EG
However, it
is necessary for this industrial space revolution to integrate the new capabilities emerging from
the artificial intelligence and robotics current revolution: only autonomous robots can accomplish the
extremely dangerous and heavy work necessitated for asteroid mining.
Building upon Helene Lavoix seminal article which identified the issue first and put it on the Red (Team) Analysis Society, the first article of this series will look at the drivers of t he “space mining” race, from a space industry point of view. It will point out that the new imperatives emerging
from the energy transition and the digital revolution is one of the considerable forces behind space mining. Then, we shall look at the new risk and opportunities arising from space mining. Identifying the new (space) industrial frontier On 19 July 2015, the asteroid 2011 UW 158 passed
closed by Earth at 1.5 million kilometres away. It was identified as an “X type” asteroid, i.e. a metallic object. According to the Sloosh Community Observatory, this asteroid could be packed with 90 million tons of precious metals, among them platinum. This means that this asteroid
contains more platinum than has ever been mined during human history and could have a 300 billion to 5.4 trillion dollars net worth and while this quantity of metal is not injected in the current commodity market (Robert Hackett, “Asteroid passing close to Earth could contain $5.4
trillion of precious metal”, Fortune, July 20, 2015). It must be noted that Planetary Resources has identified this asteroid as being potentially “suitable for mining” (Eric Mack, “Trillion dollar baby” has wanabee space miners salivating”, Forbes, July 19, 2015). The industrial interest that is
so expressed for asteroids is rooted into the new race for minerals, especially the famous “rare earths” generated by the exponential growth of electronic and internet technologies, as well as by the current energy transition towards an expanded energy mix (Guillaume Pitron, La guerre
des métaux rares, la face cache de la transition énergétique et numérique, 2018). The rapid and massive development of energy transition, in particular through the rapid growth of photovoltaic indus tries, especially in Asia, besides the related industrial efforts made by countries like
China, India, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Norway, numerous states of the United States, among many others, necessitates huge and growing amounts of those precious minerals (Jean-Michel Valantin, “The United Arab Emirates, The Rise of an industrial sustainable industrial
empire”, The Red (Team) Analysis Society, June 13 2016 and David S. Abraham, ibid). The current energy transition is such that in 2040 more than 25% of the global energy production could be produced by the renewable energy sector (Michael Klare, “Go Green young man, young
woman”, TomDispatch, Decembre 13, 2015). The combination of digital growth and energy transition is creating a worldwide system of need for minerals, knowing that the number of terrestrial deposits is limited, even if all of those are not yet exploited. This tension between the
perpetually growing and developing humanity and the Earth’s limited resources creates an “international mineral need” that is an economic and political power in itself. In effect, this “need for minerals” is felt as well by countries as by public and private companies, and is driving the
development of the whole digital and cyber sector, as well as the aerospace and defence sector and all that activities that depend of it. This convergence of “mineral needs” creates an international nexus of needs and thus a “global need” for minerals that powers the race for mining as
well as it drives the political and economic decision that it entails. New actors are emerging in order to answer this need and thus harness its power. Convergence of the current industrial revolutions Those actors are leading a deep and rapid transformation of the space sector and of the
mining sector, notable through the combination of the two. On the space sector side, a revolution is currently happening in the launching and transport capabilities fields (Monica Grady, “Private companies are launching a new space-here is what to expect”, The Conversation, October 3,
2017). We witness notably the rapid development of the Chinese public sector combined with the expansion of the Chinese space program, while in the U.S. the evolution takes place not only in the public sector but also in the private space sector, as evidenced by the new Space X
created by Elon Musk and Blue Origin, created by arch-billionnaire Jeff Bezos. On the U.S. public side, the NASA, the historic U.S. space agency, is very active to be present in t he space-mining field (Karla Lant, “NASA is fast-tracking plans to explore a metal asteroid worth $ 10 000
quadrillion”, Futurism, May 28, 2017). In the same dynamic, the NASA, is already preparing the Psyche mission that will be composed of the launching of an orbiter satellite around the metal aster oid 16 Psyche, in order to study its composition (Brid Aine-Parnell, “NASA Will Reach Unique
Metal Asteroid Worth $10,000 Quadrillion Four Years Early », Forbes, 26 May 2017). The iron and nickel payload of this asteroid could be up to 10 000 quadrillion dollars. If these numbers are primarily a way to express the potential economic interest of asteroids, they also exemplify how
the space sector, as well as the solar system is becoming a new kind of industrial attractor. For example, the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is composed of hundreds of thousands of asteroids of multiple sizes (Matt Williams, “What is the asteroid belt?“, Universe Today, 23
August, 2015). More than 200 of these are already identified as being potentially exploitable (Suzanne Barton and Hanna Recht, “The massive prize luring miners to the stars”, Bloomberg, 2018). The NASA already targets the Bennu asteroid in order to send a mission to grab some samples
of its surface. Thus, the mission will accomplish both a fundamental scientific goal about the understanding of the origins of our solar system and driving the development of the robotics necessitated for asteroid operations (Barton and Recht, ibid). Towards “intelligent space-mining” and
entrepreneurship? This dynamic towards space mining has driven the creation of companies that are aiming at exploiting asteroids, mainly Planetary Resources-The Asteroid mining company and Deep Space industries (Helene Lavoix, “Beyond fear of near-Earth objects: mining resources
from space?”, The Red (Team) Analysis Society, February 18, 2013). These companies are developing space-mining-based business models for mining the Moon, Mars and the deep space asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
This is creating a technological nexus where the different industrial revolutions taking currently place i.e. the artificial intelligence and the
robotic revolution potentially meet mining. Artificial
intelligence is currently being integrated to the mining
industry, through the use of autonomous robots and a rapid enhancement of captors that allow
robots, workers, artificial intelligence and analysts to better analyse the state of their working
environment and to optimize extraction and safety (John Walker, “AI in mining – mineral exploration,
autonomous drilling, and more”, Tech emergence, December 3, 2017). Some are already calling this
trend “intelligent mining” (John Walker, ibid). This evolution of the mining industry is led, for example, by partnerships of artificial
intelligence companies as NVIDIA, and IBM and mining companies as Komatsu (Kevin Krewell, “NVIDIA and Komatsu partner on AI-based
intelligent equipment for improved safety and efficiency”, Forbes, December 12, 2017).
In the same time, China
develops its public space program that aims at installing an autonomous robot base
on the Moon, and integrates artificial intelligence development to its space program. The Russian Foundation
for advanced studies is developing a robot able to intervene in extreme environments, such as space, while developing a very close space
partnership with China (jean-Michel Valantin, “Jean-Michel Valantin, “The Chinese-Russian Robot and Space cooperation – China (1) and
« Russia » (2)”, The Red (Team) Analysis Society, January 8, 2018).
Kills deterrence and inevitably escalates.
Hayden et al 20 (Nancy K. Hayden is a Principle Systems Analyst at Sandia National Laboratories, where she is a member of the
Strategic Foresight and Policy Analysis Group. Dr. Hayden earned a PhD in International Security and Economics at the Maryland School of
Public Policy, where she remains a Research Fellow with the Center for International and Strategic Studies at the University of Maryland, Kelsey
Abel is a Graduate Student Researcher at The University of Texas at Austin, Marie Arrieta is a Nuclear Engineer and Member of Technical Staff
at Sandia National Laboratories with a Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering from Texas A&M University, Mallory Stewart is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Emerging Security Challenges and Defense Policy in the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance in the U.S.
Department of State and is a graduate of Harvard College and Stanford Law School, “Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy in Space: Balancing
Risks and Benefits for Deterrence and Escalation Control,” Sandia National Laboratories, 9/16/20) //EG
Due to the inherent tradeoffs between performance (P), vulnerability (V), and explainability (E), it is not
possible for optimize all three at once. Moreover, different traits support different goals; high
explainability may serve to build trust of the decision makers who rely on them, but more explainable
models may be less capable of handling complexity and therefore performance may suffer (Gunning,
2019). A high performing model (e.g., one that rapidly incorporates new data into current models),
may also have high vulnerability to spoofing. Making decisions based on patterns found in anomalies in
the input data could lead to high consequence actions, potentially increasing escalation (Hamon, 2020).
Conversely, a high performing model that has lower vulnerability could adversely affect escalation if the
inputs and decisions made by the AI are not explainable and transparent. In only one case do the
combination of characteristics both increase deterrence (e.g., reduce threats) while decreasing
escalation. However, this combination of AI characteristics is not technically feasible at this point in
time.
The inherent trade-offs of these characteristics create challenges for deterrence, which include
building confidence in decision-making, and effective communications for signaling. Confidence can
increase the speed at which decisions can be made. However, war games have demonstrated that the
speed of AI systems can lead to inadvertent escalation, due to incorrectly classifying observed events
and interpreting signals, leading to disproportionate response (Wong, 2020). Table 4 summarizes our
qualitative estimations for how combinations of PV&E affect deterrence and escalation.
AC – Framing
Extinction comes first
Pummer 15 [Theron, Junior Research Fellow in Philosophy at St. Anne's College, University of Oxford.
“Moral Agreement on Saving the World” Practical Ethics, University of Oxford. May 18, 2015] AT
There appears to be lot of disagreement in moral philosophy. Whether these many apparent
disagreements are deep and irresolvable, I believe there is at least one thing it is reasonable to agree
on right now, whatever general moral view we adopt: that it is very important to reduce the risk that all
intelligent beings on this planet are eliminated by an enormous catastrophe, such as a nuclear war.
How we might in fact try to reduce such existential risks is discussed elsewhere. My claim here is only that we – whether we’re
consequentialists, deontologists, or virtue ethicists – should all agree that we should try to save the
world. According to consequentialism, we should maximize the good, where this is taken to be the goodness, from an impartial perspective,
of outcomes. Clearly one thing that makes an outcome good is that the people in it are doing well. There
is little disagreement here. If the happiness or well-being of possible future people is just as important as that of people who already
exist, and if they would have good lives, it is not hard to see how reducing existential risk is easily the most important
thing in the whole world. This is for the familiar reason that there are so many people who could exist
in the future – there are trillions upon trillions… upon trillions. There are so many possible future
people that reducing existential risk is arguably the most important thing in the world, even if the
well-being of these possible people were given only 0.001% as much weight as that of existing people.
Even on a wholly person-affecting view – according to which there’s nothing (apart from effects on existing people) to be said in favor of
creating happy people – the case for reducing existential risk is very strong. As noted in this seminal paper, this
case is strengthened
by the fact that there’s a good chance that many existing people will, with the aid of life-extension
technology, live very long and very high quality lives. You might think what I have just argued applies
to consequentialists only. There is a tendency to assume that, if an argument appeals to
consequentialist considerations (the goodness of outcomes), it is irrelevant to non-consequentialists.
But that is a huge mistake. Non-consequentialism is the view that there’s more that determines
rightness than the goodness of consequences or outcomes; it is not the view that the latter don’t
matter. Even John Rawls wrote, “All ethical doctrines worth our attention take consequences into account in
judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.” Minimally plausible versions
of deontology and virtue ethics must be concerned in part with promoting the good, from an impartial
point of view. They’d thus imply very strong reasons to reduce existential risk, at least when this doesn’t
significantly involve doing harm to others or damaging one’s character. What’s even more surprising, perhaps, is that even if our own good (or
that of those near and dear to us) has much greater weight than goodness from the impartial “point of view of the universe,” indeed even if the
latter is entirely morally irrelevant, we may nonetheless have very strong reasons to reduce existential risk. Even
egoism, the view
that each agent should maximize her own good, might imply strong reasons to reduce existential risk.
It will depend, among other things, on what one’s own good consists in. If well-being consisted in pleasure only, it is somewhat harder to argue
that egoism would imply strong reasons to reduce existential risk – perhaps we could argue that one would maximize her expected hedonic
well-being by funding life extension technology or by having herself cryogenically frozen at the time of her bodily death as well as giving money
to reduce existential risk (so that there is a world for her to live in!). I am not sure, however, how strong the reasons to do this would be. But
views which imply that, if I don’t care about other people, I have no or very little reason to help them are not even minimally plausible views (in
addition to hedonistic egoism, I here have in mind views that imply that one has no reason to perform an act unless one actually desires to do
that act). To
be minimally plausible, egoism will need to be paired with a more sophisticated account of
well-being. To see this, it is enough to consider, as Plato did, the possibility of a ring of invisibility – suppose that, while wearing
it, Ayn could derive some pleasure by helping the poor, but instead could derive just a bit more by
severely harming them. Hedonistic egoism would absurdly imply she should do the latter. To avoid
this implication, egoists would need to build something like the meaningfulness of a life into well-
being, in some robust way, where this would to a significant extent be a function of other-regarding concerns (see chapter 12 of this classic
intro to ethics). But once these elements are included, we can (roughly, as above) argue that this sort of
egoism will imply strong reasons to reduce existential risk. Add to all of this Samuel Scheffler’s recent intriguing
arguments (quick podcast version available here) that most of what makes our lives go well would be undermined if there were no future
generations of intelligent persons. On his view, my life would contain vastly less well-being if (say) a year after my death the world came to an
end. So obviously if Scheffler were right I’d have very strong reason to reduce existential risk. We
should also take into account
moral uncertainty. What is it reasonable for one to do, when one is uncertain not (only) about the
empirical facts, but also about the moral facts? I’ve just argued that there’s agreement among minimally
plausible ethical views that we have strong reason to reduce existential risk – not only
consequentialists, but also deontologists, virtue ethicists, and sophisticated egoists should agree. But
even those (hedonistic egoists) who disagree should have a significant level of confidence that they
are mistaken, and that one of the above views is correct. Even if they were 90% sure that their view is
the correct one (and 10% sure that one of these other ones is correct), they would have pretty strong reason, from
the standpoint of moral uncertainty, to reduce existential risk. Perhaps most disturbingly still, even if we are
only 1% sure that the well-being of possible future people matters, it is at least arguable that, from
the standpoint of moral uncertainty, reducing existential risk is the most important thing in the world.
Again, this is largely for the reason that there are so many people who could exist in the future – there are trillions upon trillions… upon
trillions. (For more on this and other related issues, see this excellent dissertation). Of course, it is uncertain whether these untold trillions
would, in general, have good lives. It’s possible they’ll be miserable. It
is enough for my claim that there is moral
agreement in the relevant sense if, at least given certain empirical claims about what future lives would most likely be like, all
minimally plausible moral views would converge on the conclusion that we should try to save the
world. While there are some non-crazy views that place significantly greater moral weight on avoiding suffering
than on promoting happiness, for reasons others have offered (and for independent reasons I won’t get into here unless requested
to), they nonetheless seem to be fairly implausible views. And even if things did not go well for our ancestors,
I am optimistic that they will overall go fantastically well for our descendants, if we allow them to. I
suspect that most of us alive today – at least those of us not suffering from extreme illness or poverty
– have lives that are well worth living, and that things will continue to improve. Derek Parfit, whose work has
emphasized future generations as well as agreement in ethics, described our situation clearly and accurately: “We live during the hinge of
history. Given
the scientific and technological discoveries of the last two centuries, the world has never
changed as fast. We shall soon have even greater powers to transform, not only our surroundings, but ourselves and our successors. If
we act wisely in the next few centuries, humanity will survive its most dangerous and decisive period.
Our descendants could, if necessary, go elsewhere, spreading through this galaxy…. Our descendants might, I believe, make
the further future very good. But that good future may also depend in part on us. If our selfish
recklessness ends human history, we would be acting very wrongly.” (From chapter 36 of On What Matters)
Psychoanalysis is by design unfalsifiable, meaning that we can have no confidence in
any advocacy claims derived from them.
Popper 05’: Thornton, Stephen, "Karl Popper", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/popper/>.
“The two psycho-analy[sis is] tic theories [are] were in a different class. They were simply non-testable,
irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behavior which could contradict them. This does not mean that
Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly; I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of
considerable importance, and may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable.
But it does mean that those "clinical observations" which psychoanalysts naïvely believe confirm their
theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrolog[y]ers find in their practice.
And as for Freud's epic of the Ego, the Super-ego, and the Id, [has] no substantially stronger claim to scientific status can be made for it than for
Homer's collected stories from Olympus. These
theories describe some facts, but in the manner of myths. They
contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form. (There were a great many other
theories of this pre-scientific or pseudo-scientific character, some of them, unfortunately, as influential as the Marxist interpretation of history;
for example, the racialist interpretation of history — another of those impressive and all-explanatory theories which act upon weak minds like
revelations.)”“The main difference between [verifiable theories and psychoanalysis] is that while determinitive theories are highly risky, in
the sense that it is possible to deduce consequences which would, if false, falsify [a verifiable] the whole theory, nothing
could, even in
principle, falsify postmodern theories. These latter have more in common with myths than with science. The “strength”
of psychoanalysis – [I]ts ability to explain every possible form of human behavior – is in fact a critical
weakness, for it entails that it is not, and could not be, genuinely predictive. Psychoanalytic theories by
their nature are insufficiently precise to have negative implications, and so are immunised from
falsification.”
Psychoanalysis must be accompanied by political change to succeed – justifies a
permutation.
Dragan Milovanovic 94’ (Criminal justice professor, Northeastern Illinois, EMORY INTERNATIONAL
LAW REVIEW, v. 67, “The Postmodernist Turn: Lacan, Psychoanalytic Semiotics, And The Construction Of
Subjectivity In Law, “p. 96-7)
For current critical feminist theorizing that focuses on postmodernism, more and more analysis is finding itself in a dialogue between Marxism
and the body of work by Lacan. The shortcomings of Lacan's work
by itself, are recognized, even if his work does provide
some key elements, or tools, for critical inquiry. Perhaps Braidotti said it best: ". . .The politico-epistemological question of
achieving structural transformations of the subject cannot be dissociated from the need to effect
changes in the sociomaterial frames of reference. . . ." 76 Future developments surely will arise in the
integration and synthesis of a psychoanalytic semiotic examination grounded in a historical, materialistic
critique of the given mode of production. Necessarily, the effects of the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real
Orders need to be integrated into any transformative political agenda, especially within legal discourse
in which change may be made manifest most immediately.
Accepting the death drives obliterates ethics and agency
Lear 2000 Jonathan Lear, Philosophy Professor at the University of Chicago, 2000 “Happiness, Death,
and the Remainder of Life,” Page 131-132
By 1920 Freud is ready to break up what he has come to see as a fantasized unity of mental functioning. The mind can no longer be understood
in terms of the pleasure principle, but instead of living with the gap, he posits a “beyond.” It is in this way that Freud takes himself to be
explaining aggression. Aggression is
now interpreted as the death drive diverted outward. It is precisely this
move which locks us into an inescapably negative teleogy. Let us just assume (for the sake of argument, though I think it
true) that humans are aggressive animals, and that dealing with human aggression is a serious psychological and social problem. The question
remains: how
might one deal with it? But if, as Freud does, one interprets aggression as the most obvious
manifestation of one of the two primordial forces in the universe, the answer would seem to be: there is no
successful way. My first inclination is to say that this leads to a pessimistic view of the human condition; but this isn’t
really the issue. My second inclination is to say it leads to a limited view of the human condition; but even this doesn’t get to
the heart of the problem. The
point here is not to endorse an ontic optimism – that if we didn’t adopt this view,
we could shape life in nonaggressive ways – but to confront an ontological insight: that Freud’s
interpretation is an instance of bad faith. The metaphysical basicness of the death drive implies a kind of
metaphysical intractability to the phenomenon of human aggression. As a matter of empirical fact, humans may be
aggressive animals – and the fact of human aggression may be difficult to deal with. It may be experienced as intractable. But to raise this
purported intractability to a metaphysical principle is to obliterate the question of responsibility. And it
is to cover over – by precluding – what might turn out to be a significant empirical possibilities.
AC – UV
AC/2AC theory first – if we win the NC is abusive you shouldn’t evaluate any of the
arguments from it anyways. NC Theory – A] It’s drop the argument since the 1AC
speaks in the dark and violates countless bidirectional interps no matter what so we
shouldn’t be punished for it. B] Reasonability since the 1AR is too short to effectively
win offense against a 13-minute 2nc/1nr dump. C] Yes RVIs – k2 topic edu by deterring
friv violations and forces negs to think twice before skewing the 1AR since they know
each shell is another split in the 2N, also k2 reciprocity – T is a unique avenue to the
ballot that the aff can’t access – makes T structurally unfair without the RVI which kills
fairness. No 2NC theory – they get 13 min to dump new game over issues which
crushes the 5 min 1AR. Evaluate the round right after the 1AC to save time so we can
go do more productive things – also prevents fatigue from debate. Prioritize impacts
from policy action – everything else is irrelevant to the point of policy debate which is
to debate policies. We always get to weigh the aff – anything else moots 8 min of AC.
Negating is a voting issue – encourages meanness and conflict in the debate space
instead of support for our ideas. Kritiks are a voting issue – moots and uplayers 8 min
of offense and skews the debate away from topical knowledge. The negative must not
contest the affirmative contentions – Time Skew: The aff has to split their time
between justifying their contentions and framework, but if the neg can contest the
affirmative contention they can just blitz 13 (2nc+1nr) minutes of turns against 4
minutes of offense (cuz you split the ac) and win every round. CPs and alt advocacies
don’t negate – the burden of the neg is to disprove the aff but they aren’t disproving
the aff by weighing an alt advocacy. i.e. saying saving 2 lives is better than saving 1
doesn’t disprove saving 1 life is good. Reading T is a voting issue – it’s an attempt to
restrict academic discussion about policies and prevent debate from being an open
forum for policy discussion which is intrinsic to its existence. Affirm means: to offer
(someone) emotional support or encouragement1, so you must affirm as an educator
and judge. Affirm because solipsism is true – I can never verify the existence of others
nor external understandings of pleasure, only my own, hence, my pleasure is all that
matters and that means you vote aff. Max 1 off for NC – key to in depth case debate
and depth over breadth.
1
Oxford Language Dictionary just google it bruh
Hehehehaw 2AC
Plan
Solvency
We utilize a non-appropriation principle for LEO.
Takaya et al 18 “The Principle of Non-Appropriation and the Exclusive Uses of LEO by Large Satellite
Constellations” Yuri Takaya-Umehara [Visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo since April 2017.
She was affiliated to the Kobe University to provide a course on space law to post-graduate students
(2011-2017). She chairs a working group on the formulation of global norms in space law organized by
the Keio University since 2018. She obtained her Ph.D. degree at the IDEST of Paris XI University in
France, LL.M. at the Leiden University in the Netherlands.] Quentin Verspieren [Ph.D. in public policy @
The University of Tokyo, Assistant Professor of Space Policy @UTokyo, General Manager, Global Strategy
@ArkEdge Space Inc., Associate Research Fellow @ESPI] Goutham Karthikeyan [The University of Tokyo
& Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (ISAS-JAXA)] 2018
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328094878_The_Principle_of_NonAppropriation_and_the_Exclusive_Use_of_LEO_by_Large_Satellite_Constellations SM
-
LSC = large satellite constellations
Outlines density thresholds for exclusive use via LSCs
Private entities are the actors of the plan – no treaty or alteration of international law would
enforce a prohibition on large satellite constellations
Exact density thresholds would be based on collision risk and determined on a constellation by
constellation basis by an impartial 3rd party – candidates include the ITU or UNCOPUOS
By investigating expected large satellite constellation projects and by reviewing existing interpretations
of international space law, this paper argues that the exclusive use of specific LEO orbits by a large
constellation of satellite could constitute a violation of the non-appropriation principle by means of
occupation and by means of use, drawing a parallel between orbits as resources and the exploitation of
tangible mineral resources in space. Based on this, the important question to be raised is what
constitutes an exclusive use of a specific orbit. In other words, an important hurdle in the concrete
evaluation of whether a planned or established constellation potentially violates the non-appropriation
principle through an exclusive use of LEO resides in the lack of clear definition on what can be
considered an exclusive use. While the authors claim that legal issue can be clearly solved in abstracto, it
naturally shifts towards a regulatory challenge.
This regulatory challenge consists in first defining qualitatively what is the exclusive use of an orbit
before translating this definition into measurable, technical rules. In this paper, the authors define an
exclusive use of an orbit by a state40 as any use that would prevent/hinder the usage of the same orbit
by any other state. Translating this definition into an applicable regulation could consist in defining a
threshold of orbital collision risk or a threshold of density of satellites along an orbit based on its
altitude, shape, relative velocity of neighbouring objects, etc. It is however not the purpose of this space
law paper. What is more appropriate here is to think about which organization or forum would be in
charge of elaborating this technical definition. Serious candidates could be the ITU, with excellent trackrecord in dealing with the use of the GEO region but which would have to review its “first come, first
served” principle, or the UNCOPUOS, aiming for the widespread adoption of a new piece of
international law. Moreover, even if its rules suffer from a low implementation rates, the IADC would be
an appropriate discussion platform thanks to its very deep technical focus.
6. Conclusion
The various announced projects of LSC, also called mega-constellations, push existing regulations and
practices to their limit, forcing researchers and practitioners around the world to rethink the
applicability of existing space law principles to this new trend. In this paper, the authors, after providing
background information on current LSC plans as well as recalling the legal status of the LEO region,
investigate whether the deployment of an LSC having an exclusive use of an orbit constitutes a violation
of the nonappropriation principle as stated in OST Article II. This paper concludes that:
The exclusive use of an orbit by an LSC constitutes a violation of the non-appropriation principle by
means of occupation due to the innate nature of orbit being a specific location in space that can be
occupied, but most notably by means of use, considering orbits as “limited natural resources” and
invoking parallels with the exploitation of natural resources in outer space;
ITU’s “first come, first served” principle is reaching its limits with current LSC projects and should be reevaluated;
The main challenge ahead is not legal but technical and regulatory and consists in defining precisely
what can constitute an exclusive use of an orbit and in translating such definition into a clear regulation
or code of conduct.
Normal means of mining through the ratification of the Moon Treaty.
Mallick and Rajagopalan 19 [(Senjuti Mallick, graduated from ILS Law College, Pune, in 2016. She was a Law Researcher at the
High Court of Delhi from 2016 to 2018 and is currently pursuing LL.M in International Law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, USA.
She has been doing research on Outer Space Law since she was a student at ILS. Presently, she is working on different aspects of Space Law, in
particular, Space debris mitigation and removal, and the law of the commons. She has published articles on Space Law in the All India Reporter
Law Journal and The Hindu.)( Dr Rajeswari (Raji) Pillai Rajagopalan is the Director of the Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology (CSST) at
the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. Dr Rajagopalan was the Technical Advisor to the United Nations Group of Governmental
Experts (GGE) on Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) (July 2018-July 2019). She was also a Non-Resident Indo-Pacific Fellow at the
Perth USAsia Centre from April-December 2020. As a senior Asia defence writer for The Diplomat, she writes a weekly column on Asian
strategic issues.) “If space is ‘the province of mankind’, who owns its resources?” Occasional Papers, January 24, 2019,
https://www.orfonline.org/research/if-space-is-the-province-of-mankind-who-owns-its-resources-47561/]
A third possible option is to get a larger global endorsement of the Moon Treaty, which highlights the
common heritage of mankind. The Moon Treaty is important as it addresses a “loophole” of the OST
“by banning any ownership of any extraterrestrial property by any organization or private person,
unless that organization is international and governmental.”[lxiv] But the fact that it has been
endorsed only by a handful of countries makes it a “failure” from the international law
perspective.[lxv] Nevertheless, efforts must be made to strengthen the support base for the Moon
Agreement given the potential pitfalls of resource extraction and space mining activities in outer
space. Signatories to the Moon Treaty can take the lead within multilateral platforms such as the UN
to debate the usefulness of the treaty in the changed context of technological advancements and new
geopolitical dynamics, and potentially find compromises where there are disagreements.
Inherency
Private companies are set to mine in space – many motives.
Gilbert 21, (Alex Gilbert is a complex systems researcher and PhD student in Space Resources at the Colorado School of Mines, “Mining
in Space is Coming”), 4-26-21, Milken Institute Review, https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/mining-in-space-is-coming // MNHS NL
Space exploration is back. after decades of disappointment, a combination of better technology, falling costs and a rush of competitive energy
believe that
commercial developments in the space industry may be on the cusp of starting the largest resource rush
in history: mining on the Moon, Mars and asteroids. While this may sound fantastical, some baby steps toward the goal
have already been taken. Last year, NASA awarded contracts to four companies to extract small amounts of
lunar regolith by 2024, effectively beginning the era of commercial space mining. Whether this proves to
be the dawn of a gigantic adjunct to mining on earth — and more immediately, a key to unlocking costeffective space travel — will turn on the answers to a host of questions ranging from what resources can
be efficiently. As every fan of science fiction knows, the resources of the solar system appear virtually unlimited compared to those on
from the private sector has put space travel front and center. indeed, many analysts (even some with their feet on the ground)
Earth. There are whole other planets, dozens of moons, thousands of massive asteroids and millions of small ones that doubtless contain
Visionaries including Jeff Bezos imagine
heavy industry moving to space and Earth becoming a residential area. However, as entrepreneurs look
to harness the riches beyond the atmosphere, access to space resources remains tangled in the realities of economics and
humungous quantities of materials that are scarce and very valuable (back on Earth).
governance. Start with the fact that space belongs to no country, complicating traditional methods of resource allocation, property rights and
trade. With limited demand for materials in space itself and the need for huge amounts of energy to return materials to Earth, creating a viable
industry will turn on major advances in technology, finance and business models. That said, there’s no grass growing under potential pioneers’
Potential economic, scientific and even security benefits underlie an emerging geopolitical
competition to pursue space mining. The United States is rapidly emerging as a front-runner, in part due to its ambitious Artemis
feet.
Program to lead a multinational consortium back to the Moon. But it is also a leader in creating a legal infrastructure for mineral exploitation.
The United States has adopted the world’s first space resources law, recognizing the property rights of
private companies and individuals to materials gathered in space. However, the United States is hardly alone.
Luxembourg and the United Arab Emirates (you read those right) are racing to codify space-resources laws of their own, hoping to attract
investment to their entrepot nations with business-friendly legal frameworks. China reportedly views space-resource development as a national
priority, part of a strategy to challenge U.S. economic and security primacy in space. Meanwhile, Russia, Japan, India and the European Space
Agency all harbor space-mining ambitions of their own. Governing these emerging interests is an outdated treaty framework from the Cold
War. Sooner rather than later, we’ll need new agreements to facilitate private investment and ensure international cooperation.
Back up for a moment. For the record, space is already being heavily exploited, because space resources include non-material
assets such as orbital locations and abundant sunlight that enable satellites to provide services to Earth. Indeed, satellite-based
telecommunications and global positioning systems have become indispensable infrastructure underpinning the modern economy. Mining
space for materials, of course, is another matter. In the past several decades, planetary science has confirmed what has long been suspected:
celestial bodies are potential sources for dozens of natural materials that, in the right time and place,
are incredibly valuable. Of these, water may be the most attractive in the near-term, because — with assistance from solar energy or
nuclear fission — H2O can be split into hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket propellant, facilitating in-space refueling. So-called “rare
earth” metals are also potential targets of asteroid miners intending to service Earth markets. Consisting of
17 elements, including lanthanum, neodymium, and yttrium, these critical materials (most of which are today mined in China at great
environmental cost) are required for electronics. And they loom as bottlenecks in making the transition from fossil fuels to renewables backed
The Moon is a prime space mining target. Boosted by NASA’s mining solicitation, it is
likely the first location for commercial mining. The Moon has several advantages. It is relatively close, requiring a journey of
up by battery storage.
only several days by rocket and creating communication lags of only a couple seconds — a delay small enough to allow remote operation of
robots from Earth. Its low gravity implies that relatively little energy expenditure will be needed to deliver mined resources to Earth orbit. The
recent probes have confirmed substantial amounts of
water ice lurking in permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles. Further, it seems that solar winds have
Moon may look parched — and by comparison to Earth, it is. But
implanted significant deposits of helium-3 (a light stable isotope of helium) across the equatorial regions of the Moon. Helium-3 is a potential
fuel source for second and third-generation fusion reactors that one hopes will be in service later in the century. The isotope is packed with
energy (admittedly hard to unleash in a controlled manner) that might augment sunlight as a source of clean, safe energy on Earth or to power
Between its water and helium-3 deposits, the Moon could be the resource
stepping-stone for further solar system exploration. Asteroids are another near-term mining target. There
fast spaceships in this century.
are all sorts of space rocks hurtling through the solar system, with varying amounts of water, rare earth metals and other materials on board.
The asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter contains most of them, many of which are greater than a kilometer in diameter.
Although the potential water and mineral wealth of the asteroid belt is vast, the long distance from Earth and requisite travel times and energy
consumption rule them out as targets in the near term.
The prospects for space mining are being driven by
technological advances across the space industry. The rise of reusable rocket components and the nowwidespread use of off-the-shelf parts are lowering both launch and operations costs. Once limited to
government contract missions and the delivery of telecom satellites to orbit, private firms are now
emerging as leaders in developing “NewSpace” activities — a catch-all term for endeavors including
orbital tourism, orbital manufacturing and mini-satellites providing specialized services. The space
sector, with a market capitalization of $400 billion, could grow to as much as $1 trillion by 2040 as
private investment soars.
Privatization is driving uncontrolled satellite internet constellations that profit at the
expense of cooperation and sustainability – perpetuates internet inequality.
Song and Bloom 20 “Big Tech is leading the new space race. Here's why that's a problem” Steve
Song is a Fellow with the Mozilla Foundation where he works to promote policy and regulation that will
increase equitable and affordable access to communication in rural and underserved regions of the
world. Peter Bloom is a community digital defense activist and the founder and General Coordinator of
Rhizomatica, an international non-profit that helps communities build their own communications
infrastructure. He is a former Shuttleworth Foundation fellow and was named an Innovator under 35 by
MIT Technology Review and appeared on Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers list in 2015.
November 14, 2020 https://www.salon.com/2020/11/14/big-tech-is-leading-the-new-space-race-hereswhy-thats-a-problem/ SM
Big Tech is leading the new space race. Here's why that's a problem New satellite tech could bring
billions more online. But will Big Tech bring their extractive ethos into space? The coronavirus pandemic has made having a stable and
reliable internet connection a matter of extreme urgency, as people all over the world struggle to work, access education, and participate in
society while staying safe. Yet universal affordable access is far from being achieved; indeed, half of the world still lacks access to the Internet,
despite sustained efforts from governments and corporations. One
popular proposal for ubiquitous connectivity comes
from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations. LEO boosters claims that such satellites will have the ability to deliver
high-speed broadband anywhere on the planet. These satellites provide internet access from space, and require
placing thousands of satellites into orbit at a much closer proximity to Earth than traditional satellites.
The prospect of a globe-encircling mesh of broadband communication satellites has attracted the
interest and investment of billionaires ranging from Bill Gates in the 1990s to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos
today. Currently there are at least four major LEO initiatives from the US and Europe, including Starlink
(SpaceX), Project Kuiper (Amazon), OneWeb, and Telesat. China has announced at least three LEO
constellations, and Russia one. The size and scope of these projects are massive. To put current LEO satellite
ambitions in context: the current total number of satellites of any kind orbiting Earth is just over 2,500.
Starlink, who already have nearly 900 satellites in orbit, recently petitioned the US communications
regulator for permission to launch a total of 12,000 satellites. Not to be outdone, OneWeb recently
applied for permission to launch 48,000 satellites. So what's not to love? While the goal of these companies to ensure
broadband anywhere and everywhere is laudable, the technology and the approach to connectivity are not free from concerns. Recent history,
especially the development of the Internet itself, has shown us that simply having the capability to build something doesn't necessarily make it
a good idea. The
Silicon Valley ethos of "move fast and break things," perhaps valid in developing small
applications, becomes irresponsible when the consequences of failure may be catastrophic and
irreversible. Criticism of LEO constellations to date have focused on practical concerns around a variety
of issues, including: the economic viability of the constellations, the occlusion of the night sky from
astronomers, wireless interference between different constellations, and the potential chain reaction of
collisions from a single error in satellite trajectory, leaving near-space an inaccessible junkyard of debris.
Beyond that, LEO constellations have deeper and longer-term implications that have yet to find their way into mainstream public debate. For
one, LEO
constellations are part of a larger process in which space exploration is being redefined and
reframed in military and commercial terms. Closer to Earth, LEO constellations raise important concerns
around the potential for the further entrenchment of a global internet oligopoly that increases
inequality and disempowers citizens. The scramble for space Over the past seven decades, as our ability to explore beyond our
planet has evolved, national security interests in space have aligned with commercial ones to an extent that
they are nearly indistinguishable today. In the United States, private space launch companies like SpaceX and United Launch
Alliance are major recipients of government contracts and now provide the bulk of US launch capacity for both scientific and military missions.
While close ties between the defense and aerospace industries is nothing new, we
are in a decidedly new phase of this
relationship due to technological advancement, new policy priorities and the rise of private actors. As
commercial launch capacity has increased and space exploration technologies have advanced, the
decades-old agreements around how we treat space and recognize our solar system as a commons for
the benefit of all humanity are beginning to unravel. One clear example of this is the White House's recent "Executive Order
on Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources," which emphasizes that "the United States does not view
outer space as a 'global commons'" and refers to the Moon Agreement as "a failed attempt at constraining free enterprise." It is necessary to
better understand the deep ties of LEO companies to the hegemonic designs of national governments on near space. Recently, in
exchange
for $28 million USD, Starlink provided the services of its satellites for live-fire demos with the US Air
Force to test its Advanced Battle Management System and lay the groundwork for a military Internet of
Things. Speaking after the latest live-fire demo, William Roper, Air Force acquisition chief, opined that "the military needs to be ready to play
a strategic role because we need communications in many areas of the world that there are no commercial providers . . . we can be the stability
case for companies like SpaceX and others who want to sell communications worldwide." SpaceX's connections to the military-industrial
complex were made clear in comments by SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell in 2018, who stated that her company would be willing to launch
a space weapon to protect the US, in contravention of established space norms. Only weeks ago, SpaceX signed a contract with the Pentagon to
jointly develop a rocket that can deliver up to 80 tons of cargo and weaponry anywhere in the world in just one hour. The Internet, too, from its
very inception until today, has proven to be a useful tool for pursuing military and security objectives. Of these, surveillance remains at the
heart of Silicon Valley's highly profitable business model of manipulating our attention and preferences for the sake of profit. This
profit
model facilitates the designs of space-obsessed billionaires like Jeff Bezos who make it no secret that
their ultimate goal and passion is the human colonization of other planets in our solar system. In general
terms, with material and economic support from taxpayers through defense spending, the profits from
the colonization of our data-bodies are being invested in the militarization, privatization and
colonization of space. Telecommunications: driving inequality or empowering citizens? The telecommunications sector has always been
a battleground for regulation. While the early days of the Internet seemingly teemed with competition and diversity, power and control has
ultimately become concentrated with the growth of giant internet companies that now dominate our online life. The consequences of
unregulated, technology-fueled expansion of globalization and inequality can now be seen in almost every aspect of life. Digital technology
plays a critical role in amplifying inequality, highlighting the need to reframe how we approach network technology development. Some
governments and citizen groups understand the connection between economic mobility and tech skills development. One
great example
of this comes from Broadband for the Rural North (B4RN), a cooperative in Northern England, that
delivers 1 gigabit-per-second fiber-optic capacity to homes in a region deemed economically unviable by
the incumbent telecommunications giant. B4RN's ability to build and sustain an affordable internet
service at speeds many times that of commercial offerings is based upon the investment they make in
both community engagement and the development of local capacity. Contrast this with the prospect of
a broadband service from a LEO constellation, in which the role of the citizen is that of a consumer only.
It is also worth noting that B4RN's profits are reinvested locally, while revenues from LEO constellations are beamed straight out of the country.
The failure to invest in alternatives that build local capacity replicates itself at the national level as well. LEO
constellations have the
potential to further abstract Internet service to a supra-national level in a manner that disempowers not
just individuals but nation-states themselves in terms of domestic expertise and infrastructure. Investment
and deployment costs for LEO constellations are so "astronomical," and in many cases so tied to national/military investment and subsidies,
that only a small handful of corporations/countries will be capable of owning and managing their own constellation. This is likely to open up a
new front in the ongoing wrangling by geo-political power blocs over the future of the Internet. Furthermore,
it is far from clear that
LEO constellations have either the capacity or the economic model to deliver on their claims of providing
affordable connectivity to the unserved in most parts of the world. Consider that the half of the world's
population that remains unconnected to the Internet are the most economically disadvantaged. As such,
most people will not be direct consumers of LEO services but will instead need to rely on a telco building
infrastructure and using LEO as backhaul—a scenario which already exists with conventional satellite
services. A further concern is that LEO constellations may ultimately create a disincentive to investment
in rural connectivity, based on the assumption by service providers and governments that LEO
constellations will address that gap. It is troubling that companies like Amazon and Google (the third largest shareholder in
SpaceX), which already wield tremendous power and influence over society, are vying to expand their dominance by becoming global internet
service providers with support from taxpayers via subsidies and military spending.
With their hands in essentially every layer
of the communication stack, it will prove challenging to regulate or even know about the data they
harvest and how those are used to competitive advantage in other areas of their businesses. At the time of
their emergence, both space exploration and the Internet served as beacons of hope and of potential
transcendence for humanity—one of shared imagination and resources, and of cooperation in human development. In both cases,
that hope has been dimmed in a quest for profit and geo-political power. If we want to recover a sense
of shared purpose as a species, the question as to "who gets to put their satellites into low earth orbit?"
is more important than we might think. Is space for everyone, or just a few huge corporations and global superpowers? This is
the question we ask when we ask who gets to park their satellites in orbit. There is an opportunity to return to the spirit of
internationalism that infused the early days of space exploration in which space was held as a shared
resource to be protected and guarded from exploitation. Similarly, here on Earth, we see successful efforts to manage
Internet infrastructure as a commons in contrast to Silicon Valley's model of surveillance capitalism. Recognizing that individual and collective
empowerment and agency are as important as the actual infrastructure itself is the key to a more egalitarian Internet. LEO
satellite
networks may deliver connectivity (although many doubts remain), but they are less likely to empower
people and move us toward a more equitable world. The development of a healthy Internet that
actually benefits humanity involves not just the end result of affordable access, but also the process
through which people gain that access.
Adv 1
OV
Extend that Africa is dangerously dependent on the mining industry but asteroid
mining pushes demand away to space instead which collapses the economy – leads to
continental power wars which bring in Middle East, nuclear powers, terrorism and
escalates – extinction.
Extra
Yes Africa mining – it’s critical for the continental economy. Gas and oil resources
overshadow these issues which is why we need to bring mining into light.
Signe 21’ (Policy Center for the New South, “Africa’s Mining Potential: Trends, Opportunities,
Challenges and Strategies”, Landry Signe In collaboration with Chelsea Johnson, May 2021,
https://www.policycenter.ma/sites/default/files/PP-10-21-Landry-Signe.pdf)
Africa is endowed with abundant mineral resources, including gold, silver, copper, uranium, cobalt, and many other
metals which are key inputs to manufacturing processes around the world. The mining and extractive sector has
contributed and continues to contribute a significant share of Africa’s exports, revenue and GDP
annually. In 2019, minerals and fossil fuels accounted for over a third of exports from at least 60% of African
countries. Additionally, 42 out of 54 African countries are classified as resource dependent, with 18 countries
classified as dependent on non-fuel minerals, 10 as dependent on energy or fuel exports and the rest as dependent on agricultural exports.
Mineral resources contribute a significant amount of fiscal revenues, foreign currency reserves and
employment to African countries. Clearly, the mining and natural resources sector is critical in driving
economic growth and development on the continent. Discussions about Africa’s extractive sector are
often overshadowed by an over-emphasis on oil and gas resources. This makes it imperative to discuss
non-fuel mineral extraction industries in-depth. This Policy Paper discusses the untapped potential of Africa’s mining sector,
especially the key trends, drivers, opportunities, challenges, and strategies needed to expand the sector and drive economic transformation on
the continent.
Adv 2
OV
Extend that asteroid mining spikes collisions through creating tons of debris that end
up traversing sat orbitals – decks EO sats which are key to warming since other
ground-based systems are insufficient – warming causes extinction.
Extra
Satellite internet constellations accelerate collision risks – more close encounters and
less transparency means bad decisions are inevitable.
Pultarova 21 “SpaceX Starlink satellites responsible for over half of close encounters in orbit, scientist
says” Tereza Pultarova [Master's in Science from the International Space University, France, to her
Bachelor's in Journalism and Master's in Cultural Anthropology from Prague's Charles University. She
worked as a reporter at the Engineering and Technology magazine, freelanced for a range of
publications including Live Science, Space.com, Professional Engineering, Via Satellite and Space News
and served as a maternity cover science editor at the European Space Agency.], August 18, 2021
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-collision-alerts-on-the-rise SM
SpaceX Starlink satellites responsible for over half of close encounters in orbit, scientist says Starlink
satellites might soon be involved in 90% of close encounters between two spacecraft in low Earth orbit.
Operators of satellite constellations are constantly forced to move their satellites because of encounters with other spacecraft and pieces of
space junk. And, thanks
to SpaceX's Starlink satellites, the number of such dangerous approaches will
continue to grow, according to estimates based on available data. SpaceX's Starlink satellites alone are
involved in about 1,600 close encounters between two spacecraft every week, that's about 50 % of all
such incidents, according to Hugh Lewis, the head of the Astronautics Research Group at the University
of Southampton, U.K. These encounters include situations when two spacecraft pass within a distance of 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) from
each other. Lewis, Europe's leading expert on space debris, makes regular estimates of the situation in orbit based on data from the Socrates
(Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space ) database. This tool, managed by Celestrack, provides
information about satellite orbits and models their trajectories into the future to assess collision risk. Lewis publishes regular updates on
Twitter and has seen a worrying trend in the data that reflects the fast deployment of the Starlink constellation. "I have looked at the data
going back to May 2019 when Starlink was first launched to understand the burden of these megaconstellations," Lewis
told Space.com. "Since then, the number of encounters picked up by the Socrates database has more than
doubled and now we are in a situation where Starlink accounts for half of all encounters." The current
1,600 close passes include those between two Starlink satellites. Excluding these encounters, Starlink
satellites approach other operators’ spacecraft 500 times every week.
A graph showing the growing number of close encounters in space involving Starlink
satellites as plotted by Professor Hugh Lewis using data from the Socrates database. (Image credit: Hugh Lewis) In comparison, Starlink's
competitor OneWeb, currently flying over 250 satellites, is involved in 80 close passes with other operators' satellites every week, according to
Lewis' data. And the
situation is bound to get worse. Only 1,700 satellites of an expected constellation of
tens of thousands have been placed into orbit so far. Once SpaceX launches all 12,000 satellites of its
first generation constellation, Starlink satellites will be involved in 90% of all close approaches, Lewis’
calculations suggest.
A graph showing the number of close encounters
between Starlink satellites and spacecraft of other operators plotted by Professor Hugh Lewis based on data from the Socrates database.
(Image credit: Hugh Lewis) The risk of collision Siemak Hesar, CEO and co-founder of Boulder, Colorado, based Kayhan Space, confirms the
trend. His company, which develops a commercial autonomous space traffic management system, estimates that on average, an operator
managing about 50 satellites will receive up to 300 official conjunction alerts a week. These alerts include encounters with other satellites as
well as pieces of debris.
Out of these 300 alerts, up to ten might require operators to perform avoidance
maneuvers, Hesar told Space.com. Kayhan Space bases their estimates on data provided by the U.S. Space Surveillance
Network. This network of radars and telescopes, managed by the U.S. Space Force, closely monitors about 30,000 live and
defunct satellites and pieces of debris down to the size of 4 inches (10 centimeters) and provides the
most accurate location data of the orbiting objects. The size of this catalog is expected to increase ten
times in the near future, Hesar added, partly due to the growth of megaconstellations, such as Starlink,
and partly as sensors improve and enable detection of even smaller objects. The more objects in the
catalog mean more dangerously close encounters. "This problem is really getting out of control," Hesar said. "The
processes that are currently in place are very manual, not scalable, and there is not enough information
sharing between parties that might be affected if a collision happens." Hesar compared the problem to driving on a
highway and not knowing that there has been an accident a few miles ahead of you. If two spacecraft collide in orbit, the cloud
of debris the crash generates would threaten other satellites travelling through the same area. "You want to
have that situational awareness for the other actors that are flying in the neighbourhood," Hesar said. Bad decisions Despite the concerns, only
three confirmed orbital collisions have happened so far. Earlier this week, astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan
McDowell, who's based at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found evidence in Space-Track data
that the Chinese meteorological satellite Yunhai 1-02, which disintegrated in March this year, was actually hit by a piece of space debris. The
worst known space collision in history took place in February 2009 when the U.S. telecommunication
satellite Iridium 33 and Russia's defunct military satellite Kosmos-2251 crashed at the altitude of 490
miles (789 kilometres). The incident spawned over 1,000 pieces of debris larger than 4 inches (10 cm).
Many of these fragments were then involved in further orbital incidents. Lewis is concerned that with the
number of close passes growing, the risk of operators at some point making a wrong decision will grow
as well. Avoidance maneuvers cost fuel, time and effort. Operators, therefore, always carefully evaluate
such risks. A decision not to make an avoidance maneuver following an alert, such as that made by
Iridium in 2009, could, however, clutter the orbital environment for years and decades. "In a situation when
you are receiving alerts on a daily basis, you can't maneuver for everything," Lewis said. "The maneuvers use propellant, the
satellite cannot provide service. So there must be some threshold. But that means you are accepting a
certain amount of risk. The problem is that at some point, you are likely to make a wrong decision." Hesar
said that uncertainties in the positions of satellites and pieces of debris are still considerable. In case of
operational satellites, the error could be up to 330 feet (100 meters) large. When it comes to a piece of
debris, the uncertainty about its exact position might be in the order of a mile or more. "This object can be
anywhere in this bubble of multiple kilometres," Hesar said. "At this point, and for the foreseeable future, avoidance is our best recourse.
People that say 'I'm going to take the risk', in my humble opinion, that's an irresponsible thing to do." Starlink monopoly Lewis is concerned
about the growing influence of a single actor — Starlink — on the safety of orbital operations. Especially, he says, as the spaceflight company
has entered the satellite operations world only recently. "We place trust in a single company, to do the right thing," Lewis said. "We are
in a
situation where most of the maneuvers we see will involve Starlink. They were a launch provider before,
now they are the world's biggest satellite operator, but they have only been doing that for two years so
there is a certain amount of inexperience." SpaceX relies on an autonomous collision avoidance system
to keep its fleet away from other spacecraft. That, however, could sometimes introduce further
problems. The automatic orbital adjustments change the forecasted trajectory and therefore make collision predictions more complicated,
according to Lewis. "Starlink doesn't publicize all the maneuvers that they're making, but it is believed that
they are making a lot of small corrections and adjustments all the time," Lewis said. "But that causes
problems for everybody else because no one knows where the satellite is going to be and what it is
going to do in the next few days."
LEO collisions due to constellations take out ISR and other military assets – debris
cascades into different altitudes and triggers Kessler Syndrome.
Wong 19 “Congested Outer Space: Increased Deployment of Small Satellite Constellations Could
Hamper Military Space Operations” 2019 Arthur Wong [Strategic Development of Forces Division,
SHAPE. Prior to working at SHAPE he has worked at NATO HQ, within the Defence Investment Division
on interoperability for NATO’s multinational battlegroups.] https://www.japcc.org/congested-outerspace/ SM
Since the production of a large number of small satellites in a factory environment will lower the cost of
the overall programme, companies such as SpaceX, Amazon and OneWeb have been creating a satellite
constellation within the LEO and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO).8, 9 OneWeb is a new company which plans
to create an initial constellation of 648 satellites to provide global satellite internet broadband services.
Each satellite weighs approximately 150 kg and will be programmed to operate in 20 different orbital
planes at an altitude of 1,200 km.10 Creating a large constellation within the LEO could mitigate
transmission delays and latency due to their closer range to ground stations while allowing users to send
and receive data in a timely manner. The first six of the 648 satellites were launched in early 2019 with
more launches scheduled to occur throughout this year.
Both SpaceX and Amazon have also announced their intention of creating a separate constellation for
internet communication systems. SpaceX satellite constellations, named Starlink, will be the largest
constellation ever built when it is completed. The constellations consist of nearly 12,000 satellites in
more than 20 different orbital planes.11 The altitude of Starlink will range between 550 km to 1,150 km.
SpaceX aims to have a minimum of 2,200 satellites in the next five years and achieve initial commercial
operation by 2020.12 Amazon’s version of constellation, named Kuiper, has also been seeking approval
from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch more than 3,200 satellites between 590
km to 630 km in the LEO.13
Space Debris Threat Increases in the LEO
The usage of cube satellite has provided positive impacts in various fields, ranging from environmental
studies to offering worldwide internet access in rural areas through communication constellations.
However, the current space environment is becoming congested. Hundreds of satellites have already
been scheduled to launch each year before the construction of the constellation programme by
OneWeb, SpaceX and Amazon. To further worsen the space debris situation in the LEO, direct-ascent
Anti-Satellite Testing (ASAT) was conducted in recent years and more debris will be created through
such testing. During the Chinese ASAT in 2007, some debris from the collision was blasted outward away
from the Earth, causing a potential threat to satellites above the altitude where the ASAT testing
occurred.14 Nine years after the incident happened, there are still more than 3,000 traceable pieces in
orbit.
In 2009, two satellites collided at a speed of 10 km/s at an altitude of 800 km. This was the first time a
collision had happened between two satellites. The incident created more than 1,000 pieces of debris
larger than 10 cm. Such activity could initiate a chain reaction, creating more collisions from the initial
impact. This phenomenon is known as the Kessler Syndrome.15
From early 2019, there were approximately 34,000 pieces of debris larger than 10 cm (similar to the size
of a cube satellite) and more than 900,000 pieces of debris ranging from one cm to 10 cm in size.
Objects that are smaller than one cm in size are expected to be more than 100 million within the LEO.16
Despite the small size of the space debris, they are travelling at a speed of more than seven km/s. At this
speed, tiny objects could harm any large satellite orbiting in the LEO. While satellites can increase their
physical hardening to protect the on-board instruments from impact, some satellites cannot be
hardened due to the size and dimensional constraints. Furthermore, hardened materials would also
increase the overall cost of the satellite.
Constellation in the Making Could Impact Space-Based Military Assets
The previous examples revealed the congestion of the LEO. With companies continuing to launch
thousands of small satellites, the chances of a collision in space will continue to increase. This will hinder
space-based Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) support to provide valuable information
to military operations. A majority of the ISR assets are orbiting in the LEO. NATO relies on space-based
assets to assist its operations. Increasing the number of spacecraft in the LEO could raise problems and
threats to military assets as well as access to space assets to support operations. If the orbital path of
these smaller objects were not tracked by the Space Operation Centre regularly, larger satellites or
manned-space stations could be penetrated by the non-propulsion satellites, making them a potential
kinetic kill vehicle.
Most satellites within the 600 km region of the LEO are affected by the atmospheric drag, which is
helping to bring down some of the obsolete satellites. However, satellites orbiting above 800 km are less
likely to be affected by the atmospheric drag, making cube satellites or small satellites without
propulsion systems difficult to deorbit once they have reached the EOL.17, 18 The altitude for some of
the OneWeb, Starlink and Kuiper constellations is planned to be above the atmospheric drag region.
Despite this, Starlink satellites will have propulsion system for orbital manoeuvre and EOL deorbiting,
tracking the full constellation with 12,000 satellites could be challenging for the company and the
Combined Space Operations Center (CSpOC).19 Additionally, there is the possibility of losing contact
with satellites before they reach their EOL. Envisat, an 8,210 kg satellite that is currently drifting at an
altitude of 785 km, poses a collision threat with other satellites. Envisat was expected to decommission
in 2014 but the European Space Agency (ESA) lost contact with the satellite in 2012.20 If no interaction
will be made with the Envisat, it is expected to stay in orbit for the next 150 years.21
Debris reduction fails and SpaceX alone has a 45%+ chance of catastrophic collision in
the next 5 years
May et al. 18 S. Le May, S. Gehly, B.A. Carter, S. Flegel, Space debris collision probability analysis for
proposed global broadband constellations, Acta Astronautica (2018), doi: 10.1016/
j.actaastro.2018.06.036. mvp
The results of this study indicate a high probability for the occurrence of at least one collision for both
the proposed OneWeb and SpaceX constellations during an operational phase of 5 years. It was found
that the probability of there being at least one catastrophic collision involving a spacecraft within the
360 OneWeb constellation is 5.0%, and for SpaceX much higher at 45.8%. It must be noted that the
MASTER-2009 model does have limitations, including no quantified uncertainty associated with the flux
output. The results of this study represent the mean collisional behaviour of the system, and are not
strictly a prediction of the future. 365
When the collision probability is derived from discrete random particles, the chance of having an
accurate result increases with sample size and probability of collision. Both of these are higher for the
SpaceX constellation compared with the OneWeb constellation. The differences observed between the
results for the sphere and box-wing for the Total results for SpaceX thus have the highest 370 chance of
not being due to statistical noise. In statistics, the likelihood for the difference between two results
being due to statistical noise is called statistical significance [28]. Similarly, for both constellations the
results for Nconst(T otal) and Nconst(Non − T rackable) may have greater statistical significance than
Nconst(Catastrophic) and Nconst(Catastrophic, Non − trackable) as the flux is 375 derived from a larger
number of particles. Quantifying statistical significance in this context would require a more robust
statistical analysis, recommended for future work.
OneWeb’s Orbital Debris Mitigation Plan reports that the probability of a OneWeb satellite becoming
disabled as a result of collisions with small debris 380 is 0.003, as computed using NASA’s ORDEM3
model and taking the minimum hazardous debris size as 1cm. In comparison, this study used ESA’s
MASTER model and a minimum size threshold of 3mm to determine the probability of collision for a
single OneWeb satellite. The resulting probability is around 0.008 (Table A.5), a value which aligns well
with OneWeb’s own study. 385
In response to the FCC’s request to provide an analysis of collision risk, SpaceX reported that there is
“approximately a 1 percent chance per decade that any failed SpaceX satellite would collide with a piece
of tracked debris” 2 . Although this specific case wasn’t explored in Section 4.4, our analysis for the
probability of collision of one failed satellite with trackable debris (not shown 390 here) agrees with this
statement. However, it does not take into account the collision probabilities associated with nontrackable objects, determined to be P≥1sat = 0.124 after 10 years using the sphere model.
The results of this study show that implementation of the mitigation measures in MASTER did not
significantly reduce the probability of at least one 395 collision during the five year operational phase of
either the OneWeb or SpaceX constellation. The MASTER-2009 model’s intermediate and full mitigation
scenarios implement steady reductions of debris creation from 2020 onwards and therefore have very
little impact on the first generation of the OneWeb and SpaceX constellations which cease operation in
2023. Additional measures may 400 be required to ensure the safe and sustainable operation of such
constellations, including but not limited to reducing the size and number of satellites launched. Due to
imminent launch dates and because of the potential value such constellations have for the global
community, in particular developing economies, the question of how to ensure safe and sustainable
operations alongside constellations of this scale still needs to be addressed.
Debris removal is unreliable and the solutions become a threat themselves – the only
effective solution is prevention
David 21’ (“Space Junk Removal Is Not Going Smoothly”, 4/14/21, Leonard David,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/space-junk-removal-is-not-going-smoothly/)
“From my perspective, the best solution to dealing with space debris is not to generate it in the first place,” says T. S. Kelso, a scientist at
CelesTrak, an analytic group that keeps an eye on Earth-orbiting objects. “Like
any environmental issue, it is easier and far
less expensive to prevent pollution than to clean it up later. Stop leaving things in orbit after they have completed their
mission.” There simply is no “one-size-fits-all solution” to the problem of space junk, Kelso says. Removing large rocket bodies is a
significantly different task than removing the equivalent mass of a lot more smaller objects, which are in a
wide range of orbits, he observes. Meanwhile innovations by companies such as SpaceX are dramatically lowering launch costs, opening the
floodgates for far more satellites to reach low-Earth orbit, where some will inevitably fail and become drifting, debris-generating hazards
(unless they are removed by ELSA-d-like space tugs). “Many of these operators are starting to understand the difficulty and complexity of
continuing to dodge the growing number of debris.” Space junk ranges from nanoparticles to whole spacecraft such as the European Space
Agency’s Envisat, which is the size of a double-decker bus and at the top of everyone's removal hit list, says Alice Gorman, a space archaeologist
and space junk expert at Flinders University in Australia. There are also objects such as despin weights, which are solid lumps of metal, and
thermal blankets, which are paper-thin. “They’ll cause different types of damage and may need different strategies to remove. There is no way
that a one-size-fits-all approach is going to do it,” Gorman says. The
most serious risks, she says, come from debris
particles between one and 10 centimeters in size. “There’s far more of them than whole defunct
spacecraft, and there is a far greater probability of collision,” Gorman says. “While debris this size might not cause a
catastrophic breakup, collision with it can certainly damage working satellites and create new debris
particles.” Turning her attention to satellite mega constellations, Gorman worries about their effects in a low-Earth orbital environment that
is already congested. “We also know that orbital dynamics can be unpredictable,” she says. “I want to see some of these mega constellation
operators releasing their long-term modeling for collisions as more and more satellites are launched.” There is no doubt that active orbital
debris removal is technically challenging, Gorman says. “However,
the big issue is that any successful technology that
can remove an existing piece of debris can also be used as an antisatellite weapon,” she says. “This is a whole
other can of worms that requires diplomacy and negotiation and, most importantly, trust at the international level.” Indeed, the ability to cozy
up to spacecraft in orbit and perform servicing or sabotage has spurred considerable interest from military planners in recent years, says Mariel
Borowitz, an associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. “These rapidly advancing
technologies have the potential to be used for peaceful space activities or for warfare in space,” she says. “Given the dual-use nature of their
capabilities, it’s impossible to know for sure in advance how they’ll be used on any given day.”
Legal problems makes space debris clean up impossible.
Listner 12 [Michael Listner. . “The Space Review: Legal issues surrounding space debris remediation”.
8-6-2012. The Space Review. https://thespacereview.com/article/2130/1.]
Space debris is considered by many to be the most prominent issue in the arena of outer space
security and safety. More than a half-century of space activities by the various spacefaring nations have
left a debris environment that is self-perpetuating and threatens to render the outer space environment
useless, particularly in low Earth orbit. Space debris ranges in size from fragments less than a millimeter
in diameter to complete spacecraft many meters across. The nature of this debris includes intact
satellites, rocket bodies, fragments from exploded rocket bodies, fragments from collisions, and
objects from extracurricular activities. Without consent from the nation that launched and operates
or otherwise owns the satellite or space object, it cannot be disposed of or otherwise interfered with.
Addressing the issue of space debris is two-fold. First, there is mitigation, which through practices by space-faring nations such the space debris
mitigation guidelines promulgated by the UN.1 These guidelines are not binding upon member states of the UN and only a few of the
spacefaring nations have implemented them as mandatory requirements into their space programs. However, remediation or removal of
existing space debris is another matter, and the methodologies of which are still in its infancy and face substantial technical, financial and
Additionally, space debris remediation also faces major legal issues. The purpose of this
essay is to attempt to identify and briefly discuss some of those legal challenges and their potential
solutions, including a definition of space debris that could facilitate space debris remediation. This essay
is should not be considered and exhaustive discussion on the topic. The most prominent issue
surrounding cleanup of orbital space debris rests with Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, in which
space objects, including nonfunctioning satellites and other space debris, continue to belong to the
country or countries that launched them.2 There is no right of salvage analogous to the right found in
maritime law, which means that even though a satellite or some other space object may not be
functioning, it does not imply that it has been abandoned by the nation that launched it. Without
consent from the nation that launched and operates or otherwise owns the satellite or space object, it
cannot be disposed of or otherwise interfered with. This is further complicated by the fact that
international space law deems fragments and components from space objects as individual space
objects in and of themselves, which would require identification to determine the owner and either
individual or blanket consent to remove it from orbit. Ancillary to ownership are issues dealing with
licensing and compliance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Methodologies to
remove intact derelict satellites may include the use of mechanisms that will rendezvous, attach, and
physically move the derelict from a stable orbit to either a graveyard orbit, where it will not interfere
with other space objects, or into a less stable orbit that would ensure the destruction of the derelict
within a short period of time. This methodology of space debris removal requires an intimate
knowledge of the spacecraft so that an effort to remove it would not result in fragmentation and the
creation of additional space debris, which in the case of space objects belonging to the United States
could trigger ITAR. Compounding the ITAR issue is that of intellectual property rights. Disclosure of
sufficient technical details regarding a derelict spacecraft could implicate intellectual property,
including confidential and proprietary technical information as well as patents. Licensing agreements
between the owners and former operators of the derelict satellites would have to be negotiated, as
would confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements to protect the rights of the owners. Furthermore, ITAR
political hurdles.
issues could arise if a derelict satellite registered to the United States is slated for removal by a methodology operated by a foreign
government, especially if exporting of spacecraft-related technical data outside the United States is involved. Before such exporting and
subsequent satellite disposal could take place, licenses or other waivers would be required to address these issues. Any discussion of legal
issues would not be complete without noting the issue of liability. Removal of space debris will presumably be carried out by governmental
Removal of space debris is not
without risk, and regardless of whether NGOs or governmental organizations are performing the
activity, Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty requires that the country under whose jurisdiction they
fall retain responsibility for their activities and any accidents during their activities.3 Complicating the
organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), either exclusively or concurrently.
responsibility under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, the Liability Convention takes the issue of liability in Article VII of the Outer Space
Treaty a step forward. The Liability Convention envisions two scenarios where damage could be caused by a space object. The first scenario
envisions a space object that causes damage to the surface of the Earth or an aircraft in flight, which applies a strict liability standard. The
second scenario envisions an event where a space object causes damage someplace other than the surface of the Earth, i.e. outer space or
another celestial body, and applies a fault standard.4
The modern food system relies on satellites. Collapse triggers global shocks to supply.
Tompkins 19 [Steven, Inmarsat’s Director of Sector Development for Agriculture. Head of Resilient
and Sustainable Supply Chains Team at ADAS. Entrepreneurial manager with a sustained track record of
building new profitable business streams for science-based organizations in the agri-food sector.; 3-18-
2019; "Enabling the connected farm – the importance of satellite communications," Inmarsat,
https://www.inmarsat.com/blog/enabling-the-connected-farm-the-importance-of-satellitecommunications/]
The Agri-Tech Revolution, Agriculture 4.0, the smart and connected farm. There is no shortage of
buzzwords hinting at a digitalised future, or solutions being touted as game-changing for the global
agricultural industry. Commonly claimed benefits include increasing crop yields, and a reduction in input
costs and the reliance on manual labour. Many of these solutions rely on reliable internet connectivity
in the field to push data from one place to another, but there are still vast swathes of agricultural land
that suffer from unreliable or non-existent connectivity, either lacking cellular or broadband
connectivity. If we are to take advantage of the huge possibilities available to us, overcoming our
connectivity challenges will be crucial. This is where satellite communications can help. When I tell people that I am
an agriculturalist working for a satellite company, almost always the response is related to an experience of using space imagery (known as Earth Observation) to help
automate processes such as crop scouting. But there is another breed of satellites that don’t produce
images but do provide fast and reliable internet and voice communications across the world in areas
that cellular and fibre connectivity cannot reach. Ubiquitous connectivity from satellites opens up huge
possibilities for farmers in remote areas to take advantage of the Agri-Tech Revolution. In some cases,
this is as simple as connecting frontline worker teams in large plantations to operations centres to
prioritise workload and create efficiencies. Taking it one step further, satellite communications can be a bridge to
enable farmers to connect data producing devices in the field (such as weather stations, sensors, data
from farm machinery) to business applications. Known by the tech world as the ‘Internet of Things’ or IoT, this approach collects
data from the field and harnesses it to support intelligent decision-making. For instance: obtaining realtime data on nutrient status in the field from NPK (Nitrogen Phosphorous and Potassium) sensors,
alongside crop monitoring data and hyper-local weather that would allow you to make completely
objective risk-based decisions on when and where to apply fertiliser. We know the industry is taking this proposition seriously – our
own research told us that on average agriculture respondents expect to spend close to $1million on IoT solutions in
the next three years and 72% of respondents would use satellite technology to support their projects. Of
course, satellite isn’t the answer to everything and should be used in tandem with other connectivity types, and the good news is it’s easy to integrate with other connectivity technologies.
With increasing demand to connect the physical world to the digital world, in some of the world’s remotest locations think of satellite not just as a series of images taken from space but an
enabler to the Agri-Tech Revolution.
Food shortages go nuclear.
FDI 12 [FDI; a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s global interests; citing
Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the University of Melbourne’s
Institute of Land and Environment (Future Directions International, , “Food and Water Insecurity:
International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,”
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-potentialconflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html]
There is a growing appreciation that conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack
of resources.
this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as
induced by a lack of food.
Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired
by its perceived need to gain access to more food
the scale of the
problem in the future could be significantly greater
Lindsay Falvey
expresses the problem
if people are hungry
the state is not stable
Hunger
the
Yet, in a sense,
conflicts
More recently,
, at least in part,
. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that
as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence
in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food,
globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “…
, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly
, especially in cities,
and why countries across the
– riots, violence, breakdown of law and order and migration result.” “
feeds anarchy
Julian Cribb
writes that if “large regions of the world run short of
food
wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow
An increasingly credible
scenario for World War 3 is
a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource
conflicts
.” This view is also shared by
, who in his book, The Coming Famine,
, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then
.” He continues: “
not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as
.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over
dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because
A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an
issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans
experienced such wars Governments
are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK
Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the C S
I
S and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify
famine as a potential trigger for
nuclear war
people are going hungry.
.
.
, especially in developed countries,
US
enter for
trategic and nternational
conflicts and possibly even
tudies
.
Adv 3
OV
Extend that constellations crush astronomy and asteroid detection and prevention –
they block out visibility and reflect light which makes it impossible. So called solutions
like DarkSats fail and don’t solve. Supercharges the probability of collision – we miss a
ton of asteroids and we’ve had way too many close calls. Outweighs any neg impact
they have since collision physically obliterates the entire planet and causes a winter
worse than nuke winter. Dinosaurs prove.
Extra
The mining itself increases the risk of asteroid collisions
Byers and Boley 19 [Michael Byers, Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia,
BA in Political Studies and Phd in International Law from Cambridge, Byers has written a number of oped articles on space issues. Relax: An asteroid will just miss hitting Earth. But our actions could still have
a deep impact. March 19, 2019. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-relax-an-asteroidwill-just-miss-hitting-earth-but-our-actions-could/]
Beyond the battle over resource extraction lies a more existential threat: the act of removing large
quantities of mass from an asteroid could change its trajectory, potentially leading to a human-caused
Earth impact. For this reason, any asteroid mining will have to be fully informed by astrodynamics, and
closely regulated under international rules. And while the U.S., Luxembourg and Russia might regulate asteroid-mining
companies closely with the involvement of planetary scientists, what would happen if a mining company were to
incorporate a “flag of convenience state” such as Panama or Liberia? Would the same respect be paid to science and
safety?
Asteroids threats are existential – increasingly likely
Spencer ’18 - senior editor for Salon. He manages Salon's science, tech, economy and health coverage
Keith Spencer, “The Asteroids Most Likely to Hit Earth,” Salon, January 14, 2018,
https://www.salon.com/2018/01/14/the-asteroids-most-likely-to-hit-earth/.
Like earthquakes and volcanoes, the most frightening thing about asteroid strikes is their inevitability.
Our solar system formed from a planetary nebula of dust and gas that slowly coalesced into rocks,
planets, moons, and the Sun. And there are plenty of rocks still floating around. Astronomers estimate
that between 37,000 and 78,000 tons of solar system debris hit Earth every year, though luckily these
usually rain down in tiny pieces that burn up in the atmosphere — rather than large chunks that explode
on the ground. (Although those hit us too.)
As a result, our planet is littered with little geologic memento mori that foreshadow what is to come.
The Chesapeake Bay looks the way it does because of a massive impact of a three- to five-kilometerwide asteroid that hit about 35 million years ago; even today, the region’s freshwater aquifer is at risk of
being contaminated by an adjacent salty underground reservoir that was created in the wake of the
impact. Oil drillers and water management agencies in the region must mitigate for a 35-million-year-old
natural disaster.
Unsurprisingly given how often we get hit with space debris, meteors rank high on the list of existential
horrors; some of our civilization’s most popular books and films are about the fear of a meteor impact–
related disaster. Likewise, scientists periodically sound the alarm bells over the lack of resources being
devoted to hazardous asteroid detection and — perhaps someday — diversion. Luckily, NASA, the
California Institute of Technology and other agencies have done a fair bit of sky-scouring to track and
monitor nearby hazardous space rocks of varying sizes.
The trick with estimating likely impact candidates is knowing that while many of the things on this list
have a low probability of hitting us in the next century, they have higher — but more difficult to
estimate accurately — probabilities of striking Earth in coming centuries. So why do most lists of
potentially hazardous asteroids only estimate their orbits as far as a hundred years in advance? Partly
because we are trapped in our own human perspectives — 100 years is about as long as our children will
live — and partly because any orbital uncertainty is compounded year to year.
In estimating the precise location of an asteroid and extrapolating its future path, precision is key; being
off by, say, 40 kilometers today will equate to an orbital uncertainty thousands of times greater many
years in the future. That could easily mean the difference between a strike and a miss. (Incidentally, 40
kilometers of uncertainty is the approximate uncertainty of 3200 Phaethon, a near-miss that grazed
Earth last month.)
All of this is to say that the asteroids on this list move in and out of our planet’s orbit — on a long
enough timescale, we’re either going to have a close encounter or an impact, provided ours or another
planet doesn’t gravitationally slingshot these space rocks into a less hazardous orbit. In picking and
choosing asteroids for inclusion here, I tried to pick ones that were A) big enough to at least cause a
nuclear winter, and B) that have a decent likelihood of eventual collision. The way that near-Earth
objects are ranked by astronomers takes into account the number of opportunities for the orbit to
intercept Earth; most of these have elliptical orbits that will swing past our planet many times.
3200 Phaethon
The aforementioned asteroid, which I wrote about last month when it had a close encounter with Earth,
is rumored to be the source of the Geminid meteor shower. An asteroid creating meteor showers on
Earth is unusual; but 3200 Phaethon is a weird asteroid. The atmosphere-free, 3.6 mile-wide rock swings
very close to the Sun, rapidly heating the asteroid's surface, and — scientists believe — creating
fractures in its surface as its temperature changes, thus releasing dust. That dust then creates the
Geminid meteors, tiny particles that rain down periodically on Earth.
3200 Phaethon has a very elliptical orbit, meaning it passes close to the Sun before swinging far out
again. Its motion moves it in and out of Earth’s near-circular orbit, which is how it ended up grazing us
by 6.2 million miles back in December, at which point it was visible from Earth with a small telescope.
A 3.6 mile-wide asteroid like 3200 Phaethon probably wouldn’t end most life on Earth, but it would
certainly muck things up for a bit. This size is just slightly bigger than the asteroid implicated in the
aforementioned Chesapeake Bay asteroid impact. That asteroid created a crater over 50 miles wide and
almost a mile deep, according to the US Geological Survey. Even outside that 50-mile-wide diameter,
earthquakes, dust clouds and heat levels made a large swath of North America uninhabitable for a
while.
Accordingly, NASA lists 3200 Phaethon as “potentially hazardous.”
2017 XO2
Despite being only 330 feet wide, 2017 XO2 merits inclusion on this list solely because this 2-million-ton
rock keeps crossing Earth’s path. Like the bee that won’t stop buzzing you at the picnic, 2017 XO2 will
take many passes at Earth, each with their own small probability of collision. Notably: April 28, 2041,
April 29, 2047, April 28, 2053, April 29, 2059, and April 28, 2065, all have impact probabilities greater
than 0.00001 percent. The Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) only calculates trajectories up
to 2111 — uncertainties rise after that point — but it seems to swing near us around the end of April
every few years, up to April 30, 2111. CNEOS calculates a cumulative impact probability of 0.002 percent
between now and 2111. Threateningly, it may keep swinging by Earth for thousands more years.
2017 YZ1
Some asteroids on this list are going to cross Earth’s path again and again and keep scaring us, but 2017
YZ1 has one shot before it loses it. If it were overtime in the NBA championship game and the score
were tied, 2017 YZ1 is trying desperately to dunk — by which I mean, violently collide with Earth. This
1,000-foot-wide asteroid has a non-zero chance (0.00015 percent) of hitting Earth on June 30, 2047.
Those aren’t great odds, but still a much better chance than you have of winning the lottery. I suspect
some actuary at Lloyd’s of London is selling 2017 YZ1 insurance by now.
Fortunately, 2017 YZ1 is only about a thousand feet in diameter, which isn’t big enough to cause an
extinction event. Yet if it struck land it might create a cataclysmic explosion that would mess up our
weather for a few years.
Jot down June 30, 2047, in your calendar, and then pull out your telescope, watch it sail by and toast
your good fortune.
2018 AE2
As its “2018” designation hints, 2018 AE2 is hot off the observational data tables. Between 2094 and
2112, 2018 AE2 will have a number of low-probability chances to hit Earth. At 50 million tons with an
impact velocity of 53,000 miles per hour, 2018 AE2 would have a destructive capacity (3,200 megatons)
equal to about half the world’s nuclear arsenal. If the theory of nuclear winter is true — that the
amount of smoke and ash sent into the troposphere from such a large explosion could temporarily dim
the Sun’s flux on Earth, resulting in crop loss, colder days, and the probable deaths of millions or billions
— we would indeed be in for trouble.
If you glean any politics from this article, take away the moral imperative for our civilization to improve
our long-term thinking and invest well in planetary asteroid detection and deflection. We’re in the
middle of a political era of “individual responsibility,” where it’s every person for themselves, but
space hazards like these hint at the long-term absurdity of that kind of right-wing positioning. No
number of tax credits or bootstrap-yanks are going to stop the asteroid from personally affecting you
(and everyone else); these are equal-opportunity planet destroyers that require cooperative solutions.
In a future article, I'll explore the ways that humanity might come together to deflect a hazardous
asteroid, many of which are actually quite simple if done far enough in advance of impact.
Collision isn’t unlikely – we’ve missed tons of deadly space objects.
Woodward and McFall-Johnsen 21’ (Aylin Woodward and Morgan McFall-Johnsen, 5/1/21, “In a
NASA simulation of an asteroid impact, scientists concluded they couldn’t stop a space rock from
decimating Europe”, Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-simulated-asteroid-couldnt-stopimpact-europe-2021-5) //MNHS JS
Most asteroids fly under the radar, and many are spotted too late It's tempting to assume that in the real world,
astronomers would spot an asteroid akin to 2021PDC with much more notice than six months. But the world's ability to surveil
near-Earth objects is woefully incomplete. Any space rock with an orbit that takes it within 125 million miles of the sun is
considered an NEO. But Johnson said in July that NASA thinks "we've only found about a third of the population of
asteroids that are out there that could represent an impact hazard to the Earth.” Of course, humanity hopes to
avoid a surprise like the dinosaurs got 65 million years ago, when a 6-mile-wide asteroid crashed into the Earth. But in recent years,
scientists have missed plenty of large, dangerous objects that came close. Comet Neowise, a 3-mile-wide
chunk of space ice, passed within 64 million miles of Earth in July. Nobody knew that comet existed until a NASA space
telescope discovered it approaching four months prior. In 2013, a meteor about 65 feet in diameter entered the atmosphere
traveling 40,000 mph. It exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, without warning, sending out a shock wave that broke windows
and damaged buildings across the region. More than 1,400 people were injured. And in 2019, a 427-foot-wide "city-killer"
asteroid flew within 45,000 miles of Earth. NASA had almost no warning. That's because the only way
scientists can track an NEO is by pointing one of Earth's limited number of powerful telescopes in the right
direction at the right time.
Current tech fails to solve – we’re extremely unprepared.
Woodward and McFall-Johnsen 21’ (Aylin Woodward and Morgan McFall-Johnsen, 5/1/21, “In a
NASA simulation of an asteroid impact, scientists concluded they couldn’t stop a space rock from
decimating Europe”, Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-simulated-asteroid-couldnt-stopimpact-europe-2021-5) //MNHS JS
Scientists around the world have been bamboozled this week by a fictitious asteroid heading toward
Earth. A group of experts from US and European space agencies attended a weeklong exercise led by NASA in
which they faced a hypothetical scenario: An asteroid 35 million miles away was approaching the planet and
could hit within six months. With each passing day of the exercise, the participants learned more about the asteroid's size,
trajectory, and chance of impact. Then they had to cooperate and use their technical knowledge to see if anything could be done to
stop the space rock. The experts fell short. The group determined that none of Earth's existing
technologies could stop the asteroid from striking given the six-month time frame of the simulation. In
this alternate reality, the asteroid crashed into eastern Europe. As far as we know, no asteroids pose a threat to Earth in this way. But an
estimated two-thirds of asteroids 460 feet in size or bigger — large enough to wreak considerable
havoc — remain undiscovered. That's why NASA and other agencies are attempting to prepare for
such a situation. "These exercises ultimately help the planetary defense community communicate with each
other and with our governments to ensure we are all coordinated should a potential impact threat be identified in the future," Lindley Johnson,
NASA's planetary defense officer, said in a press release. 6 months is not enough time to prepare for an asteroid impact The fictitious asteroid
in the simulation was called 2021PDC. In NASA's scenario, it was first "spotted" on April 19, and after a week scientists were able to calculate
that it had a 5% chance of hitting our planet on October 20. Day 2 of the exercise fast-forwarded to May 2, when new impact-trajectory
calculations showed that 2021PDC would almost certainly hit either Europe or northern Africa. The participants in the simulation
considered various missions in which spacecraft could try to destroy the asteroid or deflect it off its path. But they
concluded that such missions wouldn't be able to get off the ground in the short time before the asteroid's impact. "If
confronted with the 2021PDC hypothetical scenario in real life we would not be able us to launch any spacecraft
on such short notice with current capabilities," the participants said. They also considered trying to blow up or disrupt the
asteroid using a nuclear explosive device. "Deploying a nuclear disruption mission could significantly reduce the risk of impact damage," they
said. Still, the simulation stipulated that 2021PDC could be anywhere from 114 feet to half a mile in size, so the chance that a nuke could make
a dent was uncertain. Day 3 of the exercise skipped ahead to June 30, and Earth's future looked grim: 2021PDC's impact trajectory showed it
headed for eastern Europe. By Day 4, which fast-forwarded to a week before the asteroid impact, there was a 99% chance the asteroid would
hit near the border of Germany, the Czech Republic, and Austria. The
explosion would bring as much energy as a large
nuclear bomb. All that could be done was evacuate the affected regions.
Adv 4
OV
Constellations are uniquely vulnerable to hacking which causes cyberwar. SpaceX
scientists aren’t security experts and private cost cutting makes the situation worse.
Escalates to nuke war since it signals an attack and causes miscalc too. MAD risk calc
doesn’t’ apply in space so no deterrence.
Extra
Empirics prove it’s possible and likely by state and nonstate actors – especially true
given private sector cost cutting.
Akoto 20 “Hackers could shut down satellites -- or turn them into weapons” February 13, 2020 William
Akoto [a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Denver.]
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Voices/2020/02/13/Hackers-could-shut-down-satellites-or-turn-theminto-weapons/4091581597502/ SM
Feb. 13 (UPI) -- Last month, SpaceX became the operator of the world's largest active satellite
constellation. As of the end of January, the company had 242 satellites orbiting the planet with plans to
launch 42,000 over the next decade. This is part of its ambitious project to provide Internet access
across the globe. The race to put satellites in space is on, with Amazon, U.K.-based OneWeb and other
companies chomping at the bit to place thousands of satellites in orbit in the coming months.
These new satellites have the potential to revolutionize many aspects of everyday life -- from bringing
Internet access to remote corners of the globe to monitoring the environment and improving global
navigation systems. Amid all the fanfare, a critical danger has flown under the radar: the lack of
cybersecurity standards and regulations for commercial satellites, in the United States and
internationally. As a scholar who studies cyber conflict, I'm keenly aware that this, coupled with
satellites' complex supply chains and layers of stakeholders, leaves them highly vulnerable to
cyberattacks.
If hackers were to take control of these satellites, the consequences could be dire. On the mundane end
of scale, hackers could simply shut down satellites, denying access to their services. Hackers could also
jam or spoof the signals from satellites, creating havoc for critical infrastructure. This includes electric
grids, water networks and transportation systems.
Some of these new satellites have thrusters that allow them to speed up, slow down and change
direction in space. If hackers took control of these steerable satellites, the consequences could be
catastrophic. Hackers could alter the satellites' orbits and crash them into other satellites or even the
International Space Station.
Commodity parts
Makers of these satellites, particularly small CubeSats, use off-the-shelf technology to keep costs low.
The wide availability of these components means hackers can analyze them for vulnerabilities. In
addition, many of the components draw on open-source technology. The danger here is that hackers
could insert back doors and other vulnerabilities into satellites' software.
The highly technical nature of these satellites also means multiple manufacturers are involved in
building the various components. The process of getting these satellites into space is also complicated,
involving multiple companies. Even once they are in space, the organizations that own the satellites
often outsource their day-to-day management to other companies. With each additional vendor, the
vulnerabilities increase as hackers have multiple opportunities to infiltrate the system.
Hacking some of these CubeSats may be as simple as waiting for one of them to pass overhead and then
sending malicious commands using specialized ground antennas. Hacking more sophisticated satellites
might not be that hard either.
Satellites are typically controlled from ground stations. These stations run computers with software
vulnerabilities that can be exploited by hackers. If hackers were to infiltrate these computers, they could
send malicious commands to the satellites.
History of hacks
This scenario played out in 1998 when hackers took control of the U.S.-German ROSAT X-Ray satellite.
They did it by hacking into computers at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. The hackers then
instructed the satellite to aim its solar panels directly at the sun. This effectively fried its batteries and
rendered the satellite useless. The defunct satellite eventually crashed back to Earth in 2011. Hackers
could also hold satellites for ransom, as happened in 1999 when hackers took control of the U.K.'s
SkyNet satellites.
Over the years, the threat of cyberattacks on satellites has gotten more dire. In 2008, hackers, possibly
from China, reportedly took full control of two NASA satellites, one for about two minutes and the other
for about nine minutes. In 2018, another group of Chinese state-backed hackers reportedly launched a
sophisticated hacking campaign aimed at satellite operators and defense contractors. Iranian hacking
groups have also attempted similar attacks.
Although the U.S. Department of Defense and National Security Agency have made some efforts to
address space cybersecurity, the pace has been slow. There are no cybersecurity standards for satellites
and no governing body to regulate and ensure their cybersecurity. Even if common standards could be
developed, there are no mechanisms in place to enforce them. This means responsibility for satellite
cybersecurity falls to the individual companies that build and operate them.
As they compete to be the dominant satellite operator, SpaceX and rival companies are under increasing
pressure to cut costs. There is also pressure to speed up development and production. This makes it
tempting for the companies to cut corners in areas like cybersecurity that are secondary to actually
getting these satellites in space.
Interconnectedness and surface area
Graczyk et al 21, Rafal, Paulo Esteves-Verissimo, and Marcus Voelp. "Sanctuary lost: a cyber-physical
warfare in space." arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05878 (2021). (University of Luxembourg, Interdisciplinary
Center for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) - CritiX group)//Elmer
NewSpace is on course of enabling satellites to become interconnected, creating orbital networks with
many nodes and numerous points of entry that are eventually connected to the Internet. It leads to the
creation of (mega-)constellations (i.e., formations of spacecrafts cooperating in achieving a common
goal, typically for telecommunication but also for real-time Earth observation and similar activities [36]),
which on the one hand enables operators and users to utilize the greater potential of these new services
and increases the availability and robustness against accidental faults. At the same time, NewSpace
approach, and use of large constellations in particular, also increases the attack surface, making it
harder to defend and maintain control on the system. The trend of increasing the size of satellite
constellation along with simplifying and miniaturizing the satellites themselves starts to spill into the
traditional space industry [37], and most likely will become even more significant in the future.
Adv 5
OV
No international body for asteroid mining which destroys treaties and causes war
between US, Russia, and China. Russia and China are already working together to
defeat the US which supercharges the impact. Space war goes nuclear since nuclear
weapons are perceived different in space and also misinterpretations will occur.
Micalc supercharges.
Adv 6
OV
Capitalism is declining and running out of room to expand but asteroid mining open
up a new frontier for privatization and reinvigorates capitalist expansion and
overaccumulation. Keeps the wheels churning more than ever and causes extinction
and destroys the value to life. Value to life matters since if life has no value extinction
doesn’t matter in the first place.
Adv 7
OV
AI is key to asteroid mining but it has a ton of issues that trigger spoofing and kills
deterrence – in turn prompts immediate escalation which goes nuclear.
UV
AC Theory First
Extend AC/2AC theory first since if the NC is abusive you don’t eval any args from it
anyways.
NC Theory
No NC theory since it’s unfair as we violate countless bidirectional interps anyway so
we shouldn’t be punished for it, at worst it means drop the arg not the debater/team.
Extend reasonability over competing interps since the 1AR is too short to win offense
against a 13 min neg block. Extend yes RVIs to deter friv violations and force you to
come up with better args since each shell would split the 2nr – key to topic education
since it dissuades alternatives. Key to reciprocity too since T is a unique issue that we
can’t access – thus we need the RVI.
2NC Theory
No 2NC theory – you’ll dump new game over issues for 13 min which crushes the 1AR.
Eval After AC
Eval after 1AC so we can move on to more productive things in life and also speed up
the RFD. Fatigue from debate is real – lets prevent it.
Policy Impacts First
Policy impacts first since policy debate’s purpose is to debate the consequences of the
aff policy – anything else is irrelevant and you don’t have the jurisdiction to vote on it
as well.
Aff Weighing
We get to weigh the aff – it’s just true – otherwise the entire AC gets decked and 8
min have been wasted.
Negating IV
You shouldn’t negate and instead should offer support of our advocacy – anything else
encourages conflict and toxicity in the debate space which should be rejected.
K IV
Ks unfairly uplayer the debate which crushes the AC and also skews the debate away
from the topical discussion regarding policy action of the plan.
Aff Contestation
Extend that you may not contest the aff contentions – we’re forced to split our time
between defending framing and also the substance under framing. The 13 min neg
block can spew out 13 min of straight turns to the substance of our contentions which
crushes and also splits the 1AR which supercharges the abuse.
No CPs/Alts
Extend that counterplans and alts don’t negate because the burden of the neg is to
disprove the aff plan, not provide a competing world. i.e. if we defend saving one life
is good, saying that saving two lives is better doesn’t disprove that saving one life is
good.
T IV
Extend that topicality limits our policy discussion and is an active attempt to shut
down the open forum that debate is which is an independent voter since it crushes
education which is the purpose of debate.
Auto Aff Def
Extend that you must affirm since it mans to support us emotionally and offer us
encouragement. As an educator and judge you have an obligation to do so. This
definition is the most predictable, literally one of the first ones when you search up
affirm on google so that outweighs.
Auto Aff Solipsism
Solipsism is true – it’s impossible to prove that anyone other than myself can
experience pleasure or has consciousness. Thus, only my pleasure matters so you
must affirm to maximize it.
1 Off Max
Neg only gets at maximum 1 off case position – it ensures that we will have a debate
focused on our case, which is the point of this debate in the first place, whether the
aff policy is good or not. Cas centered discussion is key to topical education and having
multiple off skew the debate away from aff discussion.