SBSP Aff DDI 20111/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

<< SBSP AFF >>1AC: ( VERY MUCH A WORK IN PROGRESS) 1AC:.................................................................................................................................................... 2Inherency........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2Solvency.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2Advantage 1 is Hegemony.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3Advantage 2 Is warming.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 52AC add on: Technical innovation................................................................................................................................................................................... 7Tech Innovation ext......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9Inherency ext................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11Robotics key.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12Fed Key......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13Military – Oil bad............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14Military – SBSP good.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18Military – SBSP would work........................................................................................................................................................................................... 19Feasible......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20AT: Debris..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24AT: Degradation............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24AT: Private companies.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25AT: Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27AT: Hydro Power........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28AT: Earth Based Solar Power........................................................................................................................................................................................ 29AT: Spending................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29Safety............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29Money........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30Energy........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31Environment – SBSP good............................................................................................................................................................................................ 33Environment – SBSP only option.................................................................................................................................................................................. 35Environment – solves energy crisis............................................................................................................................................................................... 36Heg - leadership............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 37Heg – China threatens heg............................................................................................................................................................................................ 39Heg - Relations.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 41Heg - competitiveness................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41Heg - Econ.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41Now is key..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42Random cards............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43SBSP good – everything............................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 1

SBSP Aff DDI 20112/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

1AC: ( VERY MUCH A WORK IN PROGRESS) 1AC:

Plan text – the USFG should establish a system of Space Based Solar Power in geostationary earth orbit

Inherency

United States is not pursuing SSP – leaving behind other nationsCox 3-23 (William John Cox, Consortium news writer, retired prosecutor and political activist , “The Race for Solar Energy from Space,” http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/032311b.html )

Presently, only the top industrialized nations have the technological, industrial and economic power to compete in the race for space solar energy. In spite of, and perhaps because of, the current disaster, Japan occupies the inside track, as it is the only nation that has a dedicated space solar energy program and which is highly motivated to change directions. China, which has launched astronauts into an earth orbit and is rapidly become the world’s leader in the production of wind and solar generation products, will undoubtedly become a strong competitor. However, the United States, which should have every advantage in the race, is most likely to stumble out of the gate and waste the best chance it has to solve its economic, energy, political and military problems. A Miraculous Source of Abundant 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 trillion-dollar 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 organization 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 coordinated 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. China is currently investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energy-efficient green technology, and has become the world’s leading producer of solar panels. In addition, China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts and by demonstrating a capability to destroy the satellites of other nations. Over the past two years, Japan has committed $21 billion to secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plans to "put into geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant." Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately, they will be able to deliver electricity at a cost of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive with all other sources.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 2

SBSP Aff DDI 20113/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Advantage 1 is Hegemony

<< Scenario 1 is readiness >>US hold on primacy is weakThayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis

You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates.

Reliance on fuel is the root cause of military stressErwin 06 (Sandra Erwin, Editor of national defense magazine, Energy Conservation Plans Overlook Military Realities, September 2006, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/DefenseWatch.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

Are skyrocketing oil prices just a temporary drain on the U.S. economy or a lasting national security threat? If one is to draw conclusions from a recent stream of Pentagon policy directives, studies and congressional rhetoric, the Defense Department will soon have to get serious about taming its gargantuan appetite for fuel, most of which is imported from the volatile Middle East. “The fact is that nearly every military challenge we face is either derived from or impacted by one thing: our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources,” says Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who co-founded a “defense energy working group” with Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and former CIA Director James Woolsey. “In a world where we borrow money from China to purchase oil from unstable Persian Gulf countries to fuel our Air Force planes that protect us against potential threats from these v ery countries, it’s high-time to make the choices and investments necessary to protect our country,” Israel says. When oil prices began to surge, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued one of his trademark “snowflake” memos asking aides to come up with energy-saving schemes and technologies, such as hybrid vehicles and innovative power sources. In truth, it is hard to see how Rumsfeld’s directive could change the reality of a military that mostly operates guzzlers, and has no tangible plans to change that. Just two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Pentagon a “national security exemption” so it can continue to drive trucks with old, energy-inefficient engines that don’t meet the emissions standards required for commercial trucks. The Army once considered replacing the mother of all fuel-gorgers, the Abrams tank engine, with a more efficient diesel plant. But the Army leadership then reversed course because it was too expensive. Most recently, the Army cancelled a program to produce hybrid-diesel humvees, and has slowed down the development of other hybrid trucks in the medium and heavy fleets. The Air Force has been contemplating the replacement of its surveillance, cargo and tanker aircraft engines, but the project was deemed too costly, and not worth any potential fuel savings. Subsequent to Rumsfeld’s 2005 snowflake, a number of military and civilian Pentagon officials have been eager to publicize various science projects aimed at energy conservation , such as research into synthetic fuels, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, wind farms and solar power, to name a few. But while these efforts have paid off on the public-relations front, they are not expected to translate into any real energy savings, at least for the foreseeable future. “In the short term, there is very little that politicians or anyone can do about the military’s dependence on fuel for transportation,” says Herman Franssen, an energy consultant and researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. New technologies in synthetic fuels and fuel cells will take decades to produce realistic alternatives that can migrate to military vehicles, airplanes and non-nuclear powered ships. For at least the next 20 to 30

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 3

SBSP Aff DDI 20114/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

years, says Franssen, “oil will still be the most important fuel.” Synthetic fuels are mostly a pipe dream. The only country that makes any significant amount of synthetic fuel is South Africa, whose apartheid government was forced to find an alterative to petroleum in the 1970s during a trade embargo. “The technology exists, but it’s costly and creates environmental problems,” Franssen says. Biofuels are promising, but it will be decades before they can substantially help to reduce oil consumption. Currently, just 4 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States is mixed with corn-derived ethanol.

Current Military energy wastes lives and money, huge burden on US operationsFoust ‘7, Jeff Foust, Editor and publisher of the Space Review online journal, 8/13/2007, “A renaissance for space solar power?”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

In recent months, however, a new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhat unlikely quarter. Over the last several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a study about the feasibility of space solar power, with an eye towards military applications but also in broader terms of economic and national security. Air Force Lt. Col. Michael “Coyote” Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session about space solar power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in a study last year that identified energy, and the competition for it, as the pathway to “the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st century.” If the United States is able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said, “that will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal.” At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military’s voracious appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—in getting that energy to troops deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their devices. The total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply chain, can run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. “The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.

Military readiness challenged by lack of energy supplyNSSO, 07( Office of Space Security, Oct.2007, National Security Space Office; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf;)

<FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical need for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war ‐ fighter. • When all indirect and support costs are included, it is estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon, the fully burdened average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon. • Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 70% of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraq—total daily consumption is approximately 1.6 million gallons. Any estimated cost of battlefield energy (fuel and electricity) does not include the cost in lives of American men and women. • The DoD is a potential anchor tenant customer of space ‐ based solar power that can be reliably delivered to U.S. troops located in forward bases in hostile territory in amounts of 5 ‐ 50 megawatts continuous at an estimated price of $1 per kilowatt hour, but this price may increase over time as world energy resources become more scarce or environmental concerns about increased carbon emissions from combusting fossil fuels increases.>

SBSP revolutionizes the military – energy on demandRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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 - 41 - airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 4

SBSP Aff DDI 20115/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

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 21 st 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 security energy supply

<< Spencer 2K >>

<< Scenario 2 is competitiveness >>

US losing the race for a sustainable earthWong ’09, Julian L. Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/09, Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness While Moving Toward a Clean-Energy Economy, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/wong_testimony.html

The United States may have won the race to the moon, but we’re losing the race for a sustainable Earth. And we’re not only behind China, and therefore losing access to valuable export markets, but also losing to countries such as Germany, Spain, and even India, which has recently set the world’s most ambitious solar energy target of 20 GW by 2020. Opponents to climate action often cite the costs of legislation. These people are confusing cost with investment. Costs are incurred when the planet heats up, when the increased frequency of drought and floods wreak havoc to our food systems, when our rivers run dry. Those are the true costs—with no paybacks—that come with inaction. When we put money into research and innovation on clean technologies, and into our people in the form of education and workforce development, that is an investment that will provide returns many times over and truly enhance our competiveness .

SBSP key to US technological competitiveness – bigger than the Manhattan projectRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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. .

Asian technological advancements threaten US primacySegal ’04, Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China. 11/04, Is America Losing It’s Edge? http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60260/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 5

SBSP Aff DDI 20116/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else . But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

<< Kagen 07 >>

Advantage 2 Is warming

Now is the key time to take up SBSP – the option that can meet future demands Rajagopalan 11 (Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), 02 April 2011, http://billionyearplan.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-based-solar-power-time-to-put-it.html, TA)

With the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, isn’t it time for India and the US to make serious commitments to Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) ? Japanese crisis has triggered worldwide re-thinking on the feasibility of pursuing nuclear energy to meet growing global energy demands. This has kick-started a debate also in India not only on the safety of nuclear plants but also on other energy options. It is time that India and the United States and the countries around the world looked at an often-overlooked option: SBSP. The idea of harnessing SBSP as an option originated in the United States some 40 years ago. But it has not been pursued with vigour for a variety of reasons, including possibly the influence of nuclear lobbyists. In simple terms, SBSP is described thus by Lt. Col. Peter Garretson of the US Air Force: "In this concept, very large satellites, the largest ever constructed, made up of kilometers of solar cells, would collect the Sun’s energy where there is no light, and convert it to radio-waves to be beamed to special receiving antenna farms on the ground (called rectennas) about the size of a small airport. The energy is sent in the form of a low energy beam at about 1/6th the intensity of normal sunlight that falls on earth. But because it is a low-energy, non-ionizing wavelength, it is not as dangerous as sunlight with its high energy ultraviolet rays. At the rectenna, the energy is reconverted and sent via the existing electrical grid. Such satellites would necessitate a fleet of re-useable space planes, and as a consequence of economies of scale, reduce the cost of space access a hundred fold, enabling many other applications.2 It is estimated that one kilometre-wide band of geo-synchronous earth bit can produce solar flux to match as much as the total amount of energy produced from all the different recoverable oil reserves on Earth. The idea was promoted by none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam first at the Aeronautical Society of India (AeSI) and later again at a press conference in Washington DC last year. The initiative is now titled as the Kalam-NSS (National Space Society) Energy Initiative. The Kalam-NSS initiative is an India-US partnership taken up by individuals with long-term expertise in the space realm. Some of the key people involved are, in addition to Dr. Kalam, Mark Hopkins, CEO of the US-based National Space Society and John Mankins, President of the Space Power Association and a veteran of NASA. On the Indian side, there seems to be some official involvement due to the involvement of Dr. T.K. Alex, who is the Director of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Satellite Centre, Bangalore and leader of the Chandrayan-I project. Speaking in New Delhi in November last year, Dr. Kalam said that " by 2050, even if we use every available energy resource we have, clean and dirty, conventional and alternative, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas , the world will fall short of the energy we need by 66%. There is an answer . An answer for both the developed and developing countries. This is a solar energy source that is close to infinite, an energy source that produces no carbon emissions, an energy source that can reach the most distant villages of the world , and an energy source that can turn countries into net energy exporter. "3 According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the worldwide demand for primary energy increases by 55 per cent between 2005 and 2030 - 1.8 per cent hike per year on average; and for India, the demand is expected to more than double by 2030, growing at 3.6 per cent rate per year.4 With energy demand growing rapidly, the SBSP option offers huge opportunities. Such an option will also be reportedly a cleaner energy option. This option would also significantly augment India’s capabilities in the space domain, which will have far-reaching positive spin-offs in the ever-changing security environment in Asia. This will bring the much-desired focus on the question of technology transfer between India and the US, Japan and Israel. India has looked at this option for quite sometime. In 1987, the first bit of work was undertaken looking at advanced space transportation system design concepts for cost-effective space solar power. Recently, ISRO is reported to have done some exercise looking at the feasibility of this option and examined three specific configurations. Thereafter, ISRO is believed to have welcomed an International Preliminary Feasibility Study.Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, SBSP is available throughout the year, in huge quantities . It can also reportedly work irrespective of conditions that are a problem for other alternative energy sources such as cloud cover, availability of sunlight, or wind speed.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 6

SBSP Aff DDI 20117/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Solar Energy is the answer to environmental problems Szuromi et al ‘07 (Phil Szuromi, senior editor, Ph. D in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, Barbara Jasny, Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Rockefeller University, has conducted research in viral pathogenesis, DNA replication, and cellular senescence, Daniel Clery, James Austin, and Brooks Hanson, Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles and conducted post-doctoral research at the Smithsonian Institution, 2/9/07, “Energy for the Long Haul”, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5813/781.full)

Perhaps the greatest challenge in realizing a sustainable future is energy consumption. It is ultimately the basis for a large part of the global economy, and more of it will be required to raise living standards in the developing world. Today, we are mostly dependent on nonrenewable fossil f uels that have been and will continue to be a major cause of pollution and climate change. Because of these problems, and our dwindling supply of petroleum, finding sustainable alternatives is becoming increasingly urgent. This special issue focuses on some of the challenges and efforts needed to harness renewable energy more effectively at a sufficient scale to make a difference and some of the people who are working on these problems. As introduced in the first News article (p. 782), the Editorial by Holdren (p. 737), and the Perspective by Whitesides and Crabtree (p. 796), many of the outstanding questions require major research efforts in underfunded areas. Much of the focus on sustainable energy is aimed at different ways of tapping into the most abundant renewable resource: solar energy.

US action causes spillover and solves climateHsu 09 (Feng Hsu, Ph.D. and Ken Cox, Ph.D. 2009 NASA GSFC Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group and Founder & DirectorAerospace Technology Working Group, Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development ••• A Unified Strategic Vision”.)

So while some might argue that RLV or SBSP are too expensive or too difficult to realize, we must not forget that what makes a nation and its people thrive and prosper are not what they do for easy or short-term gain, but what they accomplish that others dare not do or cannot do. How many of history’s great endeavors have brought profound benefits to humanity across the economic, scientific and social fronts? It is precisely such an opportunity that lies before us today. Hence, we recommend the new paradigm of a strategic vision for space development (VSD) be considered by the new administration, consisting of the following key strategic elements, as a roadmap for propelling America and humanity’s outward expansion into space-based economic and commercial frontiers: 1. Set the goal of a low-cost, reliable space transportation infrastructure development within the Earth-moon system as the highest priority to be implemented by the proposed new Department of Space. The U.S. should build strong support and invite global participation from the entire international community. In this effort to achieve the proposed VSD, the U.S. and its international partners In this effort to achieve the proposed VSD, the U.S. and its international partners should focus heavily on the development of RLVs, such as crew & cargo transport and launch vehicle systems with top-level requirements of low-cost, low system complexity, and aircraft-like reliability, maintainability and operability. 3. We should develop and establish an international Fuel-Depot and Orbital Staging or Service point (station) in the LEO environment to support and service commercial space-transportation traffic, including space tourism, Lunar and Earth orbital transfers, and commercial satellite services. 4. We should also promote and support the establishment and construction of spaceport infrastructure in several strategic locations within the U.S. and around the globe, which will meet the emerging demand for increased commercial launch and spacetransport economic activities. 5. We must develop enabling space infrastructure observation and tracking capabilities for planetary defense. In particular, develop ground and orbital systems, in close collaboration with international partners, for monitoring, tracking and deflecting asteroids, comets, and other cosmic objects in near-Earth orbit, which threaten the safety of our home planet. And we must invest in projects with multiple benefits such as space-based solar power (SBSP) research and development, which would be developed by first funding a series of space-to-space or space-to-Earth SBSP demonstration projects. Technology demonstrations, such as wireless power transmission (WPT), highefficiency microwave beam generation and control, system safety and reliability, onorbit robotic assembly technology, and deployment of large-scale orbital solar structures would also be advisable to help reduce risks, thus triggering large-scale investments by private industries . The upside potential, if successful, would ultimately lead to the capacity to harness solar energy from space to alleviate Earth’s dependence on fossil fuels, thereby addressing global climate-change concerns.

Global Warming risk extinction- only SBSP solvesHsu ’10 (Dr. Feng Hsu, Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management Space Energy Group, 10/29, “Harnessing the

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 7

SBSP Aff DDI 20118/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Sun: Embarking on Humanity’s Next Giant Leap”)

The evidence of global warming is alarming. The potential for a catastrophic climate change scenario is dire . Until recently, I worked at Goddard Space Flight Center, a NASA research center in the forefront of space and earth science research. This Center is engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale. I received first hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the latest dynamics of ice cap melting and changes that occurred on either pole of our planet. I had the chance to discuss this research with my Goddard colleagues, who are world-leading experts on the subject. I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in the earth's atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes ; and b) the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into earth's biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk. As a technical and technology risk assessment expert, I could show with confidence that we face orders of magnitude more risk doing nothing to curb our fossil-based energy addictions than we will in making a fundamental shift in our energy supply. This is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances. Of course, there will be economic consequences to all societies when we restrict the burning of fossil fuels in an effort to abate "global warming." What we are talking about are options and choices between risks. All human activities involve risk taking; we cannot avoid risks but only make trade-offs, hopefully choosing wisely. In this case, there has to be a risk-based probabilistic thought process when it comes to adopting national or international policies in dealing with global warming and energy issues. As the measure of risk is a product of "likelihood" and "consequence," when consequence or risk of a potential human extinction (due to catastrophic climate change) is to be compared with the potential consequence or risk of loss of jobs or slowing the growth of economy (due to restriction of fossil-based energy consumption), I believe the choice is clear. My view is that by making a paradigm shift in the world's energy supply over time through extensive R&D, technology innovations and increased production of renewable energy, we will create countless new careers and jobs and end up triggering the next level of economic development , the kind of pollution free industrial revolution mankind has never before seen. The aggravation and acceleration of a potential anthropogenic catastrophic global climate change, in my opinion, is the number one risk incurred from our combustion-based world economy. At the International Energy Conference in Seattle, I showed three pairs of satellite images as evidence that the earth glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate.[2] Whether this warming trend can be reversed by human intervention is not clear, but this uncertainty in risk reduction doesn't justify the human inactions in adapting policies and countermeasures on renewable energy development for a sustainable world economy, and for curbing the likelihood of any risk event of anthropogenic catastrophic climate changes. What is imperative is that we start to do something in a significant way that has a chance to make a difference.

Independently, warming is the only existential risk.Deibel 07( Terry Deibel, Professor of National Strategy at the National War College. , Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today, Google books)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action . It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 8

SBSP Aff DDI 20119/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet

Advantage 3 Is Energy<< Senario 1 is Economy >>

Immediate USFG move for SPS avoids collapse of oil-based economy.Nansen 2000. Ralph H. Nansen. President, Solar Space Industries. 7 September 2000. Address to House Subcommittee on space and aeronautics. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm

Energy demand continues to grow as our population expands. The electronic age is totally reliant on electric power and is creating a new need for electric power. Many areas of the nation are experiencing energy shortages and significantly increased costs. United States electricity use is projected to increase by 32% in the next twenty years while worldwide electric energy use will grow by 75% in the same period. Worldwide oil production is projected to peak in the 2010 to 2015 time period with a precipitous decrease after that due to depletion of world reserves. Natural gas prices in the United States have doubled in the last year as the demand has grown for gas fired electrical generation plants. Global warming and the need for reduction of CO2 emissions calls for the replacement of fossil fuel power plants with renewable nonpolluting energy sources. Even with increased use of today's knowledge of renewable energy sources carbon emissions are expected to rise 62% worldwide by 2020. If we have any hope for a reversal of global warming we must dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels. Solar power satellite development would reduce and eventually eliminate United States dependence on foreign oil imports. They would help reduce the international trade imbalance. Electric energy from solar power satellites can be delivered to any nation on the earth. The United States could become a major energy exporter. The market for electric energy will be enormous. Most important of all is the fact that whatever nation develops and controls the next major energy source will dominate the economy of the world.

US space command directly linked to world economy Dolman, 5—Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (Everett C., “U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” 9-14-05, http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.pdf

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 9

SBSP Aff DDI 201110/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

No nation relies on space more than the United States—none is even close—and its reliance grows daily. For both its civilian welfare and military security, a widespread loss of space capabilities would prove disastrous. America’s economy, and along with it the world’s, would collapse. Its military would be obliged to hunker down in defensive crouch while it prepared to withdraw from dozens of then-untenable foreign deployments. For the good of its civilian population, and for itself, the United States military—in particular the United States Air Force—is charged with protecting space capabilities from harm and ensuring reliable space operations for the foreseeable future. As a martial organization, the Air Force naturally looks to military means in achievement of its assigned ends. And so it should

Energy is the biggest link to EconomyBeach ‘11 Dr. Fred C. Beach is a Post-Doc Fellow at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at The University of Texas at Austin. He is a retired Naval Officer and qualified Submariner, Naval Aviator, Surface Warfare Officer, and Acquisition Professional [http://www.ensec.org/index.php?view=article&catid=114%3Acontent0211&id=281%3Adods-addiction-to-oil-is-there-a-cure&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=374, March 15th 2011, “DOD’s Addiction to Oil: Is there a Cure?”

When it comes to reducing a budget, whether it is a fiscal budget or an energy budget, the biggest gains to be had are in the largest budget categories, and for DoD that means the operational energy budget. Over 70% of the energy consumed by DoD goes towards operations. This includes energy for aircraft, ships, tactical vehicles, and expeditionary bases used in training, deploying, and sustaining our armed forces around the world. Since operational forces are mobile by nature, they demand fuels with the highest possible energy density and transportability, namely petroleum based fuels. For moving large quantities of people and material around the world, the most “energy efficient” means is by ship and the least is by air. Conversely, the most “time efficient” means is just the opposite. As America and the rest of the industrialized world has become addicted to “just in time” and “overnight” delivery of every imaginable commodity, so has DoD. The US military’s consumption of petroleum in FY 2008 was 120 million barrels at a cost of approximately $16 billion, and roughly 73% of this petroleum was used for aviation.The Air Force uses more than half of DoD’s petroleum, and it comes as no surprise that 94% of it goes towards aviation. But it may be surprising that 51% is for aviation-based transportation of personnel, material and even aviation fuel (for in-flight refueling). Only 28% of Air Force consumption goes towards fighter/attack aircraft and just 7% for bombers. The Air Force of the 21st century has slowly transformed itself into a military version of FedEx and Southwest Airlines, but only a small fraction of their cargo is ordnance. Conversely, slightly more than a third of the petroleum used by the Navy goes towards aviation, but unlike the Air Force the vast majority of it goes towards fighter/attack aircraft that are almost solely aircraft carrier based. This homogeneity of naval aviation provides the equivalent of a natural experiment for investigating the fuel cost and the carbon footprint of one of DoD’s principal means of conducting warfare, and perhaps the ways to reduce it.

Collapse leads to global warCooke ’10 ( Writer for the Global Research Society March 10 2010)<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19080>

A quick glance around the globe reveals a ruined international economy, wars and more wars in the works, and revolutionary movements aplenty — all connected phenomena.  No, the apocalypse is not coming; but the international economic system currently used to arrange the social order is crumbling, taking everyone down with it. The global capitalist system is in far worse shape than most people realize: it may only take the tiny economy of Greece to go bankrupt to break this camel’s back — and finally the word “recession” will be antiquated and “depression” will be in vogue. A great economic downturn would have happened years ago were it not for the monstrous debt that many governments created — consumer, corporate, and state — to prop up the economic system, since debt was needed to fuel the consumption that corporations depended on for the purchase of their products.  When this global debt bubble burst, the current crisis was ignited.  The debts started going unpaid and the banks stopped lending, creating the “credit crunch.”  Giant corporations thus began failing, and the governments that are heavily “influenced” by these corporations went on a bailout frenzy:  billions and trillions of taxpayer money poured into these companies, keeping them alive to plunder another day. After the bailouts, stupid politicians everywhere declared the capitalist system “saved,” and the crisis over.  But bigger crises were already visible on the horizon. The debt that nations used to bailout private corporations was too massive.  If these countries’ currencies are to retain any value, the debt must be trimmed (the Euro for example, is widely believed to be “finished”).  The battle over how this trimming takes place can be properly referred to as “class war” — a revolution in Greece is brewing over such an issue, with Portugal, Spain, and Italy not far behind. All over Europe and the U.S. the corporate elite is demanding that the giant government debts — due to bailouts and wars — be reduced by lowering wages, gutting social services, slashing public education, Social Security, Medicare, etc.  Labor unions and progressive groups are

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 10

SBSP Aff DDI 201111/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

demanding that the rich and corporations, instead, pay for the crisis that they created through progressive taxation, eliminating tax havens, and if need be, nationalization.  This tug of war over society’s resources is class war.   The global crisis has developed to such a degree that no middle ground can be safely bargained.   This revolution-creating dynamic also spawns wars.  Corporations demand that wages and benefits be reduced during a recession so that “profitability is restored.” This is the only way out of a global recession, since nothing is produced under capitalism if it doesn’t create a profit; and recessions destroy profit.  But there are other ways to restore profits.While corporate-controlled governments work to restore domestic profitability by attacking the living standards of workers, they likewise look abroad to fix their problems.  A sure-fire way to increase profits is to export more products overseas, something Obama has mentioned in dozens of speeches.  One way to ensure that a foreign country will accept/market your exported goods is by threatening them, or attacking them. An occupied country, like Iraq for example, was forced to allow a flood of U.S. corporations inside to pillage as they saw fit — an automatic export boom.When the world market shrinks during a recession — since consumers can afford to buy fewer goods — the urge to dominate markets via war increases dramatically.  These same shrinking markets compel international corporations, based in different nations, to insanely compete for markets, raw materials, and cheap labor.   War is a very logical outcome in such circumstances.    President Obama reminds us: “The world’s fastest-growing markets are outside our borders. We need to compete for those customers because other nations are competing for them.”  Having a giant military establishment to back them up enables   U.S.   corporations to be better “competitors” than other nations. War also serves as a valuable distraction to an angry public which is demanding jobs, higher wages, health care, well funded public education, and taxes on the wealthy.  Better to channel this anger into hatred toward a “foreign enemy.” The above issues are the ones certain to dominate major events in the coming years.  The class war that is erupting as a result of the global depression will effect the majority of people in many nations, through joblessness, shrinking wages, the destruction of government services, or war.   As working people in the U.S. begin a fight against these policies, the corporate elite will stop at nothing to implement them, and the social unrest in Europe will be transferred to the U.S.   More working people will come to the realization that an economic system owned by giant corporations — themselves owned by very wealthy individuals — is irrational, and needs to be replaced.  

<< Scenario 2 is Resource wars >>

SBSP is our only hope for future energySchubert 10. Peter J. Schubert. Ph.D., P.E. Packer Engineering. Winter 2010. “Costs, organization, and roadmap for SPS” Online Journal of Space Communcation. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html

SSP is the only renewable energy technology capable of meeting the projected worldwide demand for the next generation of humans, and all of their descendants. As the present stewards of the earth, there is a great onus on the present generation to start work on the ultimate solution as soon as possible. An ancient Chinese proverb advocates that we "dig the well before we are thirsty". A law of the Native American society known as the Iroquois Nation is "In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation". Benjamin Franklin's advice on addressing problems before they grow unmanageable is "a stitch in time, saves nine." Grateful Dead lyrics by John Perry Barlow teach: "We don't own this place, though we act as if we did; it's a loan from the children of our children's kids." While Americans individually can recognize the wisdom of these aphorisms, for the collective US nation to act accordingly will probably require a miracle.

SSP solves oil shock and great power warNSSO 07 ( SBSP Study Group, 10 October 2007, National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power, As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long-term route tu 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.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 11

SBSP Aff DDI 201112/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Oil wars lead extinctionKlare, 08 (Michael Klare , professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “The rise of the new energy world order,” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD17Dj04.html)

A growing risk of conflict. Throughout history, major shifts in power have normally been accompanied by violence - in some cases, protracted violent upheavals. Either states at the pinnacle of power have struggled to prevent the loss of their privileged status, or challengers have fought to topple those at the top of the heap. Will that happen now? Will energy-deficit states launch campaigns to wrest the oil and gas reserves of surplus states from their control - the George W Bush administration's war in Iraq might already be thought of as one such attempt or to eliminate competitors among their deficit-state rivals? The high costs and risks of modern warfare are well known and there is a widespread perception that energy problems can best be solved through economic means, not military ones. Nevertheless, the major powers are employing military means in their efforts to gain advantage in the global struggle for energy, and no one should be deluded on the subject. These endeavors could easily enough lead to unintended escalation and conflict. One conspicuous use of military means in the pursuit of energy is obviously the regular transfer of arms and military-support services by the major energy-importing states to their principal suppliers. Both the United States and China, for example, have stepped up their deliveries of arms and equipment to oil-producing states like Angola, Nigeria and Sudan in Africa and, in the Caspian Sea basin, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The United States has placed particular emphasis on suppressing the armed insurgency in the vital Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where most of the country's oil is produced; Beijing has emphasized arms aid to Sudan, where Chinese-led oil operations are threatened by insurgencies in both the South and Darfur. Russia is also using arms transfers as an instrument in its efforts to gain influence in the major oil- and gas-producing regions of the Caspian Sea basin and the Persian Gulf. Its urge is not to procure energy for its own use, but to dominate the flow of energy to others. In particular, Moscow seeks a monopoly on the transportation of Central Asian gas to Europe via Gazprom's vast pipeline network; it also wants to tap into Iran's mammoth gas fields, further cementing Russia's control over the trade in natural gas. The danger, of course, is that such endeavors, multiplied over time, will provoke regional arms races, exacerbate regional tensions and increase the danger of great-power involvement in any local conflicts that erupt. History has all too many examples of such miscalculations leading to wars that spiral out of control. Think of the years leading up to World War I. In fact, Central Asia and the Caspian today, with their multiple ethnic disorders and great-power rivalries, bear more than a glancing resemblance to the Balkans in the years leading up to 1914. What this adds up to is simple and sobering: the end of the world as you've known it. In the new, energy-centric world we have all now entered, the price of oil will dominate our lives and power will reside in the hands of those who control its global distribution.

But really… Extinction.Heinberg 03 (Richard Heinberg, New College of California, The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, 2003, p. 230, google books)

Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. Even citizens of nations that export oil – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita. The Carter Doctrine, declared in 1980, made it plain that US military might would be applied to the project of dominating the world’s oil wealth: henceforth, any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States” and would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In the past 60 years, the US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope, power, and durability. While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of others. During the Cold War, the US military apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. Rather, their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy, foreign or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its agents, or its allies. This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is pursued with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization, but of humanity and most of the biosphere.

Spesifically SBSP solves China Energy War Dinerman ’07 (Taylor Dinerman, author of the textbook Space Science for Students and has been a part time consultant for the US

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 12

SBSP Aff DDI 201113/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Defense Department, 10/07, China, the US, and space solar power, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)

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.

Solvency

US action on SBSP revolutionizes leadership and catalyzes space developmentRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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 . - 12 - • SBSP and low ‐ cost, reliable space access are co ‐ dependent, and advances in either will catalyze development in the other

SBSP is very feasible in the near future - technical, legal, policy, and logistical Rouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

It has been nearly a decade since a US Government agency last officially examined the feasibility of SBSP as a strategic source of clean, renewable energy (NASA’s 1995‐1997 “Fresh Look” Study). A significantly changing global energy and environmental security situation, combined with an exponentially accelerating pace of technological change, merit a revisit of this concept by the nation’s primary security institution, the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While OSD currently has no official position on SBSP, OSD does acknowledge the need to proactively find and create solutions that ensure the United States’ strategic energy, economic, space, environmental and national security are preserved. Utilizing an innovative, web ‐ based collaborative format that invited the voluntary contributions of over 170 international SBSP experts over a 5‐month period, the National Security Space Office initiated a no‐cost phase‐0 architecture feasibility review to determine if the United States and partners could retire all of the technical, legal, policy, and logistical challenges over the next several decades such that a credible business case could be made to proceed with full ‐ scale commercial development of this energy source as a national or international project. This interim report is being published to reveal findings to date and recommend whether additional, more detailed US Government study and action relative to SBSP is warranted. This study revealed that while the business case for SBSP cannot be closed for construction to begin in 2007, the technical feasibility of the concept has never been better and all science and technology development vectors appear to indicate that there is credible potential for SBSP to be built within a strategically relevant period of time. This review also uncovered surprisingly significant interest and evaluation within academia, the aerospace industry, and energy industries that is progressing independently of DoD reviews. The United States is not the only country to observe the potential of SBSP and the improving technical state‐of‐the‐art, as substantial interest and support have been witnessed in other regions of the world to include Europe, Japan, Canada, India, China, and Russia among others. This international interest can be leveraged to build or strengthen strategically stabilizing long ‐ term partnerships.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 13

SBSP Aff DDI 201114/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

New tech makes SBSP economically viablePowersat, 10 (Powersat corporation, leading corporation in SBDP research and development, 2010, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.powersat.com/faq.html, TA)

The advances in technology have made materials lighter and cheaper, making it economically viable to utilize powersats for baseload generation. A key enabling technology has been the development of thin-film solar cells which dramatically reduce the weight of the satellite . We also have a patented technology in the works to decrease launch cost. As well, the drive for carbon free renewable baseload power has now made powersats a viable economic alternative.

2AC add on: Technical innovation

Aff creates collateral benefits in the short termSchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 8, TA)

The committee has exarnined the SERT programs technical investment strategy and finds that while the technical and economic challenges of providing space based solar power for commercially competitive terrestrial electric power will require breakthrough advances in a number of technologies, the SERT program has provided a credible plan for making progress toward this goal. The committee makes a number of suggestions to improve the plan, which encompass three main themes (1) improving technical management processes (2) sharpening the technology development focus, and (3) capitalizing on other work. Even if the ultimate goal to supply cost-competitive terrestrial electric power-is not attained the technology investments proposed will have many collateral benefits for near-term, less-cost-sensitive space applications and for nonspace use of technology advances.

SBSP revolutionizes robotics industries – 7 fieldsSchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 47, TA)

Robotics applications are everywhere, and spin off technologies from SSP will find uses in at least as many ground - based applications as space based applications. Examples follow: Robotic maintenance and repair of the International Space station (ISS) and its future derivatives; Robotic maintenance and repair of scientific spacecraft (such as the Hubble Space Telescope or Next Generation Space Telescope) and commercial space (communications satellites); plan robotic exploration (and possible use) of other planets and space objects (comets, asteroids, liberation points, missions out of the solar system, etc.); Robotic capabilities for undersea operations and exploration of other Earth environments dangerous of toxic to humans (e.g. Antarctica, volcanoes, nuclear power Plants); factory automation and ground-based factoring Robotics for medical applications (precision surgery); and Robotics for military applications (ground combat troops). Because these applications are so widespread and potentially powerful, a number of organizations and countries are already investing in robotics development, including NASA Johnson Space Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the United States, as well as organizations in other countries, including Japan. Much of this investment may be applicable to SSP assembly and maintenance operations. However, a definite need remains for new investment in robotic technologies that are unique to SSP, including flight experiments with early SSP demonstrations, systems analyses to quantify costs and identify critical robotic technologies, and development of man-machine interfaces that allow progressively more autonomous systems.

Underwater robotics key to environmentRobotics Society of Japan 01 (Advanced Robotics, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 609– 639 (2001) Ó VSP and Robotics Society of Japan 2001. http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/vsp/01691864/v15n5/s8.pdf?expires=1311221269&id=63656381&titleid=5000073&accname=Dartmouth+College&checksum=A92A79EE02F5594BE2BD1B36350C25DA, TA)

The ocean covers about two-thirds of the earth and has a great effect on the future existence of all human beings. About

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 14

SBSP Aff DDI 201115/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

37% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the ocean [1]. The ocean is generally overlooked as we focus our attention on land and atmospheric issues. We have not been able to explore the full depths of the ocean, and its abundant living and non-living resources. For example, it is estimated that there are about 2000 billion tons of manganese nodules on the floor of the Pacic Ocean near the Hawaiian Islands. Only recently we have discovered, by using manned submersibles, that a large amount of carbon dioxide comes from the seafloor and extraordinary groups of organisms live in hydrothermal vent areas. Underwater robots can help us better understand marine and other environmental issues, protect the ocean resources of the Earth from pollution, and effeciently utilize them for human welfare. However, a number of complex issues ¤ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: yuh@hawaii.edu610 J. Yuh and M. West due to the unstructured, hazardous undersea environment make it difŽ cult to travel in the ocean even though today’s technologies have allowed humans to land on the moon and robots to travel to Mars.

Robotics key to the economyHuse 11 (Brian Huse, Director, Marketing & PR, Robotic Industries Association, June 10th, 2011, Economic Conditions and Opportunities Bode Well for Robotics Market, http://roboticsonline.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/economic-conditions-and-opportunities-bode-well-for-robotics-market/, TA)

What is the outlook for robots and automation now that we are almost half-way through the calendar year? Excellent, if you ask Paul Kellett, Director – Market Analysis for Automated Technologies Council. He’ll also tell you why the situation looks so good for robotics; how the world economy works and more. He makes no guarantees, but conditions look especially good for the robotics market this year. A glance at the big picture for robotics reveals the world market has returned to growth after steep declines in 2009. Worldwide robot sales are not quite back to levels seen in the heydays of 2008, but according to the International Federation of Robotics the gap is closing and they predict around a 10% growth rate in 2011 (but they expect a more modest 5% growth rate over the next three years combined). According to RIA’s most recent statistics, more than 4,000 robots were ordered in North America for a 31% increase in units and 27% increase in dollars through the first quarter of 2011. Unit growth jumped 64% in the automotive sector where pent-up demand was years in the making. “Manufacturing is leading the recovery, and that sort of creates schizophrenia in a market that usually leads with consumer demand,” says Kellett. “Now we have the ‘opposite’ where the smaller part of the equation (the business sector) is driving most of the growth. Until consumer demand returns to ‘normal’ levels the recovery won’t be typical.” In the U.S., consumer spending accounts for nearly two-thirds of GDP with the remainder consisting of business expenditures. With much of the turmoil behind us, a stronger recovery led by consumer spending would have normally occurred by now, explains Kellett. Of the two main components of GDP, manufacturing is the smaller one and even at full throttle it cannot contribute as much to overall economic growth as the consumer sector. Kellett adds another observation: “Consumers have reduced their spending behavior. They are making fewer purchases because of low confidence about the economy as a consequence of high unemployment, job uncertainty and historically low home values. People are spending less and saving more instead of charging up a storm on their credit cards, which had the economy roaring in 2008.” By contrast, the business sector, and in particular manufacturing, has increased spending. Flush with cash on their balance sheets, larger manufacturers have been spending money on capital equipment, especially the kind that increases productivity and quality. Since productivity and product value enhancements require automation technology, robotics companies have been major beneficiaries. A resurgent automobile industry has especially been a boon to these companies. Risk still casts long shadows on the economy as Kellett will tell you. Rising costs for oil and commodities is a concern; however, at this point not enough to forestall the current recovery. Uncertainty in the Middle East is a major part of the problem, but he says as long as a barrel of oil stays in the low $100’s the market should be able to cope. A depressed housing market might also eventually take its toll within the U.S. Economies are recovering at different rates, notes Kellett, and some have large obstacles to overcome. “Japan just fell back into recession,” says Kellett. “Because of the terrible earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear reactor crisis, Japan is experiencing its most challenging period since World War II.” Adding to Japan’s economic woes has been deflation, which occurs when consumers stay on the sidelines and defer spending in hopes of more price drops. That unavoidably depresses corporate income.” Despite the seriousness of the Japanese crisis, world markets should be able to withstand the resultant supply side disruptions from Japan thinks Kellett. He also is optimistic that the sovereign debt problem in Japan, the U.S., Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain can be overcome, saving financial markets from chaos. In the meantime, sovereign debt will play havoc with currency exchange rates, which will aid the exports of some countries, like the U.S. at present, while making the exports of other countries less competitive in the world market. Regardless of economic headwinds around the world, manufacturing and production are on the upswing in all major economies. Business sectors are healthy with high business confidence and levels of investment. Businesses today are investing more in productivity enhancements such as automation equipment like robotics. “Current economic conditions are generally very favorable to robot sales,” says Kellett. “In addition, the value propositions

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 15

SBSP Aff DDI 201116/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

of robotics (increased productivity, efficiency, product quality and safety) make robotics indispensible, and in the long term ensure an upward trend for robotics despite the vagaries of the business cycle.” An important driver of this long-term trend is also an abundance of new market opportunities. What are some of the more remarkable opportunities for robotics and machine vision now? Kellett says growing demand for solar cells increases the need for robots and automation. Another emerging opportunity in the energy sector is the manufacture of fuel cells which need robots to achieve affordable, high-volume production. Continued growth in the wind turbine industry offers good market opportunities for robotics in areas of core competence for this technology such as welding and material handling. A push for electric vehicles means advanced battery manufacturers need to reduce production costs and ensure product quality for their complicated and delicate manufacturing processes. Once again – robots are the automation of choice. New market opportunities are not just technology-based but also geographic in nature. China, for example, has enthusiastically embraced automation in response to labor pressures and the need for improved product quality. “Demand for robots is certain to grow in China,” says Kellett. North America is another region where huge demand will continue to drive robot sales, especially as the automotive sector rebounds. Although demand for robots is very good in certain North American segments such as life sciences / pharmaceutical / biomedical (where demand is up 61% according to RIA statistics) a good half the market remains in automotive.

<< IMPACT >>

Tech Innovation ext.

Even if the goal of SBSP is not matched, the technology will benefit the countryNansen, 95 - led the Boeing team of engineers in the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program for the Department of Energy and NASA, and President Solar Space Industries (Ralph, Sun Power, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/sunpower09.html

These are but a few obvious examples. If our experience on the Saturn/Apollo program was typical, the real technology benefits to the country—other than the accomplishment of the goal—are often surprising and unexpected. Who would have thought that the requirement for reduced weight and increased capability needed for electronic systems would have opened the way to $10 pocket calculators and personal computers? Even the microprocessors that control so much of our machinery, including our automobiles, are a result of these developments.The Saturn/Apollo program provided much of the basic knowledge that supports our modern military activities as well. It displayed to the rest of the world our technological capabilities in a clear and dramatic way. The solar power satellite can do the same and even more effectively.The real potential, however, is the ability to add generating capacity as the demands for energy grow. After meeting new energy requirements we could start replacing the existing fossil fuel plants and obsolete nuclear plants. A large percentage of the current power plants in the country are wearing out, and maintenance costs are accelerating as they reach the end of their useful life. They could be replaced with solar power satellites, thus eliminating the demand for fossil fuels as our major energy source and starting the process to clean up our atmosphere. Once this is done, a more natural growth can occur. With the availability of ample low-cost electricity, the move could be made to replace a large share of the transportation requirements with electric power vehicles as well.

SBSP will inspire new generations and technologiesMahan, 07 - founder of Citizens for Space Based Solar Power (Rob, SBSP FAQ, based on a Bright Spot Radio interview from December 28th, 2007, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/)

Yes, several very important ones. U.S. manufacturing and technology companies are concerned about being able to hire enough capable employees to replace the experienced workforce, a large percentage of which will be elgible to retire within the next ten years. Our domestic “intellectual feedstock” is very low, which is one of many reasons we haven’t built any new nuclear facilities in the last twenty-five years. Like the Apollo and other U.S. space programs did so many years ago, space-based solar power will inspire new generations of U.S. science and technology graduates.

SBSP implementation will allow new space technological successRamos 2k – US Air Force Major, Thesis submitted for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL Air Force Base (Kim,

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 16

SBSP Aff DDI 201117/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

“Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force,” April, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928In addition to the terrestrial implications of solar power satellites for the Air Force, there are also implications for space operations. The power required for spacecraft operations is increasing. In order to meet this increase, engineers are looking at standardized solar cells, new gallium/aluminum solar cells and paying close attention to solar power satellite developments.17 The problems associated with increasing the size of solar arrays on satellites to meet the increasing power demands are deterioration of structure dynamic performance, complications of orientation and stabilization, placing solar arrays under the launcher fairing, deploying solar arrays in orbit, buffer elements for periods without sunlight and discrepancies between the orientation of devices and solar arrays.18 Engineers from the Ukraine recommend solving these problems with solar power satellites using wireless power transmission or a cable.19 The authors of New World Vistas also recommended this approach. They advocated using space solar power satellites to power other satellites in space and predicted that “power beaming will become a major element of spacecraft operations.”20 Solar power satellites would provide improvements in the areas of reconstitution, maneuver, force application, space-based radar, and communication satellites which produce power as well as transfer data.

Aff creates collateral benefits in the short termSchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 8, TA)

The committee has exarnined the SERT programs technical investment strategy and finds that while the technical and economic challenges of providing space based solar power for commercially competitive terrestrial electric power will require breakthrough advances in a number of technologies, the SERT program has provided a credible plan for making progress toward this goal. The committee makes a number of suggestions to improve the plan, which encompass three main themes (1) improving technical management processes (2) sharpening the technology development focus, and (3) capitalizing on other work. Even if the ultimate goal to supply cost-competitive terrestrial electric power-is not attained the technology investments proposed will have many collateral benefits for near-term, less-cost-sensitive space applications and for nonspace use of technology advances.

Aff generates massive technological advance for all of NASASchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 20, TA)

Due to uncertainties in future funding for SSP, various near-term choices must be made by SSP program managers. Even with a large increase in funding, NASA's SSP program would be best served by focusing its efforts more narrowly than at present. Most of the technology investments should be devoted to technologies that have multiple applications (in addition to terrestrial power generation). In many of the key enabling SSP technologies, significant advances must be made in technology performance, mass, and cost before a commercial SSP system is viable. Most far-term investments should be in research areas that are high risk but could provide high payoff to the SSP program. The SSP program should give considerable weight to nearer terrn space, military, and commercial applications of this technology, or portions of it (e.g., low-mass solar arrays or WPT). Only a few technologies unique to terrestrial power generation should be funded by NASA. Specifically, the system studies indicate that greatest benefit is obtained by investing most heavily in several key technologies, described below (Carrington and Feingold, 2000; Feingold, 2000; Mullins, 2000): -Solar power generation technology is currently in the midst of an exciting period of advancement with solar array improvements of benefit to all solar-powered applications, including terrestrial power and space vehicles. NASA should collaborate with DOE and commercial efforts to avoid duplication and improve the overall effectiveness of investments in SPG technology. -Wireless power transmission has possible dual application potential for free-flying platforms in space or airborne, which could attract military or commercial participants. However, investments in this area need to be focused. Currently, the SERT program is funding efforts in several major WPT technologies. Space power management and distribution is a major contributor to SSP system mass and cost. Investments should be made to reduce the mass and cost of the components while increasing efficiency and improving operation conditions. New SPMAD techniques developed under the SSP program will have application to the ISS and many other NASA, DOD, and commercial systems. Space assembly, maintenance, and servicing are challenges common to all large space systems and planetary exploration, particularly when launching a complete unit is beyond the capacity of the space transportation vehicle. SSP systems should be designed from the outset to accommodate on orbit robotic assembly and maintenance. The degree of structural deployment versus assembly should be

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 17

SBSP Aff DDI 201118/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

rigorously studied, and deployment concepts should be developed that are compatible with planned robotic capabilities. Systems studies are necessary to determine what level of robotic capability is optimal (from teleported to fully autonomous) and how humans are best used in the assembly, maintenance, and servicing operations (on the ground or in orbit). In space transportation is an important driver in establishing on-orbit SSP costs. Trade studies of various concepts should be made along with satellite design and assembly concepts to establish the lowest-cost methods for placing the completed SSP design in GEO. ° Utilities, industry, and other government programs should make the most investment in ground power management and distribution (PMAD) technologies, ground based energy storage, and platform system technologies. These areas are either utility specific or are funded adequately through other efforts. Furthermore, key research and development should place heavy emphasis on reduction of mass and cost and irnprovements in efficiency the ultimate drivers for commercial application of any SSP system.

SBSP research solves terrestrial problemsSchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 23, TA)

NASA's SSP technologies have extensive applications both in space and terrestrially. The program's technology development can also be leveraged by other internal NASA programs and industry. Technology development crucial for an SSP system includes solar array advancements; robotic maintenance and servicing development; power management and distribution; and enhanced systems integration activity for large technical programs. These technologies have applications to many other engineering and science efforts in both government and industry. The following sections outline N ASA's current efforts in these areas and provide recommendations for future activities in relation I0 potential applications of SSP and areas for potential technology transfer.

SBSP revolutionizes robotics industries – 7 fieldsSchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 47, TA)

Robotics applications are everywhere, and spin off technologies from SSP will find uses in at least as many ground - based applications as space based applications. Examples follow: Robotic maintenance and repair of the International Space station (ISS) and its future derivatives; Robotic maintenance and repair of scientific spacecraft (such as the Hubble Space Telescope or Next Generation Space Telescope) and commercial space (communications satellites); plan robotic exploration (and possible use) of other planets and space objects (comets, asteroids, liberation points, missions out of the solar system, etc.); Robotic capabilities for undersea operations and exploration of other Earth environments dangerous of toxic to humans (e.g. Antarctica, volcanoes, nuclear power Plants); factory automation and ground-based factoring Robotics for medical applications (precision surgery); and Robotics for military applications (ground combat troops). Because these applications are so widespread and potentially powerful, a number of organizations and countries are already investing in robotics development, including NASA Johnson Space Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the United States, as well as organizations in other countries, including Japan. Much of this investment may be applicable to SSP assembly and maintenance operations. However, a definite need remains for new investment in robotic technologies that are unique to SSP, including flight experiments with early SSP demonstrations, systems analyses to quantify costs and identify critical robotic technologies, and development of man-machine interfaces that allow progressively more autonomous systems.

Underwater robotics key to environmentRobotics Society of Japan 01 (Advanced Robotics, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 609– 639 (2001) Ó VSP and Robotics Society of Japan 2001. http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/vsp/01691864/v15n5/s8.pdf?expires=1311221269&id=63656381&titleid=5000073&accname=Dartmouth+College&checksum=A92A79EE02F5594BE2BD1B36350C25DA, TA)

The ocean covers about two-thirds of the earth and has a great effect on the future existence of all human beings. About 37% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the ocean [1]. The ocean is generally overlooked as we focus our attention on land and atmospheric issues. We have not been able to explore the full depths of the ocean, and its abundant

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 18

SBSP Aff DDI 201119/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

living and non-living resources. For example, it is estimated that there are about 2000 billion tons of manganese nodules on the floor of the Pacic Ocean near the Hawaiian Islands. Only recently we have discovered, by using manned submersibles, that a large amount of carbon dioxide comes from the seafloor and extraordinary groups of organisms live in hydrothermal vent areas. Underwater robots can help us better understand marine and other environmental issues, protect the ocean resources of the Earth from pollution, and effeciently utilize them for human welfare. However, a number of complex issues ¤ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: yuh@hawaii.edu610 J. Yuh and M. West due to the unstructured, hazardous undersea environment make it difŽ cult to travel in the ocean even though today’s technologies have allowed humans to land on the moon and robots to travel to Mars.

Inherency ext.

No SBSP plan in the squo Txchnologist.com 11 ( Txchnologist is an online magazine presented by GE, APRIL 4TH, 2011, Space Race: Will Space-Based Solar Take Off? http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/solar-in-space)

Then there are the startup costs. David Criswell’s plan to manufacture solar panels on the moon, beam the power to a satellite and, finally, to Earth is technically feasible but widely considered to be outside the realm of the possible – not least because it carries a half-trillion dollar pricetag. Colonel Smith also notes that winning approval to beam energy from regulators who control the airwaves, such as the Federal Communications Commission, could present greater challenges than the technical issues. The United States government has shown little sustained interest in space-based solar. “It’s not in anyone’s job description, nor is it in anybody’s budget path,” Smith said. A spokeswoman from the Department of Energy said the department has no space-based solar program.

No plans for SBSP in the squo despite potentialGarther 04 (John Gartner, senior analyst at Pike Research and a co-founder of Matter Network.. He has been writing about the intersection of technology and business for publications including Wired, TechTV, the Environment News Service, 06.22.04, http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2004/06/63913)

Interest in solar space power peaked in 2000, when NASA officials testified before the House Committee on Science that by 2006 test satellites could be wirelessly transmitting energy from space. After three years of studying the challenges and a favorable report from the National Research Council, in 2001 NASA requested and received new funding for the space solar power program. But later that year, NASA canceled the program (the website was last updated in Au2gust 2001) and withdrew the funding. When asked about the decision to pull the plug on the program, former NASA Director Dan Goldin, who resigned his post in November 2001, said in an e-mail that he does not comment on NASA policy issues. "It was a done deal, the money was there," said Henry Brandhorst, director of space research at Auburn University. Brandhorst said that NASA decided to use the money for the space shuttle and International Space Station programs instead. "It was a policy change." Without NASA's resources and funding, the technology will never be sufficiently evaluated to determine its true potential, said Brandhorst, who has studied the technology for nearly 30 years. "It must be studied until there are proven to be better options," he said.

United States is not pursuing SSP – leaving behind other nationsCox 3-23 (William John Cox, Consortium news writer, retired prosecutor and political activist , “The Race for Solar Energy from Space,” http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/032311b.html )

Presently, only the top industrialized nations have the technological, industrial and economic power to compete in the race for space solar energy. In spite of, and perhaps because of, the current disaster, Japan occupies the inside track, as it is the only nation that has a dedicated space solar energy program and which is highly motivated to change directions. China, which has launched astronauts into an earth orbit and is rapidly become the world’s leader in the production of wind and solar generation products, will undoubtedly become a strong competitor. However, the United States, which should have every advantage in the race, is most likely to stumble out of the gate and waste the best chance it has to solve its economic, energy, political and military problems. A Miraculous Source of Abundant 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

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 19

SBSP Aff DDI 201120/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

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 trillion-dollar 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 organization 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 coordinated 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. China is currently investing $35 billion of its hard-currency reserves in the development of energy-efficient green technology, and has become the world’s leading producer of solar panels. In addition, China has aggressively moved into space by orbiting astronauts and by demonstrating a capability to destroy the satellites of other nations. Over the past two years, Japan has committed $21 billion to secure space-solar energy. By 2030, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency plans to "put into geostationary orbit a solar-power generator that will transmit one gigawatt of energy to Earth, equivalent to the output of a large nuclear power plant." Japanese officials estimate that, ultimately, they will be able to deliver electricity at a cost of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour, which will be competitive with all other sources.

Robotics keyRobotics key to the economyHuse 11 (Brian Huse, Director, Marketing & PR, Robotic Industries Association, June 10th, 2011, Economic Conditions and Opportunities Bode Well for Robotics Market, http://roboticsonline.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/economic-conditions-and-opportunities-bode-well-for-robotics-market/, TA)

What is the outlook for robots and automation now that we are almost half-way through the calendar year? Excellent, if you ask Paul Kellett, Director – Market Analysis for Automated Technologies Council. He’ll also tell you why the situation looks so good for robotics; how the world economy works and more. He makes no guarantees, but conditions look especially good for the robotics market this year. A glance at the big picture for robotics reveals the world market has returned to growth after steep declines in 2009. Worldwide robot sales are not quite back to levels seen in the heydays of 2008, but according to the International Federation of Robotics the gap is closing and they predict around a 10% growth rate in 2011 (but they expect a more modest 5% growth rate over the next three years combined). According to RIA’s most recent statistics, more than 4,000 robots were ordered in North America for a 31% increase in units and 27% increase in dollars through the first quarter of 2011. Unit growth jumped 64% in the automotive sector where pent-up demand was years in the making. “Manufacturing is leading the recovery, and that sort of creates schizophrenia in a market that usually leads with consumer demand,” says Kellett. “Now we have the ‘opposite’ where the smaller part of the equation (the business sector) is driving most of the growth. Until consumer demand returns to ‘normal’ levels the recovery won’t be typical.” In the U.S., consumer spending accounts for nearly two-thirds of GDP with the remainder consisting of business

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 20

SBSP Aff DDI 201121/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

expenditures. With much of the turmoil behind us, a stronger recovery led by consumer spending would have normally occurred by now, explains Kellett. Of the two main components of GDP, manufacturing is the smaller one and even at full throttle it cannot contribute as much to overall economic growth as the consumer sector. Kellett adds another observation: “Consumers have reduced their spending behavior. They are making fewer purchases because of low confidence about the economy as a consequence of high unemployment, job uncertainty and historically low home values. People are spending less and saving more instead of charging up a storm on their credit cards, which had the economy roaring in 2008.” By contrast, the business sector, and in particular manufacturing, has increased spending. Flush with cash on their balance sheets, larger manufacturers have been spending money on capital equipment, especially the kind that increases productivity and quality. Since productivity and product value enhancements require automation technology, robotics companies have been major beneficiaries. A resurgent automobile industry has especially been a boon to these companies. Risk still casts long shadows on the economy as Kellett will tell you. Rising costs for oil and commodities is a concern; however, at this point not enough to forestall the current recovery. Uncertainty in the Middle East is a major part of the problem, but he says as long as a barrel of oil stays in the low $100’s the market should be able to cope. A depressed housing market might also eventually take its toll within the U.S. Economies are recovering at different rates, notes Kellett, and some have large obstacles to overcome. “Japan just fell back into recession,” says Kellett. “Because of the terrible earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear reactor crisis, Japan is experiencing its most challenging period since World War II.” Adding to Japan’s economic woes has been deflation, which occurs when consumers stay on the sidelines and defer spending in hopes of more price drops. That unavoidably depresses corporate income.” Despite the seriousness of the Japanese crisis, world markets should be able to withstand the resultant supply side disruptions from Japan thinks Kellett. He also is optimistic that the sovereign debt problem in Japan, the U.S., Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain can be overcome, saving financial markets from chaos. In the meantime, sovereign debt will play havoc with currency exchange rates, which will aid the exports of some countries, like the U.S. at present, while making the exports of other countries less competitive in the world market. Regardless of economic headwinds around the world, manufacturing and production are on the upswing in all major economies. Business sectors are healthy with high business confidence and levels of investment. Businesses today are investing more in productivity enhancements such as automation equipment like robotics. “Current economic conditions are generally very favorable to robot sales,” says Kellett. “In addition, the value propositions of robotics (increased productivity, efficiency, product quality and safety) make robotics indispensible, and in the long term ensure an upward trend for robotics despite the vagaries of the business cycle.” An important driver of this long-term trend is also an abundance of new market opportunities. What are some of the more remarkable opportunities for robotics and machine vision now? Kellett says growing demand for solar cells increases the need for robots and automation. Another emerging opportunity in the energy sector is the manufacture of fuel cells which need robots to achieve affordable, high-volume production. Continued growth in the wind turbine industry offers good market opportunities for robotics in areas of core competence for this technology such as welding and material handling. A push for electric vehicles means advanced battery manufacturers need to reduce production costs and ensure product quality for their complicated and delicate manufacturing processes. Once again – robots are the automation of choice. New market opportunities are not just technology-based but also geographic in nature. China, for example, has enthusiastically embraced automation in response to labor pressures and the need for improved product quality. “Demand for robots is certain to grow in China,” says Kellett. North America is another region where huge demand will continue to drive robot sales, especially as the automotive sector rebounds. Although demand for robots is very good in certain North American segments such as life sciences / pharmaceutical / biomedical (where demand is up 61% according to RIA statistics) a good half the market remains in automotive.

Fed Key

US action on SBSP revolutionizes leadership and catalyzes space developmentRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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. - 12 - • SBSP and low ‐ cost, reliable space access are co ‐ dependent, and advances in either will catalyze development in the other

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 21

SBSP Aff DDI 201122/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

The USFG must drive solar power.Berger 07 (Brian Berger, Space News Staff Writer, 12 October 2007, Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power, http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html)

Specifically, the report calls for the U.S. government to underwrite the development of space-based solar power by funding a progressively bigger and more expensive technology demonstrations that would culminate with building a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the international space station and capable of beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a receiving station on the ground. Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to show that space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs.

USFG action is key to catalyze commercial developmentRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

A repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks in order 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. The second 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 toda

Demonstration of technological potential by the USFG spurs private actors – SBSP operational in 10 yearsBerger 07 (Brian Berger, Space News Staff Writer, 12 October 2007, Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power, http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html, TA)

Specifically, the report calls for the U.S. government to underwrite the development of space-based solar power by funding a progressively bigger and more expensive technology demonstrations that would culminate with building a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the international space station and capable of beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a receiving station on the ground. Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to show that space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs. Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power down from space could also enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far flung, hostile regions such as Iraq without relying on vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators needed to keep the lights on. As the report puts it, "beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. [Space-based solar power] and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible 'energy on demand' for combat units and installations across and entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on over-land fuel deliveries." Although the U.S. military would reap tremendous benefits from space-based solar power, Damphousse said the Pentagon is unlikely to fund development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said, would be more appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy, both of which have studied space-based solar power in the past. The Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new technology, Damphousse said, and provide a potentially robust market for firms trying to build a business around space-based solar power. "While challenges do remain and the business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based solar power is closer than ever," he said. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this." Damphousse, however, cautioned that the private sector will not invest in space-based solar power until the United States buys down some of the risk through a technology development and demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusion research and perhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space station. "Demonstrations are key here," he said. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the Space Frontier Foundation's directors, agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground. Miller told reporters here that the space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House and Congress embrace the report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kind of incentives it offers the nuclear power industry.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 22

SBSP Aff DDI 201123/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Military – Oil bad

Reliance on fuel is the root cause of military stressErwin 06 (Sandra Erwin, Editor of national defense magazine, Energy Conservation Plans Overlook Military Realities, September 2006, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/DefenseWatch.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)

Are skyrocketing oil prices just a temporary drain on the U.S. economy or a lasting national security threat? If one is to draw conclusions from a recent stream of Pentagon policy directives, studies and congressional rhetoric, the Defense Department will soon have to get serious about taming its gargantuan appetite for fuel, most of which is imported from the volatile Middle East. “The fact is that nearly every military challenge we face is either derived from or impacted by one thing: our reliance on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources,” says Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who co-founded a “defense energy working group” with Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and former CIA Director James Woolsey. “In a world where we borrow money from China to purchase oil from unstable Persian Gulf countries to fuel our Air Force planes that protect us against potential threats from these very countries, it’s high-time to make the choices and investments necessary to protect our country,” Israel says. When oil prices began to surge, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued one of his trademark “snowflake” memos asking aides to come up with energy-saving schemes and technologies, such as hybrid vehicles and innovative power sources. In truth, it is hard to see how Rumsfeld’s directive could change the reality of a military that mostly operates guzzlers, and has no tangible plans to change that. Just two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency gave the Pentagon a “national security exemption” so it can continue to drive trucks with old, energy-inefficient engines that don’t meet the emissions standards required for commercial trucks. The Army once considered replacing the mother of all fuel-gorgers, the Abrams tank engine, with a more efficient diesel plant. But the Army leadership then reversed course because it was too expensive. Most recently, the Army cancelled a program to produce hybrid-diesel humvees, and has slowed down the development of other hybrid trucks in the medium and heavy fleets. The Air Force has been contemplating the replacement of its surveillance, cargo and tanker aircraft engines, but the project was deemed too costly, and not worth any potential fuel savings. Subsequent to Rumsfeld’s 2005 snowflake, a number of military and civilian Pentagon officials have been eager to publicize various science projects aimed at energy conservation, such as research into synthetic fuels, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, wind farms and solar power, to name a few. But while these efforts have paid off on the public-relations front, they are not expected to translate into any real energy savings, at least for the foreseeable future. “In the short term, there is very little that politicians or anyone can do about the military’s dependence on fuel for transportation,” says Herman Franssen, an energy consultant and researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. New technologies in synthetic fuels and fuel cells will take decades to produce realistic alternatives that can migrate to military vehicles, airplanes and non-nuclear powered ships. For at least the next 20 to 30 years, says Franssen, “oil will still be the most important fuel.” Synthetic fuels are mostly a pipe dream. The only country that makes any significant amount of synthetic fuel is South Africa, whose apartheid government was forced to find an alterative to petroleum in the 1970s during a trade embargo. “The technology exists, but it’s costly and creates environmental problems,” Franssen says. Biofuels are promising, but it will be decades before they can substantially help to reduce oil consumption. Currently, just 4 percent of the gasoline sold in the United States is mixed with corn-derived ethanol.

Military dependence on petroleum can’t lastParthemore, Nagl ’10, Christine Parthemore is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. John Nagl is President of the Center for a New American Security, 9/10, Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) must pre- pare now to transition smoothly to a future in which it does not depend on petroleum. This is no small task: up to 77 percent of DOD’s massive energy needs – and most of the aircraft, ground vehicles, ships and weapons systems that DOD is purchas- ing today – depend on petroleum for fuel.1 Yet, while many of today’s weapons and transportation systems are unlikely to change dramatically or be replaced for decades, the petroleum needed to oper- ate DOD assets may not remain affordable, or even reliably available, for the lifespans of these systems.

US economy and environment survival dependent on new military energy source in next 30 yearsParthemore, Nagl ’10, Christine Parthemore is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. John Nagl is President of the Center for a New American Security, 9/10, Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era

To ready America’s armed forces for tomorrow’s challenges, DOD should ensure that it can operate all of its systems on

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 23

SBSP Aff DDI 201124/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

non-petroleum fuels by 2040. This 30-year timeframe reflects market indicators pointing toward both higher demand for petroleum and increasing international competition to acquire it. Moreover, the geology and economics of produc- ing petroleum will ensure that the market grows tight long before petroleum reserves are depleted. Some estimates indicate that the current global reserve-to-production (R/P) ratio – how fast the world will produce all currently known recoverable petroleum reserves at the current rate of production – is less than 50 years.2 Thus, given projected supply and demand, we cannot assume that oil will remain affordable or that supplies will be available to the United States reliably three decades hence. Ensuring that DOD can operate on non-petroleum fuels 30 years from today is a conservative hedge against prevailing economic, political and environmental trends, conditions and constraints.

US dependence on petroleum weakens securityParthemore, Nagl ’10, Christine Parthemore is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. John Nagl is President of the Center for a New American Security, 9/10, Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era

The growing world demand for petroleum presents major geostrategic risks. High prices and rising demand are a boon to major suppliers and reserve holders such as Iran and Venezuela, which are unfriendly to the United States. It also affects the international behavior of rising powers such as China, which is on a quest to secure access to natural resources that is in turn expanding its influence around the globe. In Mexico, one of the top suppliers of petroleum to the United States, pipelines serve as an increasingly attractive target for dangerous cartels to fund activities that could undermine the Mexican government, destabilize the region and decrease U.S. homeland security.4 American foreign policy itself has been colored by its growing petroleum demands since the 1970s oil crises and subsequent declaration of the Carter doctrine, which stipulated that the United States would consider threats to the Persian Gulf region threats to its “vital interests” due to the strategic importance of its petroleum reserves.

Current Military energy costs lives and money, huge burden on US operationsFoust ‘7, Jeff Foust, Editor and publisher of the Space Review online journal, 8/13/2007, “A renaissance for space solar power?”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

In recent months, however, a new potential champion for space solar power has emerged, and from a somewhat unlikely quarter. Over the last several months the National Security Space Office (NSSO) has been conducting a study about the feasibility of space solar power, with an eye towards military applications but also in broader terms of economic and national security. Air Force Lt. Col. Michael “Coyote” Smith, leading the NSSO study, said during a session about space solar power at the NewSpace 2007 conference in Arlington, Virginia last month that the project had its origins in a study last year that identified energy, and the competition for it, as the pathway to “the worst nightmare war we could face in the 21st century.” If the United States is able to secure energy independence in the form of alternative, clean energy sources, he said, “that will buy us a form of security that would be phenomenal.” At the same time, the DOD has been looking at alternative fuels and energy sources, given the military’s voracious appetite for energy, and the high expense—in dollars as well as lives—in getting that energy to troops deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Soldiers, he noted, use the equivalent of one AA battery an hour while deployed to power all their devices. The total cost of a gallon of fuel delivered to troops in the field, shipped via a long and, in places, dangerous supply chain, can run between $300 and $800, he said, the higher cost taking into account the death benefits of soldiers killed in attacks on convoys shipping the fuel. “The military would like nothing better than to have highly mobile energy sources that can provide our forces with some form of energy in those forward areas,” Smith said. One way to do that, he said, is with space solar power, something that Smith and a few fellow officers had been looking at in their spare time. They gave a briefing on the subject to Maj. Gen. James Armor, the head of the NSSO, who agreed earlier this year to commission a study on the feasibility of space solar power.

Currently electrical power to troops is expensive

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 24

SBSP Aff DDI 201125/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Rouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

When all indirect and support costs are included, it is estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon, the fully burdened average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon.

Energy transportation a handicap for military operationsBohannon ’11, Dennis K. Bohannon, ASA(IE&E), US Army, 4/27/11, “Army operational energy aiming high”, http://www.army.mil/article/55593/army-operational-energy-aiming-high///jchen

In some missions, Soldiers must carry over five pounds of batteries for each day of mission. The associated weight and transportation requirements for operational energy significantly reduce Soldier and unit mobility and endurance. The Army's operational energy logistical tail is a handicap. In fiscal year 2010 the Army's fuel costs topped $2.7 billion, 70 percent of which was for theater operations. In Afghanistan, the military is enduring one casualty for every 24 ground resupply convoys. Between 70 to 80 percent of the resupply weight for those logistical convoys is composed of fuel and water. At home, Soldiers live and train on installations dependent on vulnerable commercial power grids. Complex water and waste water distribution systems, price volatility and community compliance requirements present further challenges for Army commanders. "Clearly, future operations will depend on our ability to reduce dependency, increase efficiency and use more renewable or alternative sources of energy. We've made great strides in this area and we intend to do more," Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh said during his posture hearing to Congress earlier this month. Through a suite of energy initiatives, the Army is leveraging technology and enhancing operational performance across the range of military operations, addressing Soldier, platform and sustainment capability needs. The end-state goal is greater operational effectiveness, measured in terms of endurance, agility, flexibility, resilience and force protection. We enable that through energy management, diversification, increased efficiency and demand reduction, leading to an affordable, sustainable force. The outcome is fewer Soldier casualties and energy dollars to reinvest in Soldier and Family Quality of Life.

Military energy supply cutback – transporting fuel dangerousHargreaves ’11, Steve Hargreaves, CNN staff writer, 6/11, Ambushes Prompt Military to Cut Energy Use, http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/14/news/economy/military_energy_strategy/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Thousands of combat deaths and rising fuel prices helped push the military to outline a broad energy strategy Tuesday aimed at moving away from fossil fuels. Over 3,000 American soldiers or contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials said. Eighty percent of all supply trucks operating in the region are carrying fuel. "Our ability to sustain military operations is increasingly threatened," Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn said at a Pentagon briefing unveiling the new strategy. "Our adversaries are increasingly employing asymmetric tactics, and energy can be a soft target."Lynn said the pentagon spends some $15 billion a year on energy, up over 200% from a decade ago.

Over 3,000 American deaths in fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 Hargreaves ’11, Steve Hargreaves, CNN staff writer, 6/11, Ambushes Prompt Military to Cut Energy Use, http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/14/news/economy/military_energy_strategy/index.htm

Over 3,000 American soldiers or contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys between 2003 and 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials said. Eighty percent of all supply trucks operating in the region are carrying fuel.

Supply convoys are a target for attackMichaels ’07, Jim Michaels, USA Today Staff Writer, 7/07 Attacks rise on supply convoys, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-08-convoys_N.htm

BAGHDAD — Attacks on supply convoys protected by private security companies in Iraq have more than tripled as the U.S. government depends more on armed civilian guards to secure reconstruction and other missions. There were 869 such attacks from the beginning of June 2006 to the end of May this year. For the preceding 12 months, there were 281 attacks. Deaths and injuries increased to 206 from 157 during that same time, according to the Army Corps of

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 25

SBSP Aff DDI 201126/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Engineers' Logistics Movement Control Center. Most of those convoys carry U.S.-funded reconstruction supplies for the Iraqi government.

Supply convoys to troops are attackedRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 70% of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraq—total daily consumption is approximately 1.6 million gallons. Any estimated cost of battlefield energy (fuel and electricity) does not include the cost in lives of American men and women.

Military – SBSP good

SBSP key to military operations – mobile and cheapRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical need for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war ‐ fighter. • When all indirect and support costs are included, it is estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon, the fully burdened average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon. • Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 70% of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraq—total daily consumption is approximately 1.6 million gallons. Any estimated cost of battlefield energy (fuel and electricity) does not include the cost in lives of American men and women. • The DoD is a potential anchor tenant customer of space ‐ based solar power that can be reliably delivered to U.S. troops located in forward bases in hostile territory in amounts of 5 ‐ 50 megawatts continuous at an estimated price of $1 per kilowatt hour, but this price may increase over time as world energy resources become more scarce or environmental concerns about increased carbon emissions from combusting fossil fuels increases.

SBSP revolutionizes the military - disaster relief – and solves resource warsRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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 - 41 - 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 21 st 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 security energy supply

SPS lessens international energy tensions, prevents warRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

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

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 26

SBSP Aff DDI 201127/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

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 ch ances 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.

Saves money and lives in wartime - Iraq provesDeckard 07 (Margo Deckard, SBSP Project Manager, October10,2007, Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP): Meeting Humanity’s Energy, National Security, Environmental and Economic Development Needshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/8766486/SpaceBased-Solar-Power-SBSP-Meeting-Humanitys-Energy-National-Security-Environmental-and-Economic-Development-Needs, TA)

Perhaps the biggest news of the NSSO-led study is that the team uncovered something new that might forever change the economic equation for space-based solar power.The report estimates that the Department of Defense (DoD) is paying about $1 per kilowatt-hour for electricity in forward bases in Iraq, when all indirect costs are included.This is an order of magnitude higher in price than what Americans pay for electricity in their homes.These higher electricity prices are not caused by gouging, but by the realities of war and how electricity is generated for the warfighter.Currently, we pump oil out of the ground in the Middle East or the continental United States, and then transport the oil to the Gulf coast where it is refined into kerosene.We then pump the kerosene onto tankers, which must be guarded by the U.S. Navy, and transport it to the Gulf region.We then pump the kerosene off the tankers into individual trucks, which Space Frontier Foundation Page 3 October 10, 2007 must be heavily guarded by American ground forces.Then, these convoys, which are primary targets for asymmetric attacks by improvised explosive devices, must run a dangerous gauntlet through a war zone.Finally, the kerosene is delivered to the forward bases, where it is converted into electricity. The NSSO-led study report finds that: o Petroleum products account for approximately 70% of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraq—total daily consumption is approximately 1.6 million gallons. o Significant numbers of American men and women are killed and injured while they are defending these supply chains. o The estimated cost of $1 per kilowatt hour does NOT include the cost in lives of American men and women. In other words, if space-based solar power existed today it would be saving the lives of American men and women in Iraq. It is this fundamental finding that creates the possibility that the DoD might become an early adopter, and anchor tenant customer, for SBSP. The possibility that the Department of Defense might be willing to sign up as anchor tenant to “pay for SBSP services delivered to the warfighter in forward bases in amounts of 5-50 MW continuous, at a price of $1 or more per kilowatt-hour”, changes the entire economic equation of SBSP. For this reason, the business case for Space-Based Solar Power may close in the very near future with reasonable and appropriate actions by the U.S. Government. In order to close the business case, and begin the development of SBSP, the Foundation urges the Administration and the U.S. Congress to enact the following specific recommendations by the NSSO-led study report.

SPS beneficial to US militaryOzeroff ’78, M. J. Ozeroff, PRC Energy Analysis Company, 10/78, Satellite Power Systems (SPS): Military Implications

As indicated earlier, SPS platform could be modified to host a number of military as well as utility users. In fact, combining SPS with military functions cold enhance both sets of systems. Although the SPS is projected to be economically competitive as a major U.S. energy source—and certainly one that would not deplete U.S. energy resources—there may be a considerable inertia to overcome in initiating s project of this scope and for midcourse ABM, will also be difficult to “sell,” again because of magnitude, but also because they may sit for years in space awaiting because of alarm. The combination of two such functions may be highly synergistic from a programmatic standpoint.

Military – Readiness

Military readiness challenged by lack of energy supplyNSSO, 07( Office of Space Security, Oct.2007, National Security Space Office; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf;)<FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has a large, urgent and critical need for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war ‐ fighter. • When all indirect and support costs are included, it is estimated that the DoD currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military bases in war regions. OSD(PA&E) has computed that at a wholesale price of $2.30 a gallon, the fully burdened average price of fuel for the Army exceeds $5 a gallon. For Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the estimated delivered price of fuel in certain areas may approach $20 a gallon. • Significant numbers of American servicemen and women are injured or killed as a result of attacks on supply convoys in Iraq. Petroleum products account for approximately 70% of delivered tonnage to U.S. forces in Iraq—total daily consumption is

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 27

SBSP Aff DDI 201128/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

approximately 1.6 million gallons. Any estimated cost of battlefield energy (fuel and electricity) does not include the cost in lives of American men and women. • The DoD is a potential anchor tenant customer of space ‐ based solar power that can be reliably delivered to U.S. troops located in forward bases in hostile territory in amounts of 5 ‐ 50 megawatts continuous at an estimated price of $1 per kilowatt hour, but this price may increase over time as world energy resources become more scarce or environmental concerns about increased carbon emissions from combusting fossil fuels increases.>

Military – SBSP would work

Transition to new energy sources is possible, precedentParthemore, Nagl ’10, Christine Parthemore is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. John Nagl is President of the Center for a New American Security, 9/10, Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era

Transitioning away from petroleum dependence by 2040 will be enormously difficult, but fortunately the U.S. defense sector has made several energy transitions successfully in its history. In particu- lar, it moved from coal to petroleum to nuclear power in its ships. In a similarly seismic shift, DOD rapidly increased its reliance on electronics, space assets and computer systems in modern warfare in ways that enhanced mission effectiveness. These experiences may offer lessons for DOD as it lever- ages an energy transition to maximize its strategic flexibility and freedom of maneuver.

An SPS would produce a power relay Ozeroff ’78, M. J. Ozeroff, PRC Energy Analysis Company, 10/78, Satellite Power Systems (SPS): Military Implications

The ways in which the SPS space segment might provide supportive elements for U.S. military preparedness fall broadly into two areas. One of these is a direct result of the high power availability on the satellite, and the other comes about because at synchronous altitude and the satellite represents a very desirable platform with the added advantages of ample power and payload capability. Most of the unclassified applications or functions noted here are not new, but are included for completeness, or because new or improved capabilities may be possible as a result of the greater power, weight and supporting services available at the orbital altitude. The first area of interest that may have interesting defensive military implications is the concept of a power relay using laser beams as the transmission means. While power transmission by means of a microwave beam is of course a key element of the SPS, the use of laser beams for transmission, with their different characteristics, gives rise to systems with quite different advantages. Among the notable differences between laser and microwave transmission are the beam and target sizes—those for the laser being a very small fraction of the corresponding microwave dimensions. These smaller dimensions for laser power transmission are essential elements in the proposed ideas. Three possible applications of laser power relay are noted in the following paragraphs.

SBSP provides on-demand energy to remote areasOzeroff ’78, M. J. Ozeroff, PRC Energy Analysis Company, 10/78, Satellite Power Systems (SPS): Military Implications

It is evident then that this kind of approach may be capable of providing ample amounts of power to various satellites, either on a continuous or intermittent on-demand basis, and thus remove what has always been a difficult and frustrating design restriction. The effects might be to simplify the receiving satellites or reduce their costs, extend their lifetime, expand their capabilities, provide silent unenergized spares for survivability improvement, or combinations of these and other factors.

SPS power relay to aircraftsOzeroff ’78, M. J. Ozeroff, PRC Energy Analysis Company, 10/78, Satellite Power Systems (SPS): Military Implications

The second application relates to the possibility use of laser power relay to aircraft. One example of this kind of proposed usage has been describes in a system in which a large commercial air transport may be powered during cruising flight by a conventional jet engines for take-off and climb to cruising altitude. It is equipped with a laser-powered turbofan engine which takes over the cruise regime. The turbofan receives the focused laser energy directly in its “combustion” chamber thus producing the required high temperature gas for its operation.

SPS power relay to ground forcesOzeroff ’78, M. J. Ozeroff, PRC Energy Analysis Company, 10/78, Satellite Power Systems (SPS): Military Implications

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 28

SBSP Aff DDI 201129/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

The third application of laser power relay would be to transmit power to remote military operations on earth. Here the possible advantage would be to provide power where perhaps long supply lines are the only alternative, or particular demands for mobility, or covertness militate against earth-based supply. The method to be used for conversion from the laser energy would likely be determined by the end use required.

IR troubleshootOzeroff ’78, M. J. Ozeroff, PRC Energy Analysis Company, 10/78, Satellite Power Systems (SPS): Military Implications

An SPS with military capabilities may have a strong negative impact on international relations if it is not internationalized. Special treaties or agreements will probably be required to assure a viable SPS. Development of a national policy on military utilization of the SPS will impose certain international relations impacts.

The US Army, Marines and others interested in utilizing new energy sourcesRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

There was clear interest from potential military ground customers—the Army, Marines, and USAF Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low environmental‐impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing logistics chain.

Public misconception

Main SBSP hurdle lies in public misconceptionFoust ‘7, Jeff Foust, Editor and publisher of the Space Review online journal, 8/13/2007, “A renaissance for space solar power?”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

One obstacle facing space solar power is that most people have not heard of it, and many of those who have associate it with the huge, expensive concepts studied back in the 1970s. Those proposals featured arrays many kilometers long with massive trusses that required dozens or hundreds of astronauts to assemble and maintain: Mankins joked that a giant Borg cube from Star Trek would have easily fit into one corner of one of the solar power satellite designs. “You ended up with a capital investment—launchers, in-space infrastructure, all of those things—on the order of $300 billion to $1 trillion in today’s dollars before you could build the first solar power satellite and get any power out of it,” he said. Those concepts, he argued, are outdated given the advancements in technology in the last three decades. The efficiency of photovoltaic arrays has increased from 10 to over 40 percent, thus requiring far smaller arrays to generate the same amount of power. Advances in robotics would allow assembly of “hypermodularized” systems, launched piece by piece by smaller vehicles, with little or no astronaut labor. “We think it’s now more technically feasible than ever before,” he said. “We think we have a path to knowing whether or not it’s economically feasible.”

Feasible / dev. Timeframe

SBSP is proven feasible and can replace oil with 80% efficiencyBinns 11 (Corey Binns. Corey Binns is a science and health writer based in New York City, Jul 2011Popular Science. New York: Jul 2011. Vol. 279, Iss. 1; pg. 64, 2 pgs

On the ground, solar power has its limitations. Solar cells are not especially efficient. It rains. The sun disappears at night. A spacebased 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 halfmile- 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 captured energy to Earth that presents a challenge-one that scientists are just starting to work on. If

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 29

SBSP Aff DDI 201130/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

beaming power from space sounds disconcerting, the concept is remarkably safe and simple. Satellites outfitted with solar panels would gather the sun's energy 24 hours a day and then convert that energy into an infrared laser beam. The high-efficiency laser would transmit 80 percent of the captured energy to groundbased receivers; one design calls for 60-foot-wide laser beams and 9,700-square-foot groundbased receiving stations. If clouds hinder the beam from traveling though Earth's atmosphere, the satellite could redirect the energy to other satellites or receivers in the network. This month, the European space company Astrium will test the feasibility of an infrared laserbased transmission system in Germany. "We are simply looking to demonstrate transfer of power by laser in an eye-safe wavelength, says Matthew Perren, the head of innovation at Astrium. "We're trying to transmit power at wavelengths that our eyes are not sensitive to, so that you can safely walk through the beam or accidentally look at it." In 2016, the company plans to launch a preliminary satellite, outfitted with 500-square-foot solar panels, that will transmit a few kilowatts of power to a ground-based receiver. By 2020, Astrium says, it will be running a satellite that can provide 10 kilowatts, enough to power 10 single-family homes. Meanwhile, the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the California-based Solaren Corporation are planning to use microwaves to transmit solar power. Whereas the high-efficiency lasers tested by Astrium have only recently become available, highly efficient microwave transmitters have been around for years. In 2008, physicists beamed 20 watts at microwave frequencies from a mountain on Maui to the island of Hawaii, a distance of 92 miles, roughly one and a half times the depth of Earth's atmosphere. JAXA has teamed up with Mitsubishi and other companies on a $21-billion, 30-year project to launch satellites, each with 2.5 square miles of solar panels, into space. The effort would generate one gigawatt of power, approximately equivalent to a nuclear plant. Solar High Study Group, an independent advocacy group, says there is room in orbit for thousands of these satellites. If space-based solar-power satellites are launched-a significant "if," given the political implications of putting lasers in space-the first recipients will probably be research labs at the North and South poles, or other places where power is in short supply. The U.S. Department of Defense has also expressed an interest in transmitting space power to the battlefield, where the costs associated with fuel delivery can reach up to $400 a gallon. Regarding the environmental effects, Stephen Sweeney, a physicist at the University of Surrey in England who is working on the Astrium system, says it would not heat the planet or change the climate. He also notes that because of the wavelength used in the laser, the beam would not damage any animals that might stray into the beam path.

SBSP possible in the next 6 years – Long range tests prove Whitesides 08 (Loretta Hidalgo Whitesides, Blog writer for Wired.com and wife of George Thomas Whitesides CEO and President of Virgin Galactic, September 12, 2008, Researchers Beam ‘Space’ Solar Power in Hawaii, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/visionary-beams/, TA)

The Discovery Channel-sponsored experiment was executed with the support of scientists in Japan, Texas and California and showed that real progress could be made toward space-based solar power satellites in less than 5 months with less than $1 million. Their concept also uses mirrors to focus as much solar power as possible on the solar cells. The Discovery Channel’s teaser boasts that they were able to get five times more electricity than conventional solar cells. The high winds, high altitude helicopter monitoring, and the need to pack up the whole rig every night to honor the sacred ground on Haleakala will probably make for some great TV tonight. More exciting than the drama though is the implication for our energy future. The 120 gigawatts of solar power hitting the planet every second is more than all of human kind has used since the dawn of the industrial era. In space, you can tap into that without having to worry about losses in efficiency from the atmosphere, clouds or night. The space program seems like it could lead to a very tangible benefit, as tangible as global communications satellites and weather tracking satellites were to the previous generation. Image what living on the gulf coast would be like without our armada of weather satellites. "We need a short, mid and long range plan for energy," said Former Florida Congressman Paul Rancatore at a press conference this morning. Lately you’ve heard a lot of people talk about drilling, he added, "Don’t be focused on drilling down, focus on drilling up." Mankins says we can get a demonstration system in orbit in 6-7 years and could have a full scale operation system up in 10-15 years. It has the ring of being part of an, "Apollo-like program for energy." Most interestingly, the satellites could be very small and would work by being bundled together allowing economies of scale that we have not yet seen in space. U.S. factories could manufacture lots of identical satellite units and maybe even become a "net exporter of energy," claimed National Space Society Senior Vice President Mark Hopkins.

SBSP is very feasible in the near future - technical, legal, policy, and logistical Rouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

It has been nearly a decade since a US Government agency last officially examined the feasibility of SBSP as a strategic

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 30

SBSP Aff DDI 201131/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

source of clean, renewable energy (NASA’s 1995‐1997 “Fresh Look” Study). A significantly changing global energy and environmental security situation, combined with an exponentially accelerating pace of technological change, merit a revisit of this concept by the nation’s primary security institution, the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While OSD currently has no official position on SBSP, OSD does acknowledge the need to proactively find and create solutions that ensure the United States’ strategic energy, economic, space, environmental and national security are preserved. Utilizing an innovative, web ‐ based collaborative format that invited the voluntary contributions of over 170 international SBSP experts over a 5‐month period, the National Security Space Office initiated a no‐cost phase‐0 architecture feasibility review to determine if the United States and partners could retire all of the technical, legal, policy, and logistical challenges over the next several decades such that a credible business case could be made to proceed with full ‐ scale commercial development of this energy source as a national or international project. This interim report is being published to reveal findings to date and recommend whether additional, more detailed US Government study and action relative to SBSP is warranted. This study revealed that while the business case for SBSP cannot be closed for construction to begin in 2007, the technical feasibility of the concept has never been better and all science and technology development vectors appear to indicate that there is credible potential for SBSP to be built within a strategically relevant period of time. This review also uncovered surprisingly significant interest and evaluation within academia, the aerospace industry, and energy industries that is progressing independently of DoD reviews. The United States is not the only country to observe the potential of SBSP and the improving technical state‐of‐the‐art, as substantial interest and support have been witnessed in other regions of the world to include Europe, Japan, Canada, India, China, and Russia among others. This international interest can be leveraged to build or strengthen strategically stabilizing long ‐ term partnerships.

The technology for SBSP already exists and is very feasible – advances have occurred since last government examination of the topicRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that Space‐Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. Space‐Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with substantial challenges and a complex trade‐space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific discoveries to work. While the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is very strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and affordability—this requires even more stringent technical requirements. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that significant progress in the underlying technologies has been made since previous government examination of this topic, and the direction and pace of progress continues to be positive and in many cases accelerating. - 20 - • Significant relevant advances have occurred in the areas of computational science, material science, photovoltaics, private and commercial space access, space maneuverability, power management, robotics, and many others. • These advances have included (a) improvements in PV efficiency from about 10% (1970s) to more than 40% (2007); (b) increases in robotics capabilities from simple tele‐operated manipulators in a few degrees of freedom (1970s) to fully autonomous robotics with insect‐ class intelligence and 30‐100 degrees of freedom (2007); (c) increases in the efficiency of solid state devices from around 20% (1970s) to as much as 70%‐90% (2007); (d) improvements in materials for structures from simple aluminum (1970s) to advanced composites including nanotechnology composites (2007); and many other areas.

Substantial SBSP power can be achieved as early as 2017 – any technological challenges can be overcomeRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that individual SBSP technologies are sufficiently mature to fly a basic proof ‐ of ‐ concept demonstration within 4 ‐ 6 years and a substantial power demonstration as early as 2017 ‐ 2020 , though these are likely to cost between $5B‐$10B in total. This is a serious challenge for a - 22 - capable agency with a transformational agenda. A proposed spiral demonstration project can be found in Appendix B. • No government or private entity has ever completed a significant space‐borne demonstration, understandable to the public, to provide proof‐in‐principle and create strategic visibility for the concept (the study group did discover one European commercial consortium that was attempting to build a MW‐class in‐space demonstration within the next 5 years). While a series of experiments for specific component selection, maturation, and space qualification is also in order, a convincing in ‐ space demonstration is required to mature this concept and catalyze actionable commercial interest and development. There are also critical concept unknowns that

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 31

SBSP Aff DDI 201132/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

can only be uncovered by flying actual hardware. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the U.S. Government should sponsor a formally funded, follow‐on architecture study with industry and international partners that could lead to a competition for an orbital demonstration of the key underlying technologies and systems needed for an initial 5‐50 MWe continuous SBSP system. • The physics of microwave power transmission at expected frequencies (2.45 – 5.8 GHz) require a very large transmitter (> 0.5 km diameter at full scale) regardless of the amount of power transmitted, and this is a chief driver of system mass. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that one minimum criterion for a meaningful demonstration must ensure it is not a throw‐away system, and provides some significant leave‐behind capability that is clearly on the path to a full system. Less expensive demos are possible but may be counter‐productive as they would not meet all of the required criteria. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the underlying technical challenges related to SBSP are identifiable and technical challenge reduction pathways can be described. • DoD and other ongoing U.S. Government and international R&D efforts are independently reducing SBSP technical barriers via S & T development for other goals. However, there is no single entity for identifying and tracking these independent developments for the sole purpose of SBSP applicability. • Numerous technological advances are emerging for each of the technical challenges (example: entrepreneurial private space access ventures, highly efficient concentrator photovoltaics, very low‐weight thin‐film photovoltaic systems, etc.). o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the U.S. Government establish a formal activity for cataloguing, monitoring, and engaging on major S & T developments which enable SBSP. Effort should begin with DoD and U.S. Government activities, and eventually expand as appropriate to include all Allied and other potential partner nations.

New tech makes SBSP economically viablePowersat, 10 (Powersat corporation, leading corporation in SBDP research and development, 2010, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.powersat.com/faq.html, TA)

The advances in technology have made materials lighter and cheaper, making it economically viable to utilize powersats for baseload generation. A key enabling technology has been the development of thin-film solar cells which dramatically reduce the weight of the satellite. We also have a patented technology in the works to decrease launch cost. As well, the drive for carbon free renewable baseload power has now made powersats a viable economic alternative.

SBSP is complicated, but highly feasibleRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

Space‐Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with substantial challenges and a complex trade‐space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific discoveries to work. While the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is very strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and affordability—this requires even more stringent technical requirements.

Technology isn’t an issue – its who has the balls to take up the challengeTxchnologist.com 11 ( Txchnologist is an online magazine presented by GE, APRIL 4TH, 2011, Space Race: Will Space-Based Solar Take Off? http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/solar-in-space)

“The science of space-based solar power is done. We know how to do it,” said U.S. Air Force Colonel M.V. “Coyote” Smith, who is one of the military’s leading authorities on the idea. “The question is, can we do it commercially at an affordable price?” Smith directed a 2007 study for the National Security Space Office (it is now known as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space), which concluded that the U.S. government should facilitate the creation of space-based solar power and become an early tester of the technology. Smith concedes that space-based power requires researchers to make progress on technological challenges that have not yielded in decades. The cost of lifting thousands of kilograms of equipment into orbit makes space solar almost prohibitively expensive right off the bat. In 2008, it cost about $21,000 to launch a kilogram of payload into space, though the price has dropped steadily and space solar enthusiasts point to innovations by space entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Richard Branson as evidence that prices will drop. There are two competing methods of transmitting power, each with drawbacks. Microwave transmission requires a rectenna several miles in diameter because the beam spreads out by defraction. Lasers can focus the energy much more narrowly but the operation would require an extremely large and powerful device to achieve the necessary energy intensity.

AT: Debris

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 32

SBSP Aff DDI 201133/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Probability of debris collision is minimalPowersat, 10 (Powersat corporation, leading corporation in SBDP research and development, 2010, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.powersat.com/faq.html, TA)

Collision with space junk is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, PowerSat reside in a geosynchronous orbit which is much higher than the low earth orbit debris band. Second, the surface area of the powersat is thin-film solar cells. Thus, a piece of space junk would go right through the thin film and would affect only a fraction of the output of that module, as there are many solar cells within a module. We could conceivably lose a module if a piece of junk collided with the core control system for that module, but the output of one module is only 1/300th the output of the entire satellite and can be easily replaced.

Chance of damage from debris in ten years is .01%Jaramillo 10 (Edited by Cesar Jaramillo, Cesar Jaramillo is Program Manager of the Space Security Index (SSI), an international research consortium that seeks to facilitate dialogue on space security challenges, and improve transparency on space activities. http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf, TA)

Collisions between such space assets as the International Space Station and very small pieces of untracked debris are a frequent but manageable problem. 7 Collisions with larger objects remain rare. A US National Research Council study found that within the orbital altitude most congested with debris (900–1,000 km), the chance of a typical spacecraft colliding with a large fragment was only about one in 1,000 over the spacecraft’s 10-year functional lifetime.

AT: Degradation

Life span for SBSP is around 50 yearsReed and Willenberg 04 (Kevin Reed, Owner, Welsom Space Power, Harvey J. Willenberg, nuclear engineer and physicist, Early Commercial Demonstration of Space Solar Power Using Ultra-Lightweight Arrays http://www.spacefuture.c om/archive/early_commercial_demonstration_of_space_solar_power_using_ultra_lightweight_arrays.shtml,TA)

In the years 2012-2014, after the initial use of the 1.2 MW array, increases are planned in the manufacturing capacity of space applications TFSC to provide space arrays at the level of 8 MWe to 20 MWe per year. At that time, we will begin to manufacture CFRP 150-meter boom arrays with CFRP tri-beam truss structures to provide modular dual 150-meter space solar array modules as forwarded by the European Sail Tower SPS Concept. Each of these dual array SPS modules will provide nearly 8 MWe of power, with as many as 60 to 80 modules added to complete a 15 km gravity gradient stabilized array. The original 1.2 MW space solar array, with a life expectancy of 50 years, will act as the base for assembly of these Sail Tower Dual Array Modules and provide propulsion from LEO where these CORIN/a-Si:H TFSC atomic oxygen tolerant arrays are assembled to the final QSGO 40,000 km stable orbits. The advent of +GW scale WPT from SPSs will begin the added use of worldwide power generation by SPS - having then reached parity cost with conventional power generation methods of oil, coal, nuclear or hydroelectric power generation.

AT: Private companies Perm solves best – US involvement keySmith 09 (Reid SmithEditor at RealEnergyWriters.com and works for individuals, businesses, non-profits and other groups that promote environmental, social and economic sustainability, 10/09, http://www.energysmith.net/articles/spacepower.pdf

Despite the potential, SBSP companies face high initial costs, including launch costs, which are the most expensive components of the project. Launch prices are US$ 3,000 to US$ 10,000 per pound of cargo, according to Space Energy. Sage hopes that governments and private launch companies will realize the benefits of SBSP and cooperate to reduce the high cost. Investors are wary of backing something with such high initial launch costs. This remains a problem for Space Energy, which has not obtained an investor willing to risk US$ 300 million. “We have a solid business plan for investors, we have independent finance evaluations, legal, technical, and financial representation, endorsements from credible scientists, and have negotiations with large utility firms in the US and Europe who are interested in our power,” declares Sage. “There is nothing else but finding the investor.” In addition to high initial costs, finding qualified and knowledgeable employees willing to take a risk on space power is a challenge. “Securing personnel and talent is hard”, says Sage. Additionally, it is difficult for companies to find people who understand the technical aspects of space power and the marketing and business strategies necessary to get a business off the ground. “There is a place for technical people, but there is also a need for entrepreneurs”, adds Sage. “You need to have a strong marketing and business plan.” The key is

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 33

SBSP Aff DDI 201134/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

getting investors and governments to believe in the benefits of SPSB, which may seem like a far-fetched idea to most people, he says

Solaren and other Private company’s aims at achieving SBSP is an inevitable failureTxchnologist.com 11 ( Txchnologist is an online magazine presented by GE, APRIL 4TH, 2011, Space Race: Will Space-Based Solar Take Off? http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/solar-in-space)

The giant California utility company Pacific Gas & Electric notably contracted with solar startup Solaren Corp. in 2009 to deliver 200 megawatts of power from space by 2016. The power would be beamed from space via microwave to an enormous rectenna in Fresno County. But Solaren has released few details of its plans, leading some to wonder about its viability. Cal Boerman, the company’s vice president for electricity sales, said the company is working through the necessary approvals and lining up investors. He estimated the startup costs are in “the billions.” The bold announcements about space solar are generally followed by silence from the companies, prompting questions about whether the programs are publicity stunts . Hoffert took particular exception to Solaren’s plans, claiming on Romm’s Climate Progress blog in 2009 that the company could not possibly reach its goals and the plan’s inevitable failure would “be a major setback for space solar power.” His opinion today remains unchanged: “I just don’t take them seriously,” he said of Solaren. He believes that Astrium’s research into high-powered lasers is more promising. Supporters believe the key to establishing the credibility of the concept is simple: Do a demonstration. In 2009, Hoffert and his son, who run a private space-based solar company called Versatility Energy, pitched the Department of Energy on a three-phase plan, which would culminate in beaming power to earth from a laser on the International Space Station. His idea was rejected. Several teams of private and government researchers are working on beaming energy between two points on earth and at least one group has succeeded, though with only with small amounts of energy. Hoffert argues that government leaders today lack the ambition that drove the space race. “In the 1960s there was a very positive view of the future,” he said. “Now, I think most people believe that future is going to be apocalyptic.” A successful demonstration of space-based solar could be the jolt that people need to get them excited about the future again.

Solaren is met with massive problems in plan for SBSP (might not be the best card cause problems could be cross applied to the aff )Davidson sighting Preble, 10 (Christopher Davidson, Darel Preble. Darel Preble is former member of the Board of Directors of the National Space Society (NSS), The Numbers May Not Add Up Yet for SSP, 5/26/10, http://spot.us/pitches/445-is-solar-power-from-space-the-next-big-thing-in-green-energy/updates)

Darel Preble's Space Solar Power Workshop is a roundtable of experts in the field, most of whom are academics, military people or civil servants. He wrote a carefully researched and well-thought-out essay in response to my inquiry about Solaren. In it Preble makes the following points: (1) Solaren CEO Gary Spirnak told Preble that researchers at UC Santa Barbara could supply Solaren with the right equipment to convert electricity into microwaves and transmit the microwaves to Earth: 90% efficient solid state amplifiers at 2.5 to 35 Gigahertz frequencies. However, these amplifiers aren't available anywhere for sale. Preble contacted the Applied Electromagnetics Lab at HRL Laboratories in Malibu, which conducts cutting edge research on solid state amplifiers, and his contacts there are currently working on developing them, but don't know any one who has been successful at it. (2) Even if these super-efficient solid state amplifiers were to become available in the next few years, Solaren would need to install so many, and such large quantities of energy would be lost as heat when converting sunlight to electricity and electricity to microwaves, that the power plant could have severe problems with overheating. The equipment, (which is at 22,000 Miles above the earth, by the way) could quickly "exceed operating temperature limits for microwave devices." (3) In the event that the amplifiers are produced, and they're outfitted with state-of-the-art cooling mechanisms, Solaren would still need to rely on frequent heavy-lift rocket launches to build a 200-MW plant in space. Solaren claims to be able to do this in 4 to 5 launches, but Preble is not convinced this will be possible. (4). The Space Solar Power Workshop has proposed to the Obama administration that they set up a new government-funded "Sunsat Corporation" -- with a budget in the realm of $20 billion -- to build the necessary infrastructure for solar power satellites. The model for this would be Comsat, a government agency set up by the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s that enabled today's dense network of communications satellites. A new government entity could also create the necessary demand for frequent rocket launches.

Federal procurement is vital to creating a positive regulatory climate for SPS and reducing risk to

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 34

SBSP Aff DDI 201135/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

commercial investmentsNansen, 95 – Ralph Nansen. Founder of Solar Space Industries. 1995. Sun Power, The Global Solution to the coming energy crisis. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/sunpower/sunpower14.html

The plan described in the following pages is the one our company developed and is presently working on. It is based on an industry/government partnership with industry taking the leading role to develop the power plants. The important role for government will be to coordinate international agreements, support the development of high-technology multi-use infrastructure, and assume the risk of buying the first operational satellite.Only government can establish international agreements on orbit slot assignments, frequency allocations, space debris cleanup, space traffic control, and licensing. And there is still the question of whether commercial investors will be willing to finance the development of a new reusable space transportation system for solar power satellites prior to proving the system is economical. It is also still desirable to have the government assume some of the development risk on the first unit and to be the focal point for international cooperation during the development phase, but most of the financing and control can be commercial.Shown below is a 12-year achedule for commercial development of the satellite system [graph updated from original edition].The primary focus of the early part of the program is to develop and validate the system on the ground with a small-scale engineering prototype. The ground test program brings together the solar cell technology currently being developed for terrestrial photovoltaics with the evolving technology of wireless power transmission.The approach of using a ground-based prototype to do the major development testing has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the projected development cost and is one of the key elements making commercial development possible. The program consists of a small-scale terrestrial-based solar cell array (in the range of 50 to 250 kilowatts peak output) coupled to a phased-array wireless power transmitter, which would transmit the energy over a short distance (one to five kilometers) to a receiving antenna (rectenna), then feed the DC power output through an inverter/power controller into a commercial AC utility power grid.Each element of the system will be designed to incorporate several different technology approaches to be tested in the complete end-to-end test installation. The installation will duplicate all aspects of the power generating systems for the solar power satellite concept except for the space environment and the range and size of the energy beam.Testing for the space-oriented aspects of the concept is a logical mission for Space Station. The Space Station is a major piece of the infrastructure needed to develop solar power satellites and is currently being developed as a national investment. By focusing the research conducted on the Space Station to solve the problems of developing the space aspects of solar power satellites, NASA would still be able to accomplish their space research objectives with very little increase in cost. Most of the space research needed for the solar power satellites is also needed for any other space program. The economic benefits of using the Space Station for developing technology for solar power satellites will give it a clear mission that will more than justify the cost of its development.

The most expensive part of the program will be the development of a new reusable space transportation system. The need for a low-cost space transport is not unique to the solar power satellite program. NASA is currently working with industry on the early phases of a program to demonstrate a small-scale prototype of a new low-cost reusable system to replace the Space Shuttle. There are several space programs planned that would benefit from a new low-cost launch vehicle. One example is Teledesic’s plan to launch 840 satellites for telephone communication. However, none of the planned programs are large enough to justify the cost of a new system. What is unique about the solar power satellite program is that it is large enough to justify the development of a new low-cost system by itself. The potential space transportation market is huge. For example, if solar power satellites were only used to replace worn-out power plants the annual revenue for transporting them to space would be over $15 billion per year. This only addresses the US replacement market. If the total world market is considered, the space transportation revenues would be closer to $100 billion a year. It is certainly a large enough market to entice competitive commercial operations. To be successful, however, it is very important that the requirements for transporting the solar power satellite hardware be incorporated into its development.The final part of the development plan is a full-size operational solar power satellite that proves the validity of all facets of the concept, including the most important—cost.The question is, who pays for all of this? Funding can come from many sources, but the following is what I see happening.The basic premise is an industry/government partnership. In this scenario the government establishes program offices in its major affected agencies: Department of Energy, NASA, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, State Department, Department of Defense, and the Federal Communications Commission. These offices are formed to act as focal points within their area of responsibility and to coordinate international participation where applicable. Their funding responsibilities would be limited primarily to providing seed money for program planning and definition, multi-use technology development, conducting environmental impact testing, and funding space testing.The primary source of funding for the ground test program should be supplied by the utility companies, either directly or through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). However, the Department of Energy should also provide some of the

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 35

SBSP Aff DDI 201136/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

funding with seed money to initiate the program. Industrial hardware manufacturers who will benefit from the enormous market being developed should also contribute. I estimate the total cost of this part of the program would be in the neighborhood of $50 million dollars over a three-year period.Establishing the requirements for a low-cost space transportation system should be funded by NASA but developed by a commercial company outside the aerospace industry in order to avoid institutional bias and bureaucratic bungling. The question of who should fund the cost of developing the space transportation system is the toughest question to answer. By far the best answer is for it to be a purely commercial development. However, the problem lies in the fact that it needs to be developed in parallel with the development of the satellite and before the system has proven to be economical. As a result there is not the guaranteed market that is so essential to entice financial sources to commit the required risk capital—particularly since it is very expensive. There are some mitigating circumstances that may make it possible to obtain commercial financing. First of all, the ground test program will be complete and the confidence level in the solar power satellite system will be quite high for both cost and efficiency, therefore reducing the risk that it will not be cost competitive. Second, there are several other potential market requirements for low-cost space transportation that can justify developing a new system. As a result the overall risk may be acceptable for commercial development.If commercial development is too much of a risk, there are other alternatives. One is for the government to guarantee paying for a minimum number of flights per year to support military and NASA launches. This would significantly reduce the risk for a developer and still save the government money. Another option is to have the government develop the system as a national resource. The best solution, however, will result from commercial development, rather than government.In the past, launch vehicles have been developed by the aerospace industry for the government or to launch commercial satellites, but in either case the launch of the vehicles was usually supported by the company that designed and built them. This is not the approach that would be used for launching solar power satellites. The space transportation industry needs to adopt the pattern used by other transportation industries. In all cases the manufacturers of the vehicles, whether they are trucks, ships, airplanes, or railroad locomotives, sell their products to an operating company. The operating company then uses the vehicles to haul cargo or people.A space transportation company, similar to an air-cargo airline, is the logical purchaser of new reusable space freighters. Financing could be handled in the same way an airline finances the purchase of their airplanes. The aerospace company that developed the spaceliner would face a situation similar to developing a new airplane. They would have to finance the development cost and sell the vehicles for a price that would allow them to recover their investment over a reasonable number of deliveries. The key issue is having a large enough market to recover all expenses and make a profit.The situation is similar for the satellite, with some variations. Most of the technology development will have been accomplished by the ground test program with space testing supported by NASA on the

Space Shuttle and Space Station. Testing on the Shuttle and Space Station should be funded as part of NASA’s basic budget. The key to financing the remainder of the satellite development is also the market. In this case the critical step is placing the order for the first operational satellite and a commitment that if it meets its cost and efficiency goals there will be more orders. A government-owned utility such as Bonneville Power Administration is the logical buyer of the first unit. Bonneville, with more than 20,000 megawatts of generating capacity and a large distribution system, is large enough to readily absorb the power from a

1,000 megawatt power plant. In addition, there are sites within their service area where the receiving antenna could be built. The cost will be repaid by the revenue generated by the satellite. The main reason a government utility should buy the first unit is so the government would accept the risk.The price of the first unit would cover the cost of the satellite and a portion of the design and development cost. The developing contractors would be expected to recover the remainder of the development cost over the sale of some reasonable number of follow-on orders.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 36

SBSP Aff DDI 201137/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Government action is required to negotiate transmission frequencies and orbital launch slotsOGW Nonprofit Foundation, 7 “Clean Energy for Britain’s Future: A White Paper on Renewable Energy,” 4/15/07,http://www.thekyotosolution.com/WhitePaperonGreenEnergySolutions&SSP.doc

The three key hurdles to a project such as this are cost, safety of radio wave transmission, and international implications. Let’s examine each individually.First, cost effectiveness can only be achieved with large scale implementation. This can be broken down to the cost of space transportation and the establishment of a space based infrastructure. Acceptable space launch costs can be achieved by reusable heavy lift launch vehicles. At present the existing space transportation market is not large enough to justify the development cost of such a reusable heavy lift launch vehicle system. However, economies of scale and revenues from the sale of power could support such lift system development. This is without taking into consideration the numerous commercialization spin-offs that enhance profitability.Until recently the commercial investment community has been reluctant to invest in a long term project of this nature and magnitude. In addition, the conventional power generation industry is conservative. The recent problems with the Iridium global satellite communication system have underscored the potential risks. It has been said of Iridium that:‘Its financial failure was largely due to insufficient demand for the service.’In the decade since Iridium, much has been learned about how not to do things. Sufficient demand for power, as opposed to Iridium’s sole offering of communication services, is a given with Space Solar Power. This diminishes profit potential concerns.Second, safe exposure level concerns are ameliorated by the fact that very large transmitting and receiving antennae would be deployed. This allows a low energy density transmission signal, well within worldwide emission standards. Birds and airplanes could fly through the transmission area in complete safety.Third, there are international implications related to the allocation of orbits and transmission frequencies. These would both have to be negotiated. This speaks to the need for government support of any Space Solar Power project.

U.S. leadership is vital to attracting private investment – the political commitment is a crucial signalMoore, 2k - MA in energy and resources from the University of California at Berkeley (Taylor, “Renewed Interest in Space Solar Power”, EPRI Journal, 3/22, factiva)Criswell = director of the Institute for Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston.

David Criswell unabashedly favors a major U.S. and international commitment to develop solar power plants on the moon. "The lunar solar approach could be initiated at a fast pace within the current U.S. expenditures on civilian and defense space activities. Private funding would be attracted after power delivery to Earth at commercial levels, say tens of megawatts, has been demonstrated and the essential legal and political commitments have been made. The United States must lead the international community If the economic growth of developing nations can be accelerated by clean, low-cost electricity, then the world potentially can be a much more attractive place for everyone."

Government control for the initial satellite is vital to creating a market – it spurs privatizationDavid 1 Leonard David, Senior Space Writer, “Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites” 9-17-2003, http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-2.html

On the other hand, while the willingness of potential customers to adopt a new power technology like SSP is promising, flight testing the idea would help boost adoption of the in-space energy idea. Early on, supplying power from an SSP could gain greater acceptance as a supplement, rather than a substitute for, an existing power system on a spacecraft, Macauley and Davis note.Macauley said that in future years the space-based power market could be really big in dollar terms. Still to be determined is where to place an SSP, or whether or not there's need for a constellation of SSP satellites."Given our estimate of the market, can SSP designers create an SSP that's financially attractive? We also realize that other technological innovation in spacecraft power is proceeding apace with SSP," Macauley said. "So SSP advocates need to 'look over their shoulders' to stay ahead of those innovations and to capitalize on those that are complementary with SSP," she said."The ownership and financing of SSP may be handled as a commercial venture," Macauley and Davis report, "perhaps in partnership with government during initial operation but then becoming a commercial wholesale cooperative."Once an SSP is fully deployed, the private sector is likely to be a far more efficient operator of the power plug in space, the researchers said.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 37

SBSP Aff DDI 201138/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Find cards for :Turns heg – they sell it to everyoneTurns environment – they won’t make it global / will be greedy

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 38

SBSP Aff DDI 201139/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

AT: Nuclear Power

Nuclear power can’t solve- waste deposit and proliferation issues Hsu ’10 (Dr. Feng Hsu, Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management Space Energy Group, 10/29, “Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity’s Next Giant Leap”)

Our nonrenewable oil/gas fuels will be depleted in another 40 to 60 years; coal will be depleted in about 300 to 500 years. Some people estimate our reserves in coal to last a thousand years; but that doesn't really matter since the global environment far before that time will likely have suffered catastrophic changes. The mining of nuclear fission material will be depleted in about 50 years. Nuclear power based on this material has major issues with waste deposit, and the risks of proliferation and misuse are high. Nuclear had 40 years of opportunity and did little to help the world solve its strategic energy problem.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 39

SBSP Aff DDI 201140/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

AT: Hydro Power

Solar energy is the safest renewable sourceHsu ’10 (Dr. Feng Hsu, Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management Space Energy Group, 10/29, “Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity’s Next Giant Leap”)

Hydro power is renewable but such an energy source is limited and unstable. Liquid biomass competes for land with food production. Hydrogen (fuel cell), a form of energy storage rather than a source of energy, carries certain risks in storage and transport. Wind, geothermal and tidal solutions tend to also be unstable, intermittent and costly. Solar energy, on the other hand, basically doesn't matter whether it is surface or space-based; it has some limitations, but one of them is not harm to human beings.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 40

SBSP Aff DDI 201141/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

AT: Earth Based Solar Power

Space based solar power is cheaper and more efficient Shiga ’08 (David Shiga, physical sciences reporter, 12/22/08, “Will Obama pursue space-based solar power?”, http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/will-obama-pursue-space-based.html)

The space-based solar power (SBSP) concept involves using geosynchronous satellites to collect solar energy and beam it down to Earth, most likely in the form of microwaves (this graphic shows how the idea might work). The key advantage over Earth-based solar power is that such satellites would enjoy nearly continuous sunshine. A major challenge for Earth-based solar power is that it is so inconstant - it isn't available at night or when skies are cloudy. You could solve this problem by storing energy for later use, but it's difficult to do this in a cost-effective way, and something people are still researching.

AT: SpendingInvestments in SBSP will return to the US in many times its value NSSO 07 (National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, 10/10/07, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)

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 .

AT: Microwaves badMicrowave beams would be harmlessSchwartz et al. 01 (Richard J. Schwartz. Served as the chairman of the science and technology advisory committee for the department of energy’s national renewable energy laboratory, advisory committee for the national center for photovoltaics and has served on the board of directors of the national electrical engineering department heads association and the international committee for the European union’s photovoltaic solar energy conference. 2001, Laying the foundation of space solar power, pg. 57, TA)

these values represent very low energy, and in both cases, the beam will be designed to be quickly "turned off." Microwave transmissions can be dephased, dramatically reducing energy density. Laser strengths will be planned only at eye-safe levels. Current design specifications for any future SSP system allow only low energy densities and design-safe standards to prevent further focusing of the beam. The center of the beam's Gaussian distribution is planned for energy densities of about 23 mW/cm2, or about one fifth the intensity of summer sunlight at noon (Mankins, 2000a; Moore, 2000). Additionally, any residual energy outside the rectenna's protective fence would be far below current microwave safety

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 41

SBSP Aff DDI 201142/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

standards, between 0.01 and 1 mW/cmz (Moore, 2000). Most research in the area is focused on the effects on humans, animals, and biota of radiation from household devices, digital phones and other electronic equipment, and electric utilities (NIEHS, 1999). Little research has been performed at field levels specific to SSP application. However, research has been done on bees and birds exposed to microwave radiation at twice the dose expected for a creature flying through a typical microwave power transmission beam. Results to date indicate that there is no effect, at least on the anima1's directional flying ability (Koomanoff, 2001). Other testing has been performed on monkeys and is now under way with humans exposed to low-level microwave radiation. Results to date from this testing indicate that such exposure apparently does not render the subject sterile or result in cataracts or any other deleterious effects (Kolata, 2001). The larger problem may be preventing animals from roosting on the rectenna or damaging portions of the receiving site issues that are already of concern to terrestrial solar power generation farms. _

Energy beams are harmless and isolated Powersat, 10 (Powersat corporation, leading corporation in SBDP research and development, 2010, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.powersat.com/faq.html power debris, TA)

The powersat energy beam is incredibly safe and secure. Overall, the radio frequency radiation in the beam has less of an effect than an ordinary cell phone. The beams are directed only at the receiving stations and do not pass through the collectors. It is physically improbable that a human would be exposed to the path of the beam, as it would require being above the receiving stations, which are elevated 25 feet above the ground. Airplanes are able to safely cross the path of the beam without any kind of problem because the beam bounces off of the aluminum of the plane. Today, thousands of communication satellites, GPS and DirectTV transmit energy from space. Powersats utilize similiar technology.

Microwave beams from SBSP are harmlessRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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.

AT: China pollution

US SBSP solves China Energy and War Dinerman ’07, Taylor Dinerman, author of the textbook Space Science for Students and has been a part time consultant for the US Defense Department, 10/07, China, the US, and space solar power, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1

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

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 42

SBSP Aff DDI 201143/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

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.

AT: Earth Based Solar Power

Space based solar power is cheaper and more efficient Shiga ’08 (David Shiga, physical sciences reporter, 12/22/08, “Will Obama pursue space-based solar power?”, http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/will-obama-pursue-space-based.html)

The space-based solar power (SBSP) concept involves using geosynchronous satellites to collect solar energy and beam it down to Earth, most likely in the form of microwaves (this graphic shows how the idea might work). The key advantage over Earth-based solar power is that such satellites would enjoy nearly continuous sunshine. A major challenge for Earth-based solar power is that it is so inconstant - it isn't available at night or when skies are cloudy. You could solve this problem by storing energy for later use, but it's difficult to do this in a cost-effective way, and something people are still researching. -

AT: Spending

Demonstration would cost less than 1$ billionBerger 07 (Brian Berger, Space News Staff Writer, 12 October 2007, Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power, http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html, TA)

On the technical front, solar cell efficiency has improved faster than expected. Ten years ago, when solar cells were topping out around 15 percent efficiency, experts predicted that 25 percent efficiency would not be achieved until close to 2020, Mankins said, yet Sylmar, Calif.-based Spectrolab – a Boeing subsidiary – last year unveiled an advanced solar cell with a 40.7 percent conversion efficiency. One critical area that has not made many advances since the 1990s or even the 1970s is the cost of launch. Mankins said commercially-viable space-based solar power platforms will only become feasible with the kind of dramatically cheaper launch costs promised by fully reusable launch vehicles flying dozens of times a year. "If somebody tries to sell you stock in a space solar power company today saying we are going to start building immediately, you should probably call your broker and not take that at face value," Mankins said. "There's a lot of challenges that need to be overcome." Mankins said the space station could be used to host some early technology validation demonstrations, from testing appropriate materials to tapping into the station's solar-powered electrical grid to transmit a low level of energy back to Earth. Worthwhile component tests could be accomplished for "a few million" dollars, Mankins estimated, while a space station-based power-beaming experiment would cost "tens of millions" of dollars. Placing a free-flying space-based solar power demonstrator in low-Earth orbit, he said, would cost $500 million to $1 billion. A geosynchronous system capable of transmitting a sustained 5-10 megawatts of power down to the ground would cost around $10 billion, he said, and provide enough electricity for a military base. Commercial platforms, likewise, would be very expensive to build. "These things are not going to be small or cheap," Mankins said. "It's not like buying a jetliner. It's going to be like buying the Hoover Dam." While the upfront costs are steep, Mankins and others said space-based solar power's potential to meet the world's future energy needs is huge. According to the report, "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."

AT: Warming skeptics

Climate skeptics are paid to deceive us Berger 2K (John J., PhD, “Beating the Heat: Why and How We Must Combat Global Warming,” p. 62)

Prominent examples include Dr. S. Fred Singer, funded by Exxon, Shell, Unocal, ARCO, and Sun Oil; Dr. Pat Michaels, recipient of at least $165,000 from coal and other energy interests; Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who has received money from the Western Fuels Association, and climatologist Dr. Robert Balling of Arizona State University, whose work has received over $300,000 from coal and oil interests. Individuals like these, espousing views far outside mainstream climate science, have paraded before the media, their presence falsely suggesting a pervasive schism among climate scientists and obscuring the wide consensus that exists. At times some of them have merely recycled already discredited scientific opinion in the belief that the public would be unable to sort out the truth.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 43

SBSP Aff DDI 201144/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

AT: Other energy sourcesOther methods fail- SBSP is cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly NSS ’08 (National Space Society, “Limitless Clean Energy from Space” August 2008, http://www.solaripedia.com/13/76/639/space-based_solar_power_diagram.html)

Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources. Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or wind speed. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not provide easy targets for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, space solar power does not require environmentally problematic mining operations. Space solar power will provide true energy independence for the nations that develop it, eliminating a major source of national competition for limited Earth-based energy resources. Space solar power will not require dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs, enabling us to expend resources in other ways. Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world, and its energy can be converted for local needs — such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there are no electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change. Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation system that is required for its deployment. This, in turn, will also bring the resources of High development cost. Yes, space solar power development costs will be very large, although much smaller than American military presence in the Persian Gulf or the costs of global warming, climate change, or carbon sequestration. The cost of space solar power development always needs to be compared to the cost of not developing space solar power. The technologies and infrastructure required to make space solar power feasible include: Low-cost, environmentally-friendly launch vehicles. Current launch vehicles are too expensive, and at high launch rates may pose atmospheric pollution problems of their own. Cheaper, cleaner launch vehicles are needed. Large scale in-orbit construction and operations. To gather massive quantities of energy, solar power satellites must be large, far larger than the International Space Station (ISS), the largest spacecraft built to date. Fortunately, solar power satellites will be simpler than the ISS as they will consist of many identical parts. Power transmission. A relatively small effort is also necessary to assess how to best transmit power from satellites to the Earth’s surface with minimal environmental impact. All of these technologies are reasonably near-term and have multiple attractive approaches. However, a great deal of work is needed to bring them to practical fruition. In the longer term, with sufficient investments in space infrastructure, space solar power can be built from materials from space. The full environmental benefits of space solar power derive from doing most of the work outside of Earth's biosphere. With materials extraction from the Moon or near-Earth asteroids, and space-based manufacture of components, space solar power would have essentially zero terrestrial environmental impact. Only the energy receivers need be built on Earth. Space solar power can completely solve our energy problems long term. The sooner we start and the harder we work, the shorter "long term" will be.

Only SBSP can support a population as a large as 10 billion peopleGarretson 10 (Peter Garretson, Visiting fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies at IDSA, “Space-based solar power, the next major step in the Indo-US strategic partnership”, August 2010, http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf)

The significance of SBSP systems lies in its many potential advantages. These advantages address multiple contemporary proble constituencies. Like other renewable energy sources, SBSP systems provide a nondepletable source of carbon-neutral energy for long-term sustainable development. Unlike other renewable energy sources, it is in the nature of SBSP concepts to provide energy in a highly usable form with an exceptional capacity factor. The ability to provide 24-hour, predictable, dispatchable electric power in quantities appropriate for base-load cities (by 2039, as much as 50 to 60 per cent of India’s 1.6 billion population will reside in cities 8 ), and industrial processes means that it can fill the same roles as nuclear power, hydroelectric power, natural gas and coal. Therefore, the concept can address both immediate concerns regarding the need to displace carbon producing plants with cleaner power and longer term needs to replace the very substantial investment and dependence on coal and other fossil fuels

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 44

SBSP Aff DDI 201145/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

as they are depleted. The importance of a base-load and urban capable renewable power source cannot be understated. The nature of the satellites and their receiver also means that much intermediate and costly transmission infrastructure can be dispensed with and a single satellite can service multiple receiving stations, augmenting peaking loads as necessary. A second key advantage of SBSP is its scalability. Experts calculate that the exploitable energy in orbit exceeds not just the electrical demand of the planet today, but the total energy needs of a fully developed planet with over 10 billion people. Because of the strong coupling between electrification, human development and gross national product (GNP) / gross world product (GWP), the addition of new, non-polluting highly-usable energy has a highly beneficial effect on poverty alleviation and creation of economic opportunity and wealth. The very large size of the market also means that a successful space solar power industry will create many jobs, much wealth and significant tax revenues for the state, and have a highly stimulatory effect on space and high tech industry and national tech base.

AT: Transportation solvency takeout

SSP is the best clean energy alternative for transportationNSS ’08 (National Space Society, “Limitless Clean Energy from Space” August 2008, http://www.solaripedia.com/13/76/639/space-based_solar_power_diagram.html)

The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and transmits it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers few vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play a smaller and smaller role in transportation — but only if we can generate the enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to generate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric transportation system. While all viable energy options should be pursued with vigor, space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other energy sources.

Energy – meets demands

Solar power meets energy demands- most promising and viable solution Hsu ’10 (Dr. Feng Hsu, Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management Space Energy Group, 10/29, “Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity’s Next Giant Leap”)

It has become increasingly evident that facing and solving the multiple issues concerning energy is the single most pressing problem that we face as a species. In recent years, there has been extensive debate and media coverage about alternative energy, sustainable development and global climate change, but what has been missing (at least in the mainstream media) is the knowledge and point of view of scientists and engineers. From the scientists or engineers perspective, this paper discusses the prospects for mankind's technological capability and societal will in harnessing solar energy, and focuses on the issues of: 1) space based solar power (SBSP) development, and, 2) why it is imperative that we must harness the unparalleled power of the sun in a massive and unprecedented scale, which I believe will be humanity's next giant leap forward. Whether terrestrially based or space based, solar energy has not yet emerged as a significant solution in public discussions of global warming. Yet, among scientists and engineers and other visionaries, it is starting to be viewed as one of the most promising and viable ways to eventually remove human dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly three years ago at the Foundation For the Future (FFF) International Energy Conference, my presentation was one of the few that took a look back at energy use in human history [1]. In this paper, I would like to offer a brief summary of the various stages mankind has passed through in our quest for energy, and how long they lasted. To understand and fully appreciate the profound idea that humankind has and can continue to harness sun's energy, it is imperative for us to learn from the history of our

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 45

SBSP Aff DDI 201146/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

civilization and from the perspective of human evolution, especially from those societies in crisis over energy. Previewing the history of human energy consumption and energy technologies, we can see that there were three such eras. In the early years of human presence on this planet, we relied on wood-generated energy, based on the burning of firewood, tree branches and the remains of agricultural harvests. Starting in the 1600s, our forefathers discovered the energy properties of coal, which taught us how to tap stored supplies of fossil fuels. Less than two hundred years later, about the middle of the 1800s, we found petroleum and learned to commercialize the use of oil and gas, which brought about our current industrial civilization. In the 20th century, society witnessed the dawn of electricity generation via hydro-power and atomic energy. Today, demand for energy continues to soar, but we're rapidly using up our supplies of easily accessible fossil fuels. What is more, a profound environmental crisis has emerged as the result of our total reliance on energy sources based on those fuels. In the 21st century, there is great uncertainty about world energy supplies. If you plot energy demand by year of human civilization on a terawatt scale, you will see the huge bump that occurred barely a hundred years ago (Figure 1). Before that, in the Stone Age, basically the cultivation of fire led to the emergence of agriculture, cooking, tool making, and all the early stages of human civilization. Now, after about 150 years of burning fossil fuels, the earth's 3 billion years' store of solar energy has been plundered. In my view, mankind must now embark on the next era of sustainable energy consumption and re-supply. The most obvious source of which is the mighty energy resource of our sun. Adequately guide and using human creativity and innovation; the 21st century will become the next great leap forward in human civilization by taming solar energy, transforming our combustion world economy into a lasting solar-electric world economy.

Energy – best option

SBSP is our only hopeSchubert 10. Peter J. Schubert. Ph.D., P.E. Packer Engineering. Winter 2010. “Costs, organization, and roadmap for SPS” Online Journal of Space Communcation. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html

SSP is the only renewable energy technology capable of meeting the projected worldwide demand for the next generation of humans, and all of their descendants. As the present stewards of the earth, there is a great onus on the present generation to start work on the ultimate solution as soon as possible. An ancient Chinese proverb advocates that we "dig the well before we are thirsty". A law of the Native American society known as the Iroquois Nation is "In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation". Benjamin Franklin's advice on addressing problems before they grow unmanageable is "a stitch in time, saves nine." Grateful Dead lyrics by John Perry Barlow teach: "We don't own this place, though we act as if we did; it's a loan from the children of our children's kids." While Americans individually can recognize the wisdom of these aphorisms, for the collective US nation to act accordingly will probably require a miracle.

Solar power is a viable and competitive optionNagatomo ’96 (Makoto Nagatomo, “An Approach To Develop Space Solar Power As A New Energy System For Developing Countries”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V50-3VV72CR-N-1&_cdi=5772&_user=4257664&_pii=0038092X9500098C&_origin=&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1996&_sk=999439998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkWB&md5=0d51cad5fb4d4a6b7677f4415384b8b9&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)

Generally production costs broadly reflect energy consumption for industrial products, and terrestrial use solar cells are now reaching the level to compete with other energy systems on this factor. The energy payback time is defined as the time required for a power system to recover the total energy used for its production. In the case of terrestrial solar panels, the pay- back time including the supporting structure is estimated to be less than 30 yr. These efforts for terrestrial solar cells are acknowledged as a firm basis to support efforts for space solar power, because the most important advantage of space solar power over terrestrial solar power is in the fact that for a similar solar cell panel approximately one order magnitude more solar energy is available in space than on the earth. Therefore, if solar cells are used for SPS, SPS will be designed as a variation of a solar power station on earth in terms of solar cell technology.

Energy - Econ

Energy biggest link to EconomyBeach ‘11 Dr. Fred C. Beach is a Post-Doc Fellow at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at The University of Texas at Austin. He is a retired Naval Officer and qualified Submariner, Naval Aviator, Surface Warfare Officer, and Acquisition Professional [http://www.ensec.org/index.php?view=article&catid=114%3Acontent0211&id=281%3Adods-addiction-to-oil-is-there-a-cure&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=374, March 15th 2011, “DOD’s Addiction to Oil: Is there a

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 46

SBSP Aff DDI 201147/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Cure?”When it comes to reducing a budget, whether it is a fiscal budget or an energy budget, the biggest gains to be had are in the largest budget categories, and for DoD that means the operational energy budget. Over 70% of the energy consumed by DoD goes towards operations. This includes energy for aircraft, ships, tactical vehicles, and expeditionary bases used in training, deploying, and sustaining our armed forces around the world. Since operational forces are mobile by nature, they demand fuels with the highest possible energy density and transportability, namely petroleum based fuels. For moving large quantities of people and material around the world, the most “energy efficient” means is by ship and the least is by air. Conversely, the most “time efficient” means is just the opposite. As America and the rest of the industrialized world has become addicted to “just in time” and “overnight” delivery of every imaginable commodity, so has DoD. The US military’s consumption of petroleum in FY 2008 was 120 million barrels at a cost of approximately $16 billion, and roughly 73% of this petroleum was used for aviation.The Air Force uses more than half of DoD’s petroleum, and it comes as no surprise that 94% of it goes towards aviation. But it may be surprising that 51% is for aviation-based transportation of personnel, material and even aviation fuel (for in-flight refueling). Only 28% of Air Force consumption goes towards fighter/attack aircraft and just 7% for bombers. The Air Force of the 21st century has slowly transformed itself into a military version of FedEx and Southwest Airlines, but only a small fraction of their cargo is ordnance. Conversely, slightly more than a third of the petroleum used by the Navy goes towards aviation, but unlike the Air Force the vast majority of it goes towards fighter/attack aircraft that are almost solely aircraft carrier based. This homogeneity of naval aviation provides the equivalent of a natural experiment for investigating the fuel cost and the carbon footprint of one of DoD’s principal means of conducting warfare, and perhaps the ways to reduce it.

US space command directly linked to world economy Dolman, 5—Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (Everett C., “U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” 9-14-05, http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.pdf

No nation relies on space more than the United States—none is even close—and its reliance grows daily. For both its civilian welfare and military security, a widespread loss of space capabilities would prove disastrous. America’s economy, and along with it the world’s, would collapse. Its military would be obliged to hunker down in defensive crouch while it prepared to withdraw from dozens of then-untenable foreign deployments. For the good of its civilian population, and for itself, the United States military—in particular the United States Air Force—is charged with protecting space capabilities from harm and ensuring reliable space operations for the foreseeable future. As a martial organization, the Air Force naturally looks to military means in achievement of its assigned ends. And so it should

Aerospace industry is the vital link to economic boastWalker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November, http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf

Aerospace manufacturing is critical to the President‘s National Export Initiative (NEI) goal of creating jobs for American workers through a doubling of U.S. exports over five years. U.S. aerospace manufacturers are internationally competitive, accounting for the highest trade surplus of all U.S. manufacturing industries. For the last year in which data in available (2008), more jobs in the United States were supported by exports of U.S. aerospace products than of any other manufacturing or service industry.

Sustainable resources create jobsWong ’09, Julian L. Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/09, Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness While Moving Toward a Clean-Energy Economy, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/wong_testimony.html

With innovation and competitiveness comes job creation. A report by the University of Massachusetts and the Center for American Progress says an investment of $150 billion in clean energy—an amount that will be achievable through the combination of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) that just passed the House—will create 1.7 million new net jobs in the clean-energy sector.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 47

SBSP Aff DDI 201148/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

SPS creates jobs –Link to EconBachrach ’78, Arrie Bachrach, Satellite Power System Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 10/78, Satellite Power System (SPS): Public Acceptance

Other economic arguments offered in support of SPS include the large number of jobs that would be created both directly and through technological spinoffs, and the fact that these jobs (and the money) they produce would stay in the United States. Some, such as the President of the International Association of Machinists, William Winpisinger, emphasize the employment benefits in the aerospace industry, which has experiences a considerable decline in employment in recent years. Some critics turn this around and criticize SPS as being fundamentally a “bail out” for an industry fallen in hard times. Dr. Glaser also argues that SPS needs “mass production of very large numbers of repetitive elements (solar cells, microwave power amplifiers, dipole rectifiers, etc.)” and thus can stimulate employment at the production line and construction worker skill levels as well as in the professional engineering community (67). It should be notes that some SPS critics consider the program to be heavily capital intensive rather than labor intensive, particularly by comparison with an energy policy based heavily on decentralized solar technologies.

Energy – Impact

SSP solves oil shock and great power warNSSO 07 ( SBSP Study Group, 10 October 2007, National Security Space Office, Space-Based Solar Power, As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long-term route tu 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.

Oil wars lead extinctionKlare, 08 (Michael Klare , professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “The rise of the new energy world order,” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JD17Dj04.html)A growing risk of conflict. Throughout history, major shifts in power have normally been accompanied by violence - in some cases, protracted violent upheavals. Either states at the pinnacle of power have struggled to prevent the loss of their privileged status, or challengers have fought to topple those at the top of the heap. Will that happen now? Will energy-deficit states launch campaigns to wrest the oil and gas reserves of surplus states from their control - the George W Bush administration's war in Iraq might already be thought of as one such attempt or to eliminate competitors among their deficit-state rivals? The high costs and risks of modern warfare are well known and there is a widespread perception that energy problems can best be solved through economic means, not military ones. Nevertheless, the major powers are employing military means in their efforts to gain advantage in the global struggle for energy, and no one should be deluded on the subject. These endeavors could easily enough lead to unintended escalation and conflict. One conspicuous use of military means in the pursuit of energy is obviously the regular transfer of arms and military-support services by the major energy-importing states to their principal suppliers. Both the United States and China, for example, have stepped up their deliveries of arms and equipment to oil-producing states like Angola, Nigeria and Sudan in Africa and, in the Caspian Sea basin, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The United States has placed particular emphasis on suppressing the armed insurgency in the vital Niger Delta region of Nigeria, where most of the country's oil is produced; Beijing has emphasized arms aid to Sudan, where Chinese-led oil operations are threatened by insurgencies in both the South and Darfur. Russia is also using arms transfers as an instrument in its efforts to gain influence in the major oil- and gas-producing regions of the Caspian Sea basin and the Persian Gulf. Its urge is not to procure energy for its own use, but to dominate the flow of energy to others. In particular, Moscow seeks a monopoly on the transportation of Central Asian gas to Europe via Gazprom's vast pipeline network; it also wants to tap into Iran's mammoth gas fields, further cementing Russia's control over the trade in natural gas. The danger, of course, is that such endeavors, multiplied over time, will provoke regional arms races, exacerbate regional tensions and increase the danger of great-power involvement in any local conflicts that erupt. History has all too many examples of such miscalculations leading to wars that spiral out of control. Think of the years leading up to World War I. In fact, Central Asia and the Caspian today, with their multiple ethnic disorders and great-power rivalries, bear more than a glancing resemblance to the Balkans in the years leading up to 1914. What this adds up to is simple and

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 48

SBSP Aff DDI 201149/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

sobering: the end of the world as you've known it. In the new, energy-centric world we have all now entered, the price of oil will dominate our lives and power will reside in the hands of those who control its global distribution.

Extinction.Heinberg 03 (Richard Heinberg, New College of California, The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, 2003, p. 230, google books)Today the average US citizen uses five times as much energy as the world average. Even citizens of nations that export oil – such as Venezuela and Iran – use only a small fraction of the energy US citizens use per capita. The Carter Doctrine, declared in 1980, made it plain that US military might would be applied to the project of dominating the world’s oil wealth: henceforth, any hostile effort to impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as an “assault on the vital interests of the United States” and would be “repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” In the past 60 years, the US military and intelligence services have grown to become bureaucracies of unrivaled scope, power, and durability. While the US has not declared war on any nation since 1945, it has nevertheless bombed or invaded a total of 19 countries and stationed troops, or engaged in direct or indirect military action, in dozens of others. During the Cold War, the US military apparatus grew exponentially, ostensibly in response to the threat posed by an archrival: the Soviet Union. But after the end of the Cold War the American military and intelligence establishments did not shrink in scale to any appreciable degree. Rather, their implicit agenda — the protection of global resource interests emerged as the semi-explicit justification for their continued existence. With resource hegemony came challenges from nations or sub-national groups opposing that hegemony. But the immensity of US military might ensured that such challenges would be overwhelmingly asymmetrical. US strategists labeled such challenges “terrorism” — a term with a definition malleable enough to be applicable to any threat from any potential enemy, foreign or domestic, while never referring to any violent action on the part of the US, its agents, or its allies. This policy puts the US on a collision course with the rest of the world. If all-out competition is pursued with the available weapons of awesome power, the result could be the destruction not just of industrial civilization, but of humanity and most of the biosphere.

Spesifically SBSP solves China Energy War Dinerman ’07 (Taylor Dinerman, author of the textbook Space Science for Students and has been a part time consultant for the US Defense Department, 10/07, China, the US, and space solar power, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)

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.

Energy - Internals

Space Based Solar Power is the best solution to energy security issues Rouge ’07 (Joseph D. Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/9/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)

Consistent with the US National Security Strategy, energy and environmental security are not just problems for America, they are critical challenges for the entire world. Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy scarcity as the foremost threat to national security. Conflict prevention is of particular interest to security-providing institutions such as the U.S. Department of Defense which has elevated energy and environmental security as priority issues with a mandate to proactively find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic security is preserved. The magnitude of the looming energy and

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 49

SBSP Aff DDI 201150/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.

Immediate USFG move for SPS avoids collapse of oil-based economy.Nansen 2000. Ralph H. Nansen. President, Solar Space Industries. 7 September 2000. Address to House Subcommittee on space and aeronautics. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm

Energy demand continues to grow as our population expands. The electronic age is totally reliant on electric power and is creating a new need for electric power. Many areas of the nation are experiencing energy shortages and significantly increased costs. United States electricity use is projected to increase by 32% in the next twenty years while worldwide electric energy use will grow by 75% in the same period. Worldwide oil production is projected to peak in the 2010 to 2015 time period with a precipitous decrease after that due to depletion of world reserves. Natural gas prices in the United States have doubled in the last year as the demand has grown for gas fired electrical generation plants. Global warming and the need for reduction of CO2 emissions calls for the replacement of fossil fuel power plants with renewable nonpolluting energy sources. Even with increased use of today's knowledge of renewable energy sources carbon emissions are expected to rise 62% worldwide by 2020. If we have any hope for a reversal of global warming we must dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels. Solar power satellite development would reduce and eventually eliminate United States dependence on foreign oil imports. They would help reduce the international trade imbalance. Electric energy from solar power satellites can be delivered to any nation on the earth. The United States could become a major energy exporter. The market for electric energy will be enormous. Most important of all is the fact that whatever nation develops and controls the next major energy source will dominate the economy of the world.

Environment – SBSP goodIt solves energy scarcity, oil dependence, and pollutionNSS ’08 (National Space Society, “Limitless Clean Energy from Space” August 2008, http://www.solaripedia.com/13/76/639/space-based_solar_power_diagram.html)

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. Discussion grew immediately and exponentially, such that there are now 170 active contributors as of the release of this report—this study approach was an unequivocal success and should serve as a model for DoD when considering other study topics. Study leaders organized discussions into five groups: 1) a common plenary session, 2) science & technology, 3) law & policy, 4) infrastructure and logistics, and 5) the business case, and challenged the group to answer one fundamental question: Can the United States and partners enable the development and deployment of a space-based solar power system within the first half of the 21st Century such that if constructed could provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable, and expandable energy for its consumers?

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 50

SBSP Aff DDI 201151/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Solar power solves energy insecurity and climate changePandey ’11 (Arvind K. Pandey, 1/20/11, “Future Perfect: Space-based solar power”, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/future-perfect-space-based-solar-power/)

The world is in dire need of alternative source of energy. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the high carbon dioxide emissions are major contributing factor of global warming. The message on the wall is very clear - Let’s end the dependence on fossil fuels for our transportation system and other purposes. Mercifully, the emergence of Space solar power has provided us a ray of hope. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the right direction, but solve. The lovers of alternative source of energy would be happy to know that scientists across the globe are trying their level best to make Space solar power a commonplace terms in days to come. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Osaka University are working together to develop a device that could convert sunlight into laser light with four times the efficiency of any previous attempt.

Solar power is the most reliable and green energy sourcePandey ’11 (Arvind K. Pandey, 1/20/11, “Future Perfect: Space-based solar power”, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/future-perfect-space-based-solar-power/)

It’s needless to point out that space solar power enjoys huge advantage over energy produced by fossils and etc. Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. It kills our dependence upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources and there is no need to worry about hazardous waste, which one notices in case of nuclear power. It also expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change by using proper use of aerospace expertise. Definitely the emergence of space based solar power in our near future will have a positive impact on the environment as it has many advantages and also power can be exported to virtually any place in the world, and its energy can be converted for local needs. The difficult problems of energy security and climate change would now be a distant dream. Above all, the plan won’t pollute the ecosystem. The problems related with greenhouse effect and the global warming are not going to scare us. This method, which considerably uses less land area than terrestrially based solar power systems, enjoys many significant environmental advantages. It provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth with very little environmental impact. In other words, it’s an answer to our energy needs. I think it’s now time to bid adieu to oil dependence and carbon footprints.

Solar Energy is the answer to environmental problems Szuromi et al ‘07 (Phil Szuromi, senior editor, Ph. D in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, Barbara Jasny, Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from Rockefeller University, has conducted research in viral pathogenesis, DNA replication, and cellular senescence, Daniel Clery, James Austin, and Brooks Hanson, Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles and conducted post-doctoral research at the Smithsonian Institution, 2/9/07, “Energy for the Long Haul”, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5813/781.full)

Perhaps the greatest challenge in realizing a sustainable future is energy consumption. It is ultimately the basis for a large part of the global economy, and more of it will be required to raise living standards in the developing world. Today, we are mostly dependent on nonrenewable fossil fuels that have been and will continue to be a major cause of pollution and climate change. Because of these problems, and our dwindling supply of petroleum, finding sustainable alternatives is becoming increasingly urgent. This special issue focuses on some of the challenges and efforts needed to harness renewable energy more effectively at a sufficient scale to make a difference and some of the people who are working on these problems. As introduced in the first News article (p. 782), the Editorial by Holdren (p. 737), and the Perspective by Whitesides and Crabtree (p. 796), many of the outstanding questions require major research efforts in underfunded areas. Much of the focus on sustainable energy is aimed at different ways of tapping into the most abundant renewable resource: solar energy.

SBSP solves price shocks, economic collapse, and great power wars

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 51

SBSP Aff DDI 201152/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Rouge ’07 (Joseph D. Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/9/07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)

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 extend 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.

Environment – SBSP only option

Now is the key time to take up SBSP – the option that can meet future demands Rajagopalan 11 (Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan is Senior Fellow at the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), 02 April 2011, http://billionyearplan.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-based-solar-power-time-to-put-it.html, TA)With the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami that hit Japan on March 11, isn’t it time for India and the US to make serious commitments to Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP)? Japanese crisis has triggered worldwide re-thinking on the feasibility of pursuing nuclear energy to meet growing global energy demands. This has kick-started a debate also in India not only on the safety of nuclear plants but also on other energy options. It is time that India and the United States and the countries around the world looked at an often-overlooked option: SBSP. The idea of harnessing SBSP as an option originated in the United States some 40 years ago. But it has not been pursued with vigour for a variety of reasons, including possibly the influence of nuclear lobbyists. In simple terms, SBSP is described thus by Lt. Col. Peter Garretson of the US Air Force: "In this concept, very large satellites, the largest ever constructed, made up of kilometers of solar cells, would collect the Sun’s energy where there is no light, and convert it to radio-waves to be beamed to special receiving antenna farms on the ground (called rectennas) about the size of a small airport. The energy is sent in the form of a low energy beam at about 1/6th the intensity of normal sunlight that falls on earth. But because it is a low-energy, non-ionizing wavelength, it is not as dangerous as sunlight with its high energy ultraviolet rays. At the rectenna, the energy is reconverted and sent via the existing electrical grid. Such satellites would necessitate a fleet of re-useable space planes, and as a consequence of economies of scale, reduce the cost of space access a hundred fold, enabling many other applications.2 It is estimated that one kilometre-wide band of geo-synchronous earth bit can produce solar flux to match as much as the total amount of energy produced from all the different recoverable oil reserves on Earth. The idea was promoted by none other than Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam first at the Aeronautical Society of India (AeSI) and later again at a press conference in Washington DC last year. The initiative is now titled as the Kalam-NSS (National Space Society) Energy Initiative. The Kalam-NSS initiative is an India-US partnership taken up by individuals with long-term expertise in the space realm. Some of the key people involved are, in addition to Dr. Kalam, Mark Hopkins, CEO of the US-based National Space Society and John Mankins, President of the Space Power Association and a veteran of NASA. On the Indian side, there seems to be some official involvement due to the involvement of Dr. T.K. Alex, who is the Director of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Satellite Centre, Bangalore and leader of the Chandrayan-I project. Speaking in New Delhi in November last year, Dr. Kalam said that "by 2050, even if we use every available energy resource we have, clean and dirty, conventional and alternative, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, the world will fall short of the energy we need by 66%. There is an answer. An answer for both the developed and developing countries. This is a solar energy source that is close to infinite, an energy source that produces no carbon emissions, an energy source that can reach the most distant villages of the world, and an energy source that can turn countries into net energy exporter."3 According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the worldwide demand for primary energy increases by 55 per cent between 2005 and 2030 - 1.8 per cent hike per year on average; and for India, the demand is expected to more than double by 2030, growing at 3.6 per cent rate per year.4 With energy demand growing rapidly, the SBSP option offers huge opportunities. Such an option will also be reportedly a cleaner energy option . This option would also significantly augment India’s capabilities in the space domain, which will have far-reaching positive spin-offs in the ever-changing security environment in Asia. This will bring the much-desired focus on the question of technology transfer between India and the US, Japan and Israel. India has looked at this option for quite sometime. In 1987, the first bit of work was undertaken looking at advanced space transportation system design concepts for cost-effective space solar power. Recently, ISRO is reported to have done some exercise looking at the feasibility of this option and examined three specific configurations. Thereafter, ISRO is believed to have welcomed an International Preliminary Feasibility Study.Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, SBSP is available throughout the year, in huge quantities. It can also reportedly work irrespective of conditions that are a problem for other alternative energy sources such as cloud cover, availability of sunlight, or wind speed.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 52

SBSP Aff DDI 201153/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

SBSP only option for future - Current sources cant meet future demandTxchnologist.com 11 ( Txchnologist is an online magazine presented by GE, APRIL 4TH, 2011, Space Race: Will Space-Based Solar Take Off? http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/solar-in-space)

Clean, efficient and available 24-7, space-based solar power is the Holy Grail of renewable energy to a dedicated cadre of scientists. By 2035, oil giant ExxonMobil estimates the world will demand 35 percent more energy per year than it did in 2005. This energy will need to come from power sources other than the carbon-intensive fuels that have powered societies since the industrial revolution. Space solar proponents claim that our current renewable technologies can’t be scaled up fast enough to meet the anticipated demand. As such, space is the answer. “The truth is we don’t have anything else,” said Martin Hoffert, an emeritus professor of physics at New York University. “We need to go through a revolutionary transformation away from fossil fuels.”David Criswell, the director of the Institute for Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston, who proposes a system of moon-based solar arrays that would bounce energy off satellites then down to Earth, is more direct about our need for space: “I simply do not see any other reasonable options.”

Environment – solves energy crisis

SPS leading renewable energy applicationBachrach ’78, Arrie Bachrach, Satellite Power System Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 10/78, Satellite Power System (SPS): Public Acceptance

Advocates and opponents alike concede that the most compelling arguments for SPS stem from the fact that it exploits a renewable and effectively inexhaustible energy source (the sun) and that it uses solar energy more efficiently than do terrestrial applications because of the almost continuous exposure and because the intensity if the solar energy in space is not reduces by the earth’s atmosphere.

SBSP supply of true baseload power is uniqueBachrach ’78, Arrie Bachrach, Satellite Power System Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 10/78, Satellite Power System (SPS): Public Acceptance

SPS advocates argue that, with the possible exception of the ocean thermal energy (OTEC), which has geographical limitations because of the need for relatively high ocean water temperatures, SPS is the only solar technology that can supply true baseload power. Even centralized terrestrial solar applications are inherently limited by the diurnal cycle and consequent energy storage problems (although the argument is often made that the energy storage is an engineering problem that eventually will be solved). This is also directly relevant to the discussion of SPS potential for aiding economic development abroad. Decentralized solar energy cannot supply energy in sufficient quantities to support heavy industry use, whereas SPS obviously could. This factor might be particularly important to large, developing countries, such as India, whose industrial development is hindered by the lack of domestic oil or high-grade coal reserves (45).

SPS is the solution the world’s energy crisisBachrach ’78, Arrie Bachrach, Satellite Power System Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 10/78, Satellite Power System (SPS): Public Acceptance

SPS could be a major element of the solution to the long-term energy supply problem tat faces American society, as well as the rest of the world. The system could directly supply a substantial portion of U.S. energy needs. This would reduce our reliance on imported energy supplies and improve our balance of trade, with obvious political and economic benefits. Dr. Glaser offers a further argument: merely proceeding with the development of SPS could help slow oil price inflation, even in advance of SPS operation, by putting the oil cartel on notice of alterations are on the horizon. The fact that an SPS could be directed to beam energy to much of the world allows SPS, conceptually at least, to help solve energy problems everywhere. Thus, SPS might allow the United States to export electrical energy or at least to export energy technology. The balance-of-trade benefits of energy and/or technology export are obvious However, SPS advocates also suggest political benefits. For example, SPS conceivable could be used to supply energy to the world’s “have nots”, and thereby help provide the energy resources required to improve the standard of living in the developing world (75).

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 53

SBSP Aff DDI 201154/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

SPS will provide energy for billions of yearsRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

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.

Even if another revolutionary energy source appeared, only SBSP can achieve all advantagesRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

It is possible that the world’s energy problems may be solved without resort to SBSP by revolutionary breakthroughs in other areas, but none of the alternative options will also simultaneously create transformational national security capabilities, open up the space frontier for commerce, greatly enable space transportation, enhance high‐paying, high‐tech jobs, and turn America into an exporter of energy and hope for the coming centuries.

SBSP goes global

The plan fosters global energy cooperationKomerath 10 (Narayanan Komerath, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, “The Space Power Grid: Synergy Between Space, Energy and Security Policies”, 1/4/10, http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/32263/217-673-1-PB.pdf.txt?sequence=3)

SPECIAL POLICY FEATURES OF THE SPACE POWER GRID 1. Global Collaboration Model Such a system involving global power exchange obviously requires global collaboration. It spans many of the issues in building Space infrastructure, and international collaboration for ground infrastructure and energy trading. ROI large enough to attract private capital is not realistic because of the large risk. Public financing is also needed to ensure serious intent on the part of governments to complete the project. The SPG involves placing a substantial number of satellites into low/mid earth orbit, and several large ultralight collectors into high orbits. There will be powerful beams of energy crisscrossing between these. Cooperative regulation could be modeled after the various UN agreements that allot orbit sectors and frequency bandwidth to nations to enable the communication satellites, the GPS, Galileo and Glonass global positioning systems. A global solar power grid in Space should meet with support from all the spacefaring nations, and from most non-spacefaring nations. Already, apart from the US and Europe, Japan, which has few fossil power resources, has a very strong program[24,25] for space solar power. China has been tapped by the European Union for participation in a power grid. Russia, China, Africa and Australia have vast undeveloped areas that are suitable for renewable power generation but lack terrestrial power grids, while the many island nations of the world would benefit from beamed power as a replacement for fossil power. India, with a growing space program, has already invested heavily in microwave infrastructure for communications, and should be amenable to converting some of that to power beaming purposes. With the next round of the Climate Control global agreement due in 2013, consensus appears to have emerged on the issues confronting nations, as well as the possibility of concerted global action. This generates a climate ripe for undertaking the massive collaborative effort that can lead to true energy independence.

US action causes spillover and solves climate

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 54

SBSP Aff DDI 201155/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Hsu 09 (Feng Hsu, Ph.D. and Ken Cox, Ph.D. 2009 NASA GSFC Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group and Founder & DirectorAerospace Technology Working Group, Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development ••• A Unified Strategic Vision”.)

So while some might argue that RLV or SBSP are too expensive or too difficult to realize, we must not forget that what makes a nation and its people thrive and prosper are not what they do for easy or short-term gain, but what they accomplish that others dare not do or cannot do. How many of history’s great endeavors have brought profound benefits to humanity across the economic, scientific and social fronts? It is precisely such an opportunity that lies before us today. Hence, we recommend the new paradigm of a strategic vision for space development (VSD) be considered by the new administration, consisting of the following key strategic elements, as a roadmap for propelling America and humanity’s outward expansion into space-based economic and commercial frontiers: 1. Set the goal of a low-cost, reliable space transportation infrastructure development within the Earth-moon system as the highest priority to be implemented by the proposed new Department of Space. The U.S. should build strong support and invite global participation from the entire international community. In this effort to achieve the proposed VSD, the U.S. and its international partners In this effort to achieve the proposed VSD, the U.S. and its international partners should focus heavily on the development of RLVs, such as crew & cargo transport and launch vehicle systems with top-level requirements of low-cost, low system complexity, and aircraft-like reliability, maintainability and operability. 3. We should develop and establish an international Fuel-Depot and Orbital Staging or Service point (station) in the LEO environment to support and service commercial space-transportation traffic, including space tourism, Lunar and Earth orbital transfers, and commercial satellite services. 4. We should also promote and support the establishment and construction of spaceport infrastructure in several strategic locations within the U.S. and around the globe, which will meet the emerging demand for increased commercial launch and spacetransport economic activities. 5. We must develop enabling space infrastructure observation and tracking capabilities for planetary defense. In particular, develop ground and orbital systems, in close collaboration with international partners, for monitoring, tracking and deflecting asteroids, comets, and other cosmic objects in near-Earth orbit, which threaten the safety of our home planet. And we must invest in projects with multiple benefits such as space-based solar power (SBSP) research and development, which would be developed by first funding a series of space-to-space or space-to-Earth SBSP demonstration projects. Technology demonstrations, such as wireless power transmission (WPT), highefficiency microwave beam generation and control, system safety and reliability, onorbit robotic assembly technology, and deployment of large-scale orbital solar structures would also be advisable to help reduce risks, thus triggering large-scale investments by private industries. The upside potential, if successful, would ultimately lead to the capacity to harness solar energy from space to alleviate Earth’s dependence on fossil fuels, thereby addressing global climate-change concerns.

Warming bad

Unrestrained warming risks extinction Dutzik ’06 (Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group and Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Environment North Carolina, Research & Policy Center, “Rising to the challenge: six steps to cut global warming pollution in the United States, Summer 2006, www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/uploads/Ue/Sz/UeSzbzUzGX8deYBF1HJ0fg/Rising_to_the_Challenge.pdf,)

Scientists tell us that if we continue on a “business-as-usual” path, releasing more global warming pollution every year, the consequences for human beings and the planet will be dire. Scientists don’t yet have the tools to tell us with certainty which areas of the planet will be most dramatically affected, but the overall picture is clear: unrestrained global warming will severely disrupt the environment and the ecosystems on which all life depends.

Global Warming risk extinction- only SBSP solvesHsu ’10 (Dr. Feng Hsu, Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management Space Energy Group, 10/29, “Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity’s Next Giant Leap”)

The evidence of global warming is alarming. The potential for a catastrophic climate change scenario is dire. Until recently, I worked at Goddard Space Flight Center, a NASA research center in the forefront of space and earth science research. This Center is engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale. I received first hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the latest dynamics of ice cap melting and changes that occurred on either pole of our planet. I had the chance to discuss this research with my Goddard colleagues,

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 55

SBSP Aff DDI 201156/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

who are world-leading experts on the subject. I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in the earth's atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and b) the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into earth's biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk. As a technical and technology risk assessment expert, I could show with confidence that we face orders of magnitude more risk doing nothing to curb our fossil-based energy addictions than we will in making a fundamental shift in our energy supply. This is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances. Of course, there will be economic consequences to all societies when we restrict the burning of fossil fuels in an effort to abate "global warming." What we are talking about are options and choices between risks. All human activities involve risk taking; we cannot avoid risks but only make trade-offs, hopefully choosing wisely. In this case, there has to be a risk-based probabilistic thought process when it comes to adopting national or international policies in dealing with global warming and energy issues. As the measure of risk is a product of "likelihood" and "consequence," when consequence or risk of a potential human extinction (due to catastrophic climate change) is to be compared with the potential consequence or risk of loss of jobs or slowing the growth of economy (due to restriction of fossil-based energy consumption), I believe the choice is clear. My view is that by making a paradigm shift in the world's energy supply over time through extensive R&D, technology innovations and increased production of renewable energy, we will create countless new careers and jobs and end up triggering the next level of economic development, the kind of pollution free industrial revolution mankind has never before seen. The aggravation and acceleration of a potential anthropogenic catastrophic global climate change, in my opinion, is the number one risk incurred from our combustion-based world economy. At the International Energy Conference in Seattle, I showed three pairs of satellite images as evidence that the earth glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate.[2] Whether this warming trend can be reversed by human intervention is not clear, but this uncertainty in risk reduction doesn't justify the human inactions in adapting policies and countermeasures on renewable energy development for a sustainable world economy, and for curbing the likelihood of any risk event of anthropogenic catastrophic climate changes. What is imperative is that we start to do something in a significant way that has a chance to make a difference.

Independently, warming is the only existential risk.Deibel 07( Terry Deibel, Professor of National Strategy at the National War College. , Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today, Google books)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action . It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 56

SBSP Aff DDI 201157/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet

Heg – Uniqueness

US heg is high, but fragileThayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis

Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. (2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly.A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence.Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.

US hold on primacy is weakThayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis

You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits,

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 57

SBSP Aff DDI 201158/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates.

Heg - leadership

SBSP key to international leadership and securityRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our “national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long ‐ term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold War…Government policies and investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space ‐ faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century —that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.

SBSP key to international leadership on climate change, and the peaceful use of space

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 58

SBSP Aff DDI 201159/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Rouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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 - 16 - 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.

US leadership in Space sets the tone of global politicsMaethner 2007 Lt Col Scott R., Chief of Strategy, Doctrine, and Policy AFSPC, “Achilles’ Heel: Space and Information Power in the 21st Century,” http://www.schriever.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070906-082.pdf

Finally, the third element of the Achilles’ Armor strategy consists of the political and diplomatic efforts to sell the program both domestically and internationally. Ultimately, preserving and protecting the space sanctuary is more than an operational or technical problem. Because of the sensitivities involved with space and weapons, Achilles’ Armor will require a “measured and discrete” approach.27 Dr. Dolman’s aggressive terminology and realist outlook that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” is frankly too provocative to be productive.Implementing the Achilles’ Armor strategy will require the US to employ both power and prestige. Prestige involves the ability to persuade others to follow. Dr. Robert Gilpin describes power and prestige as the two most important components of control in the international system. Prestige, he says, “is the functional equivalent of authority in domestic politics ... [together] both power and prestige function to ensure that the lesser states in the system will obey the commands of the dominant state or states.”29 The viability of a controversial concept such as a space-based ballistic missile defense will require significant efforts to build and maintain US prestige in addition to US power. This is especially important considering the present resistance in the international community to follow the American lead in the Global War on Terrorism, and the perceived loss of US credibility associated with recent intelligence failures. Dr. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. claims that in a world of free access to large amounts of information, the credibility of the source as well as the content of the message is essential to getting others to follow one’s lead.30 Dr. Dolman’s notion of America as the benevolent hegemon is less practical if the rest of the world questions American credibility.Creating multilateral support for weapons in space is not impossible and will require a message others are willing to follow. Dr. Martha Finnemore points out in her discussion on intervention that “multilateralism legitimizes action by signaling broad support for the actor’s goals.” She also states, “norms that fit logically with other powerful norms are more likely to become persuasive and shape behavior.” One should be able to apply this logic to the problem of preserving and protecting the space sanctuary. Dolman illustrates that the international nature of the legal regime for outer space “has ostensibly been created on the overarching principle that space is the common heritage of all mankind, and on the norms that no nation should dominate there nor should large-scale military weaponry and activities take place there.” Is it possible for the US to build on the existing outer space legal regime by developing support for an enforcement mechanism? Sharing a space-based ballistic missile defense system as a public good with the world would be the first step toward evolving existing norms towards preserving and protecting the medium. Such a strategic move could pay dividends for the US. After all, “true strategic power is the capacity to manipulate shared understanding of rules, norms, and other boundaries that set the parameters of action.”

SPS solidifies US leadership and evokes national prideBachrach ’78, Arrie Bachrach, Satellite Power System Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 10/78, Satellite Power System (SPS): Public Acceptance

Closely related to the space utilization arguments are the views that SPS would be a stimulus to the U.S. position as a world leader in science and technology. Our technological leadership, in this view, is central to the health of the American economy, as well as a great source of national pride. There is a growing concern that our nations outspend is in research and development. Between 1971 and 1976, patents granted to Americans declined by 21 percent, while at the same time, the number of people involved in non-defense R&D in Japan grew to a level approaching the U.S. total—with a population base less than half our size (73).

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 59

SBSP Aff DDI 201160/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Heg – China Chinese technology threatens US hegemonyToon ’08, John Toon, manager of the Research News & Publications Office and editor of Georgia Tech's Research Horizons magazine, 1/08, Technology Indicators: Move Over U.S. – China to be New Driver of World’s Economy and Innovation, http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/high-tech-indicators.htm

A new study of worldwide technological competitiveness suggests China may soon rival the United States as the principal driver of the world’s economy – a position the U.S. has held since the end of World War II. If that happens, it will mark the first time in nearly a century that two nations have competed for leadership as equals.The study’s indicators predict that China will soon pass the United States in the critical ability to develop basic science and technology, turn those developments into products and services – and then market them to the world. Though China is often seen as just a low-cost producer of manufactured goods, the new “High Tech Indicators” study done by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology clearly shows that the Asian powerhouse has much bigger aspirations.“For the first time in nearly a century, we see leadership in basic research and the economic ability to pursue the benefits of that research – to create and market products based on research – in more than one place on the planet,” said Nils Newman, co-author of the National Science Foundation-supported study. “Since World War II, the United States has been the main driver of the global economy. Now we have a situation in which technology products are going to be appearing in the marketplace that were not developed or commercialized here. We won’t have had any involvement with them and may not even know they are coming.”

Asian technological advancements threaten US primacySegal ’04, Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China. 11/04, Is America Losing It’s Edge? http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60260/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

China has taken the lead in renewable energy Wong ’09, Julian L. Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/09, Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness While Moving Toward a Clean-Energy Economy, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/wong_testimony.html

The irony is that, as Friedman noted in a column earlier this month, the Chinese seem to have completely grasped the point he was making to those Chinese students. It is China, and much less so the United States, that is now laying the foundation for a new clean-energy economy. It has emerged as a world leader in solar and wind component manufacturing and ultra high voltage grid transmission technology, as well as the development of electric vehicles and their associated charging

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 60

SBSP Aff DDI 201161/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

infrastructure. China recognizes the full threats of climate change and the limits of its own fossil fuel supply. It announced a National Climate Change Program in 2007, subsequently created an office for climate change within the National Development and Reform Commission—its top economic planning agency—and last year released a very comprehensive white paper on climate change outlining the threats and necessary responses that China will face.

US losing the race for a sustainable earthWong ’09, Julian L. Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/09, Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness While Moving Toward a Clean-Energy Economy, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/wong_testimony.html

The United States may have won the race to the moon, but we’re losing the race for a sustainable Earth. And we’re not only behind China, and therefore losing access to valuable export markets, but also losing to countries such as Germany, Spain, and even India, which has recently set the world’s most ambitious solar energy target of 20 GW by 2020. Opponents to climate action often cite the costs of legislation. These people are confusing cost with investment. Costs are incurred when the planet heats up, when the increased frequency of drought and floods wreak havoc to our food systems, when our rivers run dry. Those are the true costs—with no paybacks—that come with inaction. When we put money into research and innovation on clean technologies, and into our people in the form of education and workforce development, that is an investment that will provide returns many times over and truly enhance our competiveness.

US SBSP solves china war and competitiveness Dinerman ’07, Taylor Dinerman, author of the textbook Space Science for Students and has been a part time consultant for the US Defense Department, 10/07, China, the US, and space solar power, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1

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.

US can still get in the energy raceWong ’09, Julian L. Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/09, Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness While Moving Toward a Clean-Energy Economy, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/wong_testimony.html

The good news is that the United States has all the right ingredients to turn the corner and regain global leadership. We have always been a leader in technological innovation; we have the world’s most robust network of research and educational institutions, and a hardworking and productive work force. And now, we have an amazing opportunity before us to adopt a policy framework that will channel new investments into precisely these job creating clean-energy sectors. We should not be timid about climate legislation. Michael Porter of Harvard Business School, the guru on competition theory, has said:

Heg - Relations

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 61

SBSP Aff DDI 201162/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

SBSP promotes IRRouge ’07, Joseph Rouge, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/07, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security

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.

Heg - competitiveness

SBSP environmental advantages enhance US competitivenessWong ’09, Julian L. Wong, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7/09, Ensuring and Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness While Moving Toward a Clean-Energy Economy, http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2009/07/wong_testimony.html

Properly designed environmental standards can trigger innovation that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with them. Such “innovation offsets” can not only lower the net cost of meeting environmental regulations, but can lead to absolute advantages over firms in foreign countries not subject to such regulations. Innovation offsets will be common because reducing pollution is often coincident with improving the productivity with which resources are used… By stimulating innovation, strict environmental regulations can actually enhance competitiveness.

SBSP key to US technological competitivenessRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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. .

Geostationary key

SBSP best placement in geosynchronous orbit – continuous sunlightRamos 2k – US Air Force Major, Thesis submitted for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL Air Force Base (Kim, “Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force,” April, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928

The versatility of the solar power satellite allows them to be located in any orbit; however, there are advantages and disadvantages to each orbit. Solar power satellites may be located in geosynchronous orbit. One advantage of the geosynchronous orbit is that the satellites are always in sunlight and can supply power almost continuously.5 Another advantage offered by placing solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit is that only a few of them are required to supply power to any place on earth. One disadvantage of geosynchronous orbit involves transmitting and receiving antennas. Solar power satellites placed in geosynchronous orbit will require large transmitting and receiving antennas due to their distance from the earth.In direct contrast to solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit, solar power satellites in low earth orbit pass in and out of sunlight regularly. The disadvantage of low earth orbit involves the number of satellites required to supply continuous power. Solar power satellite constellation in low earth orbit requires many satellites in order to supply continuous power. The advantage over the geosynchronous location is that smaller satellites in low earth orbit require smaller transmitters and receivers.6 Proposals to locate solar power satellites in all types of orbits exist.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 62

SBSP Aff DDI 201163/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Heg – Us losing space leadership

US losing space superiority Kaufman, 08 (Mark, “US Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There:Dominance in Space Slips as Other Nations Step Up Efforts”, Washington Post, 7/9, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm

China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency is building a roving robot to land on Mars. India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket. Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe. Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead." In a recent in-depth study of international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.

Other countries space programs flourishingKaufman, 08 (Mark, “US Finds It’s Getting Crowded Out There:Dominance in Space Slips as Other Nations Step Up Efforts”, Washington Post, 7/9, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/competitors/2008/0709space.htm

Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellites and spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's. While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps that once defined NASA: . Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November the European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana. . Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are also working on lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronauts to the moon. . The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the U.S. space-based Global Positioning System. . South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-cost satellite launchers. South Korea and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities. This explosion in international space capabilities is recent, largely taking place since the turn of the century. While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Israeli and European space efforts go back several decades, their capability to pull off highly technical feats -- sending humans into orbit, circling Mars and the moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a comet -- are all new developments.

Now is key

Now is the key time to start developing SBSPRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 63

SBSP Aff DDI 201164/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

The positive indicators observed to surround SBSP by this review team suggest that it would be in the US Government’s and the nation’s interest to sponsor an immediate proof ‐ of ‐ concept demonstration project and formally funded follow‐on studies conducted in full collaboration with industry and willing international partners. The purpose of these follow‐on studies will be to answer the open questions of related to the specific barriers that must be retired, the targets for economic competitiveness, and the construction of a roadmap that will lead to the installation of utility ‐ grade SBSP electric power plants. Considering the development timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for “drilling up” vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately.

Now is the time to shift to SBSPParthemore, Nagl ’10, Christine Parthemore is a Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Dr. John Nagl is President of the Center for a New American Security, 9/10, Fueling the Future Force: Preparing the Department of Defense for a Post-Petroleum Era

Now is an opportune time to make this transition. As the services redeploy from current wars, the Army (and to a lesser extent the other services) have years of reset ahead of them. Acquisition reforms and personnel restructuring initiatives launched by Secretary Robert Gates in 2009 and 2010 will continue through the Obama admin- istration and likely beyond. Together, these developments will present opportunities to procure new, more energy-efficient systems.

SBSP is a first step towards all development and utilization of space – commercial and governmentRouge 07 ( JOSEPH D. ROUGE, Acting Director, National Security Space Office, October 10, 2007, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, TA)

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. Several past studies have shown that the opportunity to export energy as the first marketable commodity from space will motivate commercial sector solutions to these challenges. The delivered commodity can be used for a variety of purposes to include base ‐ load terrestrial electrical power, wide ‐ area broadcast power, carbon ‐ neutral synthetic fuels production, or as an in ‐ space satellite energy utility. 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 expansion of human presence and permanent settlement within our solar system.

Deterrent perception cards

US leadership, the commitment to extended deterrence is perceived as strong by alliesFrühling. June 16, 2010. [Stephan The Odd Ally: US Extended Deterrence and Australian Strategic Policy. Nautilus Institute. http://www.nautilus.org/projects/akf-connections/research-workshop/research-papers/Fruehling.pdf Dr Stephan Frühling is a Lecturer in SDSC's Graduate Studies in Strategy & Defence Program and managing editor of the journal Security Challenges. He received a PhD in Strategic Studies from the ANU, working on defence planning concepts. He also received a Master of Science in Defense & Strategic Studies from Missouri State University, and studied Economics at the Sorbonne in Paris and Christian Albrechts Universität in Kiel.

However, despite the confidence expressed in these judgments, the White Paper is more equivocal on the conditions that ultimately underpin the US position in Asia. On the one hand, it states that the “United States will remain the most powerful and influential strategic actor over the period to 2030—politically, economically and militarily”,45 and that Within the timeframe of this White Paper, the United States will continue to rely on its nuclear deterrence capability to underpin US strategic power, deter attack or coercion by other nuclear powers, and sustain allied confidence in US security commitments by way of extended deterrence.46 On the other hand, the White Paper also remarks that “[a]s other powers rise, and the primacy of the United States is increasingly tested, power relations will inevitably change”,47 and it makes a number of comments that highlight the conditionality of Australian strategic planning on the assumption of US primacy, or state that “of particular concern would be any diminution in the willingness or capacity of the United States to act as a stabilising force”.48 The consequences of these concerns for the reliability of US extended deterrence, however, are not spelled out.

US strong perception is on the brink. Reassurance is key.Schoff ‘9 (James, Associate Dir. Asia-Pacific Studies – Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, “Realigning Priorities: The U.S.-Japan

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 64

SBSP Aff DDI 201165/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

Alliance & the Future of Extended Deterrence”, March, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/RealignPriorities.pdf, p. ix)Extended deterrence in the U.S.-Japan alliance is under pressure because it is more complicated than before (thanks largely to missile proliferation, China’s expansion of air and sea power, and nuclear modernization in the region), and this challenge comes at a time when America’s and Japan’s security priorities are diverging. For decades, extended deterrence was thought of in simple terms, characterized by robust U.S. security commitments to its allies overseas and underwritten predominately by the provision of a nuclear umbrella to deter war with the Soviet bloc. The U.S. commitment to counter the Soviet threat was largely unquestioned in Tokyo, and the details about how deterrence worked mattered little. Today, deterrence is still a primary concern for defense planners, but there is less consensus regarding exactly who is to be deterred and how. U.S. deterrence doctrine has become muddled, as some emphasize the role of defenses, some push for bigger and better conventional options or seek more assertive alliance partners, and others talk about deterrence tailored to fit different situations. It is time to bring clarity to this important subject, not by simplifying the policy but by realigning priorities and deepening Japan’s understanding of the policy. U.S. verbal assurances to Japan will continue to be useful, but increasingly a more concrete and common understanding about how deterrence functions in East Asia will also be necessary. The United States is deemphasizing the role of nuclear weapons in supporting extended deterrence, which is acceptable provided Washington works proactively with Tokyo to shore up the multiple other components of deterrence (strong political and economic relations, conventional air and sea power, missile defenses, intelligence sharing, and scenario-based planning involving military, diplomatic, and economic cooperation). Deterrence has always been about more than just the nuclear umbrella, but this fact is often overlooked, given the power and symbolism of those weapons. Deemphasizing the role of nuclear weapons is a welcome development, but it should be accompanied by an intense period of political, diplomatic, and strategic consultations covering non-proliferation policies, regional diplomatic and security initiatives, and bilateral security cooperation.

Extended deterrence now. US conventional troops key.Tomohiko ‘9 (Satake, PhD Candidate in IR – Australian National U., Nautilus Institute Austral Peace and Security Network, “Japan’s Nuclear Policy: Between Non-Nuclear Identity and US Extended Deterrence”, 5-21, http://www.globalcollab.org/Nautilus/australia/apsnet/policy-forum/2009/japans-nuclear-policy/)

On the other hand, Japan has still preferred to be under the US nuclear umbrella, rather than become an independent power. An internal report of the Japan Defence Agency (JDA), which secretly studied the possibility of Japan’s nuclear armament in 1995, suggested that Japan should not go nuclear because of the enormous political and economic costs that would be caused by the opposition of other countries including the United States. It concluded that ‘the best way is to rely on the US nuclear deterrence capabilities’. [9] In April 1996, Tokyo reconfirmed the US-Japan alliance by concluding the ‘US-Japan Joint Declaration on Security’. The Joint Declaration clearly defined Japan’s greater alliance roles on both regional and global fields, by stressing that the US-Japan alliance is not only for the security of Japan and the Far East, but also for Asia-Pacific security in general. Because of this, many observers pointed out that the Joint Declaration ‘redefined’ the alliance, by expanding the alliance scope from a narrow focus on Japan and the Far East to the broader Asia-Pacific. Yet Japanese policymakers denied this kind of view, by stressing that the Joint Declaration did not ‘redefine’ the alliance, but simply ‘reconfirmed’ it. For them, the most important achievement of the Joint Declaration was not that the alliance expanded its scope, but that the US promised to keep providing extended deterrence to the region even in the post-Cold War era. Yet US extended deterrence cannot be gained without certain costs. These costs not only mean traditional ‘defence burden-sharing’ such as a significant amount of host nation support to US troops stationing in Japan. In exchange for the continuous US military commitment in the region, Japan became increasingly involved in US regional and global security objectives. After September 11, Japan contributed to US-led wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, by dispatching the SDF for the first time during war-time operations. While Tokyo clearly recognised the importance of terrorism and WMD issues, the central concern of Japanese policy elites were not those global problems, but how to keep the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, where Japan perceives a growing threat from North Korea and China. In fact, Japan’s military contributions to both the war in Afghanistan and the reconstruction effort in Iraq were never significant compared to other allies. Likewise, Japan has joined the US Missile Defence (MD) program and contributed to its Research & Development (R&D). Although Japan joined the MD system primarily for its own defence, Tokyo also recognised that Japan’s entry to the MD system would supplement the US global defence posture against the attack of terrorist or rogue states. By providing moderate but symbolic contributions to US global operations, Japan attempted to maintain a US credible nuclear extended deterrence in the Asia Pacific region, which is indispensable for Japanese security.

Extended deterrence key to entire European nuclear deterrentFrühling 2010. (Stephan, The Odd Ally: US Extended Deterrence and Australian Strategic Policy. http://www.nautilus.org/projects/akf-connections/research-workshop/research-papers/Fruehling.pdf

Extended deterrence is a central element of all Alliance relationships, as any potential aggressor must face the prospect of resistance not only by the immediate victim, but also by its ally. Most of today’s analysis of how this fundamental

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 65

SBSP Aff DDI 201166/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

condition can be operationalized, demonstrated, supported and communicated is based on NATO’s history of relying on US extended deterrence in general, and on nuclear extended deterrence in particular, in keeping Western Europe free from Soviet encroachment during the Cold War. In this context, the ‘Healy Theorem’, which states that ‘it takes five percent credibility of US guarantees to deter the Soviets, but ninety-five percent to reassure the Europeans’, highlights an important duality in the concept of extended nuclear deterrence, which consists of two, related but distinct relationships between deterrer and deterree, and deterrer and ally.1

SBSP good – everything

Federal Funding enables Solar Power Satellites in 6 years, which mitigates wars, climate, and econ collapseSchubert 10. Peter J. Schubert. Ph.D., P.E. Packer Engineering. Winter 2010. “Costs, organization, and roadmap for SPS” Online Journal of Space Communcation. http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/schubert.html

Should such a miracle come to pass, the cost, organization, and roadmap to commercial scale SSP has been identified herein. The Organization for Space Energy Research (OSER) will be a not-for-profit entity formed at a Midwestern engineering university directing a 230 million USD per year applied research budget. Its charter will be to identify an optimal SSP architecture and develop key enabling technologies. Started with federal fiscal year 2012 funding, OSER can demonstrate SSP viability in 6 years, and guide the first 5 GW installation to completion in 12 more years. In this way, SSP can take over an ever-increasing share of global power demand such that energy wars, climate disasters, or economic collapse can be averted or ameliorated.

Random cards

SPS represents achievementBachrach ’78, Arrie Bachrach, Satellite Power System Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 10/78, Satellite Power System (SPS): Public Acceptance

A whole class of arguments for SPS relates to the way the program combines energy development with the utilization of outerspace for man’s benefit. One element of this argument is that SPS, would represent achievement of one of the major objectives of the U.S. space program since its inception in the late 1950’s: “the development of technology that would effectively use space to contribute to the improvement of life on earth” (67). Thus, SPS would allow us ti make further use of the knowledge and technology we have already developed; to achiece additional returns on inventments already made, such as the Space Shuttle.

Sun tower is mobile and simple short term solutionMankins 97 (John C. Mankins, manager, advanced concepts, Advanced Projects Office, Office of Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, The space solar power option, Lexis.

One system that shows particular promise is "Sun Tower," a gravity-gradient-stabilized platform concept that could be deployed in constellations at approximately 6,000-km altitude or Sun-synchronous orbits at approximately 1,500 km altitude. The heart of the concept is modularity, to enable use of both common-carrier services (on the scale of the planned Reusable Launch Vehicle but at much higher launch rates) and self-assembling systems that entail little or no inspace infrastructure. A typical MEO Sun Tower architecture would provide about 250 MW of continuous power to globally dispersed megatown markets (100,000-1 million population). This amount of power would be produced by the combustion of somewhat less than 700,000 tons of coal per year. In contrast to the GEO-based 1979 SPS reference system concept, MEO-based systems such as the Sun Tower might be deployed and begin initial commercial power generation for an investment of about $ 10 billion-$ 15 billion, about 20 times less than the 1979 concept. Moreover, land use would be only 10% to 25% that of a comparable terrestrial solar power plant. Intermediate steps could also be taken. A variety of flight demonstrations could provide technology and systems. A smaller scale LEO SSP system architecture defined by the study, also employing the Sun Tower concept, would provide 50 MW of predominantly peak power services rather than baseload power. In the long term, GEO-based SPS, which can deliver more power to terrestrial markets, still have the greatest profit potential. However, the initial investments required for these systems continue to be daunting, and are driven by their need for highly efficient ETO and in-space transportation. New concepts for the longer term include the Solar Disk, a large platform concept based on thin-film PV in a very large spin-stabilized structure. These large or advanced-concept systems

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 66

SBSP Aff DDI 201167/67 Toby, Andrew, Isha, Raya

require considerably more study.

Things we need for the file

We need to get it first so china doesn’t cards

Internal links for heg

More fed key warrants

More private companies suck cars

Big oil pays ppl to not like SBSP / authors are dumb

From the lab CX drill

TF – spinnof – look into specific techs other than roboticsFIND THIS - Climate diplomacy for warming – we send message were trying to go green – helps soft power

XAT: other solvency for warming ( ground solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, methane )

XAT: warming turns

XAT: energy DA ( not due tomorrow )

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 67