SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS AFF - BEGINNER'S LAB
SPS 1AC ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Inherency: No Funding ................................................................................................................................ 13
Inherency: No Political Will.......................................................................................................................... 14
Advantage 1: Energy Efficiency
SQ Energy Mix Fails ................................................................................................................................... 15
Warming Happening / Anthropogenic ......................................................................................................... 16
Other Alternative Energy Fails .................................................................................................................... 22
SPS Solves Energy Mix .............................................................................................................................. 26
Oil Dependency Bad ................................................................................................................................... 37
Climate Change Bad ................................................................................................................................... 44
SPS Solves Military Readiness ................................................................................................................... 50
SPS Solves Disaster Response .................................................................................................................. 52
SPS Solves Climate Change ...................................................................................................................... 53
Advantage 2: Space Technology
SQ Space Policy Insufficient ....................................................................................................................... 56
SPS Enables Colonization .......................................................................................................................... 57
SPS Catalyzes Militarization ....................................................................................................................... 62
Colonization Good Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 64
Militarization Good Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 66
Militarization Key To Beat China ................................................................................................................. 67
Militarization Key To Leadership ................................................................................................................. 70
Weaponization Inevitable ............................................................................................................................ 73
Militarization Inevitable ................................................................................................................................ 75
Extinction Inevitable Without Colonies ........................................................................................................ 77
Asteroids Add-On ........................................................................................................................................ 80
Solvency
SPS Technologically Feasible..................................................................................................................... 83
Government Implementation of SPS .......................................................................................................... 89
Deployment Details ..................................................................................................................................... 92
Answers To
AT: SPS Costs / Economy .......................................................................................................................... 96
AT: International Backlash ........................................................................................................................ 102
AT: India .................................................................................................................................................... 104
AT: China .................................................................................................................................................. 107
AT: Death Rays ......................................................................................................................................... 109
AT: SPS would be attacked ...................................................................................................................... 111
AT: Breaks Treaties .................................................................................................................................. 112
AT: Privitization ......................................................................................................................................... 113
Case Negative
Alt. Energy Sources to SPS ...................................................................................................................... 115
Oil Dependency Good ............................................................................................................................... 116
Space Weaponization Bad ........................................................................................................................ 117
AT: Colonize or Die ................................................................................................................................... 121
SPS = Death Ray / Weapon ..................................................................................................................... 122
No Solvency: Technical Problems ............................................................................................................ 123
Economy / Spending Links........................................................................................................................ 124
1
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Contention 1: Inherency
Lack of federal investment has undermined SPS development
William John Cox, retired prosecutor and public interest lawyer, author and political activist, March 26, 2011, The
Peoples Voice, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/26/the-race-for-space-solar-energy
Space-solar energy is the greatest source of untapped energy which could, potentially, completely solve the world’s
energy and greenhouse gas emission problems. The technology currently exists to launch solar-collector satellites
into geostationary orbits around the Earth to convert the Sun’s radiant energy into electricity 24 hours a day and to
safely transmit the electricity by microwave beams to rectifying antennas on Earth. Following its proposal by Dr.
Peter Glaser in 1968, the concept of solar power satellites was extensively studied by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). By 1981, the organizations determined that
the idea was a high-risk venture; however, they recommended further study. With increases in electricity demand
and costs, NASA took a "fresh look" at the concept between 1995 and 1997. The NASA study envisioned a trilliondollar project to place several dozen solar-power satellites in geostationary orbits by 2050, sending between two
gigawatts and five gigawatts of power to Earth. The NASA effort successfully demonstrated the ability to transmit
electrical energy by microwaves through the atmosphere; however, the study’s leader, John Mankins, now says the
program "has fallen through the cracks because no 5organization is responsible for both space programs and energy
security." The project may have remained shelved except for the military’s need for sources of energy in its
campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the cost of gasoline and diesel exceeds $400 a gallon. A report by the
Department of Defense’s National Security Space Office in 2007 recommended that the U.S. "begin a coordinate d
national program" to develop space-based solar power. There are three basic engineering problems presented in the
deployment of a space-based solar power system: the size, weight and capacity of solar collectors to absorb energy;
the ability of robots to assemble solar collectors in outer space; and the cost and reliability of lifting collectors and
robots into space. Two of these problems have been substantially solved since space-solar power was originally
proposed. New thin-film advances in the design of solar collectors have steadily improved, allowing for increases in
the efficiency of energy conversion and decreases in size and weight. At the same time, industrial robots have been
greatly improved and are now used extensively in heavy manufacturing to perform complex tasks. The remaining
problem is the expense of lifting equipment and materials into space. The last few flights of the space shuttle this
year will cost $20,000 per kilogram of payload to move satellites into orbit and resupply the space station. It has
been estimated that economic viability of space solar energy would require a reduction in the payload cost to less
than $200 per kilogram and the total expense, including delivery and assembly in orbit, to less than $3,500 per
kilogram. Although there are substantial costs associated with the development of space-solar power, it makes far
more sense to invest precious public resources in the development of an efficient and reliable power supply for the
future, rather than to waste U.S. tax dollars on an ineffective missile defense system, an ego trip to Mars, or $36
billion in risky loan guarantees by the DOE to the nuclear power industry. With funding for the space shuttle ending
next year and for the space station in 2017, the United States must decide upon a realistic policy for space
exploration, or else it will be left on the ground by other nations, which are rapidly developing futuristic space
projects.
2
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Plan Text: The United States federal government
should substantially increase its deployment of space
based solar power satellites. We reserve the right to
clarify.
3
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Advantage 1 is Energy Efficiency
Our current focus on fossil fuels to solve energy demand lacks foresight and promotes
foreign oil dependency.
Mike McDowell, masters of electrical engineering from Villanova University, 2011, “A Balanced Energy Future”,
http://hcpdblog.com/2011/04/19/a-balanced-energy-future/
Our current debates are very narrowly focused on incentives or regulation of specific fuels, pollutants, and
technologies. We’ve lost sight of the forest in fights over the trees. We need to take a step back and address the
larger question of where we want to be decades from now as a country and as an energy leader in a global economy.
If we have an idea of where we want to be decades from now, we can have a much more rational and coherent
process for making policy decisions. By rejecting both the denials and obstruction of the right and the wishful
thinking biases of the far left, we can build a realistic plan to get the U.S. on track to a strong economy as well as a
cleaner energy future. Conservative drill-baby-drill slogans seemed aimed at preserving a status quo in which
America is almost wholly dependent on fossil fuels to power our way of life. But environmentalists are also
responsible for the lack of progress. They have failed to map a realistic course toward a new energy mix, imagining
instead that we can easily leap to an economy powered mainly by renewable fuels. Such projections ignore the high
costs, vast physical footprint, extensive environmental impacts of another sort, intermittent output (requiring
coupling with gas), enormous material requirements, and the sheer physical impossibility of rapidly building up
wind, solar, and hydro power to supply energy needs. Too many on both the left and the right embrace emotional
and pseudo-scientific positions that avoid historic and scientific facts, economic realities, complex ethics, and a true
understanding of our environment.
Investment in SPS shifts the energy focus from fossil fuels to feasible renewable
technologies.
Charles Frank Radley, Master of Science - Systems Engineering, 2009 "Space-beamed solar power," in
AccessScience from McGraw-Hill Companies, http://www.accessscience.com
Energy costs around the world continue to increase unabated. Oil production is projected to peak and decline in the
next decade or two. After that, other fossil fuels will continue to be the cheapest forms of energy for the rest of this
century and into the next. These include coal and natural gas, and possibly offshore methane hydrates. However,
there is increasing concern about the unprecedented acceleration in carbon emission from fossil fuels, and there is
strong interest in alternatives. Currently, nuclear power is the only alternative to fossil fuels that could be deployed
on a global scale, but that has long-term security and waste-disposal concerns. Terrestrial renewable energy sources
continue to be expensive, provide undependable fluctuating power output, and are limited by geography in the scale
at which they can be deployed, so space-based alternatives are worth considering. The cost to launch hardware into
space from Earth is still relatively expensive, and has hitherto prevented the large-scale development of space solar
power. Several factors are making the concept more attractive; principally, the increasing costs of energy, improved
lightweight materials, advances in microwave technology, and declining costs of space launch. Furthermore, there is
concern amongst governments about heavy reliance on foreign sources of energy, and some are considering
unprecedented investments to assure more secure domestic energy sources.
4
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Oil dependency ruins US foreign policy effectiveness, increases the power of adversaries,
encourages economic disruptions, and makes escalation to nuclear conflict more likely.
John Deutch, Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Director of Citigroup, Cummins,
Raytheon, and Schlumberger Ltd., James Schlesinger, Ph.D in Economics from Harvard University, and David
Victor, professor at the University of California, San Diego School of International Relations and Pacific studies
and Ph.D in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006, “National Security
Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency,” http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA507168
The Task Force has identified five major reasons why dependence on energy traded in world markets is a
matter of concern for U.S. foreign policy. We have also examined a sixth, the relationship of military
force structure to oil dependence. First, the control over enormous oil revenues gives exporting countries
the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose U.S. interests and values. Iran proceeds with a program that
appears to be headed toward acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Russia is able to ignore Western
attitudes as it has moved to authoritarian policies in part because huge revenues from oil and gas exports
are available to finance that style of government. Venezuela has the resources from its oil exports to invite
realignment in Latin American political relationships and to fund changes such as Argentina’s exit from
its International Monetary Fund (IMF) standby agreement and Bolivia’s recent decision to nationalize its
oil and gas resources. Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer countries are free to ignore
U.S. policies and to pursue interests inimical to our national security. Second, oil dependence causes
political realignments that constrain the ability of the United States to form partnerships to achieve
common objectives. Perhaps the most pervasive effect arises as countries dependent on imports subtly
modify their policies to be more congenial to suppliers. For example, China is aligning its relationships in
the Middle East (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia) and Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Sudan) because of its desire to
secure oil supplies. France and Germany, and with them much of the European Union, are more reluctant
to confront difficult issues with Russia and Iran because of their dependence on imported oil and gas as
well as the desire to pursue business opportunities in those countries. These new realignments have
further diminished U.S. leverage, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. For example, Chinese
interest in securing oil and gas supplies challenges U.S. influence in central Asia, notably in Kazakhstan.
And Russia’s influence is likely to grow as it exports oil and (within perhaps a decade) large amounts of
natural gas to Japan and China. All consuming countries, including the United States, are more
constrained in dealing with producing states when oil markets are tight. To cite one current example,
concern about losing Iran’s 2.5 million barrels per day of world oil exports will cause importing states to
be reluctant to take action against Iran’s nuclear program. Third, high prices and seemingly scarce
supplies create fears— especially evident in Beijing and New Delhi, as well as in European capitals and
in Washington—that the current system of open markets is unable to ensure secure supply. The present
competition has resulted in oil and gas deals that include political arrangements in addition to commercial
terms. Highly publicized Chinese oil investments in Africa have included funding for infrastructure
projects such as an airport, a railroad, and a telecommunications system, in addition to the agreement that
the oil be shipped to China. Many more of these investments also include equity stakes for statecontrolled Chinese companies. Another example is Chinese firms taking a position in Saudi Arabia, along
with several Western firms, in developing Saudi Arabia’s gas infrastructure. At present, these
arrangements have little effect on world oil and gas markets because the volumes affected are small.
However, such arrangements are spreading. These arrangements are worrisome because they lead to
special political relationships that pose difficulties for the United States. And they allow importers to
believe that they obtain security through links to particular suppliers rather than from the proper
functioning of a global market. We note that the United States, in the past, has also taken decisions to
restrict markets partly due to similar concerns about energy security. For example, when the trans-Alaska
pipeline opened, it included a prohibition against exporting the oil. The hostility toward proposals by the
5
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
<< Deutch Schlesinger acd Victor, 2006, continued >>
Chinese National Overseas Oil Company (CNOOC) to purchase Union Oil of California is seen by some
as denying investment opportunity in the U.S. market in a similar manner to what the United States
decries about other nations’ conduct. The Task Force believes that foreign entities should be able to
purchase U.S. assets provided that the acquisitions meet the criteria established by the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).12 Opening a dialogue with rapidly growing consumers,
notably China and India, can help those consumers gain confidence that will lead to a greater willingness
to allow markets to operate. (We return to this policy recommendation later.) The United States and other
consuming countries have a tremendous interest in maintaining the present open market oil commodity
trading rules. Fourth, revenues from oil and gas exports can undermine local governance. The United
States has an interest in promoting good governance both for its own sake and because it encourages
investment that can increase the level and security of supply. States that are politically unstable and
poorly governed often struggle with the task of responsibly managing the large revenues that come from
their oil and gas exports. The elements of good governance include democratic accountability, low
corruption, and fiscal transparency. Production in fragile democracies, such as in Nigeria, can be
undermined when politicians or local warlords focus on ways to seize oil and gas rents rather than on the
longer-term task of governance. Totalitarian governments that have control over those revenue flows can
entrench their rule. When markets are tight, large oil consumers have tended to become especially
focused on securing supply and ignore the effects of their investments on corruption and mismanagement.
In Sudan, for example, despite civil war and widespread human rights abuses, the Chinese government
and its oil enterprises are funding extensive oil supply and infrastructure projects. China has used its
threat of a veto in the UN Security Council to thwart collective efforts by other countries to manage the
Darfur crisis in Sudan. Similarly, China, India, and several Western European countries continue to invest
in Iran despite the need to contain its nuclear aspirations. Fifth, a significant interruption in oil supply will
have adverse political and economic consequences in the United States and in other importing countries.
When such a disruption occurs, it upends all ongoing policy activity in a frantic effort to return to normal
conditions. Inevitably, those efforts include matters of foreign policy, such as coordination with other
countries to find measures that will mitigate the consequences of the supply disruption. Some of these
responses may be preplanned, such as the coordinated release of strategic reserves, but other responses
will be hurried, ineffectual, or even counterproductive. Sixth, some observers see a direct relationship
between the dependence of the United States on oil, especially from the Persian Gulf, and the size of the
U.S. defense budget. Such a relationship invites the inference that if it were not dependent on this oil, the
United States and its allies would have no interest in the region, and hence it would be possible to achieve
significant reductions in the U.S. military posture. In the extreme, this argument says that if the nation
reduced its dependence, then the defense budget could be reduced as well. U.S. strategic interests in
reliable oil supplies from the Persian Gulf are not proportional with the percent of oil consumption that is
imported by the United States from the region. Until very low levels of dependence are reached, the
United States and all other consumers of oil will depend on the Persian Gulf. Such low levels will
certainly not be reached during the twenty-year time frame of this study.
6
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Advantage 2 is Space Technology
SPS will jump start key space technologies needed for a spacefaring future
James M. Snead, P.E., senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), past
chair of the AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee, and founder and president of the Spacefaring
Institute LLC, 2009, “The vital need for America to develop space solar power”
Successfully developing SSP and building the integrated spacefaring logistics infrastructure necessary to
demonstrate SSP and prepare for serial production of the geostationary platforms can only be successfully
undertaken by a true spacefaring nation. The United States is not there yet because, as the US National Space Policy
emphasizes, we have not yet developed the “robust, effective, and efficient space capabilities” needed for America
to effectively utilize space this century. Planning and executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the
development of SSP will jump-start America on the path to acquiring the mastery of industrial space operations we
need to become a true spacefaring nation. This path will follow our nation’s hard-earned success, as seafarers and
aviators, of building a world-leading maritime industry in the 18th and 19th centuries and an aviation industry in the
20th century. With this new spacefaring mastery, today’s dreams of expanded human and robotic exploration of
space, of humans on Mars, of space colonies, of lunar settlements, and so on, will all move from the realm of
wishful daydreams into an exciting future of actionable possibilities. The goal of nearly all American pro-space
organizations is to make such a future a reality. Energetically supporting the incorporation of SSP into US energy
planning and strongly advocating for the start of the development of SSP is how pro-space organizations can now
take action to make their vision part of America’s broad-based spacefaring future. This is, indeed, a win-win
opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.
SPS deployment allows successful U.S. military development of Space
Taylor Dinnerman, Consultant for the US Defense Department, 2007, “Space Power Satellites and Space
Radar”, The Space Review, accessed online at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/910/1
Almost all of America’s major military space programs are too far along to effectively incorporate the lessons of
China’s ASAT test. SR, due to repeated budget cuts, is the great exception. Other satellite programs that could be
modified to incorporate the needs of the new space warfare requirements include the T-SAT Transformational
Communications project and the possibly the NRO’s problem-plagued Future Imagery Architecture (FIA). The
stealthiness and robustness of all these programs, or their successors, would benefit from being able to draw
electricity from a set of SPSs in GEO. The solar power satellites themselves would not necessarily have to be owned
by the US government. They could be built privately based on a contract that promises that the Defense Department
would buy a given amount of power at a predetermined price. This would be similar to the “power by the hour”
contracts that are sometimes signed with jet engine manufacturers or the privately-financed initiative that the British
RAF has established with a consortium for a new squadron of Airbus refueling tanker aircraft. In GEO an SPS is a
large and conspicuous target. A realistic new space architecture would have to find ways to give both active and
passive protection to such valuable assets. At the same time, these measures must not detract from the commercial
profitability of the operation. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet system is a possible model; airlines buy some planes that
are modified for possible military use in an emergency and the government compensates them for the extra weight
they carry while in normal commercial use. Space solar power is, in the long run, inevitable. The Earth’s economy is
going to need so much extra power over the next few decades that every new system that can be shown to be viable
will be developed. If the US were to develop space solar power for military applications it would give the US
civilian industry a big head start. As long as the military requirements are legitimate, there is no reason why this
cannot be made into a win-win outcome.
7
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
The survival of the human race depends on the creation of space colonies
Sylvia Hui, USA Today Reporter, 2006, “Hawking says humans must go into space to survive”, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-06-13-hawking-humans-space_x.htm
HONG KONG — The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes
elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth,
world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday. The British astrophysicist told a news
conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and
a colony on Mars in the next 40 years "We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to
another star system," added Hawking, who arrived to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for
his lecture planned for Wednesday were sold out. He added that if humans can avoid killing
themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without
support from Earth. "It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival
of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by
a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other
dangers we have not yet thought of."
Every second we delay space colonization means the loss of billions of future human lives
Nick Bostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2003, “Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost
of Delayed Technological Development”, http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even
with the most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the
potential for one hundred trillion potential human beings is lost for every second of
postponement of colonization of our supercluster.[6] II. THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF
DELAYED COLONIZATION From a utilitarian perspective, this huge loss of potential human
lives constitutes a correspondingly huge loss of potential value. I am assuming here that the
human lives that could have been created would have been worthwhile ones. Since it is
commonly supposed that even current human lives are typically worthwhile, this is a weak
assumption. Any civilization advanced enough to colonize the local supercluster would likely
also have the ability to establish at least the minimally favorable conditions required for future
lives to be worth living. The effect on total value, then, seems greater for actions that accelerate
technological development than for practically any other possible action. Advancing technology
(or its enabling factors, such as economic productivity) even by such a tiny amount that it leads
to colonization of the local supercluster just one second earlier than would otherwise have
happened amounts to bringing about more than 10^31 human lives (or 10^14 human lives if we
use the most conservative lower bound) that would not otherwise have existed. Few other
philanthropic causes could hope to mach that level of utilitarian payoff.
8
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Space militarization vital to U.S. hegemony.
J. Michael Waller, reporter for Insight on the News, March 9, 2001, “Militarizing Space”,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_11_17/ai_72274730/
The nation with military control of space will have the capability to control international communications and access
to land, sea and air. If the U.S. should lose its present control of space, it will mark the end of its status as a global
superpower. Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H., was grimly serious. "Whoever controls space will control the destiny of the
Earth," he declared. "And when you look at the options out there, I would ask you, who do you want it to be? Iran?
Russia? Iraq? China?" Smith was raising those tough questions at a recent seminar on space power at the prestigious
Center for Security Policy in Washington. Not given to flamboyant rhetoric, the plainspoken New Hampshireman
continued, "To those who say we can't militarize space, I must say, `Do you want somebody else to do it?'" China
and Russia want to. So do likely or incipient nuclear powers Pakistan, India, Iraq and North Korea. And it isn't just
those with military ambitions, say leading defense authorities. Now, thanks to commercialization of many space
technologies, any individual or group with the cash can buy the hardware and software to cause havoc for U.S.
security interests in space. Space holds the key to U.S. communications -- not only for the military, but for every
single citizen whose news and entertainment, telephone calls, Internet surfing, banking and financial services depend
on satellites. Vulnerable to attack is the entire communications system on which the U.S. economy now depends.
Equally vulnerable is the U.S. mainland itself. Any defense against incoming ballistic missiles -- be they short-range
or strategic rockets with nuclear warheads -- must rely heavily on space-based sensors and, in some cases, spacebased weapons to shoot down the missiles or warheads before they land.
Hegemony maximizes international stability and overcomes the objections of security
competitors.
Bradley Thayer, associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State
University, 2007, “American Empire: A Debate”, Routledge, pg 105
Each country knows it will never be perfectly secure, but that does not detract from the necessity of seeking security.
International politics is a dangerous environment in which countries have no choice but to participate. Any
involvement—from the extensive involvement of the United States to the narrow activity of Switzerland—in this
dangerous realm runs the risk of a backlash. That is simply a fact of life in international politics. The issue is how
much participation is right. Thankfully, thus far the United States recognizes it is much better to be involved so that
it may shape events, rather than to remain passive, having events shaped by other countries, and then adjusting to
what they desire. In contrast to Layne’s argument, maximizing the power of the United States aids its ability to
defend itself from attacks and to advance its interests. This argument is based on its prodigious economic,
ideological, and military power. Due to this power, the United States is able to defeat its enemies the world over, to
reassure its allies, and to dissuade states from challenging it. From this power also comes respect and admiration, no
matter how grudging it may be at times. These advantages keep the United States, its interests, and its allies secure,
and it must strive to maintain its advantages in international politics as long as possible.
9
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Contention 2 is Solvency
Government commitment necessary to spur SSP development and ensure American
leadership
Karen Cramer Shea, Masters in Science Technology and Public Policy with Specialty in Space Policy from the
George Washington University. Attendee of the International Space University Summer Session, Winter 2010,
(Online Journal of Space Communication, Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites, Why Has SPS R&D Received So
Little Funding? http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html)
Space solar power technology is still in its infancy because of the lack of R&D funding and the absence of agency leadership.
Since Dr. Peter E. Glaser came up with the idea for solar power satellites in 1968, this important solution to our global energy
crisis has received only an estimated $80 million[1] in research funding. Both NASA and the DOE have had space solar power
research programs but these have all been disbanded. How can agency interest in and funding for SSP be increased and
sustained? How can launch costs be reduced sufficiently to make space solar power self-supporting so that agency support is no
longer needed? Historical Perspective Over 40 years ago, Dr. Glaser of Arthur D. Little Company first proposed the concept of
placing satellites in geosynchronous orbit to collect energy from the Sun for the purpose of transmitting the energy back to the
earth. Possible implementation of Dr. Glaser's idea was studied by DOE and NASA during the 1970's. In 1975, the Goldstone
Deep Space Communications Complex did experiments in wireless power transmission. In 1999, NASA undertook further
review of space solar power. In 2007, the Pentagon's National Security Space Office issued a report on space based solar power
that included a discussion of its use to power forward military bases. In 2008, the Discovery Channel aired a television
documentary featuring John Mankins and his Japanese colleagues testing wireless power transmission between two Hawaiian
Islands, a key space solar power technology. In 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) announced an agreement to buy 2000
MW of space solar power starting in 2016.[4] Also in 2009, the Japanese made SSP a national priority and indicated they may
spend $21 billion to build a space solar power satellite over the next 30 years.[5] The United States is estimated to have invested
$80 Million (adjusted for inflation) studying SPS since the idea was first proposed. This includes funding from DOE and NASA
for 3 years during the 1970's[2] and the NASA funding in 1999 and 2000.[3] As a comparison, DOE is estimated to have
invested $21 Billion in fusion energy research since the 1950s.[1] Space Solar Power has suffered from a policy dilemma. The
Department of Defense (DOD) wants to use solar power satellites (SPS) to deliver electrical power to its forward military bases
but that agency cannot build them, since SPS is clearly not in its mission. The DOD is developing lasers and microwave beams
for offensive military purposes, but taking a lead in using lasers and microwaves for the beaming of electrical power would be
politically unacceptable. The DOD is very interested in being an SSP customer because this satellite energy application would
dramatically improve efficiency and reduce costs of supplying power to its troops in the field. Another consideration is in
reducing costs in lives, as the generator fuel trucks are easy targets. Space solar power has been studied by both NASA and the
DOE. Unfortunately, NASA considers SSP to be an energy issue and the DOE considers it to be a space issue. Neither is
currently funding SSP research. Added to this, NASA is in crisis with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, while trying to operate
the International Space Station and return to the Moon with a launch system that is behind schedule, over budget and losing
capability. The 2009 Augustine Committee called for a $3 billion increase in the NASA budget just to keep up with its current
commitments. NASA clearly cannot take the lead in SPS research and development. In the past, DOE has been interested in
nuclear technology because of its connection to defense and DOE was interested in distributed systems for renewable energy.
Now the DOE is putting emphasis on clean coal and biofuels. DOE has not shown any renewed interest in Solar Power Satellites.
The DOE thinks launch costs are too high to ever be profitable, and space solar power is unproven both in terms of commercial
viability and safety. To confirm safety and commercial viability requires funding. Many groups are working on reducing launch
costs. SSP development should be funded in anticipation of launch cost reductions. Current Situation The timing would seem
ideal for securing SPS development funding in today's world situation. Energy prices are rising at the same time that the demand
for energy is increasing. Public and scientific concerns about climate change are growing based on current levels of carbon
dioxide, accelerating in the burning of fossil fuels to meet energy requirements. Cap and Trade legislation and renewable energy
mandates are being proposed. Also to be mentioned is the Japanese plan to spend $21 Billion on space solar power development
and the Solaren contract in California with the utility Pacific Gas and Electric to deliver 200 megawatts of electrical energy from
space starting in 2016. The questions now about SPS are mainly not if but specifically who, what, when, where and how best?
For example, is solar voltaic or solar thermal the most efficient approach? Which are the best types of solar collectors to use?
Which types of solar cells best balance cost, mass and durability issues? Which is the best wireless transmission method: lasers or
microwaves? Where and how do we best build the receiving stations? What manufacturing techniques are most scalable? Which
frequency is best for power beaming considering size, electronics, atmospheric and International Telecommunications Union
issues? What safety precautions need to be taken with SPS? How can we transmit the power from place to place safely,
efficiently and economically? When in this century will the cost of energy rise high enough and Moore's law reduce the cost of
the technology sufficiently for space solar power to be profitable? Who will control the SPS market? In 2050, will the U.S. be
10
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
<< Shea 2010 Continues >>
buying power from space from the Japanese or selling it to Saudi Arabia? Which U.S. agency, if any, will take charge of this
issue and invest in space solar power? Proposed Solution Since neither the DOE nor NASA considers space solar power to be in
its mandate and each refuses to fund its development, maybe it is time for Americans to consider whether there are other U.S.
government agencies that might see these developments within their mandate. The Department of Commerce is an agency that
deals with space and is concerned about the nation's energy future. The Commerce Department currently hosts the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world's largest civilian space agencies. Commerce is concerned
with all aspects of the U.S. economy and energy definitely affects the US economy. The Department of Commerce is the perfect
agency to take the lead on space solar power. From its Web site, one can see that Commerce's mission includes "promoting the
Nation's economic and technological advancement," "strengthening the international economic position of the United States,"
"improving comprehension and uses of the physical environment," and "ensuring effective use and growth of the Nation's
scientific and technical resources." Space solar power development will be key to U.S. future economic and technological
development. SPS is an excellent example of a way to help strengthen our international economic position, to improve use of our
physical environment and effectively exploit our scientific and technical resources. Space solar power is clearly within the
mandate of the Department of Commerce. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke is in a good position from which to champion
space solar power development. He was the two-time governor of the State of Washington; thus is very aware of the importance
of aerospace to the U.S. economy since Boeing is a pillar of the state's economy. He has strong leadership skills. The Commerce
Department currently hosts the Office of Space Commercialization, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
National Institute of Standards & Technology, National Telecommunications & Information Administration, National Technical
Information Service and Economic Development Administration. All of these can be expected to contribute to and benefit from
the effort to develop a system of Solar Power Satellites. The Office of Space Commercialization is presently the only civilian
government group interested in space solar power. The Department of Commerce has a history of cooperation with both DOE
and NASA. Today, NOAA works closely with NASA on its weather satellite launches. Gary Locke and Dr. Steven Chu,
Secretary of the Department of Energy, work together well, making many joint appearances. If Commerce will fund SSP
development, the issue of launch costs will still need to be addressed. Launching satellites and related materials into space has
remained extremely expensive for decades because the current market isn't big enough to justify the major investment required to
develop new technology. Given the potential size of this new energy source, it would make sense for the US government to put
money into R&D. It would also help if the government subsidized launch costs for the first four full scale solar power satellites in
return for a percent of the power produced for the life of the satellite. This could help to get the energy market moving in the
direction of space. It may also help to address some of the power needs of our Department of Defense. To meet the demands of
launching the components of four solar power satellites into geosynchronous orbit, the launch industry would have to rapidly upsize. Putting the power of the government behind this effort would assure development of improved facilities and technologies.
Four satellites would allow the SSP technology to go through several generations of improvement while the market was being
established. Once their capabilities are proven, with four electricity generating satellites in orbit, the industry will have a track
record on which to secure investment capital for additional launches. It is hoped that because of the investment and new
technologies applied launch costs will have been lowered. Significance Space solar power is stuck because of two dilemmas, the
difficulty of finding an agency to fund space solar power and high launch costs. NASA considers space solar power to be energy
and the Department of Energy considers space solar power to be space. Space solar power has such huge launch demands that
present launch costs make it unaffordable. Part of the reason that launch costs are so high is that the launch market is small. Since
the market for solar energy from space is huge, the U.S. government should subsidize the launch of the initial four solar power
satellites to drive the launch industry to a new level of capability. The Department of Commerce should be given authority to take
the lead in space solar power development. Space solar power has no serious technical issues standing in its way, but it is facing
crippling policy dilemmas. By taking a new policy approach, we may be able to get out of a decades-long quagmire. Energy and
space are within the mandate of the Department of Commerce. Help with the deployment of four full scale space solar power
satellites will incentivize the launch industry to develop new technologies and more efficient techniques and facilities. The time
is now for the development of space solar power. If the U.S. government commits to it as a matter of public policy, a new SPS
industry will emerge, repaying the public investment many times over. If the U.S. does not do so, Japan, China, India or Russia
will take the lead in space solar power development and the U.S. will continue to send billions of dollars a year abroad to insure
that our energy needs are met.
11
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS 1AC
Solar Power Satellites are sustainable, cheap, and technologically feasible
Lior, Noam Lior, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
Philadelphia, PA, April 2011 “Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis”,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931, Date accessed June 24, 2011
We have analyzed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity production in
solar space power plants using current technology. While space solar power is still way too expensive for launches
from the Earth, there are several technological possibilities to reduce this price. For a large scale application of
orbital power stations both environmental impact and costs can be significantly reduced. The first option is to build
and employ reusable space vehicles for launching the satellites, instead of rockets, which is the main
recommendation by NASA, and the second option is to build the satellites and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon).
An old NASA estimate shows that this would be economical for as few as 30 orbital satellites with 300 GWe of total
power [17]. The costs could be even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and
then uses its produced energy to lift itself into a higher GEO orbit or even to the Moon [35]. If the satellites and
rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that:- The environmental impact of the orbital
solar power plants would become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear
fusion. Measured by CO2 emissions, it would be about 0.5 kg per W of useful power, and this number would even
decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The production cost of the orbital solar power plants could
also become significantly lower than for any Earth-based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion. It is estimated
as about US $1 per W of useful power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope;- The
social impact of cheap and clean energy from space is more difficult to estimate, because space power satellites
seem to be connected to a significant loss of jobs. It is however difficult to estimate the benefits of a large amount of
cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost jobs, and we estimate that
about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1 MW of installed useful power. One could therefore expect a net
positive effect of solar power satellites on sustainability. These effects seem to be the most positive, if thermal
power satellites are used, which are built in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit.
The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages over many other proposed concepts for large
scale energy production on Earth. For example, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of
energy, however even in the best case scenario it can’t become operational before 2040. Solar orbital power concept
can become operational in less than a decade and produce large amounts of energy in two decades. It is also
important that the price as well as environmental impact of solar orbital power are expected to decrease with scale.
In addition to expected increase in employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative to other
sustainable energy sources.
12
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
INHERENCY: NO FUNDING
It is nearly impossible to find sponsors with the low economy
Alan Boyle, MSNBC.com's science editor and awards from the National Academies, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Science Writers, the Space
Frontier Foundation, and the Pirelli Relativity Challenge, 2011, “How serious is space solar power?”,
MSNBC, accessed online at http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/25/6135463-how-seriousis-space-solar-power
"None of them that I know of is at the point of turning steel," said Air Force Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith,
who'll be our guest on Sunday's show. Smith spearheaded a 2007 study for the Defense Departmentthat
laid out a scenario for the military use of space-based solar power, and made a follow-up proposal for a
power-beaming satellite project called "One Lightbulb."
The idea was to beam enough power from space to make just one little LED light shine. Smith figured
that $10 million would be enough to go ahead with the satellite project and learn how to overcome the
technological as well as the international regulatory hurdles that bigger satellites might face. But the
Pentagon didn't go for the idea.
"It's a new mission area," Smith explained, "and in this austere budget era, it's difficult to attract a
sponsor organization."
Development costs are deterring SPS deployment but it is a necessary
investment.
Les Johnson, NASA Physicist, PhD in Applied Science from NYU, Paradise Regained: The Regreening of
the Earth, pg. 114-115
Yes, there is always a catch. This virtually limitless, completely renewable, continuous power system
will be expensive to develop and launch into space. The launch requirements alone, at today's prices,
are astronomical (pun intended). A 4-gigawatt (GW) (4-billion-watt) power station would weigh in
excess of 2 million kilograms and require perhaps twenty launches of NASA'S planned Ares-II rocket
just to get the construction materials into space. Then it would have to be assembled, probably
requiring humans since no matter how capable our robots may be, there is no substitute for having a
person at the site in case something goes wrong. At today's prices, the launch costs alone could
exceed $20 billion. (But with trillions of dollars being used in 2009 to bail out the world's financial
institutions, this seems like a worthwhile and affordable investment!) Then there are the rest of the
infrastructure costs. How much will it cost to build that spacecraft and solar arrays, the antennae, and
the ground support equipment? These costs could easily total in the billions of dollars. For lack of
detailed accounting analysis, let's say this infrastructure cost is on the order of half the launch cost,
placing the total system price at approximately $30 billion. For comparison, using today's dollars, a
coal-fired power plant would cost "only" hundreds of millions of dollars. Space-based solar power is
clearly not cost competitive—yet. Improvements in solar array efficiency seem to be occurring on a
regular basis. As of this writing, inventors are claiming efficiencies greater man 35 percent. Previous
studies of space solar power assumed much lower efficiency solar cells, therefore requiring many
more cells to produce the same amount of power as higher-efficiency ones. With these cells, the
amount of mass to be carried to space will decline, resulting in a decline in the launch cost But it would
have to decline dramatically to make a significant difference in the estimated multibillion-dollar cost.
What can possibly make this affordable? Well, that all depends on the cost of energy and how much of
a value we place on the environment. The cost of energy production is not as simple as dollars, euros,
or yen. What is the cost to the planet of the strip mining required for the coal we burn in our thousands
of power plants? What is the payoff in reduced defense spending that will result from us not having to
depend on the volatile Middle East for oil to generate electrical power? How much is it worth to
eliminate the acid rain associated with the burning of fossil fuels? What benefits will we reap from a
power system mat produces no greenhouse gases? The authors contend that when the real societal
costs are considered, as well as the real monetary cost from end to end, space-based solar power
begins to look like a winner. It is an expensive winner, but a good investment nonetheless.
13
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
INHERENCY: NO POLITICAL WILL
The Problem with SPS Development Is Not Solely Financial, But Political Will
David Boswell, Space Review Journalist, 2004, whatever happened to solar power satellites?
Thespacereview.com
In the 2004 budget the Department of Energy has over $260 million allocated for fusion research.
Obviously the government has some interest in funding renewable energy research and they realize that
private companies would not be able to fund the development of a sustainable fusion industry on their
own. From this perspective, the barrier holding back solar power satellites is not purely financial, but
rather the problem is that there is not enough political will to make the money available for further
development.
14
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SQ ENERGY MIX FAILS
Many Energy Sources that the World Depend On have Already Reached Their Peak.
William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok, 2011, “SOLAR POWER: Industry and Technology
Assessment”, California Institute of Technology
Recent studies regarding “peak oil,” the time when the world oil supply reaches its highest volume before
it declines, suggest a time frame between now and 2016, and multiple scenarios predict a 10% reduction
in production by 2030 [8]. Oil makes up 29% of the current energy supply. While these numbers suggest
that oil will decrease at 0.005% per year, its actual decrease will not be gradual, but instead be a sudden
precipitous drop over the course of only a few years [8], not giving the market enough time to develop a
suitable alternative without having a destructive effect on the global. Coal, also makes up 29% of the
current energy supply. “Peak coal” is estimated by academic sources to be reached in the next few years,
and have been reduced to 50% of peak values by 2047, though significant technological improvement in
mining and refining low quality coal may reduce some of the effects. 25% of the world’s sources of
energy, natural gas is the only resource that is not expected to peak until 2020. However, natural gas is
not commonly shipped over ocean lanes, leading to a natural gas crisis currently in North America, as
domestic (US and Canadian) production is not enough to meet demand, even with the use of
environmentally destructive “shale gas” and other unconventional natural gas resources. North American
peak natural gas could occur as early as 2013. Including the widespread use of environmentally
destructive practices, North American gas production will only increase by 5% by 2025. Nuclear and
renewables, discounting traditional biomass, currently accounts for 8.8% of the world energy supply. If we
assume a low, basic growth in energy demand, by year 2025 there will need to be a 32% increase in
energy supply. If we project a loss of 6.7% by 2025 from fossil fuels, there needs to be an amount of
38.7% of the current energy supply that comes from nuclear and renewables. This amounts to an
increase of 12.8% per year from nuclear and renewables alone. While on the other hand, a 4% annual
increase in energy demand would lead to a necessary 18.5% increase in the renewables and nuclear.
US energy security is threatened, solutions needed.
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
The post‐9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel
to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate
change, American and allied energy source security is now under threat from actors that seek to
destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by
emerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too
dependent on foreign oil, often imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the
problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologies to enhance energy security, reduce
poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets and
free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant
period of time. In March of 2007, the National Security Space Office (NSSO) Advanced Concepts Office
(“Dreamworks”) presented this idea to the agency director. Recognizing the potential for this concept to
influence not only energy, but also space, economic, environmental, and national security, the Director
instructed the Advanced Concepts Office to quickly collect as much information as possible on the
feasibility of this concept. Without the time or funds to contract for a traditional architecture study,
Dreamworks turned to an innovative solution: the creation on April 21, 2007, of an open source,
internet‐based, interactive collaboration forum aimed at gathering the world’s SBSP experts into one
particular cyberspace.
15
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WARMING HAPPENING / ANTHROPOGENIC
The world has hit its highest temperature in this millenia
Associated Press, No Author Given, September 26, 2006,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0926-06.htm
The Earth has been warming at a rate of 0.36 degree Fahrenheit per decade for the last 30
years, according to the research team led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies in New York.That brings the overall temperature to the warmest in the current
interglacial period, which began about 12,000 years ago.The researchers noted that a report in
the journal Nature found that 1,700 plant, animal and insect species moved poleward at an
average rate of about 4 miles per decade in the last half of the 20th century.The warming has
been stronger in the far north, where melting ice and snow expose darker land and rocks
beneath allowing more warmth from the sun to be absorbed, and more over land than water.
Water changes temperature more slowly than land because of its great capacity to hold heat,
but the researchers noted that the warming has been marked in the Indian and western Pacific
Oceans. Those oceans have a major effect on climate and warming that could lead to more El
Nino episodes affecting the weather."This evidence implies that we are getting close to
dangerous levels of human-made pollution," Hansen said in a statement.Few scientists doubt
that the planet has warmed, though some question the causes of the change.Hansen, who first
warned of the danger of climate change decades ago, said that human-made greenhouse gases
have become the dominant climate change factor. The study said the recent warming has
brought global temperature to a level within about one degree Celsius _ 1.8 degree Fahrenheit
_ of the maximum temperature of the past million years."If further global warming reaches 2 or
3 degrees Celsius, we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we
know. The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago,
when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters (80 feet) higher than today,"
Hansen said.
We have met the highest level of carbon dioxide in the past 600,000 years.
Global Energy Network Institute, No Author Given, 2010,
http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/issues/global/environment/index.shtml?gclid=CKbk9Lm5m6o
CFQM-bAodpC9l1w
We've squandered 50 years and in the meantime reached the highest level of carbon dioxide
concentration in 600,000 years. China is adding a 1000-megawatt coal-fired power plant every
week! Texas, a US leader in wind development, now wants to build 11 more coal-fired, carbon
emitting plants -- a surefire pathway to increasing pollution. If we don't change course, the
experts project a doubling of CO2 concentrations and dire consequences.
16
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WARMING HAPPENING / ANTHROPOGENIC
Carbon Emissions ARE Growing/Need Alternative Energy
Martin HOFFERT, Science Magazine Department of Physics, Ken CALDEIRA, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, et al, Published November 1, 2002. <
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5595/981.abstract#aff-1>
Stabilizing the carbon dioxide–induced component of climate change is an energy problem.
Establishment of a course toward such stabilization will require the development within the coming
decades of primary energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere , in addition to
efforts to reduce end-use energy demand. Mid-century primary power requirements that are free of
carbon dioxide emissions could be several times what we now derive from fossil fuels (_1013 watts), even
with improvements in energy efficiency. Here we survey possible future energy sources, evaluated
for their capability to supply massive amounts of carbon emission–free energy and for their
potential for large-scale commercialization. Possible candidates for primary energy sources
include terrestrial solar and wind energy, solar power satellites, biomass, nuclear fission, nuclear
fusion, fission-fusion hybrids, and fossil fuels from which carbon has been sequestered. Non–
primary power technologies that could contribute to climate stabilization include efficiency
improvements, hydrogen production, storage and transport, superconducting global electric
grids, and geoengineering. All of these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit
their ability to stabilize global climate. We conclude that a broad range of intensive research and
development is urgently needed to produce technological options that can allow both climate
stabilization and economic development.
Humans Have Caused Global Warming
Hiroshi MATSUMOTO, Kyoto University, 2009, “Space Solar Power Satellite/Station and the Politics”,
from < http://www.ieice.org/proceedings/EMC09/pdf/21Q1-4.pdf>
In 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) concluded in the Fourth Assessment
Report there is no doubt that human activities have caused the global warming . They estimate surface
air warming in the 21st century as follows; 1) Best estimate for a "low scenario" is 1.8°C with a
likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, 2) Best estimate for a "high scenario" is 4.0 °C with a likely range
of 2.4 to 6.4 °C, 3) A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades
for all scenarios. They conclude that we have to reduce the all long-lived greenhouse gases by 50%.
What is real cause of change of the global environment? Human activities or Human being
itself? We have to consider the cause and solve the answer of social dilemma between the global
environment and human activities. In this paper, we discuss a possibility of space environment
use is most hopeful answer of the social dilemma. kl To solve the social dilemma between the
global environmental issue and human greed, Space Solar Power Satellite/Station (SPS), which
was proposed in 1968 [1], has been studied and developed for the future [2]-[5]. The SPS is one of
the most important systems which are significant for future humanosphere. The SPS is a gigantic solar
power station orbiting in the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) (Fig. 1), in which generated
electric power is transmitted to ground via microwave (microwave power transmission, MPT).
The SPS system has advantage in producing electricity with much higher efficiency compared with a
photovoltaic system placed on the ground because it works night and day and there will be no rain effect.
Very little atmospheric absorption of the microwave has already been proved. However, the SPS will
require higher efficiency of lighter weight solar cells, technologies of higher voltage power
distribution in space plasmas, higher efficiency and higher accuracy huge phased array for the
MPT, and economical rockets.
17
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WARMING HAPPENING / ANTHROPOGENIC
Human activities produce heat-trapping gases.
Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, 2010, “On Global Warming, the Science is
Solid”, Chron, accessed online at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6900556.html
Any time we burn a carbon-containing fuel such as coal or natural gas or oil, it releases carbon dioxide
into the air. Carbon dioxide can be measured coming out of the tailpipe of our cars or the smokestacks of
our factories. Other heat-trapping gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are also produced by
agriculture and waste disposal. The effect of these gases on heat energy in the atmosphere is well
understood, including factors such as the amplification of the warming by increases in humidity.
There is no question that natural causes, such as changes in energy from the sun, natural cycles and
volcanoes, continue to affect temperature today. Human activity has also increased the amounts of tiny,
light-scattering particles within the atmosphere. But despite years of intensive observations of the Earth
system, no one has been able to propose a credible alternative mechanism that can explain the presentday warming without heat-trapping gases produced by human activities.
The higher the levels of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the higher the risk of potentially
dangerous consequences for humans and our environment.
Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, 2010, “On Global Warming, the Science is
Solid”, Chron, accessed online at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6900556.html
A recent federal report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” commissioned in 2008 by
the George W. Bush administration, presents a clear picture of how climate change is expected to affect
our society, our economy and our natural resources. Rising sea levels threaten our coasts; increasing
weather variability, including heat waves, droughts, heavy rainfall events and even winter storms, affect
our infrastructure, energy and even our health.
The reality of these key points is not just our opinion. The national academies of science of 32 nations,
and every major scientific organization in the United States whose members include climate experts,
have issued statements endorsing these points. The entire faculty of the Department of Atmospheric
Sciences at Texas A&M as well as the Climate System Science group at the University of Texas have
issued their own statements endorsing these views (atmo.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/climate-changestatement; www.ig.utexas.edu/jsg/css/statement.html). In fact, to the best of our knowledge, there are no
climate scientists in Texas who disagree with the mainstream view of climate science.
We are all aware of the news reports describing the stolen e-mails from climate scientists and the errors
in the IPCC reports. While aspects of climate change impacts have been overstated, none of the errors or
allegations of misbehavior undermine the science behind any of the statements made above. In
particular, they do not alter the conclusions that humans have taken over from nature as the dominant
influence on our climate.
18
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WARMING HAPPENING / ANTHROPOGENIC
U.S. Green house gas emissions increased
MSNBC Environment, No author given, 12/3/2008, “Greenhouse gas emissions
increase in U.S.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28039737/ns/us_newsenvironment/t/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase-us/#
The amount of U.S. greenhouse gases flowing into the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide
from burning fossil fuels, increased last year by 1.4 percent after a decline in 2006, the
Energy Department reported Wednesday. The report said carbon dioxide, the leading
pollution linked to global warming, rose by 1.3 percent in 2007 as people used more coal,
oil and natural gas because of a colder winter and more electricity during a warmer
summer. Half of the country's electricity is generated by coal-burning power plants. A
shortage of hydropower also contributed to an increase in the demand for fossil fuels,
said the department's Energy Information Administration. The EIA said that in 2007 the
United States produced 8 billion tons of greenhouse gases, compared to 7.9 billion in
2006. The tonnage, presented in terms of "carbon dioxide equivalent" also includes
methane, nitrous oxides and a number of lesser greenhouse gases, although carbon
dioxide accounted for nearly 83 percent of the releases.
GHG Increases seen worldwide.
MSNBC Environment, No author given, 12/3/2008, “Greenhouse gas emissions
increase in U.S.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28039737/ns/us_newsenvironment/t/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase-us/#
Despite a growing concern about the accumulation of heat-trapping pollution that
scientists say is changing the world's climate, the flow of greenhouse gases continue to
increase not only in the United States, but worldwide. U.S. greenhouse gases have
increased 16.7 percent since 1990, or an average of 0.9 percent a year, the EIA report.
Carbon dioxide emissions have increased an average of 1.1 percent a year since 1990.
Globally the increases have been even more dramatic, according to separate findings by
scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They showed carbon dioxide output
worldwide increased by 3 percent from 2006 to 2007 with a 7.5 percent increase in China,
according to data released earlier this year. "We have not been able to turn our emissions
around. We still are increasing our emissions overall," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate
scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Last year, President Bush touted the 2006
reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions as evidence that his largely voluntary efforts
to address climate change was making headway as carbon dioxide releases dropped 1.3
percent between 2005 and 2006. And Bush also noted the continued drop in "carbon
intensity" — carbon dioxide emission increases as related to economic growth — which
has declined steadily since 1990.
19
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WARMING HAPPENING / ANTHROPOGENIC
Sulfur emissions from terrestrial power pants increase global warming
Damian Carrington, Head of Environment at the Guardian newspaper, 07/04/2011, The
Guardian Newspaper, “Sulfur from Chinese power stations ‘masking’ climate change”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/sulphur-pollution-china-coal-climate
The last decade was the hottest on record and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since
1998. But within that period, global surface temperatures did not show a rising trend, leading
some to question whether climate change had stopped. The new study shows that while
greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise, their warming effect on the climate was offset by
the cooling produced by the rise in sulfur pollution. This combined with the sun entering a less
intense part of its 11-year cycle and the peaking of the El Niño climate warming phenomenon.
The number of coal-fired power stations in China multiplied enormously in that period: the
electricity-generating capacity rose from just over 10 gigawatts (GW) in 2002 to over 80GW in
2006 (a large plant has about 1GW capacity). But rather than suggesting that cutting carbon
emissions is less urgent due to the masking effect of the sulfur, Prof Robert Kaufman, at Boston
University and who led the study, said: "If anything the paper suggests that reductions in
carbon emissions will be more important as China installs scrubbers [on its coal-fired power
stations], which reduce sulfur emissions. This, and solar insolation increasing as part of the
normal solar cycle, [will mean] temperature is likely to increase faster."
Drastic increases of GHG emissions come from human activites.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), No Author Given,
2009,
“The Basics of Global Warming”,
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=35215&source=ggadgw35215&gclid=CKbY64KOm6oCFUUZQgody
WZRyg
Today, people have increased by 31 percent the amount of CO2, the chief global warming pollutant,
compared to pre-industrial levels. Today, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any time in the
last 650,000 years. Studies of the Earth’s climate history show that even small changes in CO2 levels
generally have come with significant shifts in the global average temperature. Scientists expect that,
in the absence of effective policies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the global average
temperature will increase, on the low end, 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit , and on the high end, 11.5 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2100. That might not sound like a lot, but even if the temperature change is at the
small end of the predictions, the changes to the climate are expected to be serious: more intense
storms, more pronounced droughts, coastal areas more severely eroded by rising seas. At the high
end of the predictions, the world could face abrupt, catastrophic and irreversible consequences.
20
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WARMING HAPPENING / ANTHROPOGENIC
Large amounts of greenhouse gases are found in atmosphere due to human emissions
Info Please, no author given, 2005
Over the past several decades, rising concentrations of greenhouse gases have been detected in the
Earth's atmosphere. Although there is not universal agreement within the scientific community on the
impacts of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it has been theorized that they may lead to an
increase in the average temperature of the Earth's surface. To date, it has been difficult to note such an
increase conclusively because of the differences in temperature around the Earth and throughout the
year, and because of the difficulty of distinguishing permanent temperature changes from the normal
fluctuations of the Earth's climate. In addition, there is not universal agreement among scientists and
climatologists on the potential impacts of an increase in the average temperature of the Earth, although it
has been hypothesized that it could lead to a variety of changes in the global climate, sea level,
agricultural patterns, and ecosystems that could be, on net, detrimental.
In 2008, total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States were 7,052.6 million metric tons carbon
equivalent, according to 2009 estimates published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Of this
total, 5,839.3 million metric tons, or 83%, was due to carbon emissions from the combustion of energy
fuels—the focus of this report. EIA's Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report (DOE/EIA-0573(2008))
projects that energy-related carbon emissions will continue to rise at an annual rate of .2% to reach 6,207
million metric tons in 2030. Because energy-related carbon emissions are a large portion of total
greenhouse gas emissions, any efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will likely have a significant
impact on the energy sector; however, as discussed later, there are a number of factors outside the
domestic energy market that also affect emissions levels.
21
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FAILS
Alternative energy sources are costly and SBSP advancement is the only
practical option.
Geoffry A. Landis, Ph.D. in Physics at Brown University, 2004, “Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite”,
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf
There are a large number of potential markets for space solar power. The greatest need for new power is
in the industrializing third world; unfortunately, this market segment is by most analyses the least able to
pay. Possibly the most interesting market is third-world "Mega-cities," where a "Mega-city" is defined as a
city with population of over ten million, such as São Paolo, Mexico City, Shanghai, or Jakarta. By 2020
there are predicted to be 26 mega-cities in the world, primarily in the third world; the population shift in the
third world from rural to urban has been adding one to two more cities to this category every year, with
the trend accelerating. Even though, in general, the third world is not able to pay high prices for energy,
the current power cost in mega-cities is very high, since the power sources are inadequate, and the
number of consumers is large. Since the required power for such cities is very high-- ten billion watts or
higher-- they represent an attractive market for satellite power systems, which scale best at high power
levels since the transmitter and receiver array sizes are fixed by geometry. In the future, there will be
markets for power systems at enormous scales to feed these mega-city markets. Therefore, it is very
attractive to look at the mega-city market as a candidate market for satellite power systems. For more
near-term economic feasibility, however, it is desirable to look at electricity markets within the United
States. The economic climate of the United States is more likely to allow possible investment in largescale electric power projects than the poorer "developing" nations, and hence it is more likely that the first
satellite-power projects will be built to service the electrical market in the U.S. Although in the long term
the third-world mega-cities may be the region that has the greatest growth in electrical power demand,
the initial economic feasibility of a space solar project will depend on the ability of such a facility to be
competitive in the U.S. electric market.
Alternative energy sources are expensive and vulnerable to the elements
Arthur P. Smith, member of the American Physical Society and president of he Long Island Space Society,
2004, “The Case for Solar Power from Space”, Volume 16, January-February-March Edition, accessed online
at http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume16/smith.html
Worldwide, more than a trillion dollars a year goes to the energy industry, and utilities routinely
construct multibillion-dollar power plants. The energy industry has a bigger wallet than the entire
U.S. federal discretionary budget. Money is not directly the problem here; profitability is. The
two essential factors in the cost equation are the cost per delivered watt of the solar power
components, and the cost per delivered watt of getting those components to their final destination
in space. Current costs put the capital investment needed for a space solar power system well
above the $2-per watt of competitive terrestrial options such as fission plants and wind turbines.
R&D work is needed to bring these costs to where the vast energy resources of space are within
reach of a large utility project. The cost of components is the first problem here. Current prices
for solar electric power systems are about $2.50 per peak watt, a price that has been declining by
about 7 percent per year for the last few decades. The day/night cycle, non-ideal sun angles,
weathering, and cloud cover reduce power output enough to make the final cost per average watt
$10 or more. Terrestrial solar power is still too expensive for wholesale utility use, but it is now
competitive for homeowner installation in many areas.
22
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FAILS
SBSP effectively collects sunlight, while releasing no emissions
compared to fossil fuels and nuclear power plants.
Lieutenant Colonel Peter Garretson, National Space Society Board of Directors, founder of he NSS
Planetary Defense, Chief of Future Technology Branch for the headquarters of the Air Force, August
2010, “Sky’s no limit: Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership?,
IDSA Occasional Paper, volume number 9, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
In the SBSP concept, very large satellites or constellations of satellites are put into orbit around Earth to
collect sunlight, turn it into electricity and then beam it to receivers on the ground, using safe, low-intensity
radio or light waves optimised for transit through the atmosphere. The reason to go to space is to escape
the low density and capriciousness of ground-based solar power. The sun’s rays are stronger in space 7
before being filtered by the atmosphere at 1,366 W/m2 constant vs. about 1,000 W/m2 at noon in an
equatorial location. There are no clouds or weather to interfere. And in space there is effectively no night
in the orbits of choice, because the satellites only pass behind the Earth’s shadow for brief and
predictable times during equinox. That allows the same area of a solar array to collect as much as 9 times
the energy an equivalent size array will collect in a temperate location on the ground While no energy
source is entirely benign, the SBSP concept has significant things to recommend it for the
environmentally conscious and those wanting to develop green energy sources. An ideal energy source
will not add to global warming, produce no greenhouse gasses, have short energy payback time, require
little in the way of land, require no water for cooling and have no adverse effects on living things. Space
solar power comes very close to this ideal. Almost all of the inefficiency in the system is in the space
segment and waste heat is rejected to deep space instead of the biosphere. 14 SBSP is, therefore, not
expected to impact the atmosphere . The amount of heat contributed by transmission loss through the
atmosphere and reconversion at the receiver-end is significantly less than an equivalent thermal (fossil
fuel), nuclear power plant, or terrestrial solar plant, which rejects significantly more heat to the biosphere
on a per unit (per megawatt) basis. 15 The efficiency of a Rectenna is above 80 per cent (rejects less
than 20 per cent to the biosphere), whereas for the same power into a grid, a concentrating solar plant
(thermal) is perhaps 15 per cent efficient (rejecting 85 (per cent) while a fossil fuel plan is likely to be less
than 40 per cent efficient (rejecting 60 per cent to the biosphere). The high efficiency of the receivers also
means that unlike thermal and nuclear power plants, there is no need for active cooling and so no need to
tie the location of the receiver to large amounts of cooling water, with the accompanying environmental
problems of dumping large amounts of waste heat into rivers or coastal areas.
23
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FAILS
Alternative terrestrial energy sources cannot replace the US dependence on oil
James M. Snead, P.E., senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), past
chair of the AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee, and founder and president of the Spacefaring
Institute LLC, 2009, “The vital need for America to develop space solar power”
Nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, and a modest percentage of wind-generated electrical power
are assumed to provide dispatchable electrical power generation to replace coal- and natural gasfired generators. (dispatchable generation capacity is what utilities require to prevent brownouts
and blackouts while ensuring that customer needs can be met anytime.) Because of the
variability of the wind and ground insolation, most wind-generated electricity and all ground
solar electricity is assumed to be used to produce hydrogen and hydrogen-based synfuels. All
biomass is assumed to be converted to fuels and other oil substitutes.
Even with these optimistic assumptions, these expanded sustainable energy sources would
provide only about 30 percent of the United States’ needed 1,750 GW of 2100 dispatchable
electrical power generation capacity and about 39 percent of the needed 17 billion BOE of 2100
annual fuels production. In the post-easy energy era, the United States would have a shortfall of
about 1,200 GW of dispatchable generation capacity and 11 billion BOE of annual fuels
production despite over 540,000 square kilometers of the continental United States being used
for wind and solar farms. In 2100, with a population that will have nearly doubled, these
optimistic projections of US sustainable energy sources would only provide about the same per
capita energy supply as the United States had in 1900—about one-third of what is currently
being provided.
Using hydropowered energy ruins the fish population.
James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan S.
Golomb, Professor Emeriuts at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2002, Energy and the
Environment, Pg. 171
Hydropower plants can have severe environmental effects. Where a reservoir is formed behind
a dam, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are greatly altered. Downstream of the dam, the
riverine flow is altered, interfering with the ecosystems that have adjusted to the natural variable
river flow pattern. The reservoir interrupts the natural siltation flow in the river and its
contribution to alluvial deposits downstream. The flooding of land that previously served for
agriculture and human habitation may be a significant social and economic loss. The
construction of dams interferes with the migration of anadramous fish and adversely affects their
populations, even where fish ladders are employed. Currently, removal of U.S. hydropower
dams in the Pacific northwest and Maine have been recommended to revive endangered
salmon fisheries.
Using agriculture for energy results in a disruption of the natural ecosystem.
James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan S.
Golomb, Professor Emeriuts at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2002, Energy and the
Environment, Pg. 174.
The use of crops or their residues to supply fuel to replace fossil fuel creates environmental impacts similar to those
associated with agriculture and silviculture: consumption of manufactured fertilizers, spreading of pesticides and
herbicides, soil erosion, consumption of irrigation water, and interference with natural ecosystems. Air emissions
from the combustion of biomass fuels are not always less than those from the fossil fuels they replace.
24
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FAILS
Geothermal energy is poisonous to humans.
James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan S.
Golomb, Professor Emeriuts at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2002, Energy and the
Environment, Pg. 177-178
Geothermal fluids contain dissolved solids and gases that must be disposed of safely. The solids are returned to the
underground reservoir in the reinjected fluid. (Without reinjection, the discharge of geothermal water to surface
waters would adversely affect water quality and possibly produce subsidence in the geothermal field.) Of the
dissolved gases, some of which must be removed from the condenser by steam ejectors (an energy loss), hydrogen
sulfide, sulfur dioxide, and radon, all of which are toxic to humans, must be safely vented.
Wind is not a good source of energy since it is lound, threatens to kill birds, and is aesthictcally displeasing.
James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan S.
Golomb, Professor Emeriuts at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2002, Energy and the
Environment, Pg. 195
There are several environmental drawbacks of wind energy systems. Wind turbines generate audible noise,
somewhat akin to that of helicopters, but much less intense because of their much lower power levels. Nevertheless,
wind turbines are unwelcome noisy neighbors in populated areas but have no adverse effect on livestock operations.
They can, however, kill migrating birds that attempt to fly through the turbine. To some observers they provide
visual blight, especially if located in otherwise undeveloped natural areas.
Tidal power plants disrupt the sensitive marine ecosystems.
James A. Fay, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan S.
Golomb, Professor Emeriuts at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2002, Energy and the
Environment, Pg. 199
The principal environmental effects of tidal power plants are a consequence of the changes to the tidal flow in the
pool and, to a lesser extent, the ocean exterior to the pool. For a single effect plant, the flow into the pool is reduced
by about half, decreasing the intertidal zone by about the same amount and reducing the average salinity of the pool
waters when the pool is an estuary, both of which alter the nature of the original marine ecosystems. The plant also
imposes an impediment to the movement of marine mammals and fish. The patterns of siltation, often a significant
natural process at sites having large tidal ranges, is changed by the presence of a tidal plant. Ship navigation into the
pool is prevented unless a lock is built into the dam. The unpredictable and possibly adverse changes to existing
ecological systems, including fisheries and other wildlife, has weighed heavily in the assessment of proposals for
new tidal power plants.
Nuclear power plants contain radiation, which is very harmful to humans.
Fay, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan S.
Golomb, Professor Emeriuts at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2002, Energy
James A.
and the Environment Pg.149
The greatest risk to humans of nuclear power plant operations is associated with radioactivity, also called ionizing
radiation, because of the creation of ions left by the passage of α, β, and γ rays and neutrons. Radioactivity affects
humans and animals, causing somatic and genetic effects.13 Somatic effects can be acute when an organism is
subjected to large doses of radiation, or chronic when the exposure is at low levels, but over protracted periods.
Acute effects include vomiting, hemorrhage, increased susceptibility to infection, burns, hair loss, blood changes,
and, ultimately, death. Chronic effects, which usually manifest themselves over many years, include eye cataracts
and the induction of various types of cancer, such as leukemia, thyroid cancer, skin cancer, and breast cancer.
Genetic effects may become apparent in later generations but not in the exposed person. These effects are due to
mutations in the genetic material—for example, chromosome abnormalities or changes in the individual’s genes that
make up the chromosomes.
25
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
The energy demand for the world is growing and normal energy sources can not fulfil this
requirement, but solar powered satellites can accomplish this goal.
Dinerman,
2007
Taylor
Senior Editor at the Hudson’s Institute, Monday, May 14,
, “Space
solar power: why do we need it and what do we need to get it?, The Space Review/ May 2007, accessed
online at www.thespacereview.com/article/868/1
The need for a huge new supply of electricity over the next 50–100 years is blindingly obvious. The
alternatives are either a drastic collapse of living standards in the developed world―and no doubt
elsewhere as well―or a radical reduction in the number of humans on this Earth. Probably both. Last
year the academic quarterly Daedalus published an article by Daniel Nocera of MIT in which he laid out a
credible and alarming vision of this world’s future energy demands. He pointed out that in 2002 the whole
world “burned energy at a rate of 13.3 TW [terawatts]” and he calculated that “if 9 billion people adopt the
current standard of living for a US resident… the world would need an astronomical 102 TW of energy in
2050.” He also pointed out that “If everyone adopts Equatorial Guinea’s current living standards, we will
need 30.4 TW by 2050.” Professor Nocera makes it clear that neither conservation nor wind, nuclear,
hydro, or biomass energy sources are going to be able, even when taken together, to fill the demand for
energy that any reasonable standard of living will require. China and India alone will need more energy
than is produced today by the entire planet. Coal, oil, and gas could provide some of the answer but
environmental and security reasons tend to rule out those alternatives. Even if one is skeptical of the
whole anthropomorphic global warming theory, there are good reasons to want to minimize the use of oil
and natural gas and to tread carefully when it comes to using coal as a primary energy source. So his
solution is to go for solar energy in a big way. Above all, he wants us to use it make hydrogen fuel, using
artificial photosynthesis instead of the more familiar photovoltaic process. That requires a number of
scientific breakthroughs that Nocera claims are within reach. One certainly hopes so, but there is an
alternative that is within our technological grasp: space solar power. The scientific and engineering
principles are well understood. The biggest obstacles are cost, of course, and the will to do it. According
to one estimate, large-scale solar electricity production could begin on the Moon within 20 years at a per
kilowatt price of 10 to 15 percent premium over current rates. There are other estimates that tend to be
more optimistic, but this one sounds about right. Solar power from both the Moon and from satellites
would provide energy for operations in space and could be beamed down to Earth using either lasers or
microwaves. The great advantage of beamed power is that it does not have to be transmitted across the
giant transcontinental grids as it done today. Multiple solar power satellites, along with a large set of
arrays on the Moon, would be the basis of a system that would be far more robust and reliable than our
current one, which suffers from occasional blackouts such as the one suffered along the US East Coast in
August 2003, or the terrorist campaign that is being carried out today against the Iraqi electricity grid.
SSP is the most promising energy source for the Earth.
Taylor Dinerman, Consultant for the US Defense Department, 2007, China, the US, and space solar
power, The Space Review, accessed online at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1
If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent
considerable sums over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages
described in the NSSO study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for
international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Information
about planned demonstration projects, particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily
accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should
brief all of the major spacefaring nations, including China.
Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when
China, India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they
now see the West enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale
alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by
both physics and politics. Only space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the
needs of these nations. As a matter of US national security it is imperative that this country be able to
fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is in everyone’s interest.
26
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SPS is the only alternative energy source that can solve the US energy mix
James M. Snead, P.E., senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), past
chair of the AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee, and founder and president of the Spacefaring
Institute LLC, 2009, “The vital need for America to develop space solar power”
We are left with SSP. Unless the US federal government is willing to forego addressing the very real possibility of
energy scarcity in dispatchable electrical power generation, SSP is the one renewable energy solution capable of
beginning engineering development and, as such, being incorporated into such a rational sustainable energy
transition plan. Hence, beginning the engineering development of SSP now becomes a necessity. Of course, rapid
advancements in advanced nuclear energy or methane hydrate recovery or the emergence of a new industrial-scale
sustainable energy source may change the current circumstances favoring the start of the development of SSP. But
not knowing how long affordable easy energy supplies will remain available and not knowing to what extent
terrestrial nuclear fission and renewable energy production can be practically and politically expanded,
reasonableness dictates that the serious engineering development of SSP be started now.
Solar power can provide constant, clean and reliable energy.
Adam Hadhazy, Science Writer, 2009, Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the Light of
Day?, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solarpower-finally-see-the-light-of-day
Why bother harvesting solar energy directly from space? It is abundant, and "you can get [this] power
24/7," says Marty Hoffert, an emeritus professor of physics at New York University. Sunlight is some five
to 10 times stronger in space, and its shine would reach energy-gathering satellites placed into
geostationary (fixed) orbits—the realm of many currently deployed communications spacecraft—more
than 99 percent of the time. SBSP could, according to energy experts, provide constant, pollution-free
power—unlike intermittent wind and cloud cover–sensitive ground-based solar, and without the emissions
of fossil fuels or radioactive waste from nuclear power. "[SBSP] is a disruptive technology [in that] it could
change the whole energy equation," says Frederick Best, director of the Center for Space Power (CSP) at
Texas A&M University in College Station, Tex.
27
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SPS is a great way to provide large amounts of environmental and energy
efficient energy
Karen Cramer Shea, Master of Arts in Science Technology and Public Policy with Specialty in Space
Policy from the George Washington University, 2010, “Space Frontier Foundation on SBSP”, Space
Frontier, accessed online at go,
http://www.spacefrontier.org/Presentations/SFFViewsSBSPReport10Oct07.pdf
There are 6 billion human beings inhabiting this world. Six billion humans who place demands on this Earth. Humans
who want the Western standard-of-living and who justifiably want all the conveniences of modern life. A fundamental
challenge in this century is how to provide for the world’s growing energy needs. While meeting this challenge,
it is vital that we also protect the Earth’s fragile biosphere. Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP, may be part of a combined
solution for both energy and the environment. SBSP has the potential to produce renewable energy in very large
amounts, in an economic and environmentally- friendly manner .The Space Frontier Foundation
commends the National Security Space Office (NSSO) for requesting the study to examine SBSP and the
appropriate roles of government and private industry in its development. The Space Frontier Foundation agrees
with 100% of the recommendations in the NSSO-led study report. The Space Frontier Foundation, which
has opposed many other federally-funded space programs as being wasteful and/or ineffective but strongly
supports a new national initiative for the U.S. Government to finance and incentivize the private
industry development of SBSP.
SPS Can Solve Energy Crisis Along With Many Other Benefits
Jeremy Jacquot, Journalist, 08, Could solar power satellites beam down gigawatts of energy?,
treehugger.com
How pie-in-the-sky is Ben Bova's space satellite scheme? Mr. Bova, the president emeritus of the National Space
Society and a prolific science fiction author, penned a column in last Sunday's Washington Post calling on the next
president to build an armada of solar power satellites (SPS) -- basically large accumulations of solar cells -- to help
meet a substantial chunk of our energy needs. The idea of building orbiting solar systems in space is nothing new
(see my posts about Japan's Space Solar Power Systems and India's space plans); the concept, as described by its
creator, aerospace engineer Peter Glaser, would be a satellite in high orbit (where sunshine is always present) that
would use microwave transmission to beam solar power to receiving stations on Earth. The obvious benefit: a
continuous 24-hour, 365-day supply of solar energy. Powered by solar energy itself, a single SPS could generate up
to 10 gigawatts of power continually, according to Bova. If that's even remotely true, just imagine how much
continuous power a group of these SPSs could provide. The solar power satellite: a costly proposition Things get a bit
trickier when Bova delves into some of the cost issues. For instance, he says that an SPS could deliver electricity at a
cost of only about 8 - 10 cents per kilowatt hour, which would make it very competitive with conventional power
sources. He does recognize that the upfront costs -- both to build the satellite ($1 billion apiece) and to launch it (see:
SpaceX launches) -- would be fairly substantial; launching it into space successfully would be a whole other story.
Over time, as economies of scale take hold and component prices drop, the scheme would begin to look much more
appealing. How long that will take, though, is anybody's guess. We have the technologies in place -- solar, satellite
and microwave -- but putting everything together (and making sure it all works) will be a tremendous challenge.
Assessing the potential spillover benefits Such a large-scale project would definitely provide a boost to our ailing
economy, creating both many new jobs and contracts for a variety of companies, and it would give NASA a worthy
new pursuit. Bova suggests making NASA's primary goal the construction of a demonstration model SPS able to
deliver 10 to 100 megawatts of power by the end of the president's second term. It's hard to imagine either a
President Obama or President McCain having the stomach to fund such a project if it doesn't start making
measurable progress sooner -- 8 years is a long time to wait for a technology that may not even work in practice. Still,
this project may also help spur interest in other space-related technologies and developments and could, in later
years, create an entire new industry around space launchers. If you're interested in reading more about the history of
the SPS, its technology and functional aspects, I recommend you read Wikipedia's (surprisingly) informative page on
the topic. Or, better yet, get your hands on a copy of Ben Bova's "Powersat," a novel all about building the first SPS.
28
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SBSP is a much better energy than nuclear power and is key to stopping fossil
fuels
Al Globus, works at NASA Ames Research Center, 2007, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy
for America and the World?”, Space.com, accessed online at http://www.space.com/3812-solar-powerspace-strategy-america-world.html
The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease
mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of
nuclear materials that will almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear
power with enrichment in an effort to meet their energy needs with carbon neutral sources.
To the extent mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP offers a capability over time
to reduce the rate at which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While
presently hard to store, electricity is easy to transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to both
mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtually all of
America’s energy could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground
transportation, a movement toward plug‐in hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground
transportation to be powered by SBSP electricity. For those applications that favor or rely upon liquid
hydrocarbon fuels, America’s national labs are pursuing several promising avenues of research to
manufacture carbon‐neutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct solar thermal energy or
radiated/electrical SBSP. The lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently split energy‐neutral
feedstocks or upgrade lower‐ grade fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid
hydrocarbons. Put plainly, SBSP could be utilized to split hydrogen from water and the carbon monoxide
(syngas) from carbon dioxide which can then be combined to manufacture any desired hydrocarbon fuel,
including gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel. This technology is still in its infancy, and significant
investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of technical readiness and meet
economic and efficiency goals. This technology enables a carbon‐neutral (closed carbon‐cycle)
hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable sources of power, which can utilize the existing global
fuel infrastructure without modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil
companies. The ability to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a
carbon neutral cycle, is a “total game changer” that deserves significant attention. Both fossil and fissile
sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be
carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of
nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning
internal security mechanisms, it may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United
States might consider the security challenges of wide proliferation of enrichment‐based nuclear power
abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a comparable niche might be
attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence
29
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SPS Has Many Advantages That Will Increase Energy Efficiency
The Oil Drum, 11, Solar Power In Space: Power Satellites, oilprice.com
Power satellites convert sunlight (via photovoltaic or thermal cycle) to electrical power and then turn the
power into microwaves beamed to the ground and converted back to electrical power. Power satellites
are a way of harvesting dilute solar energy with several advantages over the solar PV on the ground or
rooftops: • A system of power satellites scales to human civilization's needs (tens of TW). • They don't
need storage since their location (the 24 hour orbit, geosynchronous or GEO) is illuminated 99% of the
time. (Satellite TV antennas point to a location on that orbit.) • No day-night cycle and no clouds or air
gives power satellites an average advantage of about nine times over the same area of solar collectors
on the ground. • Power satellites use relatively little material. Being in orbit (zero gravity), and no wind
they can be much lighter per kW than collecting sunlight on the ground. • They have a very short energy
payback time.
SPS Is More Efficient Than Other Alternative Energy Sources and Can Help Solve
Global Warming Crisis
Gerard O’Neill, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University, 89, Solar Power by Satellite
Would Solve Ozone Crisis articles.latimes.com
It is the irreversible damage to our biosphere from the greenhouse effect. Every year more than 5,000 megatons of
carbon dioxide, nearly all from the burning of fossil fuels, escape into the atmosphere. That is far more than can be
absorbed by the growth of trees and other plants. In the past 30 years, the burning of fossil fuels has raised the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 10%. A temperate climate depends on the radiating of excess
heat through the Earth's atmosphere. But carbon dioxide traps heat. On our neighboring planet of Venus, the
greenhouse effect has gone wild. There, a carbon dioxide atmosphere keeps the surface temperature above 800
degrees, hot enough to melt lead. A Tuesday headline should have said that solar power provided by satellite would
help alleviate the greenhouse effect. The headline said solar power would solve the ozone crisis, which is incorrect.
There is a solution to the problem if nations act cooperatively, something they have proven they can do if disaster is
the alternative. Reducing our energy usage is not an option, because the production of goods and services is
dependent on maintaining an adequate energy supply. The least-developed industrial nations use only onehundredth as much energy per capita as the most developed, but suffer a living standard a hundred times lower in
consequence. Therefore, we could not reduce energy usage without condemning the majority of the world to
unending poverty. Maintaining the present rate of energy growth in developing nations would require that we
generate more than five times the energy in 2039 that we do now. Obtaining it from fossil fuels would raise the global
temperature drastically, flood coastal areas and reduce already acutely scarce supplies of fresh water. A worldwide
program, over perhaps a period of 50 years, is needed to convert to clean, renewable sources of energy. Energy
used at fixed sites--for industries and homes--can be electric, generated without burning fossil fuels. It is harder to
wean transportation, which consumes 25% of all the energy we use, from gasoline and diesel fuel. But fuels like
methane, propane and butane can be synthesized using recycled carbon dioxide to put energy into portable form.
This becomes practical when central-station electric costs are reduced substantially. In viewing the alternatives for
generating energy without the burning of fossil fuels, we must understand the magnitude of future needs. If nuclear
power were to provide all the energy the world needs by the year 2039, there would have to be 63,000 nuclear
reactors in operation. The examples of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl will not be forgotten quickly and thus make
such an alternative unacceptable to many people. Ground-based solar power cannot be generated in the quantity
needed without paving much of the world with solar cells. That would further raise the Earth's temperature by
increasing the heat that the ground absorbs. Obtaining power from the temperature difference between surface and
deep waters in the tropical oceans would change the global climate profoundly by altering the heat balance at the
ocean's surface. So a fully acceptable system for generating energy must add little to the Earth's heat load, burn no
fossil fuels and avoid nuclear fission or fusion. There is only one method that satisfies all these conditions--the
conversion of solar energy to electric power in high orbit, where sunlight is intense and continuous. Twenty years of
study and experiments confirm that power in high orbit can be sent efficiently to Earth as low-density radio waves.
Antennas in fenced-off regions can transform the radio waves to ordinary electricity. Since more than 90% of the
radio-wave energy is converted to electricity, almost no waste heat need be released to the environment. No fuels are
required, fossil or nuclear.
30
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
Reasons For Change in the Energy Policy/ Sps Recieves 24-hour sunlight
Wolfgang SEBOLDT, German Aerospace Center. “Space-and Earth-based solar power for the growing
energy needs of future generations. Published July 2004.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576504001973
1. Introduction The present primary world power consumption is∼ 12 TW (TW = 1012 W),
and the demand is growing probably to ∼ 18 TW in 2020 [1–3]. The electric share amounts to ∼
1:7 TW today, respectively, 2:6 TW in 2020. European power consumption is correspondingly
smaller (see Tables 1 and 2). Presently about 85% of the primary world power is fossil-fueled with
significant CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. Due to the following reasons there is a strong
requirement for new solutions and a change in the energy policy: • The share of CO2 in the atmosphere
is growing, and future deposition must at least be stabilized within the next decades and possibly reduced
to avoid dramatic consequences from the greenhouse effect. • Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) and nuclear
fuels (fission) get depleted in the long run (beyond 2100); in addition safe storage of waste from nuclear
power plants is an unsolved problem. • The growing power demand (especially from developing
countries) must somehow be satisfied. Averaged over day/night and year, solar radiation delivers to
Earth’s surface a continuous flux between 100 and 300 W=m2, depending on region (e.g. the
larger values are obtained closer to the equator) [8]. The transformation into useful forms of
power (e.g. electricity) is typically performed via solar photovoltaic or solar thermal devices (see
below), where conversion efficiencies to electricity of 15–20% are achieved or can be assumed
for the near to medium-term future [3]. This leads to expected average power densities of 15–60
Wel=m2. Even, considering only the desert areas (∼ 0.3% of the Earth’s surface), on average
several hundred TW of solar radiation power would be available (see Fig.1), so that already a
few percent of the deserts would be sufficient for installations (photovoltaic (PV) or solardynamic) to satisfy the worlds electricity demands [2,8]. One motivation for pursuing SPS is that in
space the Sun’s irradiation can be utilized more efficiently than on Earth due to the independence of the
24-h day-and-night cycle and weather conditions. In GEO, there is a permanent illumination of an SPS all
year long—except for short periods during vernal and autumnal equinoxes. This implies a factor of
almost 5 in favor of an orbital SPS (1368 W=m2 average insolation) compared to the best ground
solar power plants (300 W=m2 average insolation at best). But there is also a drawback: due to
safety considerations only a restricted flux can be allowed on ground for the microwave power
transmission. If the upper limit is the present US standard for continuous exposure (∼ 20
mW=cm2 corresponding to 200 W=m2), the average 0ux on the rectenna would only be as small
as ∼ 100 W=m2 (Figs. 4 and 5). This implies that the incoming continuous microwave power
density from SPS is only half the average continuous natural solar power density on ground.
Therefore, the final conversion efficiencies to electricity are key parameters to evaluate the
required ground area for terrestrial and space concepts which is an important factor. As discussed
above, conversion of microwaves to electricity can be performed with higher efficiency (∼ 80%)
than conversion from solar radiation with PV or TP (∼ 20%). Also, the latter systems are
probably more complex and costly than dipole antennas for microwaves. We arrive at an
advantage of a factor of ∼ 2 in required area on ground for SPS, but the rectenna (dipole) 6eld
must have an additional unsettled area for safety which at least compensates the advantage.
31
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
Sun is the Largest and Longest-Lasting Source of Energy in the Solar System.
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space-based Solar Power As an Opportunity for
Strategic Security”; Report to Director, National Security Space Office Assessment .
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year
(approximately 212 terawatt‐years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known
recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW‐yrs). The enormous
potential of this resource demands an examination of mankind’s ability to successfully capture and utilize
this energy within the context of today’s technology, economic, and policy realities, as well as the
expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space‐based solar power (SBSP) indicates that
there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space
faring, improved environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct
and possess such a capability Our Sun is the largest known energy resource in the solar system. In the
vicinity of Earth, every square meter of space receives 1.366 kilowatts of solar radiation, but by the time it
reaches the ground, it has been reduced by atmospheric absorption and scattering; weather; and
summer, winter, and day‐night cycles to less than an average of 250 watts per square meter.
Space‐Based Solar Power offers a way to break the tyranny of these day‐night, summer‐winter and
weather cycles, and provide continuous and predictable power to any location on Earth. To the extent
mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the
rate at which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to
store, electricity is easy to transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to both mechanical and thermal
energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy could
eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground transportation, a movement toward
plug‐in hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be powered by
SBSP electricity.
SPS provide a more powerful and secure source of energy
Martin, Schwab, Graduate Student at Pittsburgh University, 2002, “Space Solar Power as a
Countermeasure to Weapons of Mass Disruption”,
While space solar power has not been economically viable in the past, new technologies make this
renewable energy source a promising countermeasure to terrorist sabotage of U.S. and global energy
grids. This paper will also discuss the potential diplomatic advantage that investment in space solar
power might have for U.S. relations with countries in the developing world. A significant vulnerability to
advanced societies is the interconnectedness of power sub stations and high-voltage power lines (the
electricity grid). Both of these targets can be easily disabled or destroyed by a well-coordinated and small
group of people. Tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines are strung across North America. Much
of this network is located in remote locations and is accessible by four-wheel drive.1 Since September 11,
2001, federal officials have removed information concerning the operational status of nuclear power
plants and certain maps of the nation’s infrastructure. However, some search engines still save
information from old websites.2 Even without the threat of sabotage, vast and interconnected electricity
grids of “advanced” civilizations are susceptible to automatic breakdown. In August of 1996, the Big Eddy
transmission line in northern Oregon failed and offloaded to other networks, also at full capacity. This
event caused a series of overloads down the West Coast of the United States that triggered blackouts
affecting 4 million people in nine states.3 Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge issued a conceptual
phrase that organizes his efforts at a press conference held on October 25, 2001. His phrase,
“modernize, mobilize and mitigate” would seem to apply to a rapid conversion to Space Solar Power
(SSP).
32
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SBSP uses the most efficient supply of the Earth’s resources.
Energy Bulletin, no author given, 2009, “Space-based Solar Power?”,
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48694
A 2007 study by the Pentagon’s National Security Space Office which included representatives from
DOE/NREL, DARPA, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin found that a one-kilometer-wide band of space in
earth orbit receives enough solar energy in just one year (approximately 212 terawatt-years) nearly equal
to “the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today”
(approximately 250 TW-yrs). The Pentagon study suggested such a system could be tested as early as
2012, with the likely first customer being the US military. There are a number of key advantages that
make space based solar power an interesting alternative to ground-based solar power: There is more
energy to be collected - the sun is 8-10 times more intense in orbit than on the surface of the Earth.
Space based systems can collect energy almost around the clock. Ground-based systems suffer from
weather phenomena such as clouds, precipitation, and dust - space based system do not (though the
increasing amount of junk in orbit poses a similar hazard). Real estate costs are minimal - the only land
that need be acquired is the land for the receiving station. Transmission line costs are greatly reduced
compared to remote generation facilities if the ground station is located near existing transmission lines.
SPS is more efficient at converting solar energy and can displace fossil fuel use
Corey Binns, Writer at “Popular Science”, July 2011, "Pace-Based Solar Power: Satellites
Could Gather Energy from the Sun and Beam It down to Earth." July 20th 2011, accessed offline
at the Green Library, Stanford, CA
Solvency Evidence
On the ground, solar power has its limitations. Solar cells are not especially efficient. It rains. The sun disappears at
night. A space-based solar panel can generate five times the energy of a similar panel on Earth by circumventing both
weather and hours lost to darkness. A 2007 study by the National Space Society estimates that a half-mile-wide band
of photovoltaics in geosynchronous orbit with Earth could generate the energy equivalent of all the oil remaining on
the planet over the course of one year. Though costly, launching working solar satellites is possible today. It’s
transmitting the capture energy to Earth that presents a challenge-one that scientists are just starting to work on.
SPS is more efficient than other types of energy production.
Hiroshi Matsumoto, Ph.D from Kyoto University, President of Kyoto University, 2009, Space
Solar Power Satellite/Station and the Politics, pg. 1
To solve the social dilemma between the global environmental issue and human greed, Space
Solar Power Satellite/Station (SPS), which was proposed in 1968 [1], has been studied and
developed for the future [2]-[5]. The SPS is one of the most important systems which are
significant for future humanosphere. The SPS is a gigantic solar power station orbiting in the
Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) (Fig. 1), in which generated electric power is transmitted to
ground via microwave (microwave power transmission, MPT). The SPS system has advantage in
producing electricity with much higher efficiency compared with a photovoltaic system placed
on the ground because it works night and day and there will be no rain effect. Very little
atmospheric absorption of the microwave has already been proved. However, the SPS will
require higher efficiency of lighter weight solar cells, technologies of higher voltage power
distribution in space plasmas, higher efficiency and higher accuracy huge phased array for the
MPT, and economical rockets.
33
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
The beneficial effects of SPS do not produce carbon dioxide,
which is what holds heat; contributing to global warming.
Eco-Slopes: Global Warming is Real and Underway. No author given. 2009. SPS and Global Warming.
http://www.ecoslopes.com/global-warming/sps-and-global-warming
Although it is true that most of the energy beamed to earth from an SPS will be radiated into
the environment as heat, it does not at all follow that this will result in more or even significant global
warming than fossil fuel. First of all, much of the energy in generating stations is expended as heat
directly (about 60% as I recall), while in an SPS system the energy is converted much more efficiently
(more like 20% waste or less as I recall). This would allow a much larger amount of useful energy for
the same amount of heat load if SPS stations were used. Secondly, although it is true that the energy
from fossil fuel was absorbed from the sun at one time, it is being released much faster than it was
ever absorbed from solar energy. Thirdly, and in many respects most importantly, the net heat
accumulation on the earth is going to be the integral sum of the amount of heat received from the sun
minus the amount of heat radiated from the earth. The major problem with fossil fuel is NOT the
amount of heat it produces directly (though that is a local problem in many places), but the amount
of carbon dioxide that it produces, which tends to hold the heat better than most of the other
compounds in the atmosphere; therefore fossil fuels reduce the amount of heat which can be re
radiated by the earth in addition to adding to the heat load directly. In addition, in many places power
is generated by wood or other recently living plant matter. This has the effect of decreasing the ability
of the biosphere to absorb carbon dioxide, aggravating the heating problem.
SPS Yields more energy potential than oil
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic reservoir
of renewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy security and assurance. The
reservoir of Space‐Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with room for growth far past the
foreseeable needs of the entire human civilization for the next century and beyond. In the vicinity of Earth,
each and every hour there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energy continuously pouring through every square
kilometer of space. If one were to stretch that around the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1
km‐wide ring receives over 210 terawatt‐years of power annually. The amount of energy coursing through
that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known
recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds the projected
30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy output of the fusion‐powered Sun is billions of times
beyond that, and it will last for billions of years—orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources
combined. Space‐Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the solar
system. This is not to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing
this resource or the tremendous time and effort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to
realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energy—clean, renewable energy—available to the human
civilization if it can develop the means to effectively capture it.
34
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SBSP is the best available energy option
Rob Mahan, SBSP advocate, 2010, “NASA’s New Goal Should Be Space Based Solar
Power”, Citizens for SBSP journalist, http://c-sbsp.org/2011/07/13/nasas-new-goal-should-bespace-based-solar-power/#comment-4973
NASA’s new overarching goal should be to lead the joint public-private development and deployment of
space-based solar power as a baseload power source. It’s a goal that would encompass many other
technologies (non-rocket launch methods, AI-based robotic assembly in space, mining of lunar and NEO
resources, lunar base operations, energy conversion and transmission methods, etc.) and inspire young
people get advanced educations and be a part of making the planet a better place for everyone, much
like the Apollo program did. The unique aspect of NASA adopting space-based solar power as an
overarching goal is that the long-term result would be a revenue positive system owned and operated by
the United States of America. We would become a net exporter of clean, virtually unlimited energy.
Prohibitive launch costs are cited as the primary roadblock to space-based solar power today. Let’s come
up with an elegant solution, such as a mass driver launch system initially powered by terrestrial solar
power and eventually powered by the first space-based solar power satellite. It’s a positive upward spiral.
The more power available, the more payload put in orbit and assembled into additional satellites resulting
in more power available … and repeat. Once such a self-proliferating system harvests more energy than
it uses, the excess energy can be directed into existing or new distribution grids.
SBSP yields less carbon emission than Nuclear Energy or other SQ powerplants
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that to the extent the United States decides it
wishes to limit its carbon emissions, SBSP offers a potential path for long‐term carbon
mitigation.
This study does not take a position on anthropogenic climate change, which at this time
still provoked significant debate among participants, but there is undeniable interest in
options that limit carbon emission. Studies by Asakura et al in 2000 suggest that SBSP
lifetime carbon emissions (chiefly in construction) are even more attractive than nuclear
power, and that for the same amount of carbon emission, one could install 60 times the
generating capacity, or alternately, one could replace existing generating capacity with
1/60th the lifetime carbon emission of a coal‐fired plant without CO2 sequestration.
35
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES ENERGY MIX
SBSP is the only energy source that meets all the criteria for a dependable energy source
Ralph NANSEN, 1995, “Sun Power”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/index.html>
The first criterion for a major new energy source is that it must be nondepletable. All of
our current fossil fuel and nuclear energy power plants use the earth’s resources at a
prodigious rate, and these resources will be gone sometime in the not-too-distant future.
The world demand for energy is becoming so great we cannot supply it with our finite
stored natural resources. The second criterion is low cost. If the cost is not low, a new
source will not be developed and the energy will not be used. This does not necessarily
mean it has to be low cost in the beginning if we are willing to make an investment in the
future, but it must be low cost over the long term. The third criterion is it must be
environmentally clean. We can no longer continue to pollute our world without regard to
the future. We must stop the damage and start to heal the earth. The fourth criterion is it
must be available to everyone. We can no longer deny energy to the emerging nations of
the earth and expect to live in peace. Eventually, abundant energy must be made available
to everyone on earth. This means it must be a vast source. The fifth and last criterion is it
must be in a useable form; otherwise, it will be of little help to us. None of the energy
sources in use today can satisfy these five simple but essential criteria. They all fall short in
some way. Fossil fuels are being depleted and they also add to the pollution of the earth.
Nuclear power uses a depletable resource and also leaves in its wake toxic nuclear waste.
Hydroelectric power is generated by a wonderful renewable source, but there are very few
rivers left in the world to dam and there is growing concern over the impact dams have on
the fish population. Terrestrial solar power can come close, but it will always be too costly
for massive, wide-spread use because of the intermittent nature of sunlight on the earth.
Even as the cost of solar cells comes down, terrestrial solar power retains some inherent
problems. The sun goes down at night, clouds occasionally block the sun, and the
atmosphere filters out some of the energy. As a result, terrestrial solar systems must be
greatly oversized and have additional energy storage systems if they are to provide
continuous energy. This is not the case when we go to space to collect solar power.
36
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
U.S. dependence on oil from foreign allies is harmful.
Rebecca Lefton, Policy Analyst, Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy,
2010, “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html
Our oil dependence will also be increasingly harder and more dangerous to satisfy. In 2008 the United
States consumed 23 percent of the world’s petroleum, 57 percent of which was imported. Yet the United
States holds less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Roughly 40 percent of our imports came from
Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, but we can’t continue relying on these allies. The majority of
Canada’s oil lies in tar sands, a very dirty fuel, and Mexico’s main oil fields are projected dry up within a
decade. Without reducing our dependence on oil we’ll be forced to increasingly look to more antagonistic
and volatile countries that pose direct threats to our national security in Arabia, but we
can’t continue relying on these allies. The majority of Canada’s oil lies in tar sands, a very dirty fuel, and
Mexico’s main oil fields are projected dry up within a decade. Without reducing our dependence on oil
we’ll be forced to increasingly look to more antagonistic and volatile countries that pose direct threats to
our national security.
Oil dependence creates an enormous strain on the United States economy.
Hale “Bonddad” Stewart, graduate Thomas Jefferson School of Law’s LLM program, 2007, “Why the
U.S.’ Oil Dependence is Bad for the U.S. Economy”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/why-theus-oil-dependence_b_54822.html
Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-importing country like the U.S.,
this has substantially increased the cost of petroleum imports. International trade data suggest that this
increase has exacerbated the deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially since the second half of
2004. One factor can explain this evolution: The real volume of U.S. petroleum imports has remained
essentially constant. One explanation for why the demand for petroleum imports has not declined in
response to higher prices comes from a model in which firms are fairly limited in their ability to adjust their
use of energy sources, such as oil, in the short term. The report's conclusion was not widely reported,
although it should have been. Simply put, the U.S.' dependence on oil has increased the trade deficit. 2.
Higher energy prices have an increasingly negative impact on incomes. As energy prices increase, the
amount of disposable income available for discretionary purchases decreases. Currently, family energy
prices are at their highest level since 1987. The Christian Science Monitor recently reported: "Kilowatts,
gallons -- they all add up. Energy is now sucking money out of Americans' bank accounts at a record level
-- hitting $612 billion at an annual rate in the month of April, the last month of data. Over the past two
years, energy bills as a share of income have risen and are now at their highest point since 1987, but still
below the levels of the 1970s and early 1980s. For low-income households, some economists estimate
energy consumption as a percentage of income is closing in on 10 percent." Ten percent of income going
to a necessary expense is a big chunk of change. In addition, higher energy prices usually decrease
consumer sentiment, which can lead to decreasing consumer spending. This is not a good development
for an economy that gets 70 percent of its growth from people buying stuff. 3. Oil prices increase overall
inflation. Here is a graph from the St. Louis Federal Reserve's FRED system. The blue line is total
inflation and the red line is energy inflation. Note the direct relationship between rising energy prices and
overall inflation. Simply put, as energy prices increase, so does inflation. High inflation means the Federal
Reserve is more likely to increase interest rates, which slows economic growth. In addition, higher
inflation decreases incomes, especially those at the lower end of the pay scale.
37
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
US oil dependency threatens our national security
Christopher Beddor, staff reporter, Winny Chen, staff reporter and Daniel Weiss, Senior Fellow and
Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, August 25, 2009, "Enhancing Our National
Security by Reducing Oil Dependence and Environmental Damage"
America’s dependence on foreign oil transfers U.S. dollars to a number of unfriendly regimes,
while robbing the United States of the economic resources it desperately needs for domestic
development and American innovation. American petrodollars fund regimes and economic
investments that do not serve U.S. interests. And our enormous appetite for oil—America burns a
full quarter of the world’s oil—feeds the global demand that finances and sustains corrupt and
undemocratic regimes around the globe. The perilous implications of this arrangement—
increasing power and influence of oil exporters, many of whom comprise the world’s worst
regimes—will become more explicit if global demand increases as some current forecasts
predict. What’s more, the United States will increasingly turn to exporting countries that have
opposing interests as oil production in friendly nations becomes depleted or less viable.
Ultimately, the United States will become more invested in the volatile Middle East, more
dependent on corrupt and unsavory regimes, and more involved with politically unstable
countries. In fact, it may be forced to choose between maintaining an effective foreign policy or
a consistent energy supply as U.S. consumers face higher energy prices. The good news is that
the United States has an historic opportunity to enhance its national security by reducing its
dependence on oil. Policies to accomplish this goal, including more efficient fuel economy
standards, investments in hybrid and electric vehicles, development of natural gas-fueled heavy
duty vehicles, and production of advanced biofuels would also create jobs and reduce global
warming pollution. A transformation from oil to no- and low-carbon energy sources will catalyze
innovation that creates new technologies that the United States can market to other nations,
leading to long-term economic growth and prosperity as well as enhanced security.
The endpoint of oil dependency will crash the global economy
William Fan, and Harold Martin, et al, 2011, “Space Based Solar Power: Industry and Technology
Assessment”,
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf
Recent studies regarding “peak oil,” the time when the world oil supply reaches its highest volume before
it declines, suggest a time frame between now and 2016, and multiple scenarios predict a 10% reduction
in production by 2030 [8]. Oil makes up 29% of the current energy supply [9]. While these numbers
suggest that oil will decrease at 0.005% per year, its actual decrease will not be gradual, but instead be a
sudden precipitous drop over the course of only a few years [8], not giving the market enough time to
develop a suitable alternative without having a destructive effect on the global economy.
38
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
Will increase to 70% oil import by 2025 from unstable countries
Tom Z. Collina, Executive Director, 2020 Vision Education Fund, October 19, 2005, “Oil
Dependence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Real Dangers, Realistic Solutions”,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/051020-collina.pdf
America imports almost 60% of its oil today and, at this rate, we’ll import 70% by 2025. Where will that oil
come from? Two-thirds of the world’s oil is in the Middle East, primarily in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. The
United States has less than 3% of global oil. The Department of Energy predicts that North American oil
imports from the Persian Gulf will double from 2001 to 2025.i Other oil suppliers, such as Venezuela,
Russia, and West Africa, are also politically unstable and hold no significant long-term oil reserves
compared to those in the Middle East. Bottom line: our economy and security are increasingly dependent
on one of the most unstable regions on earth. Unless we change our ways, we will find ourselves even
more at the mercy of Middle East oil and thus more likely to get involved in future conflicts. The greater
our dependence on oil, the greater the pressure to protect and control that oil. The growing American
dependence on imported oil is the primary driver of U.S. foreign and military policy today, particularly in
the Middle East, and motivates an aggressive military policy now on display in Iraq. To help avoid similar
wars in the future and to encourage a more cooperative, responsible,
And multilateral foreign policy the United States must significantly reduce its oil use.
Oil dependency increases terrorist attacks on Americans
Tom Z. Collina, Executive Director, 2020 Vision Education Fund, October 19, 2005, “Oil
Dependence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Real Dangers, Realistic Solutions”,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2005_hr/051020-collina.pdf
The more dependent we are on foreign oil, the more troops we will deploy abroad to protect that oil. This
creates resentment and invites terrorist attacks on our troops—and on oil supply routes. The U.S. troop
presence in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War was a major contributor to the rise of Islamic terrorist
groups like Al Qaeda, and U.S. troops in Iraq are now a main justification for the insurgency there. We
must break our oil habit so we can reduce our military footprint abroad. Moreover, much of the money we
pay for our imported oil goes to countries or groups that support terrorism. It is no accident that 15 of the
19 September 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, as does Osama Bin Laden. It is time we stop
funneling money to our own enemies. According to a 2003 article in Foreign Affairs: “It is…increasingly
clear that the riches from oil trickle down to those who would do harm to America and its friends. If this
situation remains unchanged, the United States will find itself sending soldiers into battle again and again,
adding the lives of American men and women in uniform to the already high cost of oil.” iv
39
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
Dangers of Oil Addiction
Mark Bettinger, and Bernard I. Finel, et al Senior Director of Organizing Strategy and
Innovation at Sierra Club, Public Policy Researcher at the Georgetown Public Policy
Institute “Ending our Dependence in Oil” May 27 2010,
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageNavigator/adv_eodo
America's addiction to oil is a threat to our national security, as well as our economy and our environment.
This connection is important enough that the Sierra Club and the American Security Project have
recognized the shared need to come together to talk about it: TRANSPORTATION: The U.S. uses nearly
400 million gallons of oil every day moving people in automobiles, goods on freight truck, air travel, rail
and transit. Of all the oil used in the United States, 70% is consumed by transportation. Cars and light
trucks use nine million barrels of oil per day. NATIONAL SECURITY: Of the imported petroleum
Americans consume, 68 percent is supplied by countries at "high risk" or "very high risk" for instability. Oil
dependence gives leverage and money to potential adversaries, and risking embroiling the U.S. state in
endless conflicts abroad to secure access to oil. ECONOMIC SECURITY: Americans send over $1 billion
abroad every day to pay for oil, resulting in lost jobs and increasing dollars in the hands of foreigners who
we increasingly rely upon to finance our deficits. The U.S. borrows money from the Chinese to buy oil
from the Saudis, causing greater national debt and dependence on the goodwill of others to allow its
economy to function. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is an
example of what could happen again if we increase off-shore drilling. In the United States, burning fossil
fuels for electricity and transportation is the largest contributor to global warming pollution. Transportation
is responsible for approximately one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
If humans keep relying on fossil fuels for energy, then global warming will keep on getting
worse and humans will become extinct
Carl Zimmer, science writer for the New York Times, April 4, 2011, “Multitude of species face
climate threat”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/science/earth/05climate.html?_r=2&ref=science
For decades, scientists have warned that humans may be ushering in a sixth mass extinction, and
recently a group of scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, tested the hypothesis. They applied
new statistical methods to a new generation of fossil databases. As they reported last month in the journal
Nature, the current rate of extinctions is far above normal. If endangered species continue to disappear,
we will indeed experience a sixth extinction, over just the next few centuries or millennia. The Berkeley
scientists warn that their new study may actually grossly underestimate how many species could
disappear. So far, humans have pushed species toward extinctions through means like hunting,
overfishing and deforestation. Global warming, on the other hand, is only starting to make itself felt in the
natural world. Many scientists expect that as the planet’s temperature rises, global warming could add
even more devastation. “The current rate and magnitude of climate change are faster and more severe
than many species have experienced in their evolutionary history,” said Anthony Barnosky, the lead
author of the Nature study. But equally as strong as the conclusion that global warming can push
extinctions is the difficulty in linking the fate of any single species to climate. Policy makers would like to
get a better idea of exactly what to expect — how many species will risk extinction, and which ones are
most likely to wink out of existence. But scientists who study the impact of global warming on biodiversity
are pushing back against the pressure for detailed forecasts. While it’s clear that global warming’s impact
could potentially be huge, scientists are warning that it’s still impossible to provide fine-grained
predictions.
40
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
Dependance on oil is draining military power. We need to break the dependency
Caitlin Harrington, Masters from Georgetown’s school of foreign affairs, 2007,”Future generation: US
alternative energy development”, IHS Jane's: Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis, accessed online
at http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defencesecurityreport.aspx?ID=1065926808&pu=1&rd=janes_com
In his 2006 State of the Union address, US President George Bush surprised critics of his
proconsumption energy policy by describing the nation as "addicted to oil" and calling on the Department
of Energy to aggressively seek energy alternatives. Sceptical US journalists and Washington-based
energy analysts have since questioned whether the president who recently authorised a multibillion dollar
arms deal with six oil-producing Middle Eastern regimes is serious about reducing US consumption of
foreign oil. They doubt whether the Bush administration, which in 2001 took the position that high oil
consumption is "an American way of life", would be willing to invest major resources in efforts to reduce
foreign oil dependence. More than a year later, however, a US government agency with no formal role in
domestic energy regulation - the US Department of Defense - appears poised to prove those critics
wrong. The Pentagon has emerged as a leader behind some of the Bush administration's most promising
efforts to break the US oil addiction. The US Air Force (USAF), Army and Navy (USN) are each
spearheading fast-paced initiatives to develop new energy-saving technology and synthetic fuels that will
reduce US military reliance on oil. Taking the strategy a step further, senior Pentagon officials have also
begun to articulate plans for creating a commercial market for the production of alternative fuels for
civilian and commercial uses. At the June 2007 Paris Air Show, for example, USAF Secretary Michael
Wynne and Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey held a joint press conference to urge traditional
fuel suppliers and alternative energy companies to produce an efficient synthetic fuel for commercial and
military aviation. Sceptics may ask what incentive the Pentagon has to pursue in earnest a range of
energy alternative programmes. The exploding cost of the US military's oil consumption was the number
one reason cited by senior US defence officials. "There are several major drivers here, but number one is
- let's face it - cost," William Anderson, the USAF Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and
Logistics told Jane's. The US military is the single largest fuel consumer in the US; the Pentagon spent
USD10.9 billion on energy supplies in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05). Every USD10 dollar increase in the price
of a barrel of oil costs the US military one billion dollars in operating costs. Equally burdensome are the
indirect costs of US dependence on foreign oil. Estimates of the US military's annual investment in the
troops, infrastructure and other assets needed to secure US and allied access to oil in the Middle East
range from USD44.4 billion to more than USD150 billion a year.
U.S. dependence on oil is growing dangerously high and insufficient.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) of United States, 2004, “Safe, Strong and Secure:
Reducing America’s Oil Dependence”, http://www.nrdc.org/AIR/TRANSPORTATION/AOILPOLICY2.ASP
America's dependence on oil is a threat to our national security and our economy. Growing demand and
shrinking domestic production means America is importing more and more oil each year - much of it from
the world's most unfriendly or unstable regions. We spend more than $200,000 per minute -- $13 million
per hour -- on foreign oil, and more than $25 billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone. 1 By October
2004, Americans had shelled out $249 per capita to foreign oil-interests.2 With U.S. gasoline
consumption accounting for 11 percent of world oil production, the U.S. has been hit hard by our
dependence on oil, intensifying our economic and political vulnerability. Of the $54 billion trade deficit
reported in August, more than a fifth or $12 billion is from imported crude oil.3 Federal Reserve Chairman
Alan Greenspan has called the higher value of imported oil a tax on U.S. citizens that has cost us three
quarters of a percent of our economic output in 2004, and warned economic impacts for the U.S. will
intensify if current trends in oil demand and prices continue.
41
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
The United State’s dependence on foreign oil is hurting our economy, causing
global warming, and threatening our national security.
Rebecca Lefton, Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and
Researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress, Daniel J. Weiss, Senior
Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at American Progressive, 2010, “Oil
Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,” Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html
A recent report on the November 2009 U.S. trade deficit found that rising oil imports
widened our deficit, increasing the gap between our imports and exports. This is but one
example that our economic recovery and long-term growth is inexorably linked to our
reliance on foreign oil. The United States is spending approximately $1 billion a day
overseas on oil instead of investing the funds at home, where our economy sorely
needs it. Burning oil that exacerbates global warming also poses serious threats to our
national security and the world’s security. For these reasons we need to kick the oil
addiction by investing in clean-energy reform to reduce oil demand, while taking steps
to curb global warming. In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries
currently on the State Department’s Travel Warning List, which lists countries that have
“long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.” These
nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq,
Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Our reliance on oil from these
countries could have serious implications for our national security, economy, and
environment.
If alternative energies do not emerge, economical collapse and conflict may
result.
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long‐term route to alleviate the security
challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts.
If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own
Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If
alternatives do not come on‐line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a
negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for
minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less
developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent
SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative
in the third dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
42
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY BAD
Oil costs are too high and generate too much pollution for the US to continue using.
Rebecca Lefton, Researcher for progressive media and Daniel J Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of
Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress), January 2010 “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous
Habit: Imports Threaten Our Security, Our Environment, and Our Economy”, The Center for American
Progress
A recent report on the November 2009 U.S. trade deficit found that rising oil imports widened
our deficit, increasing the gap between our imports and exports. This is but one example that our
economic recovery and long-term growth is inexorably linked to our reliance on foreign oil. The
United States is spending approximately $1 billion a day overseas on oil instead of investing the
funds at home, where our economy sorely needs it. Burning oil that exacerbates global warming
also poses serious threats to our national security and the world’s security. For these reasons we
need to kick the oil addiction by investing in clean-energy reform to reduce oil demand, while
taking steps to curb global warming.
US oil dependency releases harmful amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Rebecca Lefton, Researcher for progressive media and Daniel J Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of
Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress), January 2010 “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous
Habit: Imports Threaten Our Security, Our Environment, and Our Economy”, The Center for American
Progress
America’s voracious oil appetite continues to contribute to another growing national security concern:
climate change. Burning oil is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore a
major driver of climate change, which if left unchecked could have very serious security global
implications. Burning oil imported from “dangerous or unstable” countries alone released 640.7 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is the same as keeping more than 122.5 million
passenger vehicles on the road. Recent studies found that the gravest consequences of climate change
could threaten to destabilize governments, intensify terrorist actions, and displace hundreds of millions of
people due to increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, higher incidences of diseases such as
malaria, rising sea levels, and food and water shortages.
All aspects of U.S. oil dependency ultimately have a negative effect
Jonathon Powers, Chief Operating Officer Truman National Security Project, 2010, “Oil
Addiction:
Fueling
Our
Enemies”,
Truman
National
Security
Project,
http://www.trumanproject.org/files/papers/Oil_Addiction_-_Fueling_Our_Enemies_FINAL.pdf
Our oil addiction drives up prices worldwide, pouring funds into the coffers of foreign regimes
that hold anti-American sentiments, harbor terrorists, and otherwise threaten America’s national
security. As the Council on Foreign Relations wrote, major energy consumers notably the United
States, but other countries as well are finding that their growing dependence on imported energy
increases their strategic vulnerability and constrains their ability to pursue a broad range of
foreign policy and national security objectives. The one billion dollars a day that Americans send
overseas on oil floods a global oil market that enriches hostile governments, funds terrorist
organizations, and props up repressive regimes. Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey explains it
this way: A comprehensive energy strategy, one that cuts our addiction to fossil fuels, boosts
clean energy technology, and moves our nation dramatically towards greater energy
independence, is vital to our national security, to the safety of our men and women in uniform,
and to the fight against terrorism.
43
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
CLIMATE CHANGE BAD
Recent Climate Change with Devastating Potential'
JUSTIN GILLIS, New York Times Reporter, Jan 24th 2011, “Cold Jumps Arctic
Fence, “Stoking Winter’s Fury”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?_r=1
The uncertainty about what is causing the strange winters highlights a core difficulty of climate science.
While mainstream researchers are sure that greenhouse gases released by humans are warming the
Earth, they acknowledge being on shakier ground in trying to predict the regional effects of that change. It
is entirely possible, they say, that some regions will cool temporarily, because of disruption of the
atmospheric and oceanic circulation, even as the Earth warms over all. Bloggers who specialize in raising
doubts about climate science have gleefully pointed to the recent winters in the United States and Europe
as evidence that climatologists must be mistaken about a warming trend. These commentators have not
been as eager to write about the strange warmth in parts of the Arctic, a region that scientists have long
predicted will warm more rapidly than the planet as a whole. Without doubt, the winter weather that began
and ended 2010 was remarkable. Two of the 10 largest snowstorms in New York City history occurred
last year, including the one that disrupted travel right after Christmas. The two snowstorms that fell on
Washington and surrounding areas within a week in February had no known precedent in their overall
impact on the region, with total accumulations of 40 inches in some places. But the winters were not the
whole story. Even without them, 2010 would have gone down as one of the strangest years in the annals
of climatology, thanks in part to a weather condition known as El Niño, which dumped heat from the
Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere early in the year. Later, the ocean surface cooled, a condition known
as La Niña, contributing to heavy rainfall in many places. Despite cooling from La Niña, newly compiled
figures show that 2010 was among the two warmest years in the historical record. It featured a heat wave
in Russia, all-time high temperatures in at least 17 countries, the hottest summer in New York City history,
and devastating floods in Pakistan, China, Australia, the United States and other countries. “It was a
wild year,” said Christopher C. Burt, a weather historian for Weather Underground, an Internet site. Still,
however erratic the weather may have become, it is not obvious to most people how global warming
could lead to frigid winters. Many scientists are hesitant to back such assertions, at least until they gain a
better understanding of what is going on in the Arctic.
Polar Vortex is not weakening and will contribute to Global Warming
JUSTIN GILLIS, New York Times Reporter, Jan 24th 2011, “Cold Jumps Arctic
Fence, “Stoking Winter’s Fury”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?_r=1
In interviews, several scientists recalled that in the decade ending in the mid-1990s, the
polar vortex seemed to be strengthening, not weakening, producing mild winters in the
eastern United States and western Europe. At the time, some climate scientists wrote
papers attributing that change to global warming. Newspapers, including this one,
printed laments for winter lost. But soon after, the apparent trend went away, an
experience that has made many researchers more cautious. John M. Wallace, an
atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, wrote some of the earlier papers.
This time around, he said, it will take a lot of evidence to convince him that a few harsh
winters in London or Washington have anything to do with global warming. “Just when
you publish something and it looks like you’re seeing a connection,” Dr. Wallace said,
“nature has a way of humbling us.”
44
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
CLIMATE CHANGE BAD
Warming will destroy the Earth
John Brandenberg, PhD in Theoretical Plasma Physics, Dead Mars, Dying Earth, pg 232-233
The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or
politically difficult choices such as inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the
industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let’s imagine that America and Europe
are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a
monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this
affects the far north and south and not the major nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but
the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen
levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms,
forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at
some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and
dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not
occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India
and escalates to involve China and Russia… Suddenly, the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on
a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their
lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon
dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the
oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, this further warms the oceans, causing
them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which
release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the
greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons
ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See, I told you the missing
sink was in the ocean! “Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the
oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone
layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is
slowly lost – as is its water because of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart
from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short
while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The
carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the
second Mars– red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving
The global climate is changing
Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, 2010, “On Global Warming, the Science is
Solid”, Chron, accessed online at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6900556.html
A 1.5-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperature over the past century has been documented by
NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Numerous lines of physical evidence
around the world, from melting ice sheets and rising sea levels to shifting seasons and earlier onset of
spring, provide overwhelming independent confirmation of rising temperatures.
Measurements indicate that the first decade of the 2000s was the warmest on record, followed by the
1990s and the 1980s. And despite the cold and snowy winter we've experienced here in Texas, satellite
measurements show that, worldwide, January 2010 was one of the hottest months in that record.
45
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
CLIMATE CHANGE BAD
The extreme weathers that have currently happened have caused a major amount of
money loss for treatment
United Nations Environment Program, No Author Given, “How will global warming
affect my world?”, page 16-17, November 2003, http://www.unep.org/dec/docs/ipcc_wgii_guideE.pdf
The costs of extreme weather events have been growing rapidly. Since 1960, the
number of global weather-related disasters has increased four-fold, real economic
losses seven-fold and insured losses twelve-fold. Real losses are estimated to have
risen from US$3.9 billion per year in the 1950s toS$40 billion per year in the 1990s. Part
of the rise in disaster losses can be explained by the explosive growth in human
population, inappropriate land-use planning (such as building on floodplains or areas
vulnerable to erosion or coastal storms), the expanding financial value of homes and
infrastructure and the availability of insurance. But climate change and worsening
weather extremes such as winds, floods and droughts can also be expected to play a
role. Recent history has shown that weather related losses can overwhelm insurance
companies, which may respond by hiking vulnerable sectors and regions. This can lead
to higher demand for publicly funded compensation and relief. Developing countries are
most vulnerable to natural disasters. For many of them, weather-related risks could
become uninsurable, premium prices could rise substantially, or insurance would
become nonexistent or harder to obtain. Countries already hard pressed to provide the
essentials of food, safe water and shelter have little leeway for absorbing the extra costs
of natural disasters. Internal migration will likely add to the total costs.
Evidence of Irregular Climate with in the U.S (evidence of Climate Chance)
Heherson T. Alvarez, Masters at Harvard University January, 2011 July 20th 2011, accessed
online at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110131-317581/Climatechange-2011-bodes-more-weather-anomalies
Across the globe, leaders are waking up to the fact that global warming is a real threat. And its
impact is palpable, often immediate—disasters and human suffering carried live on television or
the Internet almost as they occur. Last month, as the United States prepared for Christmas, its East
Coast was buried under the avalanche of gale-force blizzards. This record snowfall was a reprise of
a wintry assault that devastated major cities in the mid-Atlantic region in February last year. In July
last year, an intense heat wave spread from Maine to Pennsylvania. By the following month, the
continuing drought shrank Lake Mead, America’s largest reservoir in Nevada and Arizona, by a
significant margin. Then in spring, torrential rains unleashed floods across southeast America even
as summer heat waves ravaged much of the northern hemisphere.
46
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
CLIMATE CHANGE BAD
Different cases of extreme Climate Change exist all over the World
National Geographic, June, 2007 July 20th 2011, accessed online at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880,
much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. • The rate of warming is
increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several
millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. • The Arctic is feeling
the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the
global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and
2004. • Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completelyice-free summer by 2040 or
earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. • Glaciers and mountain
snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in
1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. • Coral
reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in
response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these
sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise. • An upsurge in
the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in
part to climate change by some experts.
The rising temperatures of earth lead to a stronger greenhouse effect as it alters land, meaning it
affects our food supply.
National Space Aeronautics and space administration (NASA), No author given, February 2010, “Global
Climate Change”. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of
fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).
This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to
make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human
activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. The consequences of changing the
natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely: On average,
Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.
Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual
regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer. A stronger greenhouse effect will warm
the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will
expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise. Meanwhile, some crops and other plants
may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water
more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the
areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.
47
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
CLIMATE CHANGE BAD
Global warming is causing a serious rise of sea level
Axel Bojanowski, Author of Spiegel Online, 07/04/2011, “UN Climate body struggling to
pinpoint sea levels”, Spiegel Online International,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,774706,00.html
The last IPCC report, which was issued in 2007, forecast an ocean level rise of up to 59
centimeters by the end of the century. Now, the UN experts must once again sift through
hundreds of reports, and the haggling over their findings is not unlike the bargaining for the
best price at the bazaar. On the one hand, researchers have published forecasts that are far
higher than the result reported in the last IPCC report. On the other, sea level measurements
have yet to prove any meaningful rise though there is agreement that they are, on global
average, rising.
The use of oil emits greenhouse gases, causing global warming, and the climate
change caused by oil consumption not only hurts the envrionment, but also increase the
risk of a cataclysm.
Rebecca Lefton, Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and
Researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress, Daniel J. Weiss, Senior
Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at American Progressive, 2010, “Oil
Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,” Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html
Meanwhile, America’s voracious oil appetite continues to contribute to another growing
national security concern: climate change. Burning oil is one of the largest sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and therefore a major driver of climate change, which if left
unchecked could have very serious security global implications. Burning oil imported
from “dangerous or unstable” countries alone released 640.7 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is the same as keeping more than 122.5
million passenger vehicles on the road. Recent studies found that the gravest
consequences of climate change could threaten to destabilize governments, intensify
terrorist actions, and displace hundreds of millions of people due to increasingly
frequent and severe natural disasters, higher incidences of diseases such as malaria,
rising sea levels, and food and water shortages. A 2007 analysis by the Center for
American Progress concludes that the geopolitical implications of climate change could
include wide-spanning social, political, and environmental consequences such as
“destabilizing levels of internal migration” in developing countries and more immigration
into the United States. The U.S. military will face increasing pressure to deal with these
crises, which will further put our military at risk and require already strapped resources
to be sent abroad.
48
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
CLIMATE CHANGE BAD
Global warming is causing drastic effects to our current environment
Diversified topics, No Author Given, July 20, 2011,
http://diversifiedtopics.com/
Global warming has resulted to change in climate. The global warning and change of climate
may lead to reduction or diminishing of some species of plant and animal that would not be
in position adopt to change in the climate. The global warming has also affected the pattern
of rainfall in many parts of the world with Africa being the most affected; water in Africa is
becoming a rare commodity. The change of rainfall pattern would affect the food production
and thus pose a threat to food security to many countries and thus many people especially
in Africa would suffer hunger. Climate change would also affect ecosystem; plant and
animals in their natural habitats because of lack of enough food and disruptions of their
natural habitat. The change in climate would cause drought in Africa and in Europe and thus
resulting to the widespread forest fires as it have being experienced in the recent past. The
global warming would result to the melting of ice caps on the mountain. The ice caps add
beauty to the mountain and thus attract tourist who in turn bring earn the country the
foreign exchange needed to by drugs and machineries. The melting of ice cap on the
mountains thus would end up denying the country the most needed foreign exchange. The
melting of ice caps also contribute to the rising of the ocean level hence the occurrence of
strong hurricanes for instance hurricanes experienced in 2004 and in 2005. The melting of
ice cap at an alarming is occurring on Mt. Kilimanjaro where about a third of the ice cap has
melted in the period of less than twelve years.
The effects of climate change are damaging to the US.
Rebecca Lefton, Researcher for progressive media and Daniel J Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of
Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress), January 2010 “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous
Habit: Imports Threaten Our Security, Our Environment, and Our Economy”, The Center for American
Progress
A 2007 analysis by the Center for American Progress concludes that the geopolitical
implications of climate change could include wide-spanning social, political, and environmental
consequences such as “destabilizing levels of internal migration” in developing countries and
more immigration into the United States. The U.S. military will face increasing pressure to deal
with these crises, which will further put our military at risk and require already strapped
resources to be sent abroad.
49
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES MILITARY READINESS
SPS energy can power military technology on the ground, eliminating vulnerable
supply lines. Also, SPS beam is not weaponizable.
The Economist, No Author Given, 2008, “Let the sun shine in”, From December 4th issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/12673299
The armed forces are America’s single greatest consumer of oil. The Department of Defence delivers
1.6m gallons (7.3m litres) of fuel a day—accounting for 70% by weight of all supplies delivered—to its
forces in Iraq alone, at a delivered cost per gallon of $5-20. It also spends over $1 per kWh on electric
power (ten times the domestic civilian price) in battle zones, because electricity must often be provided
using generators that run on fossil fuels.
If some of this fuel could be replaced by power beamed down from space, it could cut costs and reduce
the need for complex and vulnerable supply lines, the NSSO report argues. It could be used to power
electric vehicles, along with radar stations and other pieces of equipment that currently rely on electrical
power from generators. (The study dismisses the notion that the Pentagon might be interested in SSP as
a means of beaming death rays down on enemies: it points out that the beam is nowhere near powerful
enough to present a plausible alternative to conventional missiles and other weapons.)
DOD is interested in SPS to fuel Military and reduce casualties
Karen Crammer Shea, Master of Arts in Science Technology with Specialty in Space Policy from the George Washington
University, 2010, “Why Has SPS R&D Received So Little Funding?,” accessed online at
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/shea.html
Space Solar Power has suffered from a policy dilemma. The Department of Defense (DOD) wants to use solar power satellites
(SPS) to deliver electrical power to its forward military bases but that agency cannot build them, since SPS is clearly not in its
mission. The DOD is developing lasers and microwave beams for offensive military purposes, but taking a lead in using lasers and
microwaves for the beaming of electrical power would be politically unacceptable. The DOD is very interested in being an SSP
customer because this satellite energy application would dramatically improve efficiency and reduce costs of supplying power to its
troops in the field. Another consideration is in reducing costs in lives, as the generator fuel trucks are easy targets.
50
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES MILITARY READINESS
SBSP could solve energy problems as well as a conflict due to energy scarcity by providing
access to a secure energy supply.
NSSO, No Author Give, 2007, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security”, Executive summary part, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the
potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless
power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for
combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence
on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and
capabilities such as ultra long-endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to
include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver
rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing
nation-building activities. SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation
has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground-based energy delivery infrastructures.
In addition to helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire
21st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is
to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically
secure energy supply.
Space based solar power is important for military readiness
Frank Morring, degree in literature from Dartmouth, 2007, NSSO backs Space Solar Power, Aviation
Week, accessed online at
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.xml
Collecting solar power in space and beaming it back to Earth is a relatively near-term possibility that could
solve strategic and tactical security problems for the U.S. and its deployed forces, the Pentagon's
National Security Space Office (NSSO) says in a report issued Oct. 10.
As a clean source of energy that would be independent of foreign supplies in the strife-torn Middle East
and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could ease America's longstanding strategic energy
vulnerability, according to the "interim assessment" released at a press conference and on the Web site
spacesolarpower.wordpress.com.
And the U.S. military could meet tactical energy needs for forward-deployed forces with a demonstration
system, eliminating the need for a long logistical tail to deliver fuel for terrestrial generators while reducing
risk for eventual large-scale commercial development of the technology, the report says.
"The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Paul E.
Damphousse of the NSSO, in presenting his office's report.
That could change if the Pentagon were to act as an anchor tenant for a demonstration SSP system,
paying above-market rates for power generated with a collection plant in geostationary orbit beaming
power to U.S. forces abroad or in the continental U.S., according to Charles Miller, CEO of Constellation
Services International and director of the Space Frontier Foundation.
51
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES DISASTER RESPONSE
SBSP chould be used for emergency power transmission and disaster response
Lalitha Vaidyanathan, Staff Reporter at Outlook India, 2011, “Power From Space to Tackle FukushimaLike Incidents?” Outlook India, accessed online at http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?725954
SSP is ultimately intended to provide a very large alternate supply of base load power to the whole
Earth, but current very high launch costs have prevented using this system, Strickland said.
"We believe that using a few specialised emergency satellites would provide a significant benefit to
the Earth – covering emergencies - where power can save lives and property," he said.
Only about three such satellites would be needed for the entire earth, two for Europe and Asia and
one for the Americas, he said.
For example, a set of three 50 Megawatt satellites would be able to provide one megawatt of emergency
power to 150 sites worldwide simultaneously. Alternately, 10 megawatts each could be provided to 15
sites, such as five in the Americas, five in Europe and five in Asia.
The cost of building and launching these three satellites would be vastly cheaper than the damage
52
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES CLIMATE CHANGE
SBSP is the most environmentally friendly energy option
Al Globus, works at NASA Ames Research Center, 2007, “Solar Power From Space: A Better Strategy
for America and the World?”, Space.com, accessed online at http://www.space.com/3812-solar-powerspace-strategy-america-world.html
Suppose I told you that we could build an energy source that: unlike oil, does not generate profits used to support Al
Qaeda and dictatorial regimes. Unlike nuclear, does not provide cover for rogue nations to hide development of
nuclear weapons. Unlike terrestrial solar and wind, is available 24/7 in huge quantities. Unlike oil, gas, ethanol and
coal, does not emit greenhouse gasses, warming our planet and causing severe problems. Unlike nuclear, does not
provide tremendous opportunities for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear, does not require ripping up the Earth. Unlike
oil, does not lead us to send hundreds of thousands of our finest men and women to war and spend hundreds of
billions of dollars a year on a military presence in the Persian Gulf. The basic idea: build huge satellites in Earth
orbit to gather sunlight, convert it to electricity, and beam the energy to Earth using microwaves. We know
we can do it, most satellites are powered by solar energy today and microwave beaming of energy has
been demonstrated with very high efficiency. We're talking about SSP - solar satellite power.
SSP is environmentally friendly in the extreme. The microwave beams will heat the atmosphere slightly
and the frequency must be chosen to avoid cooking birds, but SSP has no emissions of any kind, and
that's not all. Even terrestrial solar and wind require mining all their materials on Earth, not so SSP. The
satellites can be built from lunar materials so only the materials for the receiving antennas (rectennas)
need be mined on Earth. SSP is probably the most environmentally benign possible large-scale energy
source for Earth, there is far more than enough for everyone, and the sun's energy will last for billions of
years.
SPS Provides a Reliable and Definite Source for Energy
Lara Farrar, Staff Reporter, 2008, “How to Harvest solar power? Beam it down from
space!”, CNN, http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-30/tech/space.solar_1_solar-satellites-solarpower-megawatts-of-additional-power?_s=PM:TECH
The satellites would electromagnetically beam gigawatts of solar energy back to ground-based
receivers, where it would then be converted to electricity and transferred to power grids. And
because in high Earth orbit, satellites are unaffected by the earth's shadow virtually 365 days a
year, the floating power plants could provide round-the-clock clean, renewable electricity. “This
will be kind of a leap frog action instead of just crawling," said Mehta, who is the director of
India operations for Space Island Group, a California-based company working to develop solar
satellites. "It is a win-win situation." American scientist Peter Glaser introduced the idea of space
solar power in 1968. NASA and the United States Department of Energy studied the concept
throughout the 1970s, concluding that although the technology was feasible, the price of putting
it all together and sending it to outer space was not. "The estimated cost of all of the
infrastructure to build them in space was about $1 trillion," said John Mankins, a former NASA
technologist and president of the Space Power Association. "It was an unimaginable amount of
money."
53
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES CLIMATE CHANGE
SBSP will emit less waste therefore reducing the amount of global warming
world-wide.
Charles Frank Radley, Master of Science - Systems Engineering, 2009 "Space-beamed solar
power," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, http://www.accessscience.com
Unlike nuclear and fossil-fuel systems, space-beamed power would not generate any pollutants or
hazardous waste. Fossil fuels emit enormous quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is widely
suspected of causing global climate change. Space-beamed solar power could replace fossil fuel plants
and eliminate the CO2 emissions.
Space-beamed power offers advantages over terrestrial solar panels. On Earth, solar panels are usually
fixed and do not track the Sun, so lose 50% of the energy, but a space solar panel is weightless, and can
easily track the Sun. Also, because there is no wind or weather outside the atmosphere, the space panel
can be very light and flimsy. The wide variations of power from terrestrial solar panels make them
unsuitable for baseload grid supply, unless expensive storage systems are employed. Such storage
systems usually rely on limited-life batteries such as lead-acid or nickel-cadmium types, which represent a
major toxic waste disposal problem. Power beamed from space would be steady and continuous,
unaffected by weather conditions, and with no variation during the day or outages at night. Hence the
high cost of terrestrial power storage would avoided. For terrestrial solar panels to supply the needs of the
world, large land areas would have to be covered, and the loss of sunlight beneath the panels would
destroy arable land and plant habitat on a large scale. Relative to terrestrial solar panels, microwave
rectennas for space-beamed power would occupy much less area, and would be mostly transparent to
sunlight.
SPS’ energy source will last for billions of years, and SPS can single handedly
meet all human energy demand.
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic reservoir
of renewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy security and assurance.
The reservoir of Space‐Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with room for growth far past the
foreseeable needs of the entire human civilization for the next century and beyond. In the vicinity of Earth,
each and every hour there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energy continuously pouring through every square
kilometer of space. If one were to stretch that around the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1
km‐wide ring receives over 210 terawatt‐years of power annually. The amount of energy coursing through
that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known
recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds the projected
30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy output of the fusion‐powered Sun is billions of times
beyond that, and it will last for billions of years—orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources
combined. Space‐Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the solar
system. This is not to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing
this resource or the tremendous time and effort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to
realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energy—clean, renewable energy—available to the human
civilization if it can develop the means to effectively capture it.
54
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS SOLVES CLIMATE CHANGE
Space solar power is uniquely key to reversing global warming – it can provide the energy to
actively remove CO2 from the environment
(Mark Hempsell, University of Bristol, 10/06, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,”
Acta Astronautica,Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, Science Direct)
The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal
from the atmosphere would clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is
far slower than the annual production rate of around 30 Gtonnesa year and artificial fixing is
clearly of interest. To remove a ton of the gas over a year and split the carbon from the oxygen
would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a removal and processing
plant would remove 5 million tons a year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current
production rate. Taking a scenario of the expanded reference system with around 200 SPS in place providing
most of the world's energy needs without any carbon dioxide being produced there would still be a need to
remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and
dedicated to CO2removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the
current production rate. Such a system (doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth)
would need to be operational for a thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy dependence
on energy from fossil fuels. Another proposal to address global warming is the use of a spacebased “parasol” to block enough sunlight to counter the effect of greenhouses gases. It has been
shown that the Sun–Earth L1 is the optimum position for such a system and an optimization
study by Macinnes derives a shield 1824 km in radius with a mass of 410 Mtonnes to produce a
2 K drop in global temperatures. While the scale of this shield is 200 times greater than a
reference SPS, and there is only one screen the total system mass and scale is only an order of
magnitude greater and comparable to the extended reference system.
55
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SQ SPACE POLICY INSUFFICIENT
US need more efficient space capabilities in order to become a true spacefaring nation.
Mike Snead, Spacefaring America Weblog, 2007, “Mike Snead’s Talking Points from his “The
Space Show” appearance, How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True
Spacefaring Nation, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/10/11/16--the-space-show-appearancetalking-points.aspx
Instead, the life of the Space Shuttle was prolonged and it is now planned to be
replaced by, in my view, a system with less capability. This lack of progress,
combined with the two tragic Shuttle failures, have created a public myth of a
technological barrier to space access that is reminiscent of the public’s belief in
the myth of “sound barrier” in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The way to break the current
space access barrier myth is for the primary U.S. aerospace companies to
provide the public with an understanding of how the nation’s vital needs for
substantially more “robust, effective, and efficient space capabilities,” as defined
in the U.S. National Space Policy, can be addressed with their current
technological capabilities.
56
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS ENABLES COLONIZATION
SPS makes space colonization feasible
Gerard, O’Neill, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, 1991, “Soakin' up the sun: Solar energy
can beautify the world. Gerard K O'Neill talks to Laurent Belsie”, The Gaurdina (London), Found via Lexis
Nexis search.
There is one perfect source of energy in the solar system and that is the fusion reactor which has been
provided for us 100 million miles away. So I was immediately driven to consider constructing colonies in
space. Is that technologically feasible? It's a very well understood technology. The basic idea of solarpowered satellites is to use the best source in the solar system, the sun, and intercept that sunlight in a
place where it's reliable. A typical power satellite would put out on the earth, perhaps as much power as
10 nuclear power plants. You convert (the energy) to electricity and then to low-density radio waves,
which you transmit to the surface of the earth in a way that has been understood for some 50 years. How
long will it take before we see the first space colony? If people set their minds to it, we could certainly
have a small demonstration power satellite in operation within five to eight years. The whole Apollo
project was done in only eight (years), and in a lot of ways that's much tougher.
Doing SPS increases US space capability and opens up entirely new avenues for
technological development in space
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that retirement of the SBSP technical challenges begets other
significant strategic benefits for exploration, commerce and defense, that in‐and‐of‐themselves may
justify a national program.
• At present, the United States has very limited capabilities to build large structures, very large apertures
or very high power systems in orbit. It has very limited in‐space maneuver and operational capability,
and very limited access to space. It cannot at present move large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. The
United States correspondingly has extremely limited capabilities for in‐space manufacturing and
construction or in‐situ space resource utilization. It has no capability for beamed power or propulsion.
SBSP development would advance the state of the art in all of the above competencies.
• The expertise gained in developing large structures for space based solar power could allow entirely
new technologies for applications such as image and real‐time surface and airborne object tracking
services, as well as high bandwidth telecommunications, high‐definition television and radio, and
mobile, broadcast services. It would enable entirely new architectures, such as power platforms that
provide services to multiple payloads, autonomous self‐constructing structures, or wireless cooperative
formations. The Solar Electric Transfer Vehicles (SETV) needed to lift the Space Solar Power Satellites
out of low‐earth orbit, and perhaps even form its components, would completely revolutionize our ability
to move large payloads within the Earth‐Moon system.
• The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand
the envelope for Earth‐ and space‐based power beaming applications. A truly developed
Space‐Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial
possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but
because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid
protection systems, de‐orbit of space debris, space‐to‐space power utilities, and beamed propulsion
possibilities including far‐term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forward’s
StarWisp Concept.
57
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS ENABLES COLONIZATION
The development of SPS from colonies can pay for the investment into space
colonization
Oscar, Falconi, BS degree in Physics from M.I.T., 2001, http://www.nutri.com/space/.
A method has emerged for the efficient colonization of space which can be implemented quickly,
economically, and in addition be very tangibly beneficial to man. Gerard K O'Neill, a professor of physics
at Princeton, has devoted years to perfecting a design for satellite colonies that would orbit the earth
about every 2 or 4 weeks. Each of these early colonies, constructed from easily obtained lunar material,
would orbit between 100,000 and a quarter million miles from earth, would initially support in fine style
about 10,000 men, women and children, and would soon be self-sufficient. These 1000's of pioneers
would be put to work constructing solar-collecting satellites, hundreds of them, that would be placed in
earth orbit 22,290 miles above sea level at the equator. At that height, these satellites would orbit the
earth exactly once a day and remain above the same point of the equator. These solar collecting
satellites would gather vast amounts of the sun's energy, convert it into microwaves, and beam it down to
stationary receivers on earth where it would be again converted into the form of electrical energy we can
use in the home. All this is done with surprising efficiency, day and night, rain or shine. No breakthroughs
are required - the technology is here - and both NASA and Congress are having a hard look at the
benefits vs. costs of Prof. O'Neill's Satellite Solar Power System.** O'Neill has shown that the power
obtained would, in just a couple decades, completely pay for all the development and construction of all
the space colonies, solar-collecting satellites, and ground stations, including the interest on the capital
investment. A number of different configurations have been proposed for the colony. Preliminary
estimates indicate costs would only be several hundred billion dollars spread over two decades or so.
Remember that this money would be spent here in the United States where we would benefit in the many
ways previously listed. After such a venture, the U.S. would undoubtedly find itself in a powerful
economic, technical, and political position, well worth the expenditure of just a small fraction of one year's
GNP. And to achieve all this, there'll be no need to fight a war. In fact, a disastrous war may well be
prevented and our civilization rescued.
58
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS ENABLES COLONIZATION
SBSP will help facilitating various activities in space.
National Space Society, No Author Giver, 2007, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic
Security”, Space Solar Power Library 75 pages, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the
creation of low-cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space.
Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a
host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource
utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to
own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via
traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need
Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire
a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental
research and development program that culminates with a space-borne proof-of-concept
demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous
pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge
is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary
to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial-commercial, government-commercial,
and government-government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government
contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is
accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on-line today.
SPS allows other satellites to have much power and become more efficient.
Taylor Dinerman, a journalist based in NYC, 2007, “Solar Power Satellites and Space Radar”, The Space Review,
No page no., http://www.thespacereview.com/article/910/1
Why, then, does such a system need to rely 100% on its own power? If solar power satellites (SPS) were
available in geosynchronous orbit and could beam electricity to the SR satellites in LEO, this might allow
the radar satellites to have as much power as their power control systems and heat radiators could
handle. Power could be transmitted by a tightly focused laser or microwave beam to one or two receptors,
integrated into the spacecraft’s bus. If the radar antenna were integrated into the skin of the satellite the
way it is on a B-2 bomber, such satellite would be difficult to detect and track. Using power from an SPS,
such a satellite would be able to liberally use its ion engines to change its orbit. These engines would
never be powerful enough to make the kind of quick responsive maneuvers that some space operations
commanders would like to see in future LEO-based spacecraft, but they would be a step in the right
direction.
59
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS ENABLES COLONIZATION
Space based Solar power makes Earth-To-Mars Transportation more efficient
JOHN C. MANKINS, MANAGER, ADVANCEED CONCEPTS STUDIES OFFICE OF SPACE
FLIGHT,AUGUST 97
www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.
shtml
There are a number of potential applications of these technologies in future human exploration including
the moon, Mars and asteroids in the inner solar system. By using systemsthat are amenable to low-cost,
multi-unit, modular manufacturing, even though the overall system masses are not lower, the costappears
to be significantly lower. An especially intriguing opportunity is that of using affordablemegawatt-class
space power for interplanetary space missions. It appears to be possible to reduce the cost for Earth
surface-to-Marsorbit transportation dramatically through the use of very advanced, large-scale space solar
power in a solar electric propulsion system(SEPS) approach. 1. Use low-mass/high-efficiency space solar
energy, rather than nuclear energy, as the basic power system; 2. Modularize transportation systems
intopackages of less than 40,000 pounds each to enable launch of all but selected surface systems,
with resorting to heavy lift launchvehicles (HLLVs); 3. Fabricate multiple identical SEPS systems
to enable effective mass production at dramatically lower cost per unit weight of purchased hardware;
and, 4. Use "brilliant" systems architectures that can assemble themselves in Earth orbit withlittle more
than autonomous rendezvous and docking technologies; 5. Exploit the higher fuel efficiency ("specific
impulse" of electric propulsion to offset the mass associated with modularity of systems
and interconnections between systems assembled in space.
Space solar power allows for the mining of key minerals on the moon.
(Mark Hempsell, University of Bristol, 10/06, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,”
Acta Astronautica,Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, Science Direct)
In current times there is a greater concentration on pollution induced problems such as global warming,
however, earlier warnings of anthropogenic collapse tended to highlight rates of resource depletion. The
original global dynamic modelling work of Forrester demonstrated that with only very small changes in the modeling
parameters collapse due to pollution effects could be interchanged with collapse due to resource depletion. In the later high
profile work by Meadows et al., the “standard run” was a resource depletion collapse. Bond and Varvill have explored a
concept for mining metal on the Moon on a scale that would meet the world's demand for most common
metals aluminium, silicon titanium, iron and possibly nickel. The argument made was not that there was a shortage of these
metals but that the energy used In refining metals from their ores is one of the highest contributors to
humanity's energy consumption. Therefore an extraterrestrial metal supply would have a considerable impact on the
Earth's total energy requirements. To produce hundreds of Mega-tonnes of ironand tens of Mega-tonnes of
aluminium an operation would require 100 GW on a continuous basis. Bond and Varvill assumed this would be provided by
would be required to supply this allowing continuous mining and
refining operations. The material would be sent to Earth using a electromagnetic accelerator the energy required to do this is
between 6% for steel and 1% for aluminu006D of the energy required to mine and refine the metal. Thus the transport element
is not a significant extra burden. The overall concept is shown in Fig. 2. Bond and Varvill's solution to the final return to Earth
was to shape the ingots into an aerodynamic disk shown in Fig. 2. Each disk is 80 m diameter and 8 m deep with a mass of
3000 tons. The ballistic coefficient ensures heat loads at atmosphere entry do not melt the ingot and that the final impact speed
with the ground is 100 m/s slow enough to ensure the ingot stays in one piece for salvage. Of course one of the first
major users of lunar materials would be the SPS systems itself as highlighted by O’Neil, so it is likely that the
technology for lunar metal extraction would be part of the SPS legacy and not require separate development.
60
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS ENABLES COLONIZATION
SBSP’s implications will likely exceed the manhattan and Apollo projects
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns
over US intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the
Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true “Manhattan or Apollo project
for energy.”
In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the
Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and helped the US
maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was “deeply
concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic
leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP
would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐paying jobs. It would require
expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of
the American Competitiveness Initiative.
SBSP would lead to the creation or improvement of technology
Ralph NANSEN, 1995, “Sun Power”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/index.html>
Even though the basic technology required to develop the satellite and its support
systems is known in some form today, the application of the technology into an
economically successful commercial power plant would require extensive development
efforts. This effort would be directed at achieving total understanding of principles, new
and simpler techniques for applying them, low-cost automated manufacturing approaches,
and extremely high reliability. For example, this would include the development of
lightweight, low-cost, high-efficiency, and long-lived solar cells. Much of this technology has
already been developed for terrestrial solar power systems. The new requirement will be
to apply the unique criteria associated with the space environment. This technology would
in turn make solar cells for terrestrial use much more affordable and practical in many
locations. Solar cell power modules used to supply the power for industrial developments
in space would be very economical. Development of the wireless power transmitter would
elevate the technology available for radar and other wireless systems to staggering heights.
Power switching systems and power processors would reach new levels of simplicity, low
cost, and reliability. Routine operation of reusable space transportation vehicles would
necessitate development of new and better high-temperature materials, long-life engines,
lightweight reusable cryogenic insulation systems, and expanded knowledge of how to live
and work in space.
61
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS CATALYZES MILITARIZATION
SPS has the potential of becoming a weapon and will increase militarization.
William Fan, Works at California Institute of Technology, Harold Martin, Works at California Institute of
Technology, James Wu, Works at California Institute of Technology, Brian Mok, Works at California Institute of
Technology, 6/2/2011, “Space Based Solar Power”, Industry and Technology Assessment, vol. 37, pg. 24,
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf
Due to the high energy transmitter that it will utilize, space based solar power could
potentially be in violation of international space treaties. In 1967, the Outer Space
Treaty was signed by the United States and other world powers. One of the key issues
addressed by this treaty is space based weapons. The Outer Space Treaty bans the
placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space or on
any celestial body. This could become a serious issue for space based solar power
because of the potential for the transmitter to become a dual use weapon. Additionally,
the newly proposed Space Preservation Treaty could severely hinder the
implementation of space based solar power, as it would ban the any kind of weapon
from being placed in space. In addition to political issues, there may be social
disapproval of having a potential weapons system in space
SBSP will be influential in the application of military weapons beyond the Earth’s
mesosphere.
Energy Bulletin, no author given, 2009, “Space-based Solar Power?”,
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48694
Another space based energy panacea, using helium 3 from the moon to fuel fusion reactors, has caused
some cynics to mutter that this is just a scheme to funnel large amounts of funds to well connected
aerospace companies. I suspect that similar charges will be laid against spaced based solar power plans
until the economics of them can be proven to match those of terrestrial renewable energy projects. The
authors of the Pentagon report mentioned earlier noted that space based solar “has the potential to be a
disruptive game changer on the battlefield ... [enabling] entirely new force structures and capabilities such
as ultra long endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems” - which implies that there
might be more than one reason for wanting to deploy space based solar power - like the symbiosis
between nuclear weapons development and the nuclear power industry, it may be that space based solar
power provides a civilian friendly reason for building 'star wars" type platforms in space. Cryptogon has
some speculation along these lines, and goes on to wonder if this is another possible example of the
introduction of technology developed in "black" military projects (there is a section in my "Shockwave
Rider" review that talks about the 5000 secret patents registered by the USPTO) into the civilian sector
(echoing his speculation about the role of the new GM CEO appointed by the Obama administration).
62
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS CATALYZES MILITARIZATION
SPS Can Be Used as a Weapon Using Infrared Radiation Wavelengths
Rosalie Bertell, Currently serves on the IJN nuclear task force, 96, http://www.ratical.org/coglobalize/HAARPbg.html#SPSMI
Early review of the Solar Powered Satellite Project began in around 1978, and I was on the review panel.
Although this was proposed as an energy program, it had significant military implications. One of the most
significant, first pointed out by Michael J. Ozeroff, was the possibility of developing a satellite borne beam
weapon for anti-ballistic missile (ABM) use. The satellites were to be in geosynchronous orbits, each
providing an excellent vantage point from which an entire hemisphere can be surveyed continuously. It
was speculated that a high energy laser beam could function as a thermal weapon to disable or destroy
enemy missiles. There was some discussion of electron weapon beams, through the use of a laser beam
to preheat a path for the following electron beam. The SPS was also described as a psychological and
anti-personnel weapon, which could be directed toward an enemy. If the main microwave beam was
redirected away from its rectenna, toward enemy personnel, it could use an infrared radiation wavelength
(invisible) as an anti-personnel weapon. It might also be possible to transmit high enough energy to ignite
combustible materials. Laser beam power relays could be made from the SPS satellite to other satellites
or platforms, for example aircraft, for military purposes. One application might be a laser powered
turbofan engine which would receive the laser beam directly in its combustion chamber, producing the
required high temperature gas for its cruising operation. This would allow unlimited on-station cruise time.
As a psychological weapon, the SPS was capable of causing general panic. The SPS would be able to
transmit power to remote military operations anywhere needed on earth. The manned platform of the SPS
would provide surveillance and early warning capability, and ELF linkage to submarines. It would also
provide the capability of jamming enemy communications. The potential for jamming and creating
communications is significant. The SPS was also capable of causing physical changes in the ionosphere.
President Carter approved the SPS Project and gave it a go-ahead, in spite of the reservation which
many reviewers, myself included, expressed. Fortunately, it was so expensive, exceeding the entire
Department of Energy budget, that funding was denied by the Congress. I approached the United Nations
Committee on Disarmament on this project, but was told that as long as the program was called Solar
Energy by the United States, it could not be considered a weapons project. The same project resurfaced
in the US under President Reagan, moved to the much larger budget of the Department of Defence, and
called Star Wars. Since this is more recent history, I will not discuss the debate which raged over this
phase of the plan.
63
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
COLONIZATION GOOD IMPACTS
Space colonies powered by SPS are necessary and largely beneficial
Gerard, O’Neill, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, 1974, “The Colonization of Space”,
Physics Today,27(9):32-40.
Careful engineering and cost analysis shows we can build pleasant, self-sufficient dwelling places in
space within the next two decades, solving many of Earth's problems.
New ideas are controversial when they challenge orthodoxy, but orthodoxy changes with time, often
surprisingly fast. It is orthodox, for example, to believe that Earth is the only practical habitat for Man, and
that the human race is close to its ultimate size limits. But I believe we have now reached the point where
we can, if we so choose, build new habitats far more comfortable, productive and attractive than is most
of Earth. Although thoughts about migration into space are as old as science fiction, the technical basis
for serious calculation did not exist until the late 1960's. In addition, a mental "hangup"-the fixed idea of
planets as colony sites appears to have trapped nearly everyone who has considered the problem,
including, curiously enough, almost all science-fiction writers. In recent months I learned that the space
pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkowsky, in his dreams of the future, was one of the first to escape that hangup.
By chance, and initially almost as a joke, I began some calculations on the problem in 1969, at first as an
exercise for the most ambitious students in an introductory physics course. As sometimes happens in the
hard sciences, what began as a joke had to be taken more seriously when the numbers began to come
out right. There followed several years of frustrating attempts to get these studies published. Friends
advised that I take my ideas "to the people" in the form of physics lectures at universities. The positive
response (especially from students) encouraged me to dig harder for the answers to questions about
meteoroid damage, agricultural productivity, materials sources, economics and other topics. The results
of that study indicate that we can colonize space, and do so without robbing or harming anyone and.
without polluting anything. if work is begun soon, nearly all our industrial activity could be moved away
from Earth's fragile biosphere within less than a century from now. the technical imperatives of this kind of
migration of people and industry into space are likely to encourage self-sufficiency, small-scale
governmental units, cultural diversity and a high degree of independence. the ultimate size limit for the
human race on the newly available frontier is at least 20,000 times its present value. How can
colonization take place? It is possible even with existing technology, if done in the most efficient ways.
New methods are needed, but none goes beyond the range of present-day knowledge. The challenge is
to bring the goal of space colonization into economic feasibility now, and the key is to treat the region
beyond Earth not as a void but as a culture medium, rich in matter and energy. To live normally, people
need energy, air, water, land and gravity. In space, solar energy is dependable and convenient to use; the
Moon and asteroid belt can supply the needed materials, and rotational acceleration can substitute for
Earth's gravity.
Space colonization solves resource crises
Jen, Gersen, Reporter for the Toronto Star, 2006, “If we do wreck the world, will space stations take
us?”, Toronto Star, pg. CO2,
Whether the end comes by global warming, or much later, when our sun becomes a red giant and engulfs
the inner solar system in about 5 billion years, eventually our little blue planet will tucker out. Globus, who
is NASA's go-to guy on living among the stars, says space colonies are the only way to ensure that
humans retain their grasp on immortality. "Something really bad is going to happen to this planet sooner
or later," he says. "We would be remiss in our duty if we did not grasp that." And, he adds, creating space
colonies is not without its benefits. The asteroids surrounding Earth are chock full of precious ores,
comets make for a delicious source of water and solar power can make up the bulk of the energy needs,
he says. The surrounding solar system has so many resources and so much space that Globus believes
that colonization would put an end to resource-based wars. "Those classes of wars would die out. The
whole idea of blood for oil is monumentally silly when you have the resources of the solar system," he
says.
64
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
COLONIZATION GOOD IMPACTS
Exploration of space leads to U.S. space dominance.
Dean Cheng, analyst in the International Security and Space Program, 2011, “China’s Active Defense
Strategy and Its Regional Impact”, http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/01/chinas-activedefense-strategy-and-its-regional-impact
In the tactical and operational realm, PLA observation of Western conflicts has led them to conclude that,
in order to conduct the high-tempo, dispersed operations typical of recent Local Wars, it is essential to
have access to space. Chinese analyses of the first Gulf War, the conflicts in the Balkans, and the march
to Baghdad are rife with statistics on the number of satellites employed, whether maintaining surveillance
over opponents, providing essential weather information, or guiding munitions and forces. Thus, as one
PLA analysis notes, in places like Afghanistan, when U.S. military forces have identified the enemy, they
have promptly exploited GPS to determine the enemy’s location and satellite communications to transmit
the target’s location to weapons operators, in order to attack targets promptly. Similarly, in Iraq, the use of
space was essential for the U.S. military’s intelligence gathering and battlefield command and control.[1]
From their perspective, the ability to exploit space is essential for the ability to wage non-contact, nonlinear, non-symmetric warfare. This reliance is so extensive that another Chinese analysis posits that the
U.S. could not conduct the kind of warfare it prefers, but only high-level mechanized warfare, if it could
not access space. The implication is that an essential part of any Chinese anti-access/area denial effort
will probably entail operations against the U.S. space infrastructure, both in order to secure space
dominance, zhitian quan, for the PLA, as well as to deny it to the United States. Space dominance, in this
case, is defined as the ability to control the use of space, at times and places of one’s own choosing,
while denying an opponent the same ability. It should be noted here, first, that there is still no indication of
whether the PLA has developed a formal space doctrine governing military operations in space. The
available PLA literature does have, however consistent themes that emerge. One of these themes
derived from the available Chinese writings that discuss the establishment of space dominance is that it
does not necessarily require the destruction of satellites, such as in the 2007 anti-satellite test or last
year’s exo-atmospheric test. Rather, it involves a full range of measures, involving both hard- and soft-kill,
aimed at the satellites, the terrestrial infrastructure of launch sites; tracking, telemetry, and control (TT&C)
facilities; and the data links that bind the system together.
Indeed, PLA writings emphasize that the establishment of space dominance requires integrated
operations, involving the use of all available strength, all techniques, and all operational methods.
65
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION GOOD IMPACTS
U.S. Military Presence in Space Provides Safety and Necessary Power
Estes, Commander-in-chief of United State Space Command and Commander of Air Force Space Command,
1996, “As presented, Air Force Space Command, Commander, Speech for the Air Force Association Annual
Symposium,” CINC SPEECH, http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/speech1.htm
The civil, commercial, scientific, and military benefits derived from space are growing in importance and influence
as key contributors to the instruments of America's national power. The contributions to the political and diplomatic
instruments of national power are embodied in the philosophy of Sun Tzu's "know your enemy and know yourself."
We now have the ability to know and monitor the world situation on a daily basis. As each day passes we gain more
and more capability. Soon it will be on an hourly basis and eventually within minutes or seconds. The contributions
to the military instrument of national power are represented by the ability to surveil, characterize, and assess hostile
forces and intentions, and communicate the commander's intent to our forces in the field. But, we must beware.
The huge success and power represented by our space endeavors are a double-edged sword. Our political and
diplomatic instruments of national power would be severely limited if access to space is lost. Loss of commercial
and military communications, loss of access to weather and navigation data, and loss of intelligence, surveillance,
and reconnaissance would be crippling to a society dependent upon space assets as America is today! We are the
world's most successful space-faring nation ... One of the major reasons the U.S. holds its current position in today's
league of nations. But, we are also the world's most space-dependent nation thereby making us vulnerable to hostile
groups or powers seeking to disrupt our access to, and use of, space. For this reason, it is vital to our national
security that we protect and safeguard our interests in space. The ability of our potential adversaries to affect our
advantage in space is growing. We, in military space, are just now beginning to consider and deal with these threats.
We are truly at the threshold of a new era in both the peaceful and hostile uses of space.... So, what are the
implications for Air Force Space Command? In the decades that follow we will: Develop robust capabilities for
control of space to both protect and assure our access to and use of space. We will preserve and evolve advanced
core military space capabilities while making full use of civil, commercial, and international space capabilities. We
will continue to assure and expand space contributions to battlespace awareness and world wide vigilance. We will
be prepared, if and when directed by our civilian leadership, to expand our space force application mission in
support of our national security needs. In short, we will begin, as an Air Force, to migrate many of our current
missions into space.
Militarization of space is vital to US interests and leadership.
Pfaltzgraff
Robert L.
, Jr., president of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc
Weapons in Space, access at “http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/BCFR_061807.pdf”
, 2007,
We have had as a consistent policy the preservation of our rights, capabilities, freedom of action in space,
while seeking to deter others from impeding our rights or developing capabilities intended to do so. We
have had as a major principle the denial, if necessary, of adversaries’ efforts to utilize space against U.S.
national interests. We have also as a nation supported a growing commercial space sector. This includes
communications satellites as well as satellite imaging in which the military and commercial applications
are closely intertwined. The Global Positioning System developed by the Defense Department is now
widely available for commercial applications. Finally, we have encouraged international cooperation in
space activities, including space exploration, sharing intelligence gathered from space systems, and
environmental monitoring. Space and national security today brings into focus many vitally important
military activities, including collection of intelligence, providing what the military call situational
awareness, ensuring communications; providing global strategic and tactical warning, missile defenses
and unmanned aircraft. In fact, the United States, more than any other nation is heavily dependent on
space for its national security and for a large number of commercial activities as well.
66
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION KEY TO BEAT CHINA
Currently U.S. space system is vulnerable to attack from China
William Choong, Reporter, 2001, “A Pearl Harbor in space?”, Accessed via LexisNexus
China hand Ashley Tellis wrote in Survival, an academic journal of security affairs, that Beijing was
targeting weaknesses in America's space infrastructure to overcome its inferiority in conventional military
terms. China's pursuit of counter-space capabilities, he said, is part of a 'considered strategy designed to
counter the overall military capability of the United States, grounded in Beijing's military weakness at a
time when China considers war with the United States to be possible'. Dr Tellis said that a future conflict
in the Taiwan Strait could compel China to attack US space systems - a 'space Pearl Harbor'. By far the
most intriguing component of China's space arsenal - for wuxia fans at least - involves the so-called
'assassin's mace' (shashoujian). This, the Pentagon said, is an innovative mixture of old and new
technologies that would be used against 'technologically superior adversaries'. China's space strategy
draws heavily from Mao Zedong's philosophy of asymmetrical warfare. According to Chinese scholar
Wang Hucheng, American dependence on space constitutes its 'strategic weaknesses'. 'For countries
that can never win a conventional war against the United States, attacking the US space system may be
an irresistible and most tempting choice,' he wrote in Liaowang, a Chinese Communist Party publication.
Mr Wang is right on the money. Way back in 1957, US Air Force General Thomas White said that those
who control the air control the land and sea beneath it, but those who 'control space will...control the
Earth's surface'. Traditionally, militaries have sought to dispel what Prussian military thinker Karl von
Clausewitz has termed the 'fog of war' - a euphemism for saying that 'shit happens' in warfare. Today,
computerised militaries fight in a huge cloud of electrons. Space-based assets are fundamental to such
'network-centric' warfare. Currently, the US has around 1,800 satellites, of which nearly half are for
military purposes. The biggest targets for an enemy would be communications platforms and a
constellation of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites hovering thousands of kilometres above the
Earth, wrote Dr Tellis. GPS assets provide location data and enable accurate weapons guidance and
targeting. If they are hit, many things in the US military would go wrong. An Abrams main battle tank, for
example, would be lost on the streets of Baghdad. And this might not be all. If US space assets are hit,
the New York Times predicts the global economy would collapse, along with air travel and
communications. American officers believe that the US military's space assets constitute its Achilles' heel.
'Our adversaries understand our dependence upon space-based capabilities,' General Kevin Chilton,
commander of the US Strategic Command, wrote in Congressional testimony last month.
67
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION KEY TO BEAT CHINA
US Space militarization is key to defeat Chinese military advancement
Dean Cheng, analyst in the International Security and Space Program, 2011, “China’s Active Defense
Strategy and Its Regional Impact”, http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2011/01/chinas-activedefense-strategy-and-its-regional-impact
By integration of all available strength, this refers to two aspects. One is civil-military integration. The PLA,
it is worth recalling, manages China’s terrestrial space infrastructure, and plays a role in satellite design
and manufacturing. It also is presumed to have access to information derived from space-based systems,
consistent with the larger, long-standing Chinese theme of civil-military integration. The other is
integration of space capabilities with those of land, sea, and air forces, with the goal of generating
synergies that will lead to space dominance. Ground, naval, air, and missiles forces, for example, can
suppress enemy terrestrial space facilities, such as TT&C centers, and interfere with data links. This can
prevent an opponent’s space forces from properly operating, as well as help defend one’s own space
capabilities. Meanwhile, space forces can enhance the operation of ground, air, and naval forces by
providing information support that will make them more effective.[2] By integrated application of
techniques, this refers to the combination of destructive and disruptive techniques. In some cases,
disrupting an opponent’s systems may be as effective, and more desirable, than destroying them.
Destruction of systems in orbit may generate diplomatic problems, especially among third parties whose
systems may be affected by debris. Attacking terrestrial targets in third countries may result in horizontal
escalation. Thus, in some cases, one may choose to rely on jamming, cyber warfare, and other less
physically destructive means to attack enemy space infrastructure.[3] On the other hand, soft-kill systems
often cannot permanently destroy physical facilities, and it may be difficult to assess whether it has
succeeded in disrupting normal space operations.[4] In order to inflict long-lasting impact on enemy space
capabilities, or to be assured of disruption of high-value targets, one may prefer more kinetic, hard-kill
options. By integrated coordination of all activities, PLA analysts are discussing the importance of
defensive as well as offensive roles. It should be noted that “offensive” and “defensive” are not
synonymous with “hard kill” and “soft kill.” Rather, the objective is to reduce an opponent’s advantage in
space. The general tenor of PLA writings regarding space offensive measures suggests an interest in
attacking the full space infrastructure of an opponent, suggesting attacks against both terrestrial and
orbital assets, as well as the attendant data and communications systems that link them together. In
particular, striking at mission control facilities and launch sites has the advantage of not only disrupting
ongoing space operations, but retarding reconstitution efforts, and is compared with attacking command
nodes in more traditional warfare.[5] At the same time, the PLA fully expects its own space capabilities to
be targeted. In this regard, PLA writings suggest that there is a role to play in both active and passive
defensive measures. Active measures include the provision of defenses around key terrestrial facilities,
including launch sites and mission control centers. Passive measures include efforts to limit the
effectiveness of enemy efforts to detect and track one’s own space systems and infrastructure. They
include efforts at camouflage, concealment, and deception of both terrestrial and orbital systems, as well
as redundancy and mobility.[6] There is also reference to hardening of both satellites and ground
facilities. All of these efforts suggest that, in the event of a Sino-American confrontation, the PLA would
seek to engage American space systems early in the crisis. This would deny American forces the ability
to establish information dominance (zhi xinxi quan), that all-aspect understanding of an opponent’s
forces, deployments, and capabilities. As important, it would also disrupt the coordination of American
forces, including not only widely dispersed combat forces, but also the essential combat support elements
that would sustain U.S. operations. PLA writings also suggest that there may be demonstrations of antispace capabilities, the conduct of space exercises, redeployment and reinforcement of space assets, and
most worrisome, actual use of space weapons, in order to deter and dissuade the United States from
intervening. The very possession of an effective space warfare capability, PLA writings note, allows China
to effect space deterrence.
68
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION KEY TO BEAT CHINA
The U.S. space systems have weaknesses to be exploited by China and others
Ashley, Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
D.C., 2007, “China's Military Space Strategy”, Survival, 49:3, 41 – 72.
Among many complex and diverse lessons, Chinese analyses of US military operations in the Persian
Gulf wars, Kosovo and Afghanistan have yielded one critical insight: the United States is inordinately
dependent on its complex but exposed network of sophisticated command, control, communications and
computer-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems operating synergistically in and
through space. In other words, while American military power derives its disproportionate efficacy from its
ability to leverage critical space assets, these very resources are simultaneously a font of deep and
abiding vulnerability. Chinese strategists concluded, therefore, that any effort to defeat the United States
would require a riposte against its Achilles heel: its space-based capabilities and their organic ground
installations. The ability to neutralise American space systems quickly would permit a weaker Chinese
military to deter, delay, degrade or defeat the superior warfighting capabilities of the United States and
’level the playing field’ in a shooting war. As one Chinese military scholar described his country’s calculus,
An effective active defense against a formidable power in space may require China to have an
asymmetric capability against the powerful United States. Some have wondered whether a defensive
policy applied to space suggests that China’s possession of a robust reconnaissance, tracking, and
monitoring space system would be sufficient for China to prevent an attack in space and would be in line
with China’s ‘doctrinal’ position of ‘defensive’ capabilities. An effective active defense strategy would
include the development of these systems but would also include anti-satellite capabilities and space
attack weapon systems if necessary. In essence, China will follow the same principles for space
militarization and space weapons as it did with nuclear weapons. That is, it will develop anti-satellite and
space weapons capable of effectively taking out an enemy’s space system, in order to constitute a
reliable and credible defense strategy. Another analyst, Wang Hucheng, puts it more succinctly: American
dependence on space constitutes ’the U.S. military’s ”soft ribs” and strategic weaknesses‘; consequently,
’for countries that can never win a war with the United States by using the method of tanks and planes,
attacking the U.S. space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice. Part of the reason is
that the Pentagon is greatly dependent on space for [the success of] its military action.
69
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION KEY TO LEADERSHIP
US must continue research, development, and operations in space which is vital to
its national interests.
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the US President, No Author
Give, 2006, “Unclassified National Space Policy”, US Seeks Militarization of Space Section,
http://www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponization-of-outerspace#USSeeksMilitarizationofSpace
The United States considers space capabilities—including the ground and space segments and
supporting links—vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve
its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding
those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space
capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities
hostile to U.S. national interests;
The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to
prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must
not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or
other activities in space for U.S. national interests;
US’s militarization of space will protect its economic interests and establish
superiority over the world.
Anup Shah “Militarization and Weaponization of Outer Space.” Global Issues,
2007, <http://www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponizationof-outer-space>.
While the answer from US authorities is usually along the lines of defensive purposes (as with the related
issues of missile defense and star wars, as also discussed on this web site, in this section), many see the
domination of space as the ability to maintain, expand and enforce those policies that will serve that
national interest.
The US military explicitly says it wants to “control” space to protect its economic interests and establish
superiority over the world. Several documents reveal the plans. Take Vision for 2020, a 1996 report of the
US Space Command, which “coordinates the use of Army, Navy, and Air Force space forces” and was
set up in 1985 to “help institutionalize the use of space.”
70
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION KEY TO LEADERSHIP
U.S. Must Militarize Space to Ensure The Nation’s Long Term Safety,
Strength and Survival
Estes, Commander-in-chief of United State Space Command and Commander of Air Force Space Command,
1996, “As presented, Air Force Space Command, Commander, Speech for the Air Force Association Annual
Symposium,” CINC SPEECH, http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/speech1.htm
It is clear that spacecraft are evolving in much the same way as aircraft did. The similarities in evolution are striking.
The 4th medium --- space --- is rapidly developing. Today's space missions are focused on communications and
intelligence support to the regional warfighthers.... Similar to the aircraft's focus early on. But, just as the aircraft
moved to control of the air and force application, so too will the missions of control of space and force application
be increasingly important to us in the future. We, in America's space business, must be prepared for this eventuality.
Clearly the pace at which we move to space and the critical decisions about which missions we carry out will be
made based on the policies established by our civilian leadership. But, it is our job to begin the dialogue now ... To
start the planning -- so that if and when we are asked, we are ready to move ahead. And so as we plan for the future,
the importance of a vision and core competencies become extremely important to us. They help us set the vector,
determine the path, pick the right road among many ... As we strive to accomplish what America asks its military to
do on land and sea, in the air and now, in space ... "to ensure our survival as a nation and secure the lives and
property of our citizens.
Space weaponization necessary to prevent “space pearl harbor”
Stephen, Redifer, LtCol USMC, 2011, “TAKING THE INITIATIVE – PROTECTING US INTERESTS IN
SPACE”.
One of the leading researchers advocating the immediate weaponization of space is Dr. Everett C.
Dolman, who has written extensively on the subject. Dolman believes that the US military has undergone
a transformation and changed from a space-supported force to a space- enabled force; he indicates that
the purpose of such military power is to serve as an extension of policy, providing political decisionmakers a tool that allows the state to achieve its national objectives.24 Accordingly, he draws the
conclusion that “if military space is to achieve its purpose, it must likewise be prepared to project violence
from and into space”25 and that if the USAF is to be tasked with protecting space assets, it must be
allowed to weaponize space.26 The appeal of such arguments is based on the extraordinary risk the
United States would accept should it choose not to weaponize space and subsequently fall victim to an
attack in or from space. The results of such an attack could be nearly catastrophic for both the nation’s
military and its economy and, as such, have a dramatic effect on the world’s balance of power – given this
potential, one could argue that the United States has a duty to weaponize space and anything less would
constitute a reckless abandonment of responsibility.
71
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION KEY TO LEADERSHIP
Space must be weaponized to monitor other countries’ activities, negate
contemporary programs to attack US space systems, and protect US equities in
space.
Stephen, Redifer, LtCol USMC, 2011, “TAKING THE INITIATIVE – PROTECTING US INTERESTS IN
SPACE”.
At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who advocate for a space sanctuary, a philosophy that has
a wide-ranging constituency despite variances in the precise definition of “sanctuary.” Perhaps the best
description of space sanctuary doctrine is provided by Lupton, who offers the following: “The primary
value of space forces results from their ability to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic nuclear war. Using
space for military purposes other than the deterrent functions may cause wars in space. These wars may
result in loss of the primary functions, with destabilizing effects. The risk of losing the primary functions
cannot be worth the benefit gained. Therefore, space must be a sanctuary from military systems.”28
Advocates of this strategy believe that establishing limits on the weaponization of space would prevent a
space arms race, ensure that space does not become a battlefield, and would ensure freedom of access
to and through space for all space-faring nations. One can argue that such a sanctuary strategy has been
the case (with few exceptions) since the dawn of space operations and has worked successfully; it follows
then that the United States should be a world leader by refraining from engaging in offensive space
control activities.29 While adopting such a position is idyllic, an administration that adopted such a tack
would undoubtedly face several challenges and accept significant risk. First, while the argument that
space needs to remain a sanctuary used only for detection of nuclear weapons is logical in a limited
sense, it fails to describe how the United States is to monitor others’ activity in space30; in the same
manner that missile warning satellites have deterred the first use of nuclear weapons by detecting and
reporting missile launches, some sort of system for detecting and attributing attacks on space systems
would be required. Second, it neglects programs already underway in other countries to enable attacks
on US space systems. Finally, the 2010 NSP implies that the United States has an obligation to protect
US equities in space, much in the same manner that it does on the sea, in the air, and on land; preventing
all military activity in space (outside of missile warning) will make this an exceptionally difficult if not
impossible mission.
72
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WEAPONIZATION INEVITABLE
Space weaponization inevitable
William, Marshall, Editorialist for the International Herald Tribune, 2006, “Star Wars: The folly of
weaponizing space”, International Herald Tribune, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/opinion/05ihtedmarshall.2123263.html
Tensions ran high at the United Nations recently when the United States delivered a hard-line statement
defending its right to develop space-based weapons.
Responding to international pressure in recent weeks, John Mohanco, the deputy director of the U.S.
Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs, said "our government will continue to consider the
possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting our [space] assets."
The statement followed an alarming change of course last year when the United States became the first
country to oppose the annual non-binding UN resolution, "Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space."
The rest of the world deems it important to prevent an arms race in space, and wants a treaty to that
effect. The need for such a treaty is compounded by the U.S. withdrawal in 2002 from the ABM Treaty,
which included restrictions on space weapons.
This discussion is far from theoretical. The U.S. Air Force is pushing lasers with which to attack satellites
and the Missile Defense Agency is pushing for another budget hike for space-based weapons.
Already the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on such weapons.
U.S. Has Full Intentions of Militarizing Space
Estes, Commander-in-chief of United State Space Command and Commander of Air Force
Space Command, 1996, “As presented, Air Force Space Command, Commander, Speech for
the Air Force Association Annual Symposium,” CINC SPEECH,
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/speech1.htm
We, as a military, have moved into space ... At first with observation and signal ... Today we
call it intelligence and communications. These space operations, like the land, sea and air
operations that evolved before them, will expand the budding new missions already included in
the charter of us space command of space control and force application as they become more and
more critical to our national security interests. With all this in mind, it is imperative that as an
Air Force we determine where we want to go and how we are going to get there? Let's first
discuss, where is it we want to go? There is no shortage of guidance about this. On 19
September, the President released his National Space Policy. This policy, among many other
things, directs the nation to maintain its pre-eminent position as the world's number one space
power in order to assure support for terrestrial military/civil operations. Like airpower... Control
and access to the benefits of space ...spacepower... Must be maintained and protected. Even
today, terrestrial land and sea operations can only be conducted successfully by those who
control the air and space above the battlefield. To effectively carry out this national level
guidance, DoD must: Improve its ability to support terrestrial operations worldwide. We have to
get the benefits provided by space-based systems into the hands of the warfighter at the right
time.
73
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
WEAPONIZATION INEVITABLE
The United States Wants to Push its Agenda in Space Militarization by Scrapping ABM Treaty.
Jeffrey Simpson, 2001, “Will we help the U.S. militarize space?”, The Globe and Mail, Accessed via Lexis
Nexis Academic Universe
Deployment of an antiballistic missile defence will require ending the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with
Russia, something the Bush administration has signalled its intention to do unilaterally in the near future.
Gen. Meyers's appointment underscores the intention of President George W. Bush and Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to push ahead with a missile defence system, scrap the ABM Treaty and,
most ominously of all, proceed in due course with the militarization of space. His selection illustrates the
priorities of the Bush administration in defence. The Pentagon has already announced that clearing will
begin this week of a site for missile silos and a command centre near Fairbanks, Alaska. Formal notice to
the Russians of U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty now seems just a matter of time. The antiballistic
missile system is a major first step toward what the Rumsfeld-led and Meyers-directed Pentagon see as a
"radical" overhaul of U.S. defence strategy, central to which will be missile defence leading to spacebased weapons and communications systems.
The United States Rapidly Pushing Towards Space Militarization
China Daily, No Author Given, 2007, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/200710/11/content_6164998.htm, Accessed via Lexis Nexis Academic Universe
The US has made a series of efforts to promote militarization of space in the past years and the most
important one is to implement a new space policy with new targets. In August 2006 US President George
W. Bush authorized the US National Space Policy, which sets enhancing its leadership in space, freedom
of action in space and constant exploration plans as its basic goals. At the same time the US increased
financial input to enhance the construction of aerospace power. Its 2008 space budget will be $6 billion, a
quarter up from its 2007 budget. The US military merged the US Space Command with USSTRATCOM
on October 1, 2002 and set up a new US Strategic Command to strengthen its fighting force in space.
The US spares no effort to develop space arms and deploy a national missile defense (NMD) system. In
2002 the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty unilaterally. It has carried out 13
interception tests since 2004. Its NMD system possesses an operational capability. Besides, the US plans
to deploy its NMD system in some European countries. In the past half century, the US has been a leader
in space technologies. It owns 413 of the world's total 811 satellites and a large space force with various
kinds of weapons. It is the only country that can duplicate the use of aerospace planes. In the battles in
Iraq and Afghanistan, space technology helps to bring crucial advantages for the US army.
The United States has Already Developed a Deadly Space Weapon
The Globe and Mail, No Author Given, 1997, “By zapping a satellite with the world's most powerful laser,
the United States may have created a new killing ground in space and raised the spectre of another
global arms race”, Accessed via Lexis Nexis Academic Universe
In the test, carried out Friday, the laser was fired from the White Sands military base in New Mexico at an
aging, 200-kilogram, refrigerator-sized U.S. Air Force satellite orbiting 400 kilometres above the Earth's
surface. The test was considered a success, although military spokesmen said yesterday that the results
were still to be evaluated. The satellite was zapped twice by the huge laser, which blasts a two-metrewide beam of concentrated, invisible energy. Although its power rating is classified, analysts assume that
it is capable of an output of more than 2.2 million watts of electricity, which is the power rating of a space
laser dubbed 'Alpha' currently in development for the U.S. Military. Although the United States asserts
that the test firing does not violate any international treaties banning anti-ballistic-missile defences, the
demonstration of the capability to cripple a fast-moving target, 400 kilometres away in space, will increase
concern that the United States now has all the pieces in place to create both a space-based antimissile
system and an antisatellite system. Some critics of the test argued that the United States, which currently
dominates the hugely expensive, rarefied technology of space-based reconnaissance and globalpositioning systems, had the most to lose by letting the genie of such powerful laser weapons out of the
bottle.
74
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION INEVITABLE
China Has been Militarizing Space Since the Past Decade
Jeff Keuter, 2007, “China's Space Ambitions”, The New Atlantis,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/chinas-space-ambitions-and-ours
Under Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese science and technology enterprise shifted to concentrate on projects
of economic benefit or of scientific value. Space therefore became a lower priority until 1986, when
National Project 863 began. That major high-tech initiative ranked aerospace technology alongside
energy research, information technology, and the biological sciences as keystones for future economic
development in China. Aerospace projects were highlighted in the regime’s subsequent five-year plans.
Those five-year plans offer useful insight into the progress and evolving priorities of China’s space
program. During each of the two five-year plans that comprised the 1990s, China launched about 10
satellites. But in the next five-year plan, starting in 2001, China placed more than 35 satellites into orbit. A
2006 government white paper on space called for the development of a new generation of satellites; the
improvement of launch and satellite manufacturing capabilities; and the expansion of the global
competitiveness of China’s launch services, satellite services, and ground equipment. The current fiveyear plan emphasizes China’s intentions for lunar exploration. Building on the successful mission of its
first astronaut in 2003, China now plans more manned flights in Earth orbit, as well as a number of
unmanned missions to the Moon (starting with a lunar orbiter expected to launch in 2007).
China possesses the facilities, satellite technology, mission control centers, and launchers required of a
space power. The Long March series of rockets can place payloads into low-Earth, geosynchronous, and
polar orbits. Five satellite constellations are used for communications, meteorology, remote sensing, and
navigation. In addition, China has shown great interest in small satellites and has developed a dedicated
launcher for them. The Chinese have also engaged in several international cooperative efforts, such as
the Galileo navigation satellite system that Europe is developing as an alternative to America’s Global
Positioning System (GPS).
The U.S. has a strong interest in militarizing space
Nina Tannewald, Associate Research Professor of International Relations at Brown University, 2003,
“Law Versus Power on the High Frontier”, http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/7902/1/tannenwald.pdf
Although this was once purely SPACECOM doctrine, prominent civilian defense officials have endorsed
the global engagement strategy, and have begun to implement changes in Pentagon doctrine,
organization and budgets to move in that direction. The January 2001Rumsfeld Commission report on the
management of U.S. space assets, produced by a study commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld before
he became secretary of defense, signaled his strong support for the need to project force in space to
counter presumed threats to U.S. military security there.15 Although it stopped short of directly
advocating space weapons, no one could miss the point. In late September 2001, the U.S. Quadrennial
Defense Report, a wide-ranging assessment of U.S defense policy, called for beefing up military space
surveillance, communications, and other applications of earth-orbiting spacecraft. It also underscored the
need to deny use of space by adversaries, and that U.S. vulnerabilities in space must be met with
aggressive development of space capabilities.16
Most tellingly, the Department of Defense’s Nuclear Posture Review, portions of which were leaked in
March 2002, reportedly advocates the use of space-based assets to enhance conventional and nuclear
strike capabilities. In October 2002, SPACECOM merged with the U.S. Strategic Command, which
controls U.S. nuclear forces, to create a single entity responsible for early warning, missile defense, and
long-range strikes.17 The Pentagon has requested $1.6billion dollars over FY 2003-2007 to develop
space-based lasers and kinetic kill vehicles to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles (as well as to
destroy satellites).18 Providing further evidence of high-level support for the global engagement strategy,
the Bush administration’s decision to withdraw from the 30-year old Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
appeared to be less a necessary move driven by technical needs of missile defense testing than a
symbolic move to sweep away inconvenient legal obstacles to U.S. power projection in space.19
75
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
MILITARIZATION INEVITABLE
The U.S. will weaponize space unless domestic or international opposition is
mounted.
First Author Dr. James Moltz, associate director and research professor with the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, and Second Author Dr. Jonathan Dean, adviser on Global Security Issues at
the Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. 2002 “Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and
Arms Control Trade-Offs” http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/7902/1/tannenwald.pdf
The present rather anarchic coexistence of military and commercial assets on the space frontier may
come to an end within the next five to 10 years. This could happen if a new stage—weaponization of
space—begins and is followed by the first space weaponizing power’s promulgation of its own rules of the
road for space. Or, it could happen if the present near anarchy is replaced by a new international rule of
law, whether via a formal treaty or political agreements.
In any event, there cannot be much doubt that the weaponization of space will begin in the foreseeable
future unless it is hindered by organized, effective international opposition or the current U.S.
administration is replaced by an administration willing to cancel projects for weaponization of space in the
face of considerable opposition from domestic proponents of weaponization.
This issue is not a theoretical one. Development of two specific space-based weapons, a kinetic kill
weapon and a space based laser, is official policy of the U.S. administration as part of its missile defense
project. It is not a priority, but it has a specific development program and a budget of many millions
projected over the next several years. The first space tests are scheduled to take place in five to six
years, with deployment five to six years thereafter. This action is backed by an official doctrine calling for
U.S. supremacy in space and doing what is needed to achieve that supremacy.
76
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
EXTINCTION INEVITABLE WITHOUT COLONIES
Human race will not survive unless we find other planets to live.
Fox News, No Author Give, 2010, “Abandon Earth of Face Extinction, Stephen Hawking Warns – Again”, Air &
Space Section, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/09/abandon-earth-face-extinction-warns-stephen-hawking/
It's time to abandon Earth, warned the world's most famous theoretical physicist. In an
interview with website Big Think, Stephen Hawking warned that the long-term future of the
planet is in outer space. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next
hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its
eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he said. "I see great dangers for the human race,"
Hawking said. "There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a
question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of
such occasions is likely to increase in the future." "But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster
for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space," he said.
It is extremely difficult to carry out a practice on our colonization with current rocket
science.
Fox News, No Author Give, 2010, “Abandon Earth of Face Extinction, Stephen Hawking Warns – Again”, Air &
Space Section, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/09/abandon-earth-face-extinction-warns-stephen-hawking/
That said, getting to another planet will prove a challenge, not to mention colonizing it for
humanity. University of Michigan astrophysicist Katherine Freese told Big Think that "the
nearest star [to Earth] is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light years away. That means that, if you
were traveling at the speed of light the whole time, it would take 4.2 years to get there" -- or
about 50,000 years using current rocket science. Still, we need to act and act fast, Hawking
stated. "It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next
thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward looking on
planet Earth but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred
years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space."
77
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
EXTINCTION INEVITABLE WITHOUT COLONIES
Extinction Inevitable on Earth alone.
Robert, Britt, LiveScience Senior Writer, 2005, LiveScience
The eruption of a super volcano "sooner or later" will chill the planet and threaten human civilization,
British scientists warned Tuesday. And now the bad news: There's not much anyone can do about it.
Several volcanoes around the world are capable of gigantic eruptions unlike anything witnessed in
recorded history, based on geologic evidence of past events, the scientists said. Such eruptions would
dwarf those of Mount St. Helens, Krakatoa, Pinatubo and anything else going back dozens of millennia.
"Super eruptions are up to hundreds of times larger than these," said Stephen Self of Britain's Open
University. "An area the size of North America can be devastated, and pronounced deterioration of global
climate would be expected for a few years following the eruption," Self said. "They could result in the
devastation of world agriculture, severe disruption of food supplies, and mass starvation. These effects
could be sufficiently severe to threaten the fabric of civilization." Self and his colleagues at the Geological
Society of London presented their report to the British government's Natural Hazard Working Group.
"Although very rare, these events are inevitable, and at some point in the future humans will be faced with
dealing with and surviving a super eruption," Stephen Sparks of the University of Bristol told LiveScience
in advance of Tuesday's announcement. Supporting evidence The warning is not new. Geologists in the
United States detailed a similar scenario in 2001, when they found evidence suggesting volcanic activity
in Yellowstone National Park will eventually lead to a colossal eruption. Half the United States will be
covered in ash up to 3 feet (1 meter) deep, according to a study published in the journal Earth and
Planetary Science Letters. Explosions of this magnitude "happen about every 600,000 years at
Yellowstone," says Chuck Wicks of the U.S. Geological Survey, who has studied the possibilities in
separate work. "And it's been about 620,000 years since the last super explosive eruption there."
Failure to colonize space results in extinction
James Oberg, 2-year veteran of NASA mission control, he is the author of numerous books on
space 2001“The Impact of Space Activities Upon Ordinary Citizens and the
World”www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men into the greatest adventure that our
species hasever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and help the rest of
mankind to move into space. Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must
ventureinto the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging
the very high costs that are involved inmanned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival
as a species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have alreadyidentified dozens of
asteroids that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In
Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a
permanent human presence in space.
78
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
EXTINCTION INEVITABLE WITHOUT COLONIES
Overpopulation will lead to extinction
Rosamund, McDougall, Co-chair of the Optimum Population Trust 2002-2005 and joint Policy Director
2006-2009, 2010, “Too many people: Earth’s population problem,” OPT,
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.more.earth.pdf.
The Population Reference Bureau (PRB) estimated the world's annual growth at 83 million in 2009, this
natural increase resulting from 139 million births minus 56 million deaths. Every week some 1.6 million
extra people are being added to the planet - a sizeable city - with nearly 10,000 arriving each hour.
Already the human species is causing serious environmental damage to its only habitat Earth. The longdenied consequences of exploding population on ecosystems, food supplies and energy resources are
clear to all, but peaceful population policies continue to be low on the list of solutions. The alternatives Nature's methods of population control - are famine, disease and war. Without urgent efforts to stabilise
and reduce world population, can efforts to save our environment succeed? With smaller populations,
living in greater harmony with nature, our horizons may stretch far into the future. If the world's parents
had smaller families, would their children not have a better future? The numbers are vast. On a planet
inhabited by 2.5 billion people in 1950 within the lifetimes of many alive today - there are now more than
double this number. Population was still growing by 1.2 per cent a year in 2009, with fertility at an average
2.6 children per women, well above the 2.1 replacement level, according to the PRB’s World Population
Datasheet 2009. Birth rates are falling but the number of men and women likely to have children keeps on
growing. The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) 2008 Revision medium projection of 9.15 billion
population in 2050 was 100 million lower than in its 2006 Revision, but 200 million higher than the 2002
Revision. One reason is population momentum - the effects of high birth rates decades ago mean that
there are now twice as many fertile women worldwide today than there were in 1970. A halving of birth
rates can be cancelled out by an increase in the number of potential mothers. Key points * The world's
population of 6.8 billion in 2009 was expected to grow by another 2.4 billion to reach 9.2 billion in 2050.
That’s the same as adding nearly two more Chinas or eight more USAs. * Human consumption of
renewable resources is already overshooting Earth's capacity to provide. Resources are becoming
scarcer and the number of hungry people increasing year by year. *Reversing population growth is one of
the measures needed to ensure environmental survival. It can be done by voluntary and peaceful means,
given a political and individual will to act without delay. *Politically, governments can give urgent attention
and increased resources to providing access to contraception and education to the estimated 200 million
women and many millions of men worldwide who need and want it. * Individually, couples can decide to
have smaller families, for example to Stop at Two children or fewer to make a difference to population.
growth.-2 According to the UNPD’s 2008 Revision, the population of most developed countries is
expected to remain almost unchanged, at 1.28 billion, but that of less developed regions to rise from 5.6
billion in 2009 to 7.9 billion in 2050, with a tripling of numbers in some of the poorest nations. Net
migration from developing to developed countries is projected to average 2.4 million people a year.
Populations are continuing to age, with the numbers of people aged 60 or over expected to triple
worldwide to 2 billion by 2050, and fertility is expected to drop, with a fall from 2.56 children per woman in
2005-2010 to 2.02 in 2045-2050 (below the replacement rate of 2.1 children). This decrease in fertility is
not happening fast enough. The urgency of realising the reductions in fertility projected, and more, is
made clear by the UN: "A fertility path half a child below the medium [variant projection] would lead to a
population of 8 billion by mid-century. Consequently, population growth until 2050 is inevitable even if the
decline of fertility accelerates." But if the world's mothers reduce the number of children they have, there
could be 1.2 billion fewer climate changers in 2050 than projected. In recognition of the impacts of
population growth on the environment, the UNPD published longer-term world population scenarios in
2003. In World Population in 2300 its Constant-fertility Scenario extrapolation of population growth to
2300 at 1995-2000 fertility levels showed world population reaching a staggering 134 trillion by 2300. The
UNPD pointed out this "untenable outcome" which "clearly reveals that current high levels of fertility
cannot continue indefinitely." This puts fears about Ageing populations into perspective - compared with
the consequences of continuous population growth.
79
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ASTEROIDS ADD-ON
There is the ever-lingering threat of earth being hit by an
asteroid.
National Space Society. No Author Given. May 2011. Asteroids. http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/
If we don't do something, sooner or later Earth will be hit by an asteroid large enough to kill
all or most of us. That includes the plants and animals, not just people. Maybe this won't
happen for millions of years. Maybe in 15 minutes. We don't know. We have been warned.
On 23 March 1989, asteroid 1989FC (with the potential impact energy of over 1000
megatons, roughly the equivalent a thousand of the most powerful nuclear bombs) missed
Earth by about six hours [Freedman 1995]. We first saw this fellow after closest approach. If
1989FC had come in six hours later most of us would have been killed with zero warning.
We are hit by thousands of smaller asteroids every year and we don't see any of them
before the collision. In October of 1990 a very small asteroid struck the Pacific Ocean with a
blast about the size of the first atomic bomb (the one that leveled Hiroshima, Japan, killing
roughly 200,000 people in seconds). If this asteroid had arrived ten hours later it would have
struck in the middle of more than a million U.S. and Iraqi soldiers preparing for war. How
would America have reacted to what looked like an Iraqi nuclear attack? Hiroshima-sized
explosions due to asteroids actually occur in the Earth's atmosphere about once a month
[Lewis 1996b], but are seldom seen because most of the Earth is unpopulated. The data
comes from Air Force satellites designed to look for nuclear explosions. In 1908 a small
asteroid (perhaps 50 meters across) hit Tunguska, Siberia and flattened 60 million trees.
That asteroid was so small it never even hit the ground, just exploded in mid-air. If it had
arrived four hours and fifty-two minutes later it could have hit St. Petersburg [Lewis 1996b].
At the time St. Petersburg was the capital of Russia with a population of a few hundred
thousand. The city would have ceased to exist. As it was, dust from the blast lit up the skies
of Europe for days. Asteroid strikes this size probably happen about once every hundred
years. However, this is just an average. Just because we got hit once doesn't mean we're
safe for another hundred years. Indeed, there was another Tunguska-class strike in the
Brazilian rain forest on 13 August 1930 [Lewis 1996b]. There are about 1,000 asteroids a
kilometer or more in diameter that cross Earth's orbit (the path Earth takes around the Sun).
About a third of these will eventually hit Earth [Lewis 1996a]. An asteroid strike this large can
be reasonably expected to kill a billion people or so, depending on where it hits. A strike in
China or India would kill more, in Antarctica less. Even a strike in the ocean would create a
tsunami so enormous most people living near the coast would be drowned. A strike of this
size is expected about once every 300,000 years or so. It's not just Earth. In 1178 our Moon
was hit by an asteroid creating a 120,000 megaton explosion (about six times the force of
Earth's entire atomic arsenal). The collision dug a 20 km (12 mile) crater. This strike was
recorded by a monk in Canterbury, England. We are extremely lucky it didn't hit us. The
Moon is a smaller target and has much less gravity to attract an impactor. If a 120,000
megaton blast had hit the Earth our history would have been dramatically different. We're
just lucky that one hit the Moon instead.
80
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ASTEROIDS ADD-ON
Asteroids have been responsible for the killing of billions of beings for millions of
years.
National Space Society. No Author Given. May 2011. Asteroids. http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/
The most recent large strike also missed Earth. In July 1994 the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9
plowed into Jupiter. The comet broke up into roughly 20 large pieces before contact, but
when the pieces hit they left a string of enormous explosions clearly visible to our
telescopes. The scale of the destruction was staggering. Each impact was the equivalent of
about 10 million megatons of TNT. Sixty-five million years ago a huge asteroid several
kilometers across slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This is the event that
caused the extinction of the dinosaurs (and many other species). The explosion was the
equivalent of about 200 million megatons of dynamite, about the equivalent of all 20 pieces
of Shoemaker-Levy. The blast turned the air around it into plasma — a material so hot
electrons are ripped from the atomic nucleus and molecules cannot exist. This is the stuff
the Sun is made of. Enormous quantities of red-hot materials were thrown into space, most
of which rained down worldwide burning literally the entire planet to a crisp. Anything not
underground or underwater was killed. This scenario has been repeated over and over,
perhaps once every 100 million years or so. Each collision killed up to 95% of all species on
Earth. As many as two-thirds of all species that ever existed may have been terminated by
asteroids hitting the Earth. We know about the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs because we
found the crater. But what happens when an asteroid hits the ocean? After all, oceans cover
two-thirds of the Earth's surface, and most asteroid strikes are in water. Unless the asteroid
is very large there won't be a crater. However, if you drop a rock into a lake it makes waves.
The larger the rock the bigger the wave. Drop a 400 meter (four football fields) diameter
asteroid into the Atlantic Ocean and you get a tsunami 60 meters (yards) high [Willoughby
and McGuire 1995].
SPS not only solves global warming, but it will get rid of the threat of asteroids.
National Space Society. No Author Given. May 2011. Asteroids. http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/
The only way to eliminate the threat of asteroids is to detect them and divert them. Right
now we depend on a trickle of government funding for this. Detection of Earth-threatening
rocks is very far from complete. At the present rate it will take years before we find just 90%
of them. A vigorous space settlement civilization based on asteroidal materials would have
enormous economic incentives to find and utilize every asteroid passing anywhere near
Earth. They would be found, diverted, and mined for their materials. This would defuse the
threat, make an awful lot of people extremely rich, and provide lovely homes to even more
people.
81
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ASTEROIDS ADD-ON
Space based planetary defense system are essential for countering asteroids
John, Kunich, Staff Judge Advocate, 50th Space Wing, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado, 1997,
Planetary Defense: The Legality of Global Survival, Found via LexisNexis search.
It is true that destructive impacts of gigantic asteroids and comets are extremely rare and infrequent when compared with most other
dangers humans face, with the [*126] intervals between even the smallest of such events amounting to many human generations...
No one alive today, therefore, has ever witnessed such an event, and indeed there are no credible historical records of human
casualties from impacts in the past millennium. Consequently, it is easy to dismiss the hazard as negligible or to ridicule those who
suggest that it be treated seriously. n32 On the other hand, as has been explained, when such impacts do occur, they are capable
of producing destruction and casualties on a scale that far exceeds any other natural disasters; the results of impact by an object the
size of a small mountain exceed the imagined holocaust of a full-scale nuclear war... Even the worst storms or floods or earthquakes
inflict only local damage, while a large enough impact could have global consequences and place all of society at risk... Impacts are,
at once, the least likely but the most dreadful of known natural catastrophes. n33 What is the most prudent course of action when
one is confronted with an extremely rare yet enormously destructive risk? Some may be tempted to do nothing, in essence gambling
on the odds. But because the consequences of guessing wrong may be so severe as to mean the end of virtually all life on planet
Earth, the wiser course of action would be to take reasonable steps to confront the problem. Ultimately, rare though these space
strikes are, there is no doubt that they will happen again, sooner or later. To do nothing is to abdicate our duty to defend the United
States, and indeed the entire world, and place our very survival in the uncertain hands of the false god of probabilities. Thus, the
mission of planetary defense might be considered by the United States at some point in time, perhaps with a role played by the
military, including the United States Air Force. III. POSSIBLE METHODS OF PLANETARY DEFENSE A rigorous examination of the
technological means of planetary defense is beyond the scope of this article; such matters are the province of highly sophisticated
technical analysis. However, it is important to understand at least in outline the probable instruments of accomplishing that mission,
because the legality of various options depends in large part on the specific methods employed, e.g., nuclear versus non-nuclear
devices. [*127] There are two general, basic aspects of planetary defense: the surveillance of space for potential threats, and the
mitigation of a threat once it is detected. Each will be examined in turn. The mission of planetary defense requires as a fundamental
prerequisite the surveillance of space to allow the detection of threats, with sufficient efficiency, precision, and promptness to enable
a meaningful response. Given that the type of objects of greatest concern (large asteroids, meteors, and comets) would approach
Earth from space at very high speeds from very great distances, the tools of detection and tracking tend to fall into the already
established fields of astronomy and to a limited extent, early warning/air defense, although the latter is currently focused on the
detection of missiles and would require significant modification in order to be of use against objects from outer space. Detection
addresses the need to identify potential threats early; once an object is detected, it is necessary to track the progress of the
threatening object, and to predict accurately the likely time and place of impact. n34 Additionally, it is important to characterize the
object, i.e., to estimate its composition and chemical properties so as to prepare an appropriate response. These activities could be
pursued in part from Earth through use of sophisticated telescopes, in conjunction with radar. However, these remote-sensing
methods can only perform preliminary, limited characterization. In order to ensure the most comprehensive, most precise, earlywarning coverage, as devoid of blind-spots and interference as possible, it may be necessary to employ some space-based
methods. n35 Perhaps an array of orbiting monitoring stations, equipped with telescopes and other monitoring devices, could
provide this type of coverage. Such a space-based sentinel system would be a highly useful if not absolutely essential complement
to similar components on Earth, because it would be free from the interference effects associated with "looking" through Earth's
atmosphere. n36 Evaluation of information from the sentinel system or systems would require state-of-the-art analytical techniques.
The data would be processed to yield estimates of impact time and place and the probable consequences. Undoubtedly, computer
models would play a role in this phase of the mission, [*128] taking into account the variables that might affect the outcome. Ideally,
the evaluation process would also provide insight into the optimal methods and means of response to the threat. Mitigation, or
response, could take several forms, depending in part on the nature and magnitude of a given threat, once it has been detected and
evaluated. One possible response would be evacuation of the impact zone, to minimize loss of life. A closely related response is
preparation to minimize the resultant damage due to fires, tidal waves, earthquakes, acid rain, and other after-effects, and to provide
medical care to the victims. These forms of response, though important, would be grossly inadequate when dealing with a truly
massive threat such as those discussed previously. In the event of a massive strike from space, the resultant apocalyptic disasters
would render such efforts as fruitless as rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks. The only meaningful response to a
massive strike is some form of direct intervention. Direct intervention may entail deflection or destruction of the approaching space
object to prevent or mitigate any impact with Earth. The means for achieving this fall partially within the realm of existing military
capabilities, and partially within the ambit of technologies superficially similar to some proposed/experimental aspects of the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Depending on the physical size and other attributes of the threatening object, a variety of
countermeasures might be effective in diverting or destroying it. Earth-based nuclear devices such as Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles (ICBMs) or their submarine-launched counterparts might suffice. Non-nuclear options conceivably would work, including
kinetic energy or laser systems such as were explored under SDI. Some of these may require space-basing to be effective, while
others may work in an Earth-based mode. A truly effective planetary defense system would probably employ multiple, redundant
layers of techniques. To compensate for the shortcomings of any one component in any given area of the mission, the system
should have an array of methods, each relying on an independent technological foundation. Most likely, a combination of spacebased and Earth-based components would be necessary. Taken together, the full panoply of technologies would synergistically
present more complete detection and protection than any subset of components could provide in isolation. This concept of defensein-depth is warranted by the unacceptability of a failure; the Earth may not get a second chance to get it right.
82
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
Cost to test SPS energy efficiency is economically feasible.
Denise Adams, Logistics Manager NASA Research & Education Support, 2008, “Mankins Returns to
NASA with a Space-Based Solar Powered Solution”,
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_mankins.html
According to Mankins, the Earth’s population is expected to rise to 9 billion in the next several decades.
Energy security is at stake because the supply needs to match the demand. Increased carbon dioxide
production is already affecting the Earth’s climate. “There is currently no obvious single solution to assure
the availability of energy we need,” Mankins said. Nuclear, fossil and solar energy are the most talked
about, according to Mankins, but he believes that space-based solar power is the best solution. Peter
Glaser, a vice president at Arthur D. Little, invented the “Solar Power Satellite” in 1968. The patent for
that satellite was received in 1973. The basic design concept of a space-based solar power system in the
1970s was inefficient, difficult to launch, had no automation and received negative feedback from the
National Research Council (NRC) and the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). We
have increased solar power generation efficiency, increased efficiency in wireless power transmission,
created easier launch capabilities and have a more retractable design that does not require any
astronauts or space factories, as the 1970s version did. Mankins made the point that “you don’t need
hundreds of billions of dollars to see if these new systems are economically viable.” He admits that we
are faced with a “grand challenge,” in part because there is no U.S. organization responsible for both
space programs and solar energy security. That lack has allowed that concept to “fall through the cracks.”
“It’s nobody’s job in the U.S.,” Mankins said.
SSP requires no tech breakthroughs and provides the energy needs of the entire
human civilization
Obama-Biden Transition Project, No Author Given, 10 October 2007, “Space Solar
Power- A Solution for Energy Independence & Climate Change”, pg. 1
SSP has Significant Long-Term Advantages: SSP is unusual among renewable energy options as it
satisfies all of the following criteria: Immensely Scalable — SSP can scale to provide the energy needs of
the entire human civilization at America’s standard of living. Most other near-term renewable options are
strictly limited in scalability. As the NSSO report states “A single kilometer wide band of geosynchronous
Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained
within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today.”Safe Global Availability — Nuclear
power technology cannot be safely shared with most of the countries on this planet because of
proliferation concerns. Steady & Assured — SSP is a continuous, rather than intermittent, power source.
It is not subject to the weather, the seasons, or the day-night cycle. No Fundamental Breakthroughs —
SSP does not require a fundamental breakthrough in either physics or engineering, such as those
required by fusion. Highly Flexible and Optimal for Export — SSP could enable America to become a net
energy exporter. We could be the world’s largest exporter of energy for the 21st and 22nd Centuries, and
beyond. Economics is the Key Barrier. The extremely high-cost of space transportation and building
spacecraft is the principal barrier. Some believe the cost of SSP is so high that it will never be economical
for baseload power. Never is a long time and we disagree. More importantly, the NSSO disagrees. The
solution to the cost challenge is straightforward: 1) Achieve cheap & reliable access to space, 2) Apply
high-volume mass-production assembly-line techniques to spacecraft construction, 3) Reduce the
technical risk with basic research and technology demonstrations, and 4) Adopt proven government
approaches to incentivize private industry investment, development and operation.
83
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
SPS beam technology is possible, and other SPS technologies have made
significant progress
Adam Hadhazy,
Science Writer, 2009, Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the
Light of Day?, Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finallysee-the-light-of-day
Last year, U.S. and Japanese researchers crossed an important SBSP threshold when they wirelessly
transmitted microwave energy between two Hawaiian islands about 90 miles (145 kilometers) apart,
representing the distance through Earth's atmosphere that a transmission from orbit would have to
penetrate, says Frank Little, associate director of the CSP.
Many other technologies relevant to SBSP have made "enormous progress" in recent years, says John
Mankins, who led the Hawaiian island test as chief operating officer and co-founder of Ashburn, Va.–
based Managed Energy Technologies, LLC. A little over a decade ago, the best photovoltaic efficiency, or
sunlight conversion into electricity, was 10 percent, Mankins says; now it can reach 40 percent. And
satellite technology has also improved: Autonomous computer systems as well as advanced, lightweight
building materials have also made leaps and bounds, he says.
SPS provides a large amount of reliable power and is not harmful
The Economist, No Author Given, 2008, “Let the sun shine in”, From December 4th issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/12673299
Today it is not just robots in science-fiction tales who are believers in the wonders of space solar power
(SSP); the idea also has a small but growing number of human adherents. The basic idea is simple. Light
from the sun is the most abundant and cleanest source of energy available in the solar system. Around
the clock, 1.3 gigawatts of energy pour through every square kilometre of space around the earth. This
energy could be captured by vast arrays of photovoltaic cells mounted on a satellite in orbit around the
planet. These solar cells would be illuminated at all times of day, whatever the weather or the season,
overcoming one of the main drawbacks of solar power on the earth’s surface. And with no atmosphere in
the way to absorb or scatter the incoming sunlight, solar panels in space would produce over five times
as much energy as those on the ground. (Some proposals for SSP involve large arrays of mirrors or
lenses to concentrate the light onto a smaller array of panels.)
The logical place to put the satellite would be in a geostationary orbit, 35,800 kilometres above the earth’s
equator, so that it completes one circuit of the planet per day, and thus appears (from the ground) to
hover in a fixed place in the sky, like the communications satellites used to broadcast television signals.
The solar-power satellite would send the collected energy down to earth in the form of a microwave
beam, which would be picked up on the ground by a huge array of antennae, spread over several square
kilometres in open country. The power density of the beam at the receiver would be little greater than
what leaks out from a domestic microwave oven, so there would be no danger of incinerating entire cities.
Microwave communications links are already used in the telecoms industry without doing any harm to
wildlife.
84
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
No technological barrier to implementing SPS left in the status quo
The Economist, No Author Given, 2008, “Let the sun shine in”, From December 4th issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/12673299
Space solar power is an idea far ahead of its time, but the necessary technology already exists.
These studies usually conclude that there is no technical barrier to implementing SSP. For example, a
study published in 1981 by the Department of Energy, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Commerce found “no show-stoppers” or “insurmountable obstacles” to the idea. But
further development work has always fallen between the cracks of different agencies. “The trouble is that
the Department of Energy doesn’t do space, and NASA does space, not energy,” says Colonel M.V.
(“Coyote”) Smith of the National Security Space Office (NSSO), a Pentagon think-tank, who recently
conducted another study of SSP.
The microwave beam concept has been demonstrated and it works.
The Economist, No Author Given, 2008, “Let the sun shine in”, From December 4th issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/12673299
The optimistic NSSO report was followed in May 2008 by a milestone for SSP, with the transmission of a
microwave beam, of the kind that would be used to transmit energy to Earth, between two Hawaiian
islands 148 kilometres apart. The distance was chosen because it is equivalent to the thickness of the
atmosphere that a microwave beam from space must penetrate. The experiment was carried out by
American and Japanese researchers in only four months, and for less than $1m, under the direction of
John Mankins of Managed Energy Technologies, a firm he founded after a long career developing space
systems at NASA. The experiment was sponsored by Discovery Communications, a TV company, for a
documentary.
No insurmountable technical hurdles to SPS
Frederic Golden, Time Magazine Writer, 1980, “Science: Sunny Outlook for Sunsats”, Time Magazine,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922218-1,00.html
Any scenario calling for complete U.S. freedom from foreign oil supplies is probably a petro-pipedream.
But the notion of using solar satellites to capture vast amounts of energy may not be very farfetched at all.
In spite of considerable scoffing at the sci-fi grandiosity of the idea, a report published last week, after a
three year, $19.5 million study undertaken by the Department of Energy in collaboration with NASA,
indicates that there are no insurmountable technological hurdles in the way of solar power satellites
(SPS) as a major alternative energy source.
85
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
NASA Has Had SPS Technology for a Decade and Is Ready To Deploy Pilot
Program
Rebecca Costa, Sociobiologist, 10, Can NASA Save a Struggling America? Cleantechnica.com
But here’s the real kicker. About a decade ago the folks at NASA began worrying that America might be
losing its love affair with space exploration. They saw budget cuts looming on the horizon and fewer and
fewer cameras were showing up for the next shuttle launch. As the country became worried about more
pressing issues such as record unemployment, terrorism, climate change and healthcare, NASA was
becoming irrelevant. So the agency started looking around for a little side project. It didn’t take long for
NASA to realize that renewable energy was the next big frontier. They were also pretty certain the answer
would come from the greatest source of clean energy known to man: the Sun — something the folks at
NASA felt they knew a little about. So NASA quietly embarked on a program called “space-based solar.”
They were determined to solve, once and for all, the growing need for clean, renewable energy, for the
American people and every man, woman and child on the planet. Imagine the impact this would have in
terms of clean water, hospitals, infant mortality, education and agriculture in even the most remote
villages of the world. The idea behind space-based solar was to install solar cells high above the Earth’s
atmosphere where the yield is more intense. The energy would be transmitted in the form of diluted,
harmless wavelengths to a small satellite dish attached to the roof of every home and business (think
satellite TV dish). No more wires or dams or electrical towers strewn across the desert. No more coalfired plants or nuclear power facilities. No more solar mattresses affixed to our rooftops. No brown outs,
power outages or back-up generators. All of them gone, in an instant. Sounds brilliant. But what would
you say if I told you that NASA has this technology today? What if I said that NASA has been banging at
the door of the U.S. Department of Energy for over a decade and no one will answer. Every time they get
a foot in the door they are chastised for “mission creep” and “overreach.” NASA? Those scientists need to
stick to pictures of Mars. Time to sound The Watchman’s Rattle: Wake up, America! As China takes the
market for solar and wind technology right out of the hands of the DOE (just ask any venture capital firm
specializing in clean tech – the writing is on the wall), NASA stands ready for a new mission: to leap-frog
the worldwide hunt for renewable energy by initiating a full-scale space-based solar program. We have
the technology, we have the resources, we have the need and the will – now all we need is for the Oval
Office to run with it. No country has a space agency more knowledgeable, powerful or successful than
NASA and the time has come for the United States to leverage this untapped asset. Forget investing in
more nuclear power plants or trying to manufacture solar panels and wind generators more cheaply than
China. When you can’t compete nose to nose there’s only one thing left to do: change the playing field.
And in this case, America owns the field. Space-based solar is alive and well at NASA. According to
senior scientists who don’t care to have their 30-year careers at NASA come to an end for spilling the
beans, pilot programs could be up an running within one year. That’s right, just one year. Compare this to
the four to five years it takes for a single new nuclear plant to become operational. America: stop chasing
the market. Get busy getting ahead of it. We have NASA to thank for an opportunity to eclipse every other
energy solution here on earth.
86
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
Major Advancement in Solar Cell Efficiency makes SPS more Viable
Commweb, No Author Given, 2006, “Major Solar Cell Breakthrough Announced”, Access via Lexis Nexis
Academic Universe
A breakthrough in solar cell technology promises to make solar power a cost-competitive energy option
and to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. With funding from the Department of Energy,has BoeingSpectrolab to create a solar cell with 40.7% sunlight-to-energy conversion efficiency, said DoE assistant
secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy Alexander Karsner on Tuesday. The solar cell
represents "the highest efficiency level any photovoltaic device has ever achieved," according to David
Lillington, president of Spectrolab. That claim has been verified by the DOE's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory in Golden, Colo. Most of today's solar cells are between 12% and 18% efficient. Some of the
ones used to power satellites are around 28% efficient. In 1954, 4% efficiency was state of the art.
Space-based Solar Power is Becoming More and More of a Reality.
William Fan, Harold Martin, James Wu, Brian Mok, 2011, “SOLAR POWER: Industry and Technology
Assessment”, California Institute of Technology
Unlike traditional sources of energy such as oil, gas and coal (the fossil fuels), SBSP doesn’t involve the
burning of fossil fuels, which have been shown to cause severe environmental problems and global
warming. SBSP is also more efficient than traditional solar power, as sunlight is almost five and a half
times as strong in space than it is on thesurface of the earth [1], as it does not have to interact with the
atmosphere, weather, and day/night cycles. Space based solar power would be able to run almost
continuously, with only short periods of time (of at most 75 minutes during the equinoxes [2]) when a
satellite would be in the Earth’s shadow.
Some important aspects have changed that could lead to SBSP evolving from a futuristic fantasy into a
current, plausible reality. First is the advent of private space launch companies. The most famous one is
SpaceX, which aims to launch objects into space at a fraction of the current costs. The other is the
wireless revolution. Such widespread use has allowed wireless power transmission to take dramatic leaps
forward, and as a consequence, provided a plausible solution to the issue of transmitting power from
space onto the surface of the Earth.
87
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
Solar power has been used in space for numerous reasons, and the US Federal Government can harvest
it for energy purposes on Earth.
Frank E.
Little, Associate Dirctor at the Center of Space Power at Texas A&M University, 2002,
“Solar Power Satellites: Recent Developments”,
www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2002-
SPSRecentDevelopments.pdf
Solar power is a reality. Today, increasing numbers of photovoltaic and other solar-powered installations
are in service around the world and in space. These uses range from primary electric power sources for
satellites, remote site scientific experiments and villages in developing countries to supplementing the
commercial electric grid and providing partial power for individual businesses and homeowners in
developed countries. In space, electricity generated by photovoltaic conversion of solar energy is the
mainstay of power for low Earth and geostationary satellite constellations. Still, for all its acceptance as a
benign and environmentally friendly energy source, terrestrial solar power has yet to be seriously
considered a viable technology for providing base electrical generating capacity. The obvious reason is
sunshine on earth is too unreliable. In addition to the diurnal and seasonal cycles, inclement weather
reduces the average daily period and intensity of insolation. However, the sun shines constantly in space.
The challenge is to harvest and transmit the energy from space to earth. The Solar Power Satellite has
been hailed by proponents as the answer to future global energy security and dismissed by detractors as
impractical and uneconomic. The idea for a Solar Power Satellite that would help meet the growing
energy needs of developed and developing nations was conceived by Dr. Peter Glaser in 1968 [3]. Dr.
Glaser's concept was orbiting satellites converting solar energy and transmitting the energy to earth via a
radio frequency energy beam. Solar Power Satellites placed in geosynchronous equatorial orbit 35,800
kilometers above Earth's surface would be continuously illuminated for most of the year. As a result of the
orbit location, the amount of sunlight shining on the satellite during the year is five times more than is
available to any terrestrial location. At geosynchronous orbit, satellites have the same rotational period as
the Earth and are therefore fixed over one location at all times, enabling the satellite to deliver almost
uninterrupted power to a ground receiving site.
88
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF SPS
SPS would be most successful with US Government as actor
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that space‐based solar power does present a strategic opportunity
that could significantly advance US and partner security, capability, and freedom of action and merits
significant further attention on the part of both the US Government and the private sector.
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that while significant technical challenges remain, Space‐Based
Solar Power is more technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors promise to
further improve its viability. A government‐led proof‐of‐concept demonstration could serve to catalyze
commercial sector development.
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high‐level
leadership and resourcing commensurate with its promise, but at least on the level of fusion energy
research or International Space Station construction and operations.
• The SBSP Study Group concluded that should the U.S. begin a coordinated national program to
develop SBSP, it should expect to find that broad interest in SBSP exists outside of the US Government,
ranging from aerospace and energy industries; to foreign governments such as Japan, the EU, Canada,
India, China, Russia, and others; to many individual citizens who are increasingly concerned about the
preservation of energy security and environmental quality. While the best chances for development are
likely to occur with US Government support, it is entirely possible that SBSP development may be
independently pursued elsewhere without U.S. leadership.
89
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF SPS
US Has Potential to Turn SPS into a new industry for US and Allies
Frank Morring Jr. , Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, 2007, “NSSO Backs Space Solar Power,”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.xml
"The business case still doesn't close, but it's closer than ever," said Marine Corps Lt. Col.
Paul E. Damphousse of the NSSO, in presenting his office's report. That could change if the
Pentagon were to act as an anchor tenant for a demonstration SSP system, paying abovemarket rates for power generated with a collection plant in geostationary orbit beaming
power to U.S. forces abroad or in the continental U.S., according to Charles Miller, CEO of
Constellation Services International and director of the Space Frontier Foundation. By
buying down the risk with a demonstration at the tactical level, the U.S. government could
spark a new industry able to meet not just U.S. energy needs, but those of its allies and the
developing world as well. The technology essentially exists, and needs only to be matured.
A risk buy-down by government could make that happen, according to the NSSO report.
Costs could be addressed with interagency cooperation
Becky Lannotta, Space News Staff Writer, 2009, Space Solar Power Crowd Bets on
Obama
http://www.space.com/3317-space-solar-power-crowd-bets-obama.html
The experiment entails placing a system that includes traveling wave tube amplifiers,
which amplify radio frequency signals, outside the space station on the Japanese
Experiment Module’s Exposed Facility. The amplifiers, donated by the U.S. Air Force
Research Laboratory, would be moved to another location on the space station to draw
power from the station’s solar arrays and beam them to Earth in microwave form. The
concept faces a major barrier, however, in the high cost of launching satellites large
enough to transmit meaningful amounts of power to Earth, according to
a white paper submitted by space solar advocate Charles Miller, president of Space
Policy Consulting Inc. in Dayton, Ohio, to Obama’s transition team in November. The
white paper recommends establishing a national space solar power policy, assigning a
lead federal agency and an incremental research program. The white paper said the
cost of space solar power could be reduced if the United States develops moreaffordable access to space and applies high-volume assembly line techniques to
satellite construction.
90
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF SPS
Congress will fund the SPS project which will be paid back through the income that it
produces.
Darel Preble, President of Space Solar Power Institute, 2002, The Sunsat Corporation Act,
Section 1, sub. 1
It is the intent of Congress by this chapter to direct and support the design, development,
construction and operation of a demonstration power satellite as rapidly as possible. The
overall management of this work will be assumed by the power satellite corporation to be
formed by this Act. This support may take the form of launch subsidies, transportation systems
developmental assistance, tax relief, insurance, and developmental bond relief, separately or in
combination. The principle purpose of this first power satellite is to improve the understanding
and practice of engineering and technology essential to building efficient and reliable power
satellites and related systems, including receiving antennas. Ownership and operation of two
such completed demonstration power satellites shall be with the power satellite corporation,
although the rectenna shall be owned by the client electric power company receiving the power
satellite feed. The debt incurred by the power satellite corporation for the development,
design, and construction of two demonstration power satellites shall be ten percentum of the
total construction cost of the power satellites. This debenture shall be repaid to the Congress
over thirty years at a rate of 3% interest. A developmental launch cost subsidy shall be provided
for ten years in the amount of one half of that portion of launch costs including insurance which
exceeds $100./lb to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Income from the sale of electric power by the power
satellite corporation shall be shielded from tax for a period of ten years from the first sale of
electric power.
91
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
DEPLOYMENT DETAILS
SBSP guarantees a more dependable energy resource.
Joseph D. Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 2007, “Space – Based Solar Power
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdfhttp://scie
nce.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
Our Sun is the largest known energy resource in the solar system. In the vicinity of Earth, every square
meter of space receives 1.366 kilowatts of solar radiation, but by the time it reaches the ground, it has
been reduced by atmospheric absorption and scattering; weather; and summer, winter, and day‐night
cycles to less than an average of 250 watts per square meter. Space‐Based Solar Power offers a way to
break the tyranny of these day‐night, summer‐winter and weather cycles, and provide continuous and
predictable power to any location on Earth. First originated as an idea in 1968 and later patented by Dr.
Peter Glaser, Space‐Based Solar Power captures sunlight on orbit where it is constant and stronger than
on Earth, and converts it into coherent radiation that is beamed down to a receiver on Earth. Two basic
architectures exist (for a complete discussion see Appendix A): placement of collectors in Earth orbit
geostationary orbit (GEO), medium‐Earth orbit (MEO), or low‐earth orbit (LEO)], or placement of
collectors on the surface of the Moon. Two basic methods exist for capturing the energy: photovoltaic or
solar dynamic. Finally two basic methods of beaming the power down exist: via coherent radio waves, or
via coherent visible or infrared light.
SBSP is an efficient power supply.
Charles Frank Radley, Master of Science - Systems Engineering, 2009 "Space-beamed solar
power," in AccessScience, ©McGraw-Hill Companies, http://www.accessscience.com
The output power of the rectenna is dictated by two factors: the intensity of the beam and the efficiency of
the antenna elements and the rectifier circuits. The restrictions for the beam intensity depend on the
safety rules that apply. Microwave exposure rules vary widely from country to country. The United States
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules equate to 5 mW/cm2 in the range of interest, from 2 to
6 GHz, for controlled exposure averaged over 6 min. However, FCC rules provide for unlimited power
intensity if physical barriers are present that eliminate the possibility of people entering the beam. How
such rules would be applied to space-beamed power is currently a subject of debate. In the 1980s it was
thought that ionospheric heating would limit the acceptable intensity to 230 W/m2 at 3 GHz. However,
more recent testing has shown that the intensity could easily be doubled, and at 5.8 GHz the ionospheric
heating is further reduced by 80%. Unlike nuclear and fossil-fuel systems, space-beamed power would
not generate any pollutants or hazardous waste. Fossil fuels emit enormous quantities of carbon dioxide
(CO2), which is widely suspected of causing global climate change. Space-beamed solar power could
replace fossil fuel plants and eliminate the CO2 emissions. Space-beamed power offers advantages over
terrestrial solar panels. On Earth, solar panels are usually fixed and do not track the Sun, so lose 50% of
the energy, but a space solar panel is weightless, and can easily track the Sun. Also, because there is no
wind or weather outside the atmosphere, the space panel can be very light and flimsy. The wide
variations of power from terrestrial solar panels make them unsuitable for baseload grid supply, unless
expensive storage systems are employed. Such storage systems usually rely on limited-life batteries such
as lead-acid or nickel-cadmium types, which represent a major toxic waste disposal problem. Power
beamed from space would be steady and continuous, unaffected by weather conditions, and with no
variation during the day or outages at night. Hence the high cost of terrestrial power storage would
avoided. For terrestrial solar panels to supply the needs of the world, large land areas would have to be
covered, and the loss of sunlight beneath the panels would destroy arable land and plant habitat on a
large scale. Relative to terrestrial solar panels, microwave rectennas for space-beamed power would
occupy much less area, and would be mostly transparent to sunlight.
92
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
DEPLOYMENT DETAILS
Improvements on PV tech have increased efficiency
NASA, No Author Given, March 23rd, 2001, “Beam it Down,
Scotty”,http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23mar_1/
When the idea was first proposed more than 30 years ago, PV technology was still in its
infancy. The conversion efficiency rate -- the fraction of the sun's incident energy
converted into electricity -- was only 7 to 9 percent.
"We now have the technology to convert the sun's energy at the rate of 42 to 56
percent," said Marzwell. "We have made tremendous progress."
SPS Are Much More Efficient Due To New Recent Advantages
David Boswell, Space Review Journalist, 2004, whatever happened to solar power satellites?
Thespacereview.com
For a proof of concept satellite it makes sense to use the station’s solar panels as a baseline. By taking
advantage of improvements in solar cell technology we could launch a demonstration satellite of the
same size that generates up to 3 times as much power. The station’s solar panels are 14% efficient, but
recent advances with solar cells and solar concentrators could allow us to build panels that are up to 50%
efficient.
Japan has plans to launch an SPS by 2040
Takahiro Fukada, Writer For Space Daily, 2001, “Japan Plans To Launch Solar Power Station In Space
By 2040”, The Space Daily, accessed online at http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html
Japan’s (METI) has ambitious plans to launch a giant solar power station by 2040."We are planning to
start operating the system in 2040," METI plans to launch a satellite capable of generating one million
kilowatts per second -- equivalent to a nuclear plant -about 36,000 kilometers (22,320 miles) above the
earth. The satellite will have two gigantic solar power-generating wing panels, each three kilometers by a
1,000 meter diameter power transmission antenna between them. The electricity produced will be sent
back to earth in the form of microwaves the microwaves will not interrupt mobile phone and other
telecommunications," The satellite is projected to weigh about 20,000 tons and the total construction cost
is estimated at (17 billion dollars),A similar plan was aired by the United States' National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) but nothing has so far come of it. Scientists also believe it could help
reduce global warming. “Solar power generation would benefit the environment compared to thermal
power," and "the safety and other issues associated with nuclear power generation will disappear,"
Satellites being put into orbit weigh between 20 and 30 tons on average, “But 20 to 30 years earlier,
satellites weighing only 100 kilograms could be launched.
93
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
DEPLOYMENT DETAILS
Fibre Lasers Can Become Used For More Efficient Transfer of Energy
The Print Edition, 11, Beam It Down Scotty: Harvesting solar power in space, for use on Earth,
comes a step closer to reality, economist.com
This summer, Stephen Sweeney and his colleagues will test a laser that would do the job which Asimov assigned to
microwaves. Certainly, microwaves would work: a test carried out in 2008 transmitted useful amounts of microwave
energy between two Hawaiian islands 148km (92 miles) apart, so penetrating the 100km of the atmosphere would be
a doddle. But microwaves spread out as they propagate. A collector on Earth that was picking up power from a
geostationary satellite orbiting at an altitude of 35,800km would need to be spread over hundreds of square metres.
Using a laser means the collector need be only tens of square metres in area. Dr Sweeney’s team, working in
collaboration with Astrium, a satellite-and-space company that is part of EADS, a European aerospace group, will test
the system in a large aircraft hangar in Germany. The beam itself will be produced by a device called a fibre laser.
This generates the coherent light of a laser beam in the core of a long, thin optical fibre. That means the beam
produced is of higher quality than other lasers, is extremely straight (even by the exacting standards of a normal laser
beam) and can thus be focused onto a small area. Another bonus is that such lasers are becoming more efficient and
ever more powerful. In the case of Dr Sweeney’s fibre laser, the beam will have a wavelength of 1.5 microns, making
it part of the infra-red spectrum. This wavelength corresponds to one of the best windows in the atmosphere. The
beam will be aimed at a collector on the other side of the hangar, rather than several kilometres away. The idea is to
test the effects on the atmospheric window of various pollutants, and also of water vapour, by releasing them into the
building. Assuming all goes well, the next step will be to test the system in space. That could happen about five years
from now, perhaps using a laser on the International Space Station to transmit solar power collected by its panels to
Earth. Such an experimental system would deliver but a kilowatt of power, as a test. In 10-15 years Astrium hopes it
will be possible to deploy a complete, small-scale orbiting power station producing significantly more than that from its
own solar cells. Other researchers, in America and Japan, are also looking at using lasers rather than microwaves to
transmit power through the atmosphere. NASA, America’s space agency, has started using them to beam energy to
remotely controlled drones. Each stage of converting and transmitting power results in a loss of efficiency, but with
technological improvements these losses are being reduced. Some of the latest solar cells, for instance, can covert
sunlight into electricity with an efficiency of more than 40%. In the 1980s, 20% was thought good.
SBSP is more efficient in production of energy.
Geoffry A. Landis, Ph.D. in Physics at Brown University, 2004, “Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite”,
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf
The system will beam to three power receivers sequentially, shifting the beam slightly as one rotates out of the line of
sight and the new one rotates into line of sight. (For example, three third-world cities of over ten million population
located roughly 120° around the globe are Mexico, Cairo, and Shanghai. Each of these cities is power-starved, with
expensive, unreliable electrical power and frequent brownouts on the power system, and each of these governments
has publicly pledged to erect large-scale fossil fuel power plants to service the growing needs of their burgeoning
population.) By use of a halo orbit, the power system transmitter can be put in a spot where it does not enter the
Earth's shadow, and yet still has the advantage of only viewing the night side of the Earth. The main design
simplification is due to the fact that the Earth and the sun are located in the same direction. This allows the design to
consist of thousands of individual elements, each separately phased and thus requiring no connection to any other
element, and most particularly, requiring no system of power distribution-- the power for each element is generated
locally. The design can now incorporate an integrated PV receiver/microwave transmitter dish. Each individual
element can be aimed both at the sun and at the Earth, and the beams combined by phased-array techniques.
Compared to Geosynchronous SPS designs: multi-gigawatt electrical cabling eliminated, entire system is at low
voltage; no arcing, rotary joint eliminated, rotating electrical feed through eliminated, microwave dish doubles as PV
concentrator, no element is critical; failure tolerant design, only minor beam scanning required, every element is
exactly identical, mass production of elements yields low cost. This results in a much simpler design than the GEO
satellite concept. Table 2 shows some of the design features for a typical design. The design requires 33,000
individual PV/Solid state amplifier units, each featuring an inflatable mirror which doubles as a parabolic antenna.
Since each unit can be mass produced, the cost is relatively low. Figure 2 shows an overall view of the design
concept for a single element.
94
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
DEPLOYMENT DETAILS
The use of lunar materials can greatly reduce the cost of SPS.
SolStation, No author given, 2000, “Solar Power Satellites (SPS)”, accessed online at
http://www.nova.org/~sol/station/sps.htm
Global energy demand continues to grow along with worldwide concerns over fossil fuel
pollution, the safety of nuclear power and waste, and the impact of carbon-burning fuels on
global warming. As a result, space-based, solar power generation may become an important
source of energy in the 21st Century. According to a study by the Space Studies Institute (SSI),
the nonprofit foundation founded by the late physicist and visionary Gerard O'Neill, over 99
percent of the materials needed for building solar power satellites (SPS) can be obtained from
Lunar materials. This would reduce the cost of SPS construction by almost 97 percent compared
to the alternative of use materials launched from Earth.
95
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS COSTS / ECONOMY
SBSP will generate revenue for the U.S.
Geoffry A. Landis, Ph.D. in Physics at Brown University, 2004, “Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite”,
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf
Space solar power is potentially an enormous business. Current world electrical consumption
represents a value at the consumer level of nearly a trillion dollars per year; clearly even if only a small
fraction of this market can be tapped by space solar power systems, the amount of revenue that could be
produced is staggering.
To tap this potential market, it is necessary that a solar power satellite concept has the potential to be
technically and economically practical. Technical feasibility requires that the concept not violate
fundamental laws of physics, that it not require technology not likely to be developed in the time frame
of interest, and that it has no technological show-stoppers. Economic feasibility requires that the system
can be produced at a cost which is lower than the market value for the product, with an initial investment
low enough to attract investors, and that it serve a market niche that is able to pay.
The baseline "power tower" developed by the "Fresh Look" study in 1996 and 1997 [1,2.7] only
partially satisfies these criteria. One difficulty is the power distribution system. The distribution system
required to transfer power from the solar arrays to the microwave transmitters, consisting of a long
highvoltage.
Launch Costs May Be Substantially Reduced By New Launch Innovations
The Oil Drum, 11, Solar Power In Space: Power Satellites, oilprice.com
Unfortunately, the answer is no, for several reasons. The chemical energy in rocket fuel vs. the required
energy it takes to get to orbit is not enough. Rocket technology with chemical fuels has reached the
performance limit. The most promising design is the Falcon Heavy (a proposal of SpaceX), with first
launch intended for 2012 at a cost of $100 M per trip. The rocket is expected to put 53 tons in low earth
orbit (190 km) above the earth’s surface, or 19.5 tons in geostationary orbit at 36,000 km. That is a
reduction to $4000/kg, a factor of five below current rockets, but not enough. Launching a Falcon Heavy
every hour might get the price down to $1000/kg, which is still too high by a factor of ten. Reaction Engine
has developed a rocket plane called Skylon that is intended to be an improvement over conventional
rockets. Reaction Engine's study of Skylon indicates it will put 12 tons in LEO or (with a second stage) 5
tons in GEO for an estimated cost of $1.5 M or $300/kg. The project goal is to develop an unpiloted space
plane that can be re-used up to 200-500 times. The expected cost per kg depends on the flight rate per
year: Unfortunately the cost is still too high by a factor of three. And it takes a flight rate of several per
hour to get the cost that low. Are we out of luck and solar energy will stream past the earth forever? Not
necessarily.
96
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS COSTS / ECONOMY
Solar Power in space will promote the development of new industries, aiding the U.S. economy.
Taylor Dinerman, Senior Editor at the Hudson’s Institute, Monday, May
14, 2007, “Space solar power: why do we need it and what do we need to
get it?, The Space Review/ May 2007, accessed online at
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/868/1
Space solar power is going to be the “long pole” in the economic development of the
solar system. The infrastructure that will be used to build up this generating capacity will
also be of use developing off-world mining, manufacturing, and even large-scale
farming. Once relatively cheap electric power can be beamed from the Moon or from
orbit to any place in the Earth-Moon system people will inevitably seek out ways to use
it profitably. What was once called the “Third Industrial Revolution” will have truly begun.
E1: At: Launch costs – decrease with sps investment
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an Opportunity for
Strategic Security”, <http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the SBSP development would have a transformational,
even revolutionary, effect on space access for the nation(s) that develop(s) it.
• SBSP cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to
space and ubiquitous in‐space operations. The sheer volume and number of flights into space, and the
efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game‐changing. By lowering the cost to orbit so
substantially, and by providing safe and routine access, entirely new industries and possibilities open up.
• SBSP and low‐cost, reliable space access are co‐dependent, and advances in either will catalyze
development in the other.
SBSP would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs to the economy
Ralph NANSEN, 1995, “Sun Power”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/index.html>
The design and development of the assembly base to be operated in space would
require a new breed of workers. Skilled laborers, like those needed to build the pipeline in
the Alaskan North Slope oil fields, would have to learn how to build giant structures in
space using robotic assembly tools. Development of the ground receiving antenna would
require a large number of people familiar with heavy construction, earth moving, and field
assembly. As the program moves from the design and development phase into
manufacturing of the initial satellite, the majority of jobs would be involved in building and
operating the space transportation system, fabricating the components and subassemblies
for the satellite, and constructing the ground receiving antenna. Only a relatively small
crew would be required for assembly in space. When I say small, that is only relative to the
total work force required, but quite large by any space operations we have today. The total
number required will be dependent on how many will be required to monitor the robotic
assembly machines and to handle cargo transfer between the heavy lift launch vehicles and
orbit transfer vehicles carrying cargo from low earth orbit to geosynchronous orbit. This
project would grow to provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in many different disciplines,
encompassing the entire spectrum from highly educated scientists to hourly laborers. The
number of jobs generated in periphery fields to support this work force would reach into
the millions.
97
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS COSTS / ECONOMY
Promoting energy efficiency will help out the U.S. economy.
Rebecca Lefton, Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the University of Chicago and
Researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress, Daniel J. Weiss, Senior
Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at American Progressive, 2010, “Oil
Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit,” Center for American Progress,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/oil_imports_security.html
The United States has an opportunity right now to reduce its dependence on foreign oil
by adopting clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction policies that would
spur economic recovery and long-term sustainable growth. With a struggling economy
and record unemployment, we need that money invested here to enhance our economic
competitiveness. Instead of sending money abroad for oil, investing in clean-energy
technology innovation would boos1t growth and create jobs. And by creating the
conditions for a strong economic recovery, such as creating more finance for energy
retrofits and energy-saving projects and establishing loans for manufacturing lowcarbon products, we can give the United States the advantage in the clean-energy race.
Investing in a clean-energy economy is the clear path toward re-establishing our
economic stability and strengthening our national security.
SPS would provide a boost to the US's weak economy.
Jeremy Elton Jaquot, Ph.D. in Marine Environmental Biology, October 15, 2008 “Could Solar Power
Satellites Beam Down Gigawatts of Energy?”, Treehugger Publication, accessed online at
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/solar-power-satellite.php
Such a large-scale project would definitely provide a boost to our ailing economy, creating both
many new jobs and contracts for a variety of companies, and it would give NASA a worthy new
pursuit. Bova suggests making NASA's primary goal the construction of a demonstration model
SPS able to deliver 10 to 100 megawatts of power by the end of the president's second term. It's
hard to imagine either a President Obama or President McCain having the stomach to fund such
a project if it doesn't start making measurable progress sooner -- 8 years is a long time to wait for
a technology that may not even work in practice. Still, this project may also help spur interest in
other space-related technologies and developments and could, in later years, create an entire new
industry around space launchers.
98
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS COSTS / ECONOMY
The US economy has much to gain by replacing foreign oil with clean energy.
Rebecca Lefton, Researcher for progressive media and Daniel J Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of
Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress), January 2010 “Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit:
Imports Threaten Our Security, Our Environment, and Our Economy”, The Center for American Progress
The United States has an opportunity right now to reduce its dependence on foreign oil by
adopting clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction policies that would spur economic
recovery and long-term sustainable growth. With a struggling economy and record
unemployment, we need that money invested here to enhance our economic competitiveness.
Instead of sending money abroad for oil, investing in clean-energy technology innovation would
boost growth and create jobs. Reducing oil imports through clean-energy reform would reduce
money sent overseas for oil, keep more money at home for investments, and cut global warming
pollution. A Center for American Progress analysis shows that the clean-energy provisions in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and ACES combined would generate approximately
$150 billion per year in new clean-energy investments over the next decade. This governmentinduced spending will come primarily from the private sector, and the investments would create
jobs and help reduce oil dependence.
And by creating the conditions for a strong economic recovery, such as creating more finance for
energy retrofits and energy-saving projects and establishing loans for manufacturing low-carbon
products, we can give the United States the advantage in the clean energy race. Investing in a
clean-energy economy is the clear path toward re-establishing our economic stability and
strengthening our national security.
SSP Shines hope on the Future
Al Globus, No Author Given. 2007, Solar Power from Space: A Better Strategy for America and the
World
http://www.space.com/3812-solar-power-space-strategy-america-world.html
The catch is cost. Compared to ground based energy, SSP requires enormous up-front
expense, although after development of a largely-automated system to build solar
power satellites from lunar materials SSP should be quite inexpensive. To get there,
however, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D and infrastructure development
- just what America is good at. And you know something, we're spending that kind of
money, not to mention blood, on America's Persian Gulf military presence today, and
gas went over $3/gallon anyway. In addition, we may end up spending even more to
deal with global warming, at least in the worst-case scenarios. Expensive as it is, SSP
may be the best bargain we've ever had.
99
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS COSTS / ECONOMY
SBSP will lead to a proliferation of high-paying technical jobs
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to have significant growth
potential in the long run, and a national investment in SBSP may return many times its
value. Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue.
SBSP, however, may create new markets and the need for new products that will provide
many new, high‐paying technical jobs and net significant tax revenues. Great powers have
historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to
themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars.
The energy market is trillions of dollars, and there are many billions of people in the
developing world that have yet to connect to the various global markets. Such a large
export market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world.
Investments to mature SBSP are similarly likely to have significant economic spin‐offs, each
with their own independent revenue stream, and open up or enable other new industries
such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use
of off‐world resources. Not all of the returns may be obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure
and a global utility. Estimating the value of utilities is difficult since they benefit society as a
whole more than any one user in particular—consider what the contribution to
productivity and GDP are by imagining what the world would be like without electric lines,
roads, railroads, fiber, or airports. Not all of the economic impact is immediately captured
in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the services and products that spring up to support those
workers and their communities. Historically such infrastructure projects have received
significant government support, from land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural
electrification, to development of atomic energy. While the initial‐capability on‐ramp may
be slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very significant portion of the world energy
portfolio by mid‐century and beyond.
100
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS COSTS / ECONOMY
IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THE FUTURE REVENUE WILL OUTWEIGH THE INITIAL COST OF
BUILDING A SPS
Ralph NANSEN, 1995, “Sun Power”, <http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/index.html>
The first criterion is low cost over the long term. Usually the first reaction to the question of
a solar power satellite being low cost is that nothing associated with space could possibly
be low cost. That is simultaneously a correct reaction and an erroneous one. It is correct
when considering the cost of hardware designed to operate in space on an independent
basis with high reliability. Based on dollars per pound of space hardware versus dollars per
pound of, say, a spool of copper wire, there is no comparison. But that very same piece of
space hardware—a communications satellite, for example—can reduce the cost of an
international telephone call by a factor of ten times less than could be provided by the
spool of copper wire strung from one point on earth to another point far away. Now which
one is lowest cost? The same principle applies in the case of the solar power satellite. The
hardware is not cheap, but it has high productivity. The high productivity is achieved
because the solar power satellite is in the sunlight over 99% of the time, which is five times
more sunlight than is available at the best location on earth. It can operate at maximum
capacity at all times and does not need a storage system. Its overall efficiency of converting
sunlight to electricity delivered on earth is projected to be from 7% and 10%, and the
system will be operating in the benign environment of space. This compares to the 1% to
3% for earth-based solar cell systems, and along with the favorable environment and the
elimination of storage systems, is the fundamental reason for going to space for solar
energy. If we use the cost estimates established from the preliminary designs developed by
the NASA study contractors in the late 1970s, then the cost of power would be less than the
cost of electricity generated by coal, oil, or nuclear power. When the initial capital costs are
paid off, the cost of power could then drop to a fraction of the costs from other sources. The
power costs are at least in the right ballpark. The energy is free; the only cost is the cost of
the conversion hardware and the cost to maintain it. The environment in space is very
favorable for most equipment. There is no wind or rain or dirt or oxygen or corrosive
fluids. Things last a very long time in space. The potential exists for long-term low cost—
without the inflationary cost of fossil or synthetic fuels.
101
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: INTERNATIONAL BACKLASH
There is substantial global interest in developing SPS satellites that the U.S.
could capitalize on.
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
The interim review did not uncover any hard show‐stoppers in the international legal or regulatory
regime. Many nations are actively studying Space‐Based Solar Power. Canada, the UK, France, the
European Space Agency, Japan, Russia, India, and China, as well as several equatorial nations have all
expressed past or present interest in SBSP. International conferences such as the United
Nations‐connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject and there is even a UN‐affiliated
non‐governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is dedicated to promoting the study
and development of SBSP. The International Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at least one
document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject by the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) is presently ongoing.
There seems to be significant global interest in promoting the peaceful use of space, sustainable
development, and carbon neutral energy sources, indicating that perhaps an open avenue exists for the
United States to exercise “soft power” via the development of SBSP. That there are no show‐stoppers
should in no way imply that an adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a regime must address
liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and
parking orbits, and transit corridors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space Situational
Awareness, data‐sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some significant similarities to the
International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) role for facilitating safe international air travel. Very
likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the satellite technology development
itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the construction of such a framework
immediately.
SBSP Will Lead to further international partnerships for the u.s.
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers significant opportunities for
positive international leadership and partnership, at once providing a positive agenda for
energy, development, climate, and space. If the United States is interested in energy,
sustainable development, climate change, and the peaceful use of space, the international
community is even hungrier for solutions to these issues. While the US may be able to
afford increased energy prices, the very availability and stability of energy is a threat to
other countries’ internal stability and ability for development. SBSP offers a way to bypass
much terrestrial electrical distribution infrastructure investment and to purchase energy
from a reliable source at receiver stations that can be built by available domestic labor
pools without significant adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse gas
emissions.
102
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: INTERNATIONAL BACKLASH
SSP will help with international cooperation in space
Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, 2002, The New Viability of Space Solar Power:Global
Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor, pg. 13-14 accessed online at
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&
as_ylo=2000, Date accessed June 25, 2011
If a non-integrated, decentralized SSP system were to be a truly international effort, perhaps costs for
such an effort could be reduced. It is conceivable that a sense of global mobilization (being part of a
common human endeavor) might take hold in an international effort to build thousands of SSP space and
ground segments. The peoples of poor nations might be able to find employment in digging the
foundations for and in the maintenance of SSP assembly and launch facilities and ground rectennae.
Borrowing from FDR’s New Deal philosophy, these facilities could purposely be built around the globe so
that vocational training in aerospace technology could also be offered, adding to the human capital in
developing countries. This new environment of international cooperation could and should be constantly
verified by UN inspectors to ensure that these new facilities remain true to peaceful purposes. There are
of course risks in any new relationship, but in light of the track record of other attempts to maintain
international security, these acceptable risks are perhaps worth the effort to make them work. U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is conscious of making every member of the U.S. Military feel
needed in the war on terror. This is the same approach that could be taken when building a system of
SSP for the peoples of Earth. Making poor people of the world actually feel needed should be a focal
point of U.S. foreign policy. This would reduce the general sense of marginalization in many parts of the
world, perhaps making terrorism at least flourish less. This approach could start by abandoning
“diplomatic” terms such as “periphery” and “international development.” These terms only reinforce the
idea that other countries and other cultures have nothing of inherent value to offer the West. When
Rumsfeld was a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry, he said that the role of serendipity in developing
new products increased with the number of separate areas of research and development that were
funded. This idea should be even more true as human capital is developed around the world. Some see
involvement in space as a luxury that much of the world cannot afford. This same logic would also deny
golf lessons for inner city youth. Perhaps this worldview fails to see the value in “teeing up” unknown
lessons to be learned, both by playing golf and by exploring space. A global mobilization for a common
human endeavor via the common language of science and technology, as it relates to outer space need
not be seen as naïve or some call for one world government. Ronald Reagan for instance,
characteristically and perhaps instinctively invoked the rhetorically inclusive phrase, “the people of this
planet” when he attempted to marshal international condemnation against terrorism during his
administration
103
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: INDIA
The U.S. could build a bilateral strategic partenership with India for SBSP.
Liutenant Colonel Peter Garretson, National Space Society Board of Directors, founder of he NSS
Planetary Defense, Chief of Future Technoolgy Branchfor the headquarters of the Air Force, August
2010, “Sky’s no limit: Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership?,
IDSA Occasional Paper, volume number 9, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
Early in his Presidency, President Obama articulated that India “had no better friend in the world than the
US” and that the two nations “shared belief in democracy, liberty, pluralism and religious tolerance”, and
suggested that scientists of both countries should solve the environmental challenges together. 11 The
high level visit by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July 2009 showed great continuity with the previous
administration’s Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), 12 which had laid out intended steps to be
taken in “energy and environment”,30 Peter A. Garretson “democracy and development”, and “high
technology and space” and then set up high-level dialogues in energy, civil space, and defence
cooperation. The official press release of the Department of State articulated the following pillars of the
strategic partnership 13 following Secretary Clinton’s visit: i. Strategic Cooperation: working groups will
address non-proliferation, counter-terrorism and military cooperation; ii. Energy and Climate Change:
working groups will continue our successful energy dialogue and begin discussions on actions to address
the challenge of global climate change; iii. Education and Development: working groups will enhance our
partnership in education and initiate discussions about women’s’ empowerment; iv. Economics, Trade
and Agriculture: working groups will continue and strengthen our discussions on business, trade and food
secu rity; and v. Science and Technology, Health and Innovation: working groups will explore new areas
for cooperation in leading technologies and in addressing global health challenges.
India will cooperate and maintain their steadfast dependability in the
case of a bilateral partnership.
Liutenant Colonel Peter Garretson, National Space Society Board of Directors, founder of he NSS
Planetary Defense, Chief of Future Technoolgy Branchfor the headquarters of the Air Force, August
2010, “Sky’s no limit: Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership?,
IDSA Occasional Paper, volume number 9, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
Despite the concerns of sceptics, the Indo-US strategic partnership seems to rest on very sound
fundamentals that are not likely to change over several decades. First, is a shared cultural history in
colonialism, with the attendant struggle for freedom, and the important influence of the enlightenment
thought, British political organisation, commerce and trade routes and prominence of the English
language in matters of science, state-craft and commerce. Second, the significant and growing bilateral
trade. Third is the asymmetric but aligned economic needs–where India needs investment today to
maintain a high rate of growth for development and cohesion, and the US is looking for high growth
places to invest, and places that provide both a market for its own goods and a costcompetitive
manufacturing base to manufacture the ideas it conceives and finances. Fourth is the large and politically
active diaspora that is actively seeking to build closer ties. Fifth is a shared interest in limiting the damage
of those extremists that undermine pluralism and sew extremism and violence. Finally, both wish to take
part in the the economic rise of a vibrant Asian market where a normative rule set prevails that allow all
members to benefit from the use of global commons and work on collective problems and human security
is possible. Within this framework, both nations see the need to make space for and engage China as it
evolves as a responsible stakeholder with greater transparency, but to ensure that accommodation takes
place respecting important equities of themselves and their neighbours, and is free of any element of
coercion.
104
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: INDIA
India and the U.S.’s relationship promises a bright space
collaboration based on their political partnerships so far.
Liutenant Colonel Peter Garretson, National Space Society Board of Directors, founder of he NSS
Planetary Defense, Chief of Future Technoolgy Branchfor the headquarters of the Air Force, August
2010, “Sky’s no limit: Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership?,
IDSA Occasional Paper, volume number 9, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
Further, the strategic partnership has exhibited steady momentum and upward direction across changes
in administration in both countries. A change in the orientation of the countries began at the end of the
Cold War with the 1991 Kicklighter Memo under President George H.W. Bush, and was followed by the
Agreed Minute on Defence Cooperation in 1995. The momentum slowed following India’s decision to
conduct nuclear testing (“Operation Shakti”) in 1998, but was resumed in the wake of the Al Qaeda
attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 (“9/11”). Since then, despite changes in ruling parties on both
sides, there have been a list of important accomplishments, including the signing of a General Security of
Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) in 2002, the formal designation of India as a “Friendly Foreign
Country” for cooperative activity in research and development, and participation in the Foreign
Comparative Testing (FCT) programme, the inking of the 2003 Master Information Exchange Agreement
(MIEA), the 2004 Joint Statement laying out the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) and the New
Defence Framework and Umbrella Research Development Testing and Evaluation agreement (RDT&E)
agreement, both signed in 2005, the Maritime Security Cooperation Framework in 2006, and quite
recently the Civil Nuclear Agreement (“123”) in 2008. With the NSSP, the two countries set up important
and regular dialogues on energy, space, high-tech cooperation, defence and defence research
cooperation, and aviation cooperation. Most recently, in 2009, a new high-level strategic dialogue was
announced, as well as special engagement on climate change and an emphasis on a “renewable energy
partnership.” More concretely, India and the US agreed to a standard end-use monitoring (EUM)
language, a technological safeguards agreement, a side letter allowing the launch of civil US satellites
and components, and set up an endowed science and technology fund.
105
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: INDIA
The advantages of having India as an accomplice, and the benefits they will bring
the U.S.
Liutenant Colonel Peter Garretson, National Space Society Board of Directors, founder of he NSS
Planetary Defense, Chief of Future Technoolgy Branchfor the headquarters of the Air Force, August
2010, “Sky’s no limit: Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership?,
IDSA Occasional Paper, volume number 9, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
While most Indian audiences encountered by the researcher did not seem to challenge the reasons for why India might want the US
as a partner in such a high tech space endeavour, a frequent line of questions posed during interactive sessions was “Why India
and does India really have anything to offer? Why shouldn’t the US and its companies just go it alone? Why not choose as a primary
partner Japan or the European Union, or ‘cash-rich China’, which is easier to work with than our complicated democracy and
bureaucracy?” This researcher sees no reason to argue why the US or India or both together should not seek collaboration with
these other partners, but there is significant momentum in the Indo-US strategic partnership, and strong reasons for the US to
consider India. Firstly, India is the only major state where a Head of State has not only suggested space solar power as a goal for its
space agency, but also expressed an interest in international cooperation. Second, as already noted above, there is considerable
momentum in the Indo-US strategic partnership, with key components–space, energy, climate change, high tech, aviation, and
dualuse strategic technologies and defence cooperation–already in place with vibrant dialogue. Third, India’s need for power and
development is acute, likely considerably more acute than other potential partners which makes it potentially a more motivated
partner, and a linked effort also promises a tremendous ultimate market potential. Fourthly, the success of space solar power will
depend partly on low-cost manufacture. In the time frame when space solar power will come of age, perhaps 15 years in the future,
even as other manufacturing and labour markets age and face decline, India is projected to be in the midst of its demographic
dividend, with the largest working age population of any country on earth. 4 Finally, and significantly, in a breakthrough project like
space solar power where an international regulatory framework is required, the influence of a historically normative power
representing the developing world and its equities is a powerful enabler, and without such a partnership a go-it-alone attitude might
find the environment and the markets considerably less permissive. Further, the case for technical cooperation with India is quite
strong. As already remarked, over the course of nearly a decade, there has been significant momentum to the technical cooperation
aspect of the Indo-US strategic partnership and we have finally put in place all the necessary precursor elements for institutional
research and development. Cooperation today is principally at a low level because bureaucracies still are not familiar with each
other, 5 and trust is earned incrementally over time. In the course of this research, there was no indication that there was reason to
doubt that such trust and familiarity will be the natural course. India already contributes the largest number of foreign technical
students in the US and its diaspora contributes substantially in high tech. As multinationals and successful Indian diaspora choose
to return, India is likely to see a significant expansion in the number and type and competence of technical capabilities. India is
today a very competent space power, being one of a very small club of nations with heavy launch, launch to GEO, and moon
mission capability, and it is only going to become more so. For a project like this, one must consider not just the current level of a
country’s tech base, but its likely trajectory. Investments being made now in satellite design, low-cost re-usable Two Stage to Orbit
(TSTO) systems at ISRO and Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) through DRDO’s International Space Plane Programme are likely to
evolve relevant technologies even while the US launch programme has taken a diversion into large expendables. Particularly in an
immature project like space solar power where there are very few technologists with a level of competence in the subject, in the
course of a five-year technology and workforce development project, India’s technical schools can easily multiply the number of
competent technologists by multiple factors. That rapid addition of intellectual workforce at competitive costs provides yet another
multiplier for rapid progress. Space Security and Engagement with International Bodies It is also important to note that direct
engagement with UN governance bodies will be required even before the experiment / demonstration stage, to include the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (CoPUOS), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and may well
require new institutions to be set up to cope with the significantly increased traffic to and from and in space. Such an institution
might mirror the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and provide a forum to disseminate safety practices and standards,
and coordinate processes for space traffic monitoring (STM) and space traffic control (STC), as well as debris monitoring and active
de-orbit. The space capabilities envisioned to be able to construct and maintain solar power satellites will have a significant impact
on the space security regime, and the construction of a supportive regime will have to consider the potential vulnerability of such
high value space-based assets to counter-space capabilities, and the need to properly balance technical capabilities and
assurances with diplomatic management of threat perceptions. Any group of nations proposing to undertake strategic cooperation in
this area must be fully aware to the need to actively construct a regime that will be sensitive to the threat perceptions of others and
likely expectation of regulation and assurances. In summary, an actionable bilateral policy framework will originate with a joint
statement by the respective heads of state announcing and sanctioning the activity and signing the requisite information exchange
and project agreement paperwork. An initial five-year, $10-30 million81 Sky’s No Limit programme, managed in the respective
executive, will develop contributing technologies and build a competent work force via the project/initiative and technology mission
model, culminating in a roadmap and plan for an international mega-science project for a demonstration prototype. A second, $10
billion, 10-year phase will see the formation of an international consortium to construct a sub-scale space solar power system
retiring all significant technical risk. The final stage will entail the bilateral leadership to set up an international for-profit consortium
along the lines of COMSAT/INTELSAT model to provide a scalable green energy system to allow development and address energy
security and carbon mitigation concerns.
106
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: CHINA
China’s energy crisis is increasing at a rapid rate due to their demand for
electricity. Since they need a new way to get electrical energy, they may turn to
solar powered satellites or else their economy will suffer.
Taylor Dinerman, Senior Editor at the Hudson’s Institute, Monday, May 14,
2007, “China, the US, and Space Solar Power,” The Space Review,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1
The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power status.
Leaving aside the political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest danger to China’s future
prosperity is its huge need for energy, especially electricity. According to an International Energy Agency estimate,
demand for electricity in China will grow at an average annual rate of 4.8% from 2003 and 2025. At some point
within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly
unprepared. Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. China is already
experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and
Zhijiang and contributes almost 20% of China’s GDP, faced capacity shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak
summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new power sources, including dam building and new
coal-fired power plants, China’s economic growth is outstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to
keep it going. While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership is
certainly aware of the role that glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another Communist
superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not without strong safety
measures, thus making them more expensive and more time consuming to build. Wind power and terrestrial solar
power will not be able to contribute much to meeting China’s demand and certainly not without government
subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to provide. At some point within the next
twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly unprepared. The crisis
may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use
of coal and similar fuels. At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a massive recession.
Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global repercussions
would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to generate enough clean
energy to satisfy China’s mid- to long-term needs is space based solar power. The capital costs for such systems are
gigantic, but when compared with both future power demands and considering the less-than-peaceful alternative
scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain. For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the
ability of private US or multinational firms to offer China a reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive
price would allow China to continue its economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful world power
structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this
would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe
when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project.
107
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: CHINA
China understands nuclear energy is not a solution to their energy crisis, but solar powered satellites are.
Kelley
2011
, Staff Reporter for the Alabama Local News,
, “Chinese solar power expert makes
case for space-based solar power”, The Alabama Local News,
http://www.al.com/42/index.ssf/2011/05/chinese_solar_power_expert_mak.html
Mike
"Humanity is at a crossroads, with energy the driving factor in human economics," the Chinese solar power
researcher said. "Nuclear energy has played an important role for the past 50 years, but we must look seriously at the
its problems and limitations," he said. His presentation, "Space Based Solar Power as a Safe and Sustainable
Alternative to Nuclear Energy," stated that nuclear power has been much costlier than envisioned 50years ago, when
the first U.S. nuclear power plants were built. The U.S. has spent more than $492 billion on nuclear power, he said,
which surpasses the combined costs of the Vietnam War and the Apollo/Saturn program. Hsu pointed to the recent
Fukushima nuclear power plant explosions in Japan and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the Ukraine as evidence of
what he termed the dangers of nuclear power. Nearly 1 million have died, he said, in the 25 years since the disaster,
and most of the deaths have occurred more than 30 miles from the now-abandoned nuclear facility. In addition, he
sees danger in rogue nations of the world getting access to nuclear power, a situation that can't be prevented.
"There's no way we can prevent this from happening. It's just a matter of time," he said. It currently costs $3 billion
to $5 billion to design and build a new nuclear plant, and it would take 8,000 such plants to replace the world's coalfired plants, he added. Solar Power is the logical alternative, Hsu said, and he foresees solar power becoming much
cheaper with ongoing advances in solar cell technology. China has made major advances in solar panel efficiency,
with more to come. He called for more federal spending on research and development of solar power technology,
which he feels is essential if solar power it to take off as a viable U.S. power source.
108
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: DEATH RAYS
SPS technology is not harmful and definitely not lethal
Adam Hadhazy,
Science Writer, 2009, Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the
Light of Day?, Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finallysee-the-light-of-day
Despite the clear analogy to a science fiction death ray, scientists believe the diffuse energy beam from
above would not pose a health threat to people or wildlife, even at its most intense center.
"Microwave radiation is nonionizing, just like visible light or radio signals," says Jim Logan, former chief of
medical operations at NASA's Johnson Space Center and an expert on aerospace medicine. That means
it lacks sufficient energy, like x-rays and gamma rays, to remove an electron from an atom or a molecule
to make a charged particle that can damage DNA and biomolecules, he says.
Birds passing through the heart of the carrier wave from space might feel some warmth, Logan wrote in a
February white paper on SBSP safety for Space Energy, but not at elevated levels. And should the beam
stray from its rectenna target, it would be designed to defocus, Logan says, and not "run amok all over
the landscape." Sage of Space Energy says: "We won't be frying birds or turning clouds to steam."
Current SPS technology will not interfere with air traffic
Solar High Study Program, No Author Given, 2011, “Solar High: Energy for the 21st Century,” accessed online at
“http://solarhigh.org/resources/16KwordBrief.pdf’
The microwave flux in the power beam is insufficient to harm aircraft or birds. The rectenna area is a factor of 9 smaller than the terrestrial solar
farm that it replaces; it can be located close to the intended load center; and the structure shields the ground underneath from microwaves but is
largely transparent to sunlight, so that it can be used for agriculture or other purposes. The technical feasibility of space-based solar power
(SBSP) is beyond dispute. PV cells have been used in space for decades, and wireless power transmission has been demonstrated repeatedly, on
Earth and in space. NASA and the DOE sponsored an extensive study of the subject in the late 1970s that found no show-stoppers, and this result
has been confirmed by several major studies since then. We have been waiting for advances in space technology to reduce costs to a competitive
level. That time is now.
Transmission beams are harmless
Liutenant Colonel Peter Garretson, National Space Society Board of Directors, founder of he NSS
Planetary Defense, Chief of Future Technoolgy Branchfor the headquarters of the Air Force, ugust 2010,
“Sky’s no limit: Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership?, IDSA
Occasional Paper, volume number 9, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf
The beam used to transmit the power has, in past studies, been selected at frequencies similar to modern
wireless networks, a non-ionising (non-cancer causing), low energy wavelength and at peak intensities
several times less intense than peak sunlight. NASA, DOE, and EPA have conducted extensive
experiments to assess if there were ill effects to biological life or the upper atmosphere due to such
beams. None of the studies conducted so far suggest that there is any significant detrimental effect. 18
Many times people, without a background in optics, erroneously believe that the beam can be
concentrated at levels that will allow a space to ground weapon—it cannot. 19 However, modern
electronic beam steering does convey an additional benefit. A single power satellite can serve many
different receivers across a very large geographic area, making possible both significant redundancy and
easy movement of energy between peaking load centres, without costly and intervening long-distance
transmission lines.
109
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: DEATH RAYS
Beam not usable as a weapon
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that when people are first introduced to this subject, the key
expressed concerns are centered around safety, possible weaponization of the beam, and vulnerability of
the satellite, all of which must be addressed with education. • Because the microwave beams are
constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that
of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak
density of the beam is likely to be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna
equivalent to the leakage allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This
low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small,
comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire. - 26 • The physics of
electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale make the beam very
unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an inspection regime and better
space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the geostationary belt is so vast that beams
diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be
designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level.
Without the pilot signal the microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional
failsafe cut‐off mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and
even if occurring would be extremely anti‐climactic.
Transmitting the energy from SPS down to earth is not dangerous to humans
SolStation, No author given, 2000, “Solar Power Satellites (SPS)”, accessed online at
http://www.nova.org/~sol/station/sps.htm
Solar-generated, DC power would be converted to microwaves and transmitted through space as
electronically steerable microwave beams. Called "wireless power transmission" (WPT), these
beams would be captured by receivers (covering several square miles) in remote areas on Earth
and converted back into DC power for terrestrial electrical grids. According to the SunSat Energy
Council, a non profit organization affiliated with the United Nations, the beam would be so low
in density that it wouldn't even feel warm if you happened to walk through it.
AT Death Ray
Ralph NANSEN, 1995, “Sun Power”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/index.html>
But what about the wireless energy beam? Is it a death ray that will cook us if something goes wrong and it
wanders from the receiving antenna? No. Even though the radio frequency beam is the same kind of
frequency as we use for cooking in our microwave ovens, the energy density (or the amount of energy in a
given area) is much less than the energy density in our microwave ovens (because our ovens are designed to
contain the energy and concentrate it within the oven cavity). In fact, the wireless energy beam’s maximum
energy density would be less than ten times the allowed leakage from the door of a microwave oven. At that
level, which would be a maximum of 50 milliwatts per square centimeter, a person would just feel some
warmth if he or she was standing in the center of the beam on top of the rectenna (not a very likely event).
That much energy is less than half of the energy found in bright sunlight at high noon on a Florida beach,
except that it is in the form of high-frequency radio waves, or microwaves. The only definitely known reaction
of living tissue to microwaves is heating.
110
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: SPS WOULD BE ATTACKED
SPS don’t make good strategic targets for military attack.
National Security Space Office, No Author Given, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power as an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim
Assessment. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf
Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of energy
infrastructure. However, it takes significantly more resources and sophistication to attack an asset in
geostationary orbit than it does to attack a nuclear power plant, oil refinery or supertanker on Earth. The
satellite is also very large and constructed of a number of similar redundant parts, so the attack would
need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving antenna would probably be the least value‐added
attack, since it is a diffuse and distributed array of identical modular elements that can be quickly repaired
while the receiving station continues to operate. Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity
and redundancy of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are
capable of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit.
AT SPS Vulnerable to attack
Ralph NANSEN, 1995, “Sun Power”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/index.html>
Satellite Vulnerability From our brief tour, you can see the elegant simplicity of the design, but before
leaving the subject of the satellite itself, I want to address one often-raised question about the vulnerability of
the solar satellite. Even though the cold war is just a memory and the threat of nuclear holocaust has
diminished with the collapse of the communist world, the question still remains: “Isn’t the solar power
satellite vulnerable to attack?” In this case a solar power satellite can be compared to a commercial ship, only
instead of traveling on the great oceans of earth, it will move through the high seas of space. Throughout
history, the right of commercial ships to ply the oceans of the world in relative safety has been respected by
other nations. An attack on the high seas, even of a commercial vessel, has always been considered a
deliberate act of war. This same logic should and will be preserved as we move into the new frontier of space.
As on the high seas, the rights of sovereign nations and their vessels in space will be respected and an attack
would be considered an act of war. Throughout the world, there are power plants situated in well-known
locations. Some, like Grand Coulee Dam and Hoover Dam, are even major tourist attractions. None of these
power plants are defended against attack. Even though most have some kind of fence against intruders, the
best precautions will not keep out dedicated terrorists, as evidenced by antinuclear protesters who illegally
enter nuclear test sites. Our power plants are neither more nor less vulnerable to terrorist attack than any
other public place, as we have seen in the devastating World Trade Center explosion in New York City in
February of 1993 and the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995. Power plants
are as vulnerable to enemy attack by air or ballistic missiles as any potential target in our nation. The best
deterrent is having a large number of power plants. No nation would have the combined weaponry and skill
to bypass our defense systems to destroy them all. The location of the solar power satellites is a strong
deterrent to attack. Access to geosynchronous orbit is difficult to achieve, and even with modern rockets it is
a journey of over five hours. High-powered laser weapons could conceivably be used in the future, but they
require high technology and a large sustained power output that is difficult to achieve. Vandals or terrorists
would also find it very difficult to attack a solar power satellite. Even the receiving antenna on earth would
prove to be a frustrating target because of its great size. If the United States were the only nation to possess
solar power satellites, we could be in a situation envied by other nations and in that case it might be prudent
to consider defending them from attack. However, the best defense is to make energy from solar power
satellites available to all who need it. The energy crisis is not only an American crisis but a world crisis as
well. Global access to energy from space would benefit all nations and preclude a threat of war.
111
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: BREAKS TREATIES
Only WMD’s in space are banned in U.S. treaties, the U.S. can legally put SPS and
other military weapons in space
First Author Dr. James Moltz, associate director and research professor with the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, and Second Author Dr. Jonathan Dean, adviser on Global Security Issues at
the Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. 2002 “Future Security in Space: Commercial, Military, and
Arms Control Trade-Offs” http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/7902/1/tannenwald.pdf
In regards to the existing legal structure relating to space weapons, the principal relevant treaty is the
1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which prohibits the orbiting or stationing in space of weapons of mass
destruction, but not other weapons. I will return to the OST in a moment. Five other treaties address outer
space. They include: the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which prohibits nuclear tests (and any other
nuclear explosion) in the atmosphere or in outer space; the Astronauts Rescue Agreement of 1968; the
Liability Convention of 1972; the Registration Convention of 1976; and the Moon Agreement of 1984.2
These last four treaties elaborate aspects of the 1967 treaty.
In addition, there are five relevant General Assembly resolutions: the Declaration of Legal Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (1963); the Declaration on
International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Use and Benefit and in the
Interest of All States (1996); and also resolutions on Direct Television Broadcasting, Remote Sensing of
the Earth from Outer Space, and the Use of Nuclear Power in Outer Space.3 Since June 13, 2002, when
U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty became effective, there is no longer a treaty prohibition against
testing or deploying weapons in space other than weapons of mass destruction. Lt. General Ronald
Kadish of the Missile Defense Agency has already ordered ground-breaking at Fort Greeley for the
missile defense installation there.
No Laws Prohibiting the Development of Sps
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no outright policy or legal showstoppers exist to prevent the
development of SBSP. Full‐scale SBSP, however, will require a permissive international regime, and
construction of this new regime is in every way a challenge nearly equal to the construction of the satellite
itself. The interim review did not uncover any hard show‐stoppers in the international legal or regulatory
regime. Many nations are actively studying Space‐Based Solar Power. Canada, the UK, France, the
European Space Agency, Japan, Russia, India, and China, as well as several equatorial nations have all
expressed past or present interest in SBSP. International conferences such as the United
Nations‐connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject and there is even a UN‐affiliated
non‐governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is dedicated to promoting the study and
development of SBSP. The International Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at least one
document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject by the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) is presently ongoing. There seems to be significant global interest in promoting the peaceful
use of space, sustainable development, and carbon neutral energy sources, indicating that perhaps an
open avenue exists for the United States to exercise “soft power” via the development of SBSP. That
there are no show‐stoppers should in no way imply that an adequate or supportive regime is in place.
Such a regime must address liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequency allocations, orbital slot
assignment, assembly and parking orbits, and transit corridors. These will likely involve significant
increases in Space Situational Awareness, data‐sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some
significant similarities to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) role for facilitating safe
international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the
satellite technology development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the
construction of such a framework immediately.
112
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: PRIVITIZATION
AT PRIVATIZATION: PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT OF SPS REQUIRES AND INITIAL BOOST
FROM THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an Opportunity for
Strategic Security”, <http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered
energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is
that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to
catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks.
This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that
culminates with a space‐ borne proof‐of‐concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral
development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts‐class
systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy,
regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the
partnerships and relationships (commercial‐commercial, government‐ commercial, and
government‐government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government
contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters
much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming
on‐line today.
Perm Solvency - Small government investment in SBSP is likely to catalyze
private investment
National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, “Space Based Solar Power is an
Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
<http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm>
Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by the US
Government is likely to catalyze substantially more investment by the private sector.
This opinion was expressed many times over from energy and aerospace companies alike.
Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that even the activity of this interim study has already
provoked significant activity by at least three major aerospace companies. Should the
United States put some dollars in for a study or demonstration, it is likely to catalyze
significant amounts of internal research and development. Study leaders likewise heard
that the DoD could have a catalytic role by sponsoring prizes or signaling its willingness to
become the anchor customer for the product.
These findings are consistent with the findings of the recent President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report which recommended the federal
government “expand its role as an early adopter in order to demonstrate commercial
feasibility of advanced energy technologies.”
113
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: Privitization
A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE SBSP
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME
Arthur Smith, Co-Founder at Alternative Energy Action Network, Editor at Open Directory
Project (AOL - DMOZ), Manager, Database Group at American Physical Society, 10/10/07
“New Space Solar Power Report from DoD NSSO” Alternative Energy Action
Network http://www.altenergyaction.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&i
d=129
The NSSO study shows the possibility of closing the energy business case for some markets within just 10-15
years, not the 50years people sometimes talked of. The energy market is a trillion dollar/year
market (just in the US). If this takes off, the Apollo, space shuttle, and ISS will look like college science
projects next to the real space age it will bring about. The reason the business case can close so soon is
the existence of near-term customers who have no other option potentially willing to pay $12/kWhfor beamed-in power. In particular, DoD field operations that currently rely on long and
deadly supply chains to bring in fuel oil. They are paying more than that for electricity at some
bases in Iraq now, not even including the cost in lives lost. This military need changes the
economic equation. So there's DoD interest at a tactical level just for this reason. There's also
DoD interest at the strategic level -doing this may be key to preventing future wars and disasters.
The recommendations are for reasonable and appropriate steps taken by the federal government:
become an "anchor tenant", reduce the technical risks. Take other reasonable steps to reduce
risks and incentivize development. Loan guarantees for instance, the same incentive that's been
given to nuclear operators for years. Extend pollution offsets and renewables subsidies to this. Investment
tax credits for this and for development of reusable launch vehicles. With these reasonable steps,
within 10-15 years the case will close. And some people think it will be even sooner.
114
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ALT. ENERGY SOURCES TO SPS
Nuclear Fusion can be a source of energy instead of SPS
Stewart C. Prager, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, July 10,
2011, “How Seawater can power the world”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11Prager.html?_r=4
But an abundant, safe and clean energy source once thought to be the stuff of science fiction
is closer than many realize: nuclear fusion. Making it a reality, however, will take significant
investment from the government at a time when spending on scientific research is under
threat. Harnessing nuclear fusion, the energy that powers the sun and the stars, has been a
goal of physicists worldwide since the 1950s. It is essentially inexhaustible and it can be
created using hydrogen isotopes — chemical cousins of hydrogen, like deuterium — that can
readily be extracted from seawater.
Plasma can produce the energy that we need instead of SPS
Stewart C. Prager, professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University, July 10,
2011, “How Seawater can power the world”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11Prager.html?_r=4
But potential solutions to these daunting technical challenges are emerging. In one
approach, known as magnetic fusion, hot plasma is confined by powerful magnets. A second
approach uses large, intense lasers to bombard a frozen pellet of fusion fuel (deuterium and
tritium nuclei) to heat the pellet and cause fusion to occur in a billionth of a second.
Whereas magnetic fusion holds a hot plasma indefinitely, like a sun, the second approach
resembles an internal combustion engine, with multiple mini-explosions (about five per
second). Once a poorly understood area of research, plasma physics has become highly
developed. Scientists not only produce 100 million-degree plasmas routinely, but they
control and manipulate such “small suns” with remarkable finesse. Since 1970 the power
produced by magnetic fusion in the lab has grown from one-tenth of a watt, produced for a
fraction of a second, to 16 million watts produced for one second — a billionfold increase in
fusion energy.
Carbon capture and storage proves to be a viable solution to eliminate carbon
dioxide emissions
Spiegel International Online, No Author Given, July 8, 2011,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,773196,00.html
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been heralded by many politicians and researchers as one of
the most promising technologies available today for eliminating carbon dioxide emissions. Many see it
as one of the best means available to buy time while also emitting less pollution into the environment
until renewable energy sources become more affordable and feasible.
115
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
OIL DEPENDENCY GOOD
Oil dependency benefits US foreign relations
Max Fisher, associate editor at The Atlantic, April 2 2008, “The Upside of Depending on Foreign Oil” The
Atlantic Magazine, accessed online at http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/04/the-upside-ofdepending-on-foreign-oil/38380/
When President Obama opened the coastline to offshore oil drilling, nearly every aspect of the
plan came under heated debate. The only thing everyone agrees on, it seems, is the need to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Statements from the Environmental Protection Agency to
automakers to T. Boone Pickens to Obama himself, whether supporting or condemning offshore
drilling, all cite the dangers of relying on foreign energy. It's not hard to see why. Shipping oil
from halfway around the world is environmentally costly, economically inefficient, and lands us
in bed with some of the world's least democratic regimes. But our ties to these states might not
be categorically terrible things for us, as they're often assumed to be. Hidden unexamined among
the many downsides of our dependence on foreign oil is an upside: It gives us leverage over the
countries that sell us oil. The top ten oil exporters to the U.S., which account for half of all U.S.
consumption, read like a State Department tourism warning list: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela,
Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Russia, Colombia, and Brazil. (To be fair, Canada has long been our
number one oil source, and Mexico alternates with Saudi Arabia for the number two spot.) But
keep in mind that most of these countries need our money a lot more then we need their oil. If
Saudi Arabia and the U.S. suddenly ended our trade tomorrow, for example, the U.S. and global
economies would not suffer nearly as much as Saudi Arabia's. The Saudis understand this and so
want to keep U.S. and Saudi interests aligned. As a result, buying Saudi oil gets us a lot more
than just energy. It gets us a dedicated ally that wields unparalleled influence in a part of the
world where we desperately need it: the Middle East. The Saudi royal family has put their wily
intelligence service at our disposal and allowed sprawling U.S. military bases onto their soil. In
1992, the Saudis even exiled one of their own on America's behalf: A prominent, wealthy, and
popular humanitarian and freedom fighter named Osama bin Laden. Saudi royalty risked a
violent backlash by expelling bin Laden to Sudan, but U.S. officials had demanded his ouster.
That's no small favor. It would be almost as if the United States deported Google CEO Eric
Schmidt to Honduras at the request of angry Chinese officials. The Saudis came to our aid again
in 1996 when they convinced the Sudanese regime to themselves deport bin Laden. Bin Laden's
anti-American terrorism did not begin until he fled to Afghanistan, where the United States then
had little influence. In the decade since, he has moved between there and Pakistan, two countries
with which the U.S. has no meaningful economic ties save foreign aid. Unlike with Saudi Arabia,
our pleas to those governments to help us rout bin Laden went largely ignored. If our oil-greased
relationships with other top producing states are half as close as the U.S.-Saudi partnership, it
will give us much-needed leverage over some of this century's biggest emerging threats. In
Nigeria, we can pressure the government to peacefully contain the state's alarming increase in
terrorism. For Iraq, the economic ties with America would be an important counterbalance to
Iran's religious and political influence. As for Venezuela, no matter how antagonistic President
Hugo Chavez gets, he would be a lot worse if we didn't take close to a million barrels off his
hands every day. The point isn't that dependence on foreign oil is a good thing. The political,
economic, and environmental costs are severe, unsustainable, and require long-term alternatives.
But as we seek to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it's important to remember that our
influence with certain key states will reduce as well.
116
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD
Space weaponization would be risky and vulnerable to ASATs
William, Marshall, Editorialist for the International Herald Tribune, 2006, “Star Wars: The folly of
weaponizing space”, International Herald Tribune, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/opinion/05ihtedmarshall.2123263.html
So why not pursue space weapons? The most compelling reason is that they would actually make the
situation worse. This is due to the technical ease of building ground-based antisatellite systems.
Adversaries wouldn't need to go to the trouble of building space- based weapons systems. Simple and
inexpensive, ground-based systems could shoot satellites out of the sky. More than 25 nations already
have the missile capability to reach the altitude at which satellites orbit. More significantly, powerful lasers
able to kill a satellite in low orbit are available commercially in more than 50 nations. If the United States
deploys ground-based anti- satellite technology (ASATs) - which it can do technically now - then others
will follow suit. America has the most assets in orbit to lose in such a game. If the United States deploys
space-based weapons - such as interceptors for missile defense, which the United States is on course to
deploy within about six years - an enemy could simply take them out from the ground. If any security
advantage afforded by such a weapon is easily negated, then there is a strong chance that nations would
move toward developing ground-based ASAT capabilities. The capabilities provided by each proposed
space-based weapon can be achieved with ground-based alternatives that are generally 100 to 1,000
times cheaper. The United States is planning to release a new National Space Policy within weeks, which
could give the green light for U.S. deployment of space-based weapons. Instead, the United States
should send a sign to other nations by taking space-based weapons off the books once and for all.
America can still protect its satellite systems, but in less threatening ways. Instead of a space architecture
that consists of a few big satellites that are complex, expensive and difficult to replace, the United States
could move to a model consisting of many inexpensive micro-satellites that offer the same capability.
Other nations are already moving in that direction. Doing nothing about the vulnerability of satellites would
be a bad security decision, but weaponizing space is no solution.
The United States Must Maintain Good Relations with China in Order to Protect its Space Assets
Jeff Keuter, 2007, “China's Space Ambitions”, The New Atlantis,
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/chinas-space-ambitions-and-ours
This new capability, however, also creates a new potential vulnerability. “Far more than any other country,
the U.S. depends on space for national and tactical intelligence, military operations, and civil and
commercial benefits,” as Robert L. Butterworth, president of the space consultancy Aries Analytics,
recently put it. This “provides a clear incentive for attacking American spacecraft.” Such an attack on
American satellites would not have to be very extensive to be devastating—as long as it were wellplanned. “Even a small-scale anti-satellite attack in a crisis against fifty U.S. satellites (assuming a mix of
targeted military reconnaissance, navigation satellites, and communication satellites) could have a
catastrophic effect not only on U.S. military forces, but [on] the U.S. civilian economy,” according to a
recent report by China analyst Michael Pillsbury. There are numerous ways our space assets could be
disabled or destroyed. One likely threat to U.S. space assets resides in a very terrestrial environment:
strikes against ground stations and launch systems. Such attacks could constrain the usefulness of our
existing satellites or reduce our ability to put new satellites into orbit. But such ground attacks would
probably, at worst, only diminish our ability to use our space assets, since the data transmitted from
orbiting satellites could in most cases be rerouted to other receiving stations on the ground, and since our
launch systems are (somewhat) redundant. Of more concern is the possibility of attacks that directly
destroy or damage satellites, since they cannot at present be replaced quickly, easily, or cheaply. Without
a reorientation of the way it acquires space hardware, the United States faces substantial barriers to
repairing or replacing damaged satellites.
117
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD
Weaponizing space will cause arms build-up in which the U.S. has the most at
stake
Charles, Peña, analyst for MSNBC, Edward, Hudgins, director of the Center for International
Economic Growth at the Heritage Foundation, 2002, “Should the United States ‘Weaponize’ Space?
Military and Commercial Implications, Policy Analysis, 427, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa427.pdf
Control of space is at the crux of the debate about the future of U.S. military space policy. The question is
not about militarizing space. Clearly, we have been using and will continue to use space for military
purposes. But, whereas we are currently using space assets to support terrestrial (ground, sea, and air)
military operations, what Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), the Space Commission (which was chaired by
current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld), and others have proposed is that the United States
move toward “weaponizing” space for space control. Advocates of a more aggressive U.S. military policy
for space argue that the United States is more reliant on the use of space than is any other nation, that
space systems are vulnerable to attack, and that U.S. space systems are thus an attractive candidate for
a “space Pearl Harbor.” But as important and potentially vulnerable as current U.S. space-based assets
may be, deploying actual weapons (whether defensive or offensive) will likely be perceived by the rest of
the world as more threatening than the status quo. Any move by the United States to introduce weapons
into space will surely lead to the development and deployment of anti-satellite weapons by potentially
hostile nations. As the dominant user of space for military and civilian functions, the United States would
have the most to lose from such an arms race. Although there are legitimate (and unique) military
requirements for space assets, virtually all are “dual use.” Military requirements should not necessarily
dictate those other uses. In fact, commercial efforts in space often lead those of the government and the
Department of Defense and usually have lower costs, due to market influences and competition. National
security must be one component of total U.S. space policy, but it must certainly not be the primary
component. In the post–Cold War environment—with no immediate threat from a rival great power and
none on the horizon—the United States must not establish overstated and costly military requirements for
space-based resources. The military must make greater use of commercial space assets. Also, the
United States should strive to foster an environment that allows commercial space activity to grow and
flourish rather than use it to create a new area for costly military competition.
Should the United States attempt to militarize space alone, they make themselves
more vulnerable and less secure
Robert, Grey, Director of the Bipartisan Security Group, 2002, “Weaponization of Space”, Bipartisan
Security Group, http://www.gsinstitute.org/docs/08-04_WeaponizationofSpace_brief.pdf.
Current policies toward weaponization of outer space are fatally flawed. They rest on the assumption that
the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in advanced weapons systems will give us complete
dominance of outer space by military means and make our nation invulnerable to attack by weapons of
mass destruction launched in the future by some other nation or by some group of terrorists. This policy is
based upon the illusion that the United States, acting on its own, can create a political and military
environment which can make this nation and the world more secure. The simple reality is that no nation
acting alone can do this in today's world any more than any nation acting alone could achieve this in the
past. This is especially true in the arena of outer space. The weaponization of outer space – which will
cost as much as 500 billion dollars – will make us more vulnerable, less secure, and will increase the risk
of nuclear war.
118
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD
Aggressive military posturing in space undermines global security.
Nina Tannewald, Associate Research Professor of International Relations at Brown University, 2003,
“Law Versus Power on the High Frontier”, http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/7902/1/tannenwald.pdf
The future of peace and security in outer space is at a critical juncture. The legal regime that guides
commercial, military and scientific activities in space is fragmented and increasingly inadequate to meet
the challenges posed by the growing number of actors seeking to exploit space. The most serious
challenge to the space regime is posed by the stated intent of the present administration of the United
States to pursue national dominance in space, which may eventually include stationing weapons there.
Although space is already militarized to some degree, that is, used for military support purposes, no
nation has yet placed weapons in space. Such a move would cross an important and longstanding
threshold, likely provoking a battle for national superiority in space dominated by the United States. It
would seriously undermine the current legal order in space widely supported by the rest of the world. The
deployment of ground-based antisatellite weapons would also constitute a serious departure from the
current regime. Without a concerted effort to develop a more comprehensive legal regime for space that
will limit unconstrained weaponization, the international community will likely face a new military
competition in space, with destabilizing consequences for national and global security. Such a
competition will place at risk existing military, commercial, and scientific activities in space. With events of
September 11, 2001, and the war against Iraq dominating the headlines, the issue of national missile
defense, and with it the larger issue of the control and weaponization of space, have receded from the
front pages. However, the problem is imminent as the United States moves forward with Pentagon plans
to develop “space control” and “global engagement” capabilities, which imply the deployment of weapons
in space. If conflict over the use of space, or even actual conflict in space, is to be prevented or at least
significantly constrained by general agreement, the international community will need to agree on
permitted activity in space and more refined arrangements for distributing the benefits of that activity.
Such a regime would be in the strong interest of commercial, scientific and military support constituencies
worldwide. Without such agreement, space will largely be shaped by the short-term interests of power
rather than the long-term interests of law.
119
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPACE WEAPONIZATION BAD
Militarizing space causes global instability
Nina Tannewald, Associate Research Professor of International Relations at Brown University, 2003,
“Law Versus Power on the High Frontier”, http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/7902/1/tannenwald.pdf
This vision of national dominance, the rest of the world, and especially China, contends, is incompatible
with the established legal regime in space.20 The international community has for over forty years
repeatedly reaffirmed that space should be preserved for peaceful purposes, should be available to all,
and should be weapon-free. Hence the relevant options appear to reduce to two: an active contest over
national superiority in space, or an elaborated legal regime that would undoubtedly be designed to
prevent decisive predominance in space by any one country, the United States in particular.21
A contest over national superiority in space could extinguish the explicit equal right to use space that all
nations enjoy, creating instead a de facto regime of control over access and use by the first nation to
successfully deploy weapons based in space or weapons on the ground that target satellites. Given the
immense value of outer space and its resources, other nations might develop their own anti-satellite
weapons designed to break this monopoly. Countries that lacked the capabilities to build such weapons
might purchase them. Space-based weapons would also generate instability due to the incentives for
preemptive attack that powerful but vulnerable weapons systems seem likely to create.
A more elaborated legal regime would be aimed at preventing destabilizing conflicts over the use of
space. The problem posed is how to balance the interests of the United States with those of the rest of
the world. The U.S. position, if seriously pursued, would pit the United States against everyone else, and
the support of even close allies could be in question. Equally if not more important, other significant
interests of the United States in space will be jeopardized if an extended battle over superiority in space
develops. Given the inherent vulnerability of space activities, traditional military support activities
(including space-tracking, early warning, communications, reconnaissance, weather, and navigation) will
be in jeopardy. The viability of commercial and scientific activities in space would be in serious question
as well. In a conflict, terrestrial components of space activities could become objects of attack, while
attacks against satellites could litter space with speeding debris that might rip into commercial satellites.
The Bush administration announced December 13, 2001 that it would withdraw from the ABM Treaty in
six months. U.S. withdrawal took effect on June 13, 2002. The Russians view the treaty as no longer in
force (although this does not mean they have plans to violate it). On June 14, 2002, the Russian Foreign
Ministry issued a statement saying that Russia was no longer bound by the START II treaty, and that “the
United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, with the result that this international legal act, which served
for three decades as the cornerstone of strategic stability, has ceased to be in force. A third option,
“muddling through,” will likely be unstable over the long-haul and will degenerate into the first option, a
contest over dominance in space, as I argue later in the paper.
120
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
AT: COLONIZE OR DIE
Minimizing existential risk overrules accelerating speed of colonization
Nick Bostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2003, “Astronomical Waste: The
Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development”,
http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
III. THE CHIEF GOAL FOR UTILITARIANS SHOULD BE TO REDUCE EXISTENTIAL RISK
In light of the above discussion, it may seem as if a utilitarian ought to focus her efforts on accelerating
technological development. The payoff from even a very slight success in this endeavor is so enormous
that it dwarfs that of almost any other activity. We appear to have a utilitarian argument for the greatest
possible urgency of technological development.
However, the true lesson is a different one. If what we are concerned with is (something like) maximizing
the expected number of worthwhile lives that we will create, then in addition to the opportunity cost of
delayed colonization, we have to take into account the risk of failure to colonize at all. We might fall victim
to an existential risk, one where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent
life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.[8] Because the lifespan of galaxies is measured in
billions of years, whereas the time-scale of any delays that we could realistically affect would rather be
measured in years or decades, the consideration of risk trumps the consideration of opportunity cost. For
example, a single percentage point of reduction of existential risks would be worth (from a utilitarian
expected utility point-of-view) a delay of over 10 million years.
Therefore, if our actions have even the slightest effect on the probability of eventual colonization, this will
outweigh their effect on when colonization takes place. For standard utilitarians, priority number one, two,
three and four should consequently be to reduce existential risk. The utilitarian imperative “Maximize
expected aggregate utility!” can be simplified to the maxim “Minimize existential risk!”.
121
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
SPS = DEATH RAY / WEAPON
SPS has potential for use as a weapon
William Fan, and Harold Martin, et al, 2011, “Space Based Solar Power: Industry and Technology
Assessment”,
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf
Due to the high energy transmitter that it will utilize, space based solar power could potentially be in
violation of international space treaties. In 1967, the Outer Space Treaty was signed by the United States
and other world powers. One of the key issues addressed by this treaty is space based weapons. The
Outer Space Treaty bans the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in
space or on any celestial body. This could become a serious issue for space based solar power because
of the potential for the transmitter to become a dual use weapon. Additionally, the newly proposed Space
Preservation Treaty could severely hinder the implementation of space based solar power, as it would
ban the any kind of weapon from being placed in space. In addition to political issues, there may be social
disapproval of having a potential weapons system in space.
SPS Have Warfare Potential
Virgiliu Pop. PhD Student, Law School, University of Glasgow, 2000 “Security Implications of Non-Terrestrial Resource Exploitation”
found at “http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml”
However, a certain number of technologies that can be used for the peaceful exploitation of non-terrestrial natural resources carry also the
potential of being used for warfare. This is true both in the case of the Solar Power Satellites that would exploit solar energy in Earth orbit, and in
that of peaceful nuclear explosions that may be used in exploiting minerals from the Moon, asteroids and other celestial bodies. These "dual-use
technologies" raise security issues that need to be analysed in detail. In the same time, important problems arise from the possible use of nonterrestrial mineral resources for the manufacture of weapons.
SPS Microwaves could Start New Type of Warfare
Virgiliu Pop. PhD Student, Law School, University of Glasgow, 2000 “Security Implications of Non-Terrestrial Resource Exploitation”
found at “http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml”
High power microwaves (HPM) are a new means of warfare. The use of microwaves as the means of
transmission of energy between the SPS and the ground based collecting rectenna may qualify them as
electromagnetic weapons. The most widely acknowledged effect of HPM is "disruption of electronic
systems", able to "reset computers, cause complete loss of stored data and/or cause microprocessors to
switch operating modes". This would "produce substantial paralysis in any target system, thus providing a
decisive advantage in the conduct of Electronic Combat, Offensive Counter Air and Strategic Air Attack.
In the same time, a HPM attack directed at an aircraft "could corrupt the plane's control and navigation
systems enough to cause a crash".
122
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
NO SOLVENCY: TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
Debris and launch costs pose a severe problem to SPS
Science Writer, 2009, Will Space-Based Solar Power Finally See the Light of
Day?, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-powerfinally-see-the-light-of-day
Adam Hadhazy,
Dangers and engineering challenges abound, however: Space junk like that which recently threatened
the International Space Station, for example, could collide with the skeletal space solar satellite during
assembly. And keeping the satellite's huge beam and the distant rectenna reliably synced up also stands
as an unsolved technical issue, says CSP's Little.
Overall, the how may be much easier to overcome than the how much. "Technically, we're a lot closer to
space-based solar power than we are economically," Little says. The biggest obstacle, he says, continues
to be launch costs. "Large structures in space are not showstoppers, but the cost of getting up into space
is the real hang-up [for SBSP]," CSP's Best says. In Space Energy's business plan, for instance, half of
the $250 million allotted for their communication satellite–size prototype goes toward just lofting the
approximately 1,760-pound (800-kilogram) craft into orbit.
Currently there are several technical and operational issues with SPS
China News, No Author Given, 2011, “Development of Space Solar Power Station Chinese “four
step” face enormous challenges, accessed online at http://www.cnkeyword.info/development-ofspace-solar-power-station-chinese-four-step-face-enormous-challenges/
Space Solar Power Station Faces Huge Challenges
Current building space solar power station is the first technical problem. Space solar power station is a
huge project for existing spacecraft technology made a great challenge: a large scale, quality and reach
million tons, higher than the current satellite four orders of magnitude, requires new materials and new
vehicle technology; area of several square kilometers, higher than the current satellite six orders of
magnitude, we need a special structure, assembly and attitude control of space technology; power,
generating power for GW, higher than the current satellite six orders of magnitude, the need special
power management and thermal control technology; long life, at least 30 years, compared with more than
double the current satellites, new materials and in-orbit maintenance technology; high efficiency, the need
for advanced space solar power conversion technology and microwave conversion transmission
technology.
Finally, operational issues. Space solar power plant operation in many issues, including the need to take
appropriate measures to secure control of the beam problem, the impact of the aircraft, space debris on
space solar power station may cause local damage, easy to attack, could become space junk, etc. In
addition, there are orbits and frequencies, capacity, ability to launch and other issues.
Transmission for SPS(MPT) is unfeasible:
Hiroshi Matsumoto, Ph.D from Kyoto University, President of Kyoto University, 2009, Space
Solar Power Satellite/Station and the Politics, pg. 1
However, there has been no commercial MPT(microwave power transmission, MPT) system yet
in the world because of two reasons. One is a frequency regulation problem. There is no legally
approved frequency allocation for the MPT yet. The other is shortage of market for effective
and economical MPT applications. However, many people have recently noticed the MPT can
be used to provide power to μW devices like IC, sensor, and RF- ID. This system is one-to-many
MPT like wireless communication systems. We believe that such approach of using weak
microwave to provide the power to μW devices is very effective to overcome the present
frequency regulation.
123
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ECONOMY / SPENDING LINKS
The energy produced by SPS is prohibitively expensive.
The Economist, No Author Given, 2008, “Let the sun shine in”, From December 4th issue.
http://www.economist.com/node/12673299
Although there may not be any technical difficulty with the idea, the economics are another matter. The
main obstacle to SSP is the huge cost of launching the satellites into space. Conventional electricity in
America costs between four cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for hydro-electric power (the cheapest kind)
and ten cents for coal-fired generation. Even under the most optimistic scenario, SSP would produce
electricity at a cost of around 50 cents per kWh with existing technology. It sounds hopeless. Yet recent
developments mean that advocates of SSP are more optimistic than ever before.
The cost is restricting the development of SBSP
China News, No Author Given, 2011, “Development of Space Solar Power Station Chinese “four
step” face enormous challenges, accessed online at http://www.cnkeyword.info/development-ofspace-solar-power-station-chinese-four-step-face-enormous-challenges/
Then there is the cost. Some experts estimate, the construction of a space-based solar power would cost
300 billion to 1 trillion U.S. dollars. Therefore, the cost might be restricting the development of space solar
power station of the main factors. In the new concepts, new technologies and large-scale commercial
before the income is difficult to compensate for the overall system construction and operating costs.
Cost of energy via SPS prevents it from being competitive against other sources
Boswell
David
, speaker at International Space Development Center,
accessed online at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1
2004, “What Happened to Solar Powered Satellites,”
Even if a solar power system was built and launched there would still be the economic problem of producing electricity at a cost that
is comparable to other options. Government subsidies can help get this new industry on its feet but it will need to compete in the
market in order to survive. This is a challenge for all emerging renewable energy solutions.Current non-renewable energy supplies
are cheap. Even with the recent increases in the price of oil, it is still historically low. Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are still much
lower than they were during the oil crisis in the 1970s. With current prices there is little incentive for customers or producers to
pursue alternatives. Even if oil prices continue to increase, it is not likely that this will be enough to drive demand for alternatives.
Although we will eventually run out of oil, coal, and other non-renewable energy sources, in the short term rising oil prices will simply
generate more oil.
124
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ECONOMY / SPENDING LINKS
There isn’t enough funding from private sectors especially with the price and
technology issues
Trevor Brown, writer for Space Review, 2009, “SSP: a spherical architecture”, The Space Review,
accessed online at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1383/1
Space solar power (SSP) is gradually beginning to take flight. Enterprising SSP ventures, such as
Solaren Corp. and Space Energy, Inc., are in the midst of developing initial projects to supply energy from
space. Solaren Corp. of California has recently reached an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric, a
California utility, to supply 200 megawatts of energy beginning in 2016, while Space Energy, Inc., a Swiss
based company, is producing a prototype demonstration satellite that will help it close purchase power
agreements with entities it is currently in discussions with. But while these pioneering companies in the
vanguard of a nascent industry are surmounting many technical and economic obstacles, significant
barriers remain before the dissemination of energy from space can become truly widespread. As SSP
advocates are painfully aware, the high expense of launching numerous payloads into space for the
assembly of satellites large enough to transmit meaningful amounts of energy to Earth is cost prohibitive.
While very large structures in space are theoretically within the realm of the technically possible for
legitimate SSP interests, the launch costs associated with the construction of a satellite a few kilometers
in length, as would be necessary for large scale energy transmission, are exorbitant. Additionally, the
expense of space systems and operations—robotic technologies and the supporting space and Earthbased infrastructure—are extremely high and must be dramatically reduced. While proponents hope that
large-scale space infrastructure projects will achieve certain economies of scale that will bring down the
cost of each individual launch, component, and support system, the prevailing price tag for the whole of
such a project would doubtless be enormous, making it very difficult to compete in the broader energy
marketplace.
If people were to increase funds for using methods to save the Earth, such as
Solar powered satellites, then the global economy would fall into an abyss.
Christian Kerr, journalist for the Australian, June 25, 2011, “Saving the planet will destroy
the economy”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/saving-the-planet-will-destroy-theeconomy/story-fn59niix-1226080796233
Lawson sees continuing strong demand for Australian coal despite promises by China and
India to reduce their energy intensity, calling the pledges "cover". "Economic development
happens because of increased economic efficiency," he says. "That means increasing labour
productivity and that also means increasing the productivity of the other factors of
production of which energy is one of the most important." Lawson adds the development of
a less energy-intensive services sector is one of the characteristics of economic
development. But he adds: "That doesn't mean energy consumption will decline. Energy
consumption will rise. Carbon consumption will rise because economic growth will trump the
lesser amount of energy used for each particular unit of output." He calls energy intensity
promises by China and India "convenient cover for their saying, quite rightly, 'no way are
we going to impede or in any way slow down our economic development by having
restrictions on the use of carbon energy'. They go for carbon intensity rather than carbon
emissions, which they can be perfectly confident is bound to decline through a process of
development as it has in every country in the world."
125
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ECONOMY / SPENDING LINKS
Successfully launching solar powered satellites into space is extremely expensive.
Jeremy Elton Jaquot, Ph.D. in Marine Environmental Biology, October 15, 2008 “Could Solar Power
Satellites Beam Down Gigawatts of Energy?”, Treehugger Publication, accessed online at
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/solar-power-satellite.php
Things get a bit trickier when Bova delves into some of the cost issues. For instance, he says that
an SPS could deliver electricity at a cost of only about 8 - 10 cents per kilowatt hour, which
would make it very competitive with conventional power sources. He does recognize that the
upfront costs -- both to build the satellite ($1 billion apiece) and to launch it (see: SpaceX
launches) -- would be fairly substantial; launching it into space successfully would be a whole
other story. Over time, as economies of scale take hold and component prices drop, the SPS
would begin to look much more appealing. How long that will take, though, is anybody's guess.
We have the technologies in place -- solar, satellite and microwave -- but putting everything
together (and making sure it all works) will be a tremendous challenge.
SPS economically unfeasible for at least 30 years
William Fan, and Harold Martin, et al, 2011, “Space Based Solar Power: Industry and Technology
Assessment”,
http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf
From our preliminary analysis and interviews, we discovered that currently SBSP is still in the “early”
stages of the S-Curve. The amount of future capital and R&D needed to simply begin the process of
SBSP is in the billions, and are all early stage. Most of the technology used in this report is what NASA
would term below Stage 6. Much of it is experimental, in laboratory settings only, or has yet to be tested
in a space environment. There could be considerable technical roadblocks to ensure all parts work for 30
years in space. As such, there are significant R&D problems that must first be addressed. The cost of
space launches are another potential roadblock. If the price per kg does not decrease at a significant rate,
large scale, capital intensive projects such as SBSP will most likely not be feasible. However, disruptive
technology such as a space elevator can quickly make SBSP a realtiy. A further roadblock will be the
potential dual use of any space based platform. A satellite which can beam power at a receiving station
can also beam power at any arbitrary location. Large, urban infrastructure is built on an abundance of
(relatively) cheap energy. If SBSP is successful, it has the potential to be part of the new frontier of space,
which is currently opening up. There is significant and large potential in this market, especially as our
analysis shows that current sources of energy are not enough to meet growing demands within the next
30 years. While hard to estimate, we believe currently that SBSP is not feasible for the next 30 years.
There must first be a large decrease in launch costs, and significant adoption of solar technology before
SBSP would be a plausible large scale energy source. Efficiency levels are still not yet at a level where
the large added cost of a space launch can justify SBSP. Furthermore, the difficulties in large scale
wireless energy transmission is paramount, and have large scale demonstrations have not yet occurred
over significant distances. We have also not yet seen a large boom in large scale wireless energy
transmission that would allow us to project an efficiency trend for this technology. We conclude that it is
still too early for SBSP, barring any large scale technological disruptions within the next 30 years.
126
SNFI 2011
SPS Aff
Bring Down The Sky
Beginner’s Lab
ECONOMY / SPENDING LINKS
Cost projections about SPS are flawed and unrealistic.
Peter Glaser, Doctorate at Colombia, President of Power from Space Consultants, 1992, “An
Overview of the Solar Powered Satellite Option, ”
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL 40. NO 6, PG. 1232
The economic justification for an SPS development program must acknowledge that it is not
possible to know now the cost of a technology which will not be fully developed for at least 15
years or commercialized in less than 20 years. Justification is equally difficult to provide for
other advanced energy technologies. Cost-effectiveness analyses alone are inappropriate
because they would require the extremely difficult task of postulating credible scenarios of the
future. The near-term decisions regarding the planning for an SPS program should be based on
the resources allocated to the SPS development tasks and their priorities rather than the
projected economics of the SPS in the 21st Century. Cost projections do not provide meaningful
estimates of the potential market penetration of the SPS or alternative energy supply
technologies because the uncertainties in forecasting prices are much larger than the cost
differentials on which the cost comparisons among competing technologies will eventually be
based. However, such cost studies provide estimates of the delivered cost of power to indicate
whether the SPS has any chance of being competitive, identify the major cost elements so that
program efforts can be properly focused to reduce the projected costs, develop a consistent
framework to evaluate different technological options, determine the impacts of raw material
requirements and availability on cost and the effects of a development program on labor costs
and capital markets, and assess the cost risk in comparison with alternative energy supply
technologies, including environ- mental impacts and societal effects.
127