Solar Power Satellites Affirmative

Solar Power Satellites Georgia
Affirmative Novice Packet

Index
Index............................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Explanation..................................................................................................................................................................................................2
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
1ac................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
1ac..............................................................................................................................................................................................................10
1ac..............................................................................................................................................................................................................11
1ac..............................................................................................................................................................................................................12
1ac..............................................................................................................................................................................................................13
1ac..............................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Topicality...................................................................................................................................................................................................15
Inherency – cost killing it now...................................................................................................................................................................16
Aerospace – leadership declining..............................................................................................................................................................17
Aerospace – SSP boosts aerospace dominance..........................................................................................................................................18
Aerospace – SSP boosts aerospace dominance..........................................................................................................................................19
Aerospace – SSP boosts US competitiveness............................................................................................................................................20
Aerospace – key to US heg........................................................................................................................................................................21
Aerospace – key to Heg.............................................................................................................................................................................22
China – US vulnerable now.......................................................................................................................................................................23
China – war coming...................................................................................................................................................................................24
China – space dominance solves................................................................................................................................................................25
China – Aerospace prevents war................................................................................................................................................................26
China – A2 only attack out of fear.............................................................................................................................................................27
Solvency – Procurement solves.................................................................................................................................................................28
Solvency – boosts civilian market.............................................................................................................................................................29
Solvency – SSP will work..........................................................................................................................................................................30
Solvency – A2 – long time off...................................................................................................................................................................31
Solvency – A2 cost too high......................................................................................................................................................................32
1
Explanation
I chose this aff because I think it is already going to be super popular given the quality of the evidence and the silliness of the
advantages. First here are the two acronyms you need to know with this aff.
SSP = space-based solar power
SPS = solar powered satellites.
They both reference the same thing
The aff has the government offer to buy any solar powered satellite technology that gets invented. This creates an incentive for people
to go ahead and work on the product since people will always build products if they know the purchase is guaranteed.
The technology is suppose to work like this. They believe they can put satellites into space that will work like solar power here on
earth. Only because the atmosphere doesn’t get in the way the technology is a ton more efficient and powerful. Then, the satellites
beam the energy down to earth in the form of a microwave or radiowave type beam [awesome huh?]. This technology is under
development and suppose to be the next great thing. Unfortunately, this technology has been coming for about 20 years now.
The first advantage is US hegemony. The claim is that the US is starting to fall behind in the aerospace OR space development
industry. The result is that other countries are beginning to challenge us with better outerspace and satellite technology. Developing
this technology will allow us to catch back up with those countries and maintain our aerospace dominance. The impact is that a world
in which the US is a good leader will prevent global nuclear wars from occurring.
Advantage two is similar but is more specific to China. The argument is that the US and China will inevitably go to war over energy
needs. Inventing solar powered satellites gives us something to work with china over in the coming decades. This is the only way to
prevent us from having wars over energy. The aerospace dominance also means china is less likely to start a war with us in the future
since they know we’d just microwave them from outerspace.
If you are interested in talking about crazy technology and don’t want to learn about the environment then this aff is for you.
Regardless, this aff will be popular amongst the JV and Varsity divisions because it has big advantages.
Special thanks to David Heidt and the 7week juniors lab for doing the research for this particular aff.
-Herndon
2
1ac
CONTENTION ONE – Inherency
Space Solar power has fallen behind other renewable and isn’t cost competitive
Shiner 8, (Linda, “Where the Sun Does Shine: Will space solar power ever be practical?” http://www.airspacemag.com/space-
exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html, Air & Space Magazine, July 01, 2008)
If the government put money into space solar power, would taxpayers get a return on their investment? Molly Macauley, an economist
with Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C. energy and environment think tank, has studied the ability of sunsats to compete
with other renewable energy technologies. It’s a hard case to make, she says. “Advocates of space solar power fail to acknowledge that
technological change and innovation are happening in other types of renewable energy—ground-based solar power, concentrated solar
power, wind, geothermal energy. The ability to compete on a cents-per-kilowatt-hour basis is going to get more difficult, not less
difficult.”
AND current technology lacks sufficient funding

NRC 1, (Committee for the Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy, Aeronautics and Space Engineering
Board, National Research Council, “Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power:
An Assessment of NASA's Space Solar Power Investment Strategy” National Academies Press 10-30-01)
The current SSP technology program4 is directed at technical areas that have important commercial, civil, and military applications
for the nation. A dedicated NASA team, operating with a minimal budget, has defined a potentially valuable program—one that will
require significantly higher funding levels and programmatic stability to attain the aggressive performance, mass, and cost goals that
are required for terrestrial baseload power generation. Nevertheless, significant breakthroughs will be required to achieve the final
goal of cost-competitive terrestrial baseload power. The ultimate success of the terrestrial power application depends critically on
dramatic reductions in the cost of transportation from Earth to GEO. Funding plans developed during SERT are reasonable, at least
during the 5 years prior to the first flight demonstration in 2006 (see Table ES-1). The committee is concerned, however, that the
investment strategy may be based on modeling efforts and individual cost, mass, and technology performance goals that may guide
management toward poor investment decisions. Modeling efforts should be strengthened and goals subjected to additional peer review
before further investment decisions are made. Furthermore, SERT goals could be accomplished sooner and potentially at less cost
through an aggressive effort by the SERT program to capitalize on technology advances made by organizations outside NASA.
PLAN – The United States federal government should adopt a domestic advance purchase
agreement for space solar power.
3
1ac
CONTENTION TWO - HARMS
ADVANTAGE ONE - Aerospace
The U.S. is gradually losing its space superiority – other countries are gaining on the U.S. aerospace sector in space
despite increased U.S. military investments
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)
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.
New rockets, satellites and spacecraft
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.
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.
A Different Space Race
In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the global competition today is being driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women, and the confidence that
achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits. The planet-wide eagerness to join the space-faring club is palpable.
China has sent men into space twice in the past five years and plans another manned mission in October. More than any other country besides the United States, experts say, China has decided that space exploration, and its commercial and military purposes, are as
important as the seas once were to the British empire and air power was to the United States.
The Chinese space program began in the 1970s, but it was not until 2003 that astronaut Yang Liwei was blasted into space in a Shenzhou 5 spacecraft, making China one of only three nations to send men into space. "The Chinese have a carefully thought-out human
spaceflight program that will take them up to parity with the United States and Russia," Griffin said. "They're investing to make China a strategic world power second to none -- not so much to become a grand military power, but because deals and advantage flow to
world leaders."
Meanwhile, other nations are pushing to increase their space budgets. Ministers from the European Space Agency nations will vote in November on a costly plan to begin a human space program. David Southwood, ESA's director for science, said human space travel
has broad support across the continent, and European astronauts who have flown to the space station on U.S. and Russian spacecraft are "extremely popular people" in their home nations. "It seems highly unlikely that Europe as a whole will opt out of putting humans
into space," he said.
NASA and the U.S. space effort, meanwhile, have been in something of a slump. The space shuttle is still the most sophisticated space vehicle ever built, and orbiting observatories such as the Hubble space telescope and its in-development successor, the James Webb
space telescope, remain unmatched. But the combination of the 2003 Columbia disaster, the upcoming five-year "gap" when NASA will have no American spacecraft that can reach the space station, and the widely held belief that NASA lacks the funding to accomplish
its goals, have together made the U.S. effort appear less than robust.
The tone of a recent workshop of space experts brought together by the respected National Research Council was described in a subsequent report as "surprisingly sober, with frequent expressions of discouragement, disappointment, and apprehension about the future of
the U.S. civil space program."
Uncertainty over the fate of President Bush's ambitious "vision" of a manned moon-Mars mission, announced with great fanfare in 2004, is emblematic. The program was approved by Congress, but the administration's refusal to significantly increase spending to build a
new generation of spacecraft has slowed development while leading to angry complaints that NASA is cannibalizing promising unmanned science missions to pay for the moon-Mars effort.
NASA's Griffin has told worried members of Congress that additional funds could move up the delivery date of the new-generation spacecraft from 2015 to 2013. The White House has rejected Senate efforts to provide the money. Although NASA's annual funding of
$17 billion is large by civilian space agency standards, it constitutes less than 0.6 percent of the federal budget and is believed to be less than half of the amount spent on national security space programs. According to the Futron report, a considerably higher percentage
of U.S. space funding goes into military hardware and systems than in any other nation.
At the same time, the enthusiasm for space ventures voiced by Europeans and Asians contrasts with America's lukewarm public response to the moon-Mars mission. In its assessment, Futron listed the most significant U.S. space weakness as "limited public interest in
space activity."
The cost of manned space exploration, which requires expensive measures to sustain and protect astronauts in the cold emptiness of space, is a particular target. "The manned space program served a purpose during the Apollo times, but it just doesn't anymore," says
Robert Parks, a University of Maryland physics professor who writes about NASA and space. The reason: "Human beings haven't changed much in 160,000 years," he said, "but robots get better by the day."
Satellite Launches Fall
the United States is losing its dominance

The study by Futron, which consults for public clients such as NASA and the Defense Department, as well as the private space industry, also reported that
in orbital launches and satellites built. In 2007, 53 American-built satellites were launched -- about 50 percent of the total. In 1998, 121 new U.S. satellites went
into orbit.
In two areas, the space prowess of the United States still dominates. Its private space industry earned 75 percent of the worldwide
corporate space revenue, and the U.S. military has as many satellites as all other nations combined.
But that, too, is changing. Russia has increased its military space spending considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In
May, Japan's parliament authorized the use of outer space for defense purposes, signaling increased spending on rockets and spy
satellites. And China's military is building a wide range of capabilities in space, a commander of U.S. space forces said last month.
Last year, China tested its ground-based anti-satellite technology by destroying an orbiting weather satellite -- a feat that left behind a
cloud of dangerous space debris and considerable ill will.
Ironically, efforts to deny space technology to potential enemies have hampered American cooperation with other nations and have
limited sales of U.S.-made hardware. Concerned about Chinese use of space technology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placed them under the
cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially "dual use" technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the Commerce Department.
The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-made satellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran
a number of foreign governments are
Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advanced technology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result,
buying European satellites and paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. "Some of these companies moved ahead in some areas
where, I'm sorry to say, we are no longer the world leaders," Griffin said.
the United States has been so determined to maintain military space
Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security expert at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said
dominance that it is losing ground in commercial space uses and space exploration. "We're giving up our civilian space leadership,
which many of us think will have huge strategic implications," she said.
4
1ac
This loss of leadership is destroying the U.S. defense industrial base – an investment in space solar power is
necessary to revitalize aerospace research and development, workforce, and infrastructure development
NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture
Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on th
e US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our
“national jewel” which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle.
An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated:
The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader
in the 21st century. This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in
long‐term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the
last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense
during the Cold War…Government policies and investments in long‐term research have not kept pace with the changing world. Our nation does
not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to
capitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort. Specifically, it needs to invest in
long‐term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration
goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk
taking and rapid introduction of new products and services.
The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through
investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that
government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national
aerospace sector.
The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space‐faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st
century—that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United
States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly
recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments
necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as
provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to
commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report
noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It
suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research
to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry
needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of
defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national
security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness.
Private‐public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities
in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly
increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough
aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such
experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and
potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters
an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which
included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national
and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome
the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful
expression of this imperative.
5
1ac
Aerospace competiveness is the vital internal link to U.S. global hegemony
Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof 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)
Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal govern-ment.2 This translates into
two broad missions—Defend America and Project Power—when and where needed.
In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and
precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security strategy.
The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on aerospace capabilities and related military contribu-tions to homeland security. Combat air patrols swept the skies;
satellites supported real-time communica-tions for emergency responders, imagery for recov- ery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and the security and protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air
transport.
As recent events in Afghanistan and Kosovo show, the power generated by our nation’s aerospace capa-bilities is an—and perhaps the
—essential ingredient in force projection and expeditionary operations. In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and
reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne
intelligence, com-mand, control and communications assets permitted the rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facil-ities.
Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to critical locations. And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided
by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played key roles in both conflicts.
Today’s military aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms and an industrial base—
measured in both human capital and physical facilities—that are aging and increasingly inadequate. Consider just a few of the
issues:
• Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites. Assured reli-able access to space is a critical
enabler of this capa-bility. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government
essentially buying launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle development and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government
investment.
Today, however, worldwide demand for commer-cial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing—and is not expected to rise
for a decade or more—while the number of available launch platforms worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the business
case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the economics of a com-mercially-driven market is unsustainable. A new
strategy for assured access to space must be found.
• The U.S. needs unrestricted access to space for civil, commercial, and military applications. Our satellite systems will become increasingly important to
military operations as today’s information revolution, the so-called “revolution in military affairs,” continues, while at the same time satellites will become increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds. To
preserve critical satellite net-works, the nation will almost certainly need the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after
an attack. One of the key enablers for “launch on demand” is reusable space launch, and yet within the last year all work has been stopped on the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch programs
• The challenge for the defense industrial base is to have the capability to build the base force struc-ture, support contingency-related
surges, provide production capacity that can increase faster than any new emerging global threat can build up its capacity, and provide an
“appropriate” return to shareholders. But the motivation of government and industry are different. This is a prime detrac-tion for wanting to form government-industry partnerships. Industry prioritizes investments toward
near-term, high-return, and high-dollar programs that make for a sound business case for them. Government, on the other hand, wants to prioritize investment to ensure a continuing capa-bility to meet any new threat to the
nation. This need is cyclical and difficult for businesses to sus-tain during periods of government inactiv-ity. Based on the cyclic nature of demand, the increasing cost/complexity of new systems, and the slow pace of
defense modernization, aerospace companies are losing market advantages and the sector is contracting. Twenty-two years ago, today’s “Big 5” in aerospace were 75 separate companies, as depicted by the historical chart of
industry con-solidation shown in Chapter 7.
• Tactical combat aircraft have been a key compo-nent of America’s air forces. Today, three tactical aircraft programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (in production), the F/A-22 (in a late stage of test and evaluation), and the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter (just moving into system design and development). Because of the recentness of these programs, there are robust design teams in existence. But all of the initial design work on all three programs will be
completed by 2008. If the nation were to con- clude, as it very well may, that a new manned tactical aircraft needs to be fielded in the middle of this century, where will we find the experienced design teams required to
design and build it, if the design process is in fact gapped for 20 years or more?
• More than half of the aerospace workforce is over the age of 404, and the average age of aerospace defense workers is over 50.5Inside the Department of Defense (DoD), a large percent of all scientists and engineers will
be retirement eligible by 2005. Given these demographics, there will be an exodus of “corporate knowledge” in the next decade that will be difficult and costly to rebuild once it is lost. There will be a critical need for new
engineers, but little new work to mature their practical skill over the next several decades. Further, enrollment in aerospace engineering programs has dropped by 47 percent in the past nine years6, and the interest and
national skills in mathematics and science are down. Defense spending on cutting-edge work is at best stable, and commercial aircraft programs are struggling and laying workers off. As the DoD’s recent Space Research
and Development (R&D) Industrial Base Study7 concluded, “[s]ustaining a talented workforce of sufficient size and experience remains a long-term issue and is likely to get worse.” In short, the nation needs a plan to
attract, train and maintain a skilled, world-class aerospace workforce, but none currently exists.
• The current U.S. research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure has a legacy dating back to either World War II or the expansion during the Space Age in the 1960s. It is now suffering significantly
from a lack of resources required for modernization. In some cases, our nation’s capabilities have atrophied and we have lost the lead, as with our outdated wind tunnels, where European facilities are now more modern
and efficient. In the current climate, there is inadequate funding to modernize aging government infrastructure or build facilities that would support the development of new transformational capabilities, such as wind
tunnels needed to design and test new hypersonic vehicles. The aerospace indus-try must have access to appropriate, modern facilities to develop, test and evaluate new systems. Throughout this dynamic and challenging
one message remains clear: a healthy U.S. aerospace industry is more than a hedge against an uncertain future. It is one of
environ-ment,
the primary national instruments through which DoD will develop and obtain the superior technologies and capabilities essential to
the on-going transformation of the armed forces, thus maintaining our position as the world’s preeminent military power.
6
1ac
Declining aerospace leadership directly facilitates the emergence of hostile global rivals
Snead, 07 - Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development (Mike, “How America Can
and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,” Spacefaring America Blog, 6/3,
http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-
spacefaring-nation.aspx)
Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on advancing science and
technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this
competition adds to its power while a great power that does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively
less powerful. Eventually, it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power for protection.
As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of change of great power status.
While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadership in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more
than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights, the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare
through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years
later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war, the U.S. found itself in a similar
situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was
the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant
disadvantage compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the
"game changer" for conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive and generally needed
air superiority to prevail.
With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from becoming air-faring in the
1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths through expanded national space power may result in a
reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the rapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively
challenging the U.S.
Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already speaking of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the
U.S. retains a commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring
nation, starting in 2009 with the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through
prudent increases in military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is an
advantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.
7
1ac
US leadership solves all other impacts – collapse of primacy results in great power wars
Thayer, 6 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest,
November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis)
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
U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us

aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.
extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's
ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with
allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet
You can count with one hand

effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.
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. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is
the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there
Everything we think of when we consider

was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.
the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is
directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's
most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded
the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and
western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international
system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were
historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and
Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a
Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United
States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States
because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once
states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they
do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United
States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but
not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states
would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban
forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now
even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy
With its allies, the United States has labored to create an

has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy.
economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and
prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in
the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits
defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes
from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring
relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest
the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to
academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally,
promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold
War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever
there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing
some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S.
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No
American generosity has done more to

other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.
help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent
had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three
million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might
expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for
Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military
As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action,
conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States.
for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international
organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body
time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities?
They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.
8
1ac
ADVANTAGE TWO – China
The Chinese are beginning to threaten US space power dominance now – this risks a war
Griffin and Lin, 8 - Research Assistant, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
(Christopher Griffin and Joseph Lin, Armed Forces Journal, “China’s Space Ambitions” April 8, 2008, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27772/pub_detail.asp)
The impetus behind China's drive toward developing military space capabilities lies within the Chinese military's view of future
warfare, with the U.S. as its most likely adversary. The Chinese military, known as the People's Liberation Army (PLA), has been
obsessed with information-age warfare ever since the U.S. leveraged its space-based C4ISR systems to eradicate Saddam Hussein's
military during the 1990-1991 Gulf War. One Chinese military commentator noted with awe afterward: "The United States deployed
three defense communications satellites, established 128 defense satellite communications terminals and built an ultra-high frequency
network before the assembling of allied troops."
Indeed, the American advantage in the area of military satellites presents the Chinese government with what it recognizes as an
asymmetric disadvantage. The U.S. is so dominant in this sphere of military competition that it seems impossible to win a head-to-
head competition. Faced with this dilemma, the People's Liberation Army has developed a two-pronged response that invests in both
its own space assets and in anti-satellite capabilities with which to disrupt American space dominance.
Even if the PLA believes it cannot compete directly with American space power, the necessity to invest in space assets is by no means
wasted in Beijing. The Chinese military is developing aerospace networks in pursuit of the technological advantages that the U.S. has
come to expect during wartime. A 2004 article printed in the People's Liberation Army Daily stated: "Information dominance cannot
be separated from space dominance. We can say that seizing space dominance is the root for winning the informationalized war."
Indeed, the U.S. Defense Department reports that China plans to launch some 17 satellites in 2008 in an ambitious bid to have a fully
indigenous satellite fleet by 2010.
But even as China deepens its own reliance on space-based assets in support of military operations, policymakers in Beijing are
fixated on the deficit they face in a conflict with the U.S. and the concomitant requirement to challenge American space power. One
PLA analyst recently argued that in modern wars, "seizing space dominance has already become a vital part of seizing information
dominance, from which one can then retain the active position in the war." In a less-subtle argument for the use of offensive
capabilities in space, another PLA officer recently proclaimed that China requires ASAT capabilities for "destroying, damaging and
interfering with the enemy's observation and communications satellites."
AND – china has the technology to devastate us now

France and Adams, 5 (E.B. France and Richard J, “The Chinese Threat to U.S. Superiority,” High Frontier Journal, Volume 1, No. 3,
Winter 2005, page 19, http://www.spacedebate.org/argument/1141)
Technology accessible to China today enables attack by ground-segment interdiction, computer network disruption, communications
jamming, laser blinding, direct ascent ASAT interceptors, space mines, debris rings, and high-altitude nuclear bursts. Interdicting
ground stations may be the easiest way to disable space systems. Due to their concentration within US and Allied borders, such attacks
would likely be highly escalatory. Computer network attack, communication jamming, and laser blinding have the advantage of being
bloodless and potentially deniable, but can be susceptible to countermeasures. Options such as ground-launched missiles, co-orbital
mines, fragmentation rings, and high-altitude nuclear bursts (supercharging the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts) offer the advantage
of a hard-kill, but are non-discriminatory. China's satellites, as well as those belonging to third parties, would likely be damaged or
destroyed by residual debris and radiation. While the above-listed methods provide China a number of technologically-available near-
term options, further advances may give them the additional benefits of increased range and precision.
9
1ac
Chinese attack on US satellites leads to massive US nuclear retaliation
Forden, 8—An M.I.T. research associate and a former UN weapons inspector and strategic weapons analyst
Congressional Budget Office
(Geoffrey, PhD, “How China Loses the Coming Space War”, 1-10-08, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html#more)
The United States has five satellites in geostationary orbit that detect missile launches using the heat released from their exhaust
plumes. These satellites are primarily used to alert US nuclear forces to massive nuclear attacks on the homeland. However, in recent
years, they have played an increasing role in conventional conflicts, such as both Gulf Wars, by cueing tactical missile defenses like
the Patriot missile defense systems that gained fame in their engagements with Saddam’s SCUD missiles. Because of this new use,
China might find it useful to attack them with ASATs. Since there are only five of them, China could destroy the entire constellation
but at the cost of diverting some of the few available deep-space ASATs from other targets. Of course, China would not have to attack
all five but could limit its attack to the three that simultaneously view the Taiwan Straits area. If China did decide to destroy these
early warning satellites, it would greatly reduce the area covered by US missile defenses in Taiwan against SCUD and longer range
missiles. This is because the area covered by a theater missile defense system is highly dependent on the warning time it has; the
greater the warning time, the more effective the missile defense system’s radar is. Thus a Patriot battery, which might ordinarily cover
the capital of Taiwan, could be reduced to just defending the military base it was stationed at. Some analysts believe that China would
gain a tremendous propaganda coup by having a single missile make it through US defenses and thus might consider this use of its
deep-space ASATs highly worthwhile even if it could not increase the probability of destroying military targets. On the other hand,
China would run a tremendous risk of the US believing it was under a more general nuclear attack if China did destroy these early
warning satellites. Throughout the history of the Cold War, the US has had a policy of only launching a “retaliatory” nuclear strike if
an incoming attack is detected by both early warning satellites and radars. Without the space leg of the early warning system, the odds
of the US misinterpreting some missile launch that it detected with radar as a nuclear attack would be greatly increased even if the US
did not view the satellite destruction as a sufficiently threatening attack all by themselves. Such a misinterpretation is not without
precedent. In 1995, Russia’s early warning radars viewed a NASA sounding rocket launch off the coast of Norway and flagged it as a
possible Trident missile launch. Many analysts believe that Russia was able to not respond only because it had a constellation of
functioning early warning satellites. Any Chinese attacks on US early warning satellites would risk both intentional and mistaken
escalation of the conflict into a nuclear war without a clear military goal.
10
1ac
U.S. solar satellite power is vital to meeting Chinese energy demand and preventing a war and economic collapse
Dinnerman, 07 (Taylor, “China, the US, and space solar power,” 10/22, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1)
Now that the National Security Space Office’s (NSSO) space solar power study has been released and shows that the technology is
well within America’s grasp, a set of decisions have to be made concerning how the US government should proceed. The idea that the
government should fund a series of demonstration projects, as the study recommends, is a good place to start. Another aspect should
be to study the impact that this technology will have on the political and economic future of the world.
The biggest factor in world affairs in the next twenty or so years is the rise of China to true great power status. Leaving aside the
political vulnerabilities inherent in any communist regime, the greatest danger to China’s future prosperity is its huge need for energy,
especially electricity. According to an International Energy Agency estimate, demand for electricity in China will grow at an average
annual rate of 4.8% from 2003 and 2025.
China is already experiencing shortages. The Yangtze Delta region, which includes Shanghai and the provinces of Jiangsu and Zhijiang and contributes almost 20% of China’s GDP, faced capacity
shortages of four to five gigawatts during peak summer demand in 2003. In spite of a furious effort to develop new power sources, including dam building and new coal-fired power plants, China’s economic growth is
outstripping its capacity to generate the terawatts needed to keep it going.
While China may turn to widespread use of nuclear power plants, the Communist Party leadership is certainly aware of the role that
glasnost and the Chernobyl disaster played in the downfall of another Communist superpower. Thus, China may be reluctant to rely
heavily on nuclear power plants, at least not without strong safety measures, thus making them more expensive and more time
consuming to build. Wind power and terrestrial solar power will not be able to contribute much to meeting China’s demand and
certainly not without government subsidies which a relatively poor nation such as China will be reluctant to provide.
At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it will be almost certainly unprepared.
The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal
and similar fuels. At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a massive recession.
Only a new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global repercussions would be disastrous.
In the near term the only new source of electric power that can hope to generate enough clean energy to satisfy China’s mid- to long-
term needs is space based solar power. The capital costs for such systems are gigantic, but when compared with both future power demands and considering the less-than-peaceful alternative
scenarios, space solar power looks like a bargain.
the ability of private US or multinational firms to offer China a reliable supply of beamed
For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025,
electricity at a competitive price would allow China to continue its economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful world power
structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and connect them to its national grid, but this would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared to what a similar project would take in the
US or Europe when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds to the time and expense of almost any new project.
Experiments have demonstrated, at least on a small scale, that such receivers are safe and that cows and crops can coexist with them. However, there are persistent doubts and it would be wise to plan for a world in which
rectenna placement on land will be as politically hard as putting up a new wind farm or even a nuclear power plant.
China, like its neighbors Japan and Korea, has a land shortage problem. This may seem odd when one looks at a map, but the highly
productive industrial regions of China are confined to a limited coastal area. These areas also overlap with some of the nation’s most
fertile agricultural lands. Conflicts caused by hard choices between land use for factories and housing and for food production are now
common.
Building the rectennas at sea would help alleviate some of these disputes. China and its neighbors could compete to see who could build the most robust and cost-effective sea-based rectennas. They would also be able to
export these large systems: a system that can survive the typhoons in the South China Sea can also handle the monsoons of the Bay of Bengal or the hurricanes of the Caribbean.
In spite of the major advances that China has made in developing its own space technology, it will be many years before they can realistically contemplate building the off-Earth elements of a solar power satellite, let alone a
lunar-based system. Even if NASA administrator Mike Griffin is right and they do manage to land on the Moon before the US gets back there in 2020, building a permanent base and a solar panel manufacturing facility up
there is beyond what can reasonably be anticipated.
If the US were to invest in space-based solar power it would not be alone. The Japanese have spent considerable sums over the years on this technology and other nations will seek the same advantages described in the NSSO
study. America’s space policy makers should, at this stage, not be looking for international partners, but instead should opt for a high level of international transparency. Information about planned demonstration projects,
particularly ones on the ISS, should be public and easily accessible. Experts and leaders from NASA and from the Energy and Commerce departments should brief all of the major spacefaring nations, including China.
Our world’s civilization is going to need all the energy it can get, especially in about fifty years when China, India, and other rising powers find their populations demanding lifestyles comparable to those they now see the
West enjoying. Clean solar power from space is the most promising of large-scale alternatives. Other sources such as nuclear, wind, or terrestrial solar will be useful, but they are limited by both physics and politics. Only
As a matter of US national security it is imperative that this country be able
space solar power can be delivered in amounts large enough to satisfy the needs of these nations.
to fulfill that worldwide demand. Avoiding a large-scale future war over energy is in everyone’s interest.
11
1ac
CONTENTION THREE – solvency
DOD purchasing is the number one incentive for SSP development

NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security;
Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-
release-01.pdf)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that industry has stated that the #1 driver and requirement for generating
industry interest and investment in developing the initial operational SBSP systems is acquiring an anchor tenant
customer, or customers, that are willing to sign contracts for high‐value SBSP services. Industry is particularly
interested in the possibility that the DoD might be willing to pay for SBSP services delivered to the warfighter in forward bases
in amounts of 5‐50 MWe continuous, at a price of $1 or more per kilowatt‐hour.
o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the DoD should immediately conduct a requirements analysis of underlying
long‐term DoD demand for secure, reliable, and mobile energy delivery to the war‐fighter, what the DoD might be willing to pay for a SBSP service
delivered to the warfighter and under what terms and conditions, and evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of various approaches to signing
up as an anchor tenant customer of a commercially‐delivered service, such as the NextView acquisition approach pioneered by the National
GeoSpatial‐imaging Agency.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that even with the DoD as an anchor tenant customer at a price of $1‐2 per kilowatt hour for 5‐50
megawatts continuous power for the warfighter, when considering the risks of implementing a new unproven space technology and other major
business risks, the business case for SBSP still does not appear to close in 2007 with current capabilities (primarily launch costs).
This study did not have the resources to adequately assess the economic viability of SBSP given current or projected capabilities, and this must be part
of any future agenda to further develop this concept. Past investigations of the SBSP concept have indicated that the costs are dominated by costs of
installation, which depend on the cost of launch (dollars per kilogram) and assembly and on how light the components can be made (kilograms per
kilowatt). Existing launch infrastructure cannot close the business case, and any assessment made based upon new launch vehicles and formats are
speculative. Greater clarity and resolution is required to set proper targets for technology development and private capital engagement. Ideally SBSP
would want to be cost‐competitive with other baseload suppliers in developing markets which cannot afford to spend a huge portion of their GDP on
energy (4c/kWh), and these requirements are extremely stringent, but other niche export markets may provide more relaxed criteria (35c/kWh), and
some customers, such as DoD, appear to be spending more than $1/kWh in forward deployed locations. It would be helpful to develop a series of
curves which examine technology targets for various markets, in addition to the sensitivities and opportunities for development. Some work by the
European Space Agency (ESA) has suggested that in an “apples‐to‐apples” comparison, SBSP may already be competitive with large‐scale
terrestrial solar baseload power.
A great range of opinions were expressed during the study regarding the near‐term profitability. It is instructive to note that that there are American
companies that have or are actively marketed SBSP at home and abroad, while another group feels the technology is sufficiently mature to create a
dedicated public‐private partnership based upon the COMSAT model and has authored draft legislation to that effect.
• The business case is much more likely to close in the near future if the U.S. Government agrees to:
o Sign up as an anchor tenant customer, and
o Make appropriate technology investment and risk‐reduction efforts by the U.S. Government, and
o Provide appropriate financial incentives to the SBSP industry that are similar to the significant incentives that Federal and State Governments are
providing for private industry investments in other clean and renewable power sources.
• The business case may close in the near future with appropriate technology investment and risk‐reduction efforts by the U.S. Government, and with
appropriate financial incentives to industry. Federal and State Governments are providing significant financial incentives for private industry
investments in other clean and renewable power sources.
o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that in order to reduce risk and to promote development of
SBSP, the U.S. Government should increase and accelerate its investments in the development and demonstration of key
component, subsystem, and system level technologies that will be required for the creation of operational and
scalable SBSP systems.
Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by the US Government is likely to catalyze
substantially more investment by the private sector.
This opinion was expressed many times over from energy and aerospace companies alike. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that even the
activity of this interim study has already provoked significant activity by at least three major aerospace companies.
Should the United States put some dollars in for a study or demonstration, it is likely to catalyze significant amounts of
internal research and development. Study leaders likewise heard that the DoD could have a catalytic role by sponsoring
prizes or signaling its willingness to become the anchor customer for the product.
12
1ac
It’s not enough to just boost aerospace leadership - SSP is the vital internal link between aerospace technological
innovation and tangible benefits to the military that allow battlefield dominance
Ramos 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)
Solar power satellites may affect terrestrial Air Force operations. One terrestrial application for solar power satellites, or the
technologies associated with them, involves unmanned aerial vehicles. Unmanned aerial vehicles are used during contingencies to
supplement satellite and piloted (manned) aerial reconnaissance coverage. The unmanned aerial vehicle may be powered by a
wireless power transmission, which would increase its endurance. In another area, one of the core competencies of the Air Force is
agile combat support, which involves reducing the footprint of deployed forces. The use of solar power satellites to supply the power at deployed locations would reduce
the logistics tail by eliminating generators and the support equipment and supplies associated with them. The third area concerns public law. Public law requires the Department of Defense to develop and encourage
alternative sources of energy for installations. As an alternative to electricity generated from fossil fuels, solar power satellites fit the bill admirably. Terrestrially, solar power satellites or the technology associated with them
enable long duration unmanned aerial vehicles, which receive power through wireless power transmissions, allow for logistical improvements, and assist the Air Force in complying with public law.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Unmanned aerial vehicles help achieve information superiority. Both joint and Air Force service visions define information
superiority as vital. Joint Vision 2010 calls information superiority a technological innovation to enable dominant maneuver, precision
engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection. It defines information superiority as “the capability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of
information while exploiting or denying an adversary’s ability to do the same.”3
Global Engagement: A Vision for the 21st Century Air Force expresses the Air Force’s vision for the future and defines its core competencies. One of the Air Force Core Competencies it
describes is information superiority. It goes on to endorse the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to “explore their potential uses over a full range of combat missions ”4 to achieve information
superiority.
the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to achieve information superiority in regional conflicts is
Supported by the highest levels of the Department of Defense,
increasing. High altitude and long endurance vehicles are in development for monitoring the atmosphere, environmental impact
studies, and more important to the Air Force, for communications relays, surveillance, and missile defense.5 Other military uses for such vehicles are
reconnaissance, targeting, target designation, and battle damage assessment.6
One of the requirements for these vehicles is that they must have long endurance,7 which currently is not possible. Using a microwave beam for
powered flight and to power on-board instrumentation increases the endurance of the vehicle. Theoretically, by powering the craft with a beam it would possess unlimited
endurance.8 The power transmitted to the unmanned vehicle could come from a solar power satellite in space or from a ground station. These vehicles would be part of a war fighting commander-in-chief’s arsenal.
Unmanned aerial vehicles with various detection modules would serve as near earth satellites for regional coverage of events. This is
especially important in areas where satellites are not available for coverage, the revisit time of a satellite is too long, or due to limited
assets, sharing of satellite time takes place.
Logistics
In addition to information superiority, one of the emerging operational concepts expressed in Joint Vision 2010 is focused logistics.
Focused logistics will be the fusion of information, logistics, and transportation technologies to provide rapid crises response, to track and shift assets even while enroute, and to deliver tailored logistics packages and
sustainment directly at the strategic, and tactical level of operations.9
It goes on to say, that focused logistics will accomplish “lightened deployment loads” and “a smaller logistics footprint.”10
Air Force doctrine also describes logistics as an important part of agile combat support, one of its core
In addition to Joint Vision 2010,
competencies. One of the objectives of agile combat support is to “reduce the overall “footprint” of forward-deployed support
elements.”11 Power relay satellites, a stepping stone to full solar power satellites, could supply power to deployed locations and be
part of focused logistics and agile combat support. Part of the deployment planning process would be identifying the nearest power relay satellite, the coordinates for the reflecting dish, and
the amount of power required by the site. The next step, after demonstrating sites powered by a relay satellite, would be employing solar power satellites instead of relaying electricity across the globe.
Using power beamed from a relay station or a solar power satellite could eliminate the power generating part of a deployment and
reduce airlift. Incorporating the rectenna or the receiving part of the beam into camouflage netting or into tent tarps creates no additional infrastructure. For example, a typical joint task force communications unit
for a bare base deployment requires the generators in Table 1 to supply power for the communications equipment and site. According to the Computer Aided Load Manifest software, used by logistics planners, to bring the
generators into theater requires one C-17 or two C-141s.
A Kenney Battlelab initiative on replacing aerospace ground equipment recommended alternative sources of power for airfield operations. In the report, it states power producing equipment “is repeatedly singled-out through
after action reports … as the number one airlift intensive requirement for Air Expeditionary Force deployment.”12 The report recommends adopting fuel cell technology to solve the problem, however, solar power satellites
or power relay satellites are also viable options.
In addition to reducing airlift, using power from a satellite would reduce the fuel required for generators, minimize hazardous
emissions and waste, reduce heat signatures, and eliminate a plethora of support equipment, war readiness spares kits, tools, and
spillage clean up kits.13
13
1ac
Military procurement jumpstarts the civilian market for SPS
The Space Review 7, (Taylor Dinerman, “Solar power satellites and space radar”
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm, July 16, 2007) // CCH
The first steps in such a program would be to begin work on an experiment to prove that power transmission in space via laser is
possible. Already lasers are being used for communications in civil and military applications; taking this one step beyond to encompass power should be within the
state of the art. At the same time the US Defense Department and NASA could begin joint work on a new generation of high-capacity power systems for future
spacecraft. The power management and thermal control needs of a spacecraft that will carry a human crew to Mars may not be all that different from those of an SPS or
an SR satellite.
The bulk of the development work on the radars themselves can be left until later in the program. Meanwhile, the US could profitably study less ambitious space radar
programs such as Canada’s Radarsat. Launching one or two modest technology development satellites over the next five or ten years would be a helpful way to set the
stage for a new SR program. In the long term, say, by around 2010, the GMTI radar could be replaced and supplemented by an Air Moving Target Indicator (AMTI),
which would need even more power.
Instead of using a single large antenna or multiple smaller ones on the same spacecraft, a future stealthy SR could use radars on multiple satellites. Formation flying is
now commonplace and coordinating multiple beams from two or three satellites in different orbits should not be that hard. The biggest problem will be to prove to
Congress that the technology is ready for prime time.
Almost all of America’s major military space programs are too far along to effectively incorporate the lessons of China’s ASAT test. SR, due to repeated budget cuts, is
the great exception. Other satellite programs that could be modified to incorporate the needs of the new space warfare requirements include the T-SAT Transformational
Communications project and the possibly the NRO’s problem-plagued Future Imagery Architecture (FIA).
The stealthiness and robustness of all these programs, or their successors, would benefit from being able to draw electricity from a set
of SPSs in GEO. The solar power satellites themselves would not necessarily have to be owned by the US government. They could be
built privately based on a contract that promises that the Defense Department would buy a given amount of power at a predetermined
price. This would be similar to the “power by the hour” contracts that are sometimes signed with jet engine manufacturers or the privately-financed initiative that the
British RAF has established with a consortium for a new squadron of Airbus refueling tanker aircraft.
In GEO an SPS is a large and conspicuous target. A realistic new space architecture would have to find ways to give both active and passive
protection to such valuable assets. At the same time, these measures must not detract from the commercial profitability of the operation. The Civil Reserve
Air Fleet system is a possible model; airlines buy some planes that are modified for possible military use in an emergency and the
government compensates them for the extra weight they carry while in normal commercial use.
Space solar power is, in the long run, inevitable. The Earth’s economy is going to need so much extra power over the next few decades
that every new system that can be shown to be viable will be developed. If the US were to develop space solar power for military
applications it would give the US civilian industry a big head start. As long as the military requirements are legitimate, there is no
reason why this cannot be made into a win-win outcome.
Military procurement reduces financial risk to the commerical industry

NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; Phase 0 Architecture
Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)
Incentives would help. These could include loan guarantees, availability of balloon loans (where
interest payments are deferred until the SBSP system is operational), transferable tax credits,
subsidies similar to those already in existence for other alternative energy sources, energy pre‐
purchase agreements, and/or tax holidays on the sale of the power.
The commercial sector needs to see profit potential within a reasonable time frame.
Electric utilities understand the need for large amounts of capital for infrastructure development.
This can be acceptable as long as the payback is large and for an extended period. The payback
period and rate of returns must be attractive after the amortization of the infrastructure costs.
Public/private partnerships are a possibility but may not be needed. As strictly commercial SBSP
corporations develop the confidence in the technologies and in the business case, they would
prefer to proceed without government intervention or partnership. Having the government as a
guaranteed customer for the power would reduce the risk for a commercial SBSP enterprise and
could help with the availability and terms of financings.
14
Topicality
SPS is a form of alternative energy
Prado 2, - physicist, former U.S. DOD space engineer and consultant multinational engineering and construction companies (Mark,
“Environmental Effects of SPSs on Earth,” http://www.permanent.com/p-sps-ec.htm) // CCH
In this section, the SPS is compared to both conventional energy sources (fossil fuels and nuclear), as well as alternative energy
sources. The SPS is solar energy, so that it falls under the category of alternative energy. Compared to other solar energy concepts to
date, the SPS is clearly the most feasible long-term, large scale solar power source for our economies, as well as the most economical.
15
Inherency – cost killing it now
SPS technology and funding exists, making the technology profitable is the biggest obstacle
Smith 3, Arthur, Director at Moon Society; Founder and President at Long Island Space Society, “The Case For Space Based Solar
Power Development: solar energy on Earth and in space might be the first large scale space industry”
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html, 8-11-03) // CCH
Energy policy is in the news again, with debates in Congress, statements from presidential candidates, consternation over our
dependence on the Middle East for oil, and a California recall election traceable in part to energy supply problems for that state. Use
of energy, whether fuel for transportation, electrical energy running the internet, or the destructive energy released in weapons, is
central to our economy and security.
It is with good reason that the technical term for energy use per unit time, "power", suggests control in the human world as well. Three
actions taken now - working to reserve radio spectrum for power transmission, focusing on reductions in costs for space launch, and
investing in space solar power system research - hold the promise of opening up vast new sources of power within the next 10-15
years.
Space is big - there is an awful lot of energy out there, and the crumbs we fight about here on Earth are laughably tiny in comparison.
Zettawatts from the Sun pass just through the region between Earth and Moon - that's enough energy for each man, woman and child
in the US to sustainably power an entire US economy all to themselves. Even our terrestrial energy choices, fossil or renewable,
fission or wind, almost all derive from the energy profligacy of our Sun and other stars before it.
Gathering power in space and transmitting it to Earth should not be a mystery to us in this 21st century. Communications satellites
already do it routinely. One significant obstacle to power applications, however, is regulatory: there is no spectrum allocated to power
transmission, as there is for communications.
Since frequency of operation has a significant impact on transmitter design which may alter the design of the overall solar power system, the earlier we have a
frequency allocation decision, the better. The Federal Communications Commission and the International Telecommunications Union should be prodded to start work
on this issue now.
The potential for power from space has been recognized for over thirty years (1). Studies in the late 1970's by NASA and the Department of Energy
produced a reference design for solar power satellites using then-current technology that showed technical feasibility, but also high cost. NASA returned to the subject
with an exploratory study from 1999 to 2001.
A review by the National Research Council (2) found the program to have a credible plan which required significant funding increases. Rather than strengthening the
program, however, all funding for the space solar power group ceased after September 2001, and essentially no R&D work on power from space is now being done in
the US. Worldwide over a trillion dollars a year goes to the energy industry, and utilities routinely construct multi-billion-dollar power
plants. The energy industry has a bigger wallet than the entire US federal discretionary budget.
Money is not directly the problem here; profitability is. The two essential factors in the cost equation are the cost per delivered Watt of the solar power
components, and the cost per delivered Watt of getting those components to their final destination in space.
Current costs put the capital investment needed for a space solar power system well above the $2/Watt of competitive terrestrial
options such as fission plants and wind turbines. R&D work is needed to bring these costs to where the vast energy resources of space are within reach of a large
utility project.
The cost of components is the first problem here. Current prices for solar electric power systems are about $2.50 per peak Watt, a price that has been declining about 7%
per year for the last few decades. The day/night cycle, non-ideal sun angles, weathering, and cloud cover reduce power output enough to make the final cost per average
Watt $10 or more. Terrestrial solar power is still too expensive for wholesale utility use, but it is now competitive for home owner installation in many areas.
In space you can get peak power almost all the time. The $2.50/Watt homeowner systems are not space-rated, but the space market is still small; with a larger market
suitable photovoltaic elements could be produced at comparable cost. Transmitting power from space will have somewhat higher losses than transmitting from a
terrestrial power plant.
Nevertheless, component costs are potentially much closer to wholesale utility requirements for space solar power than they are for
terrestrial solar, and with continued improvement in prices, in another 10 to 15 years component costs should not be an obstacle to
large-scale installation.
The other cost of concern is delivery to orbit. Typical communications satellite solar panels have a mass per kW of about 20 kg, so
with current launch costs of $10,000/kg that comes to $200/Watt, or a hundred times too large to be competitive at the utility level.
Bringing that number down requires both improvements in mass per kW, and cheaper access to space.
16
Aerospace – leadership declining
U.S. space leadership is collapsing
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.
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.
U.S. space leadership is declining

NASA and the U.S. space effort, meanwhile, have been in something of a slump. The space shuttle is still the most sophisticated space
vehicle ever built, and orbiting observatories such as the Hubble space telescope and its in-development successor, the James Webb
space telescope, remain unmatched. But the combination of the 2003 Columbia disaster, the upcoming five-year "gap" when NASA
will have no American spacecraft that can reach the space station, and the widely held belief that NASA lacks the funding to
accomplish its goals, have together made the U.S. effort appear less than robust.
The tone of a recent workshop of space experts brought together by the respected National Research Council was described in a
subsequent report as "surprisingly sober, with frequent expressions of discouragement, disappointment, and apprehension about the
future of the U.S. civil space program."
Uncertainty over the fate of President Bush's ambitious "vision" of a manned moon-Mars mission, announced with great fanfare in
2004, is emblematic. The program was approved by Congress, but the administration's refusal to significantly increase spending to
build a new generation of spacecraft has slowed development while leading to angry complaints that NASA is cannibalizing promising
unmanned science missions to pay for the moon-Mars effort.
17
Aerospace – SSP boosts aerospace dominance
Developing space-based solar power is key to remain economically and technologically competitive as a hegemonic
power
The Washington Post, 6 (Marc Kaufman, “NASA Looks to the Future With Eye on the Past,” 12-04-06, LN) // DCM
<As Michael Griffin, the head of NASA, sees it, humanity is setting out on an interplanetary quest not dissimilar to what began with the
Vikings. An age of space exploration has begun, but only with the same confused baby steps that brought Leif Eriksson briefly to Vinland and North America (or was it
Greenland?).
"Fifty years into it, the amount of progress that the Vikings had made would not have been that noticeable, and that's where we are in space flight today," Griffin said in
a recent interview. "I really think that's the way to look at it."
But Griffin and NASA have big plans for the future. The concrete proposals are contained in the Vision for Exploration that President Bush announced in 2004, a
program to return Americans to the moon before 2020 and plan for travel onward to Mars.
It's an ambitious, almost Star Trek-like vision, one that has ardent supporters and vocal detractors. But to a degree generally unappreciated by the public, it is the law of
the land, since Congress adopted the president's moon-Mars proposal last year. And it is moving forward: NASA will publicly outline today its exploration strategy for
the planned lunar missions.
The bigger picture, however, is significantly more grand. As Griffin and others (including renowned British cosmologist Stephen Hawking) describe it, it is all about
whether humans will incorporate the solar system "into mankind's sphere of influence."
"In the long run, we know that Earth and its resources are finite," Griffin said. "There are resources in space -- solar power or
particular materials or precious metals, or basic things like water or fuel which, in the context of a space-based economy, can be very
valuable. As we learn and develop the arts and sciences of spaceflight, we will want to make use of those resources rather than
bringing them up from Earth."
Some intriguing possibilities include extracting oxygen from the moon's soil to help power rockets, collecting helium-3 (a non-
radioactive isotope of the gas) for nuclear power back on Earth, and the mineral anorthite to make aluminum.
"This won't happen tomorrow or in our grandchildren's day," he said. "But who would have thought that it would be profitable to make
wine in Australia and ship it to the United States? In a few short decades, we've made a very significant part of the Earth's economy to
be a global economy and not a patchwork of national economies."
In the same way that globalization was the result of a thousand years of exploration and development, Griffin argued, a space-based economy will appear only after
thousands of missions -- some successful and some not.
"You will -- if you can live long enough -- see the resources of the solar system similarly incorporated into humanity's sphere of influence," Griffin said. "In the long
run, that's what the expansion of humankind into space is all about."
Whether this vision is achievable or even desirable is a subject of debate, and there is already substantial concern that NASA's exploration plans will, over time, drain
funds from its highly successful science programs.
"It's good to have such an enthusiast like Griffin at NASA, but that whole messianic vision is pretty far from the current state of technology," said Robert Kirshner, an
astronomy professor at Harvard University and past president of the American Astronomical Society. "Many of us worry that it will suck the juice out of other very
promising projects to learn more about our universe."
Griffin said that NASA intends to maintain the financial balance between manned exploration and pure science in its $17 billion yearly budget, a ratio that is now about
two dollars for manned exploration for each one spent on pure science. The billions more needed for the moon-Mars missions will be redirected from the costly shuttle
and space station programs, which are due to wind down in 2010.
But Wes Huntress, a former NASA associate administrator and ex-member of the NASA science advisory board, said that ever since Bush announced the space
exploration vision, the administration has refused to give the agency additional funding to accomplish its mission.
The result is that "Griffin has had to cannibalize the agency to get the money for the new program," Huntress said. "Even at that, I don't think there are sufficient funds
to support even the return to the moon once the program gets really moving."
In Griffin's big-picture view, the stakes in space are high -- which helps explain why he is so driven about return to manned lunar
exploration and beyond. Not only are there major national security issues involved -- the country relies on space-based defense like no
other nation -- but the NASA administrator said the United States can remain a preeminent civilization only if it continues to explore
space aggressively.
If the United States pulls back, Griffin said, others will speed ahead. Russia and China have sent astronauts into low-Earth orbit, and
India, Japan and the Europeans all have the technical ability to do the same now -- and far more in the future.
International cooperation has been ingrained into the government's thinking about space, but the United States and others remain committed to manufacturing their own
rockets and space capsules and will be looking for international cooperation only once they are on the moon or Mars or some asteroids in between.
"I absolutely believe that America became a great power in the world, leapfrogging other great powers of the time, because of its
mastery of the air," Griffin said. "In the 21st century and beyond, our society and nation, if we wish to remain in the first rank, must add to our existing capacities .
. . to remain preeminent in the arts and sciences of space flight.
18
Aerospace – SSP boosts aerospace dominance
SPS would spur overall U.S. technological leadership and create lasting economic strength for the aerospace
industry
Richardson, 93 – Brigadier General, US Air Force (Robert, “Solar Power: The Next ‘Great Leap Forward’”, The Journal of Social,
Political and Economic Studies, Fall, p. 265-268)
A Job For America's Aerospace Industry

It is obvious that the sector of the U.S. economy that would most benefit from a major U.S. effort to harness solar power would be the
Aerospace Industry.
America's Aerospace Industry has been the principal driver of U.S. technological progress and worldwide technological leadership
ever since WWII. The two arenas in which this has taken place are aeronautics and space activities. The time has now come for America to exploit this unique capability to collect and distribute the sun's energy
and to reap the many benefits the U.S. could derive by doing this.
a high level of
Since the demise of the Cold War, U.S. technological leadership has become an increasingly important national security requirement. At times when major threats to national security are not obvious,
technological progress provides the best assurance of being able to respond in timely fashion to new threats that may arise. The U.S.
Aerospace Industry has been the sole source for much of this progress and cannot be safely disbanded despite the demise of the Soviet threat.
The ability of governments to identify foreign technology breakthroughs in potentially threatening weapon systems also depends upon
their ongoing level of research in the disciplines involved. Initial intelligence of foreign classified research efforts is invariably meager and ambiguous. When this
intelligence first surfaces, only those having scientists and engineers working in the technologies concerned are likely to recognize
what the potential opponent is up to and the threat it might pose.
In addition to the importance of technological superiority to U.S. security, U.S. leadership in technology will be a major factor in
maintaining America's economic health and a sound world trade position. Development of jet aircraft made the U.S. the leading
supplier of commercial transports for a decade or more. The efforts to develop ICBM's, military space systems, and to put a man on the moon all generated large numbers of new
commercial products, business opportunities, and income that contributed to our standard of living.
Both U.S. technological leadership and the economic and security benefits this has brought the country are now in jeopardy. The reductions being made in defense and NASA budgets have all but eliminated major new
technological initiatives, with remaining funds being diverted, of necessity, to keeping existing systems going.
America's Aerospace Industry, which gave us successes like Apollo and the Space Shuttle, must now find a new "raison d'etre," or
many of the companies it consists of will go out of business to the detriment of the U.S. ability to maintain an effective level of
advanced research and development, let alone worldwide technological leadership.
Most Aerospace corporations are now fighting one another while lobbying the government for the crumbs remaining on DOD's and NASA's table. There is no longer enough to go around and what is likely to remain available
will only feed a small percentage of the efforts and capabilities that kept the U.S. a leader in advanced technology over the past few decades.
One is reminded of sheep fighting each other over the few remaining clumps of grass on a range that is drying up and where only small local showers (government requirements) keep any of the formerly lush pasture alive.
America's Aerospace Industry is slowly becoming an endangered species. Unfortunately, all too many people associate aerospace with the military and warfare and, being unaware of its economic and technological
contributions, welcome this trend.
The national interest clearly calls for a solution to this situation.
The question is what it should or can be. Is there a viable, affordable, and politically salable solution? The answer is yes, provided it is undcrstood and pursued.
A major U.S. program to develop solar energy sources would more than replace Aerospace job and income losses resulting from the
demise of the cold war. It would also drive cutting-edge progress in almost all aspects of technology, thus insuring worldwide U.S.
technological leadership, global markets, and readiness to respond to or deter almost any conceivable threats. And the cost of doing is not prohibitive,
while the potential benefits to the V.S. and mankind as a whole are staggering.
The logical solution is for the Aerospace Industry and its supporters to move to new, and potentially lush, pastures instead of fighting over what's left of the old ones. This could be a valid and acceptable solution, provided the
new pasture is truly "new" - that is, that it is not already occupied by and supporting commercial activities that aerospace would be displacing or competing with.
Fortunately, there is such an opportunity in exploiting advanced technology and space know-how to meet the world's growing need for energy. Not only is this a lush, new, nonmilitary, pasture, but one whose exploitation can
address a multitude of world problems, including such apparently unrelated ones as growing third world population pressures and poverty. Doing this would also meet the Clinton Administration's desire to see industries and
jobs, whose survival is threatened by either the U.S. deficit or terminations of the cold war, find work in the civil sector.
The problem with converting defense and space industries into civil pursuits has been that other manufacturers are already providing for most existing civil market requirements. Aerospace conversion has also been limited by
the fact that the characteristics of most Aerospace companies differ rather extensively from those of industry groups that provide primarily goods and services to the private sector.
Most Aerospace companies have always been largely dependent on the government as their principal client. They are accustomed to
working on million, if not billion, dollar, multi-year, contracts and their characteristics reflect this. This is especially true in such areas as: percentages of income derived from R&D
versus production; numbers of scientists, engineers, and analysts vs. blue collar workers on their payrolls; and in marketing numbers, expertise, and procedures required to sell to private buyers as compared to government.
the record of successful conversions from aerospace products to purely civil use products has, historically, not been good.
Suffice it to say that
Today there is a potential exception to this, and the time is ripe to introduce it. Not only is there a growing need to provide inexpensive
and plentiful energy in order to raise the standard of living in the third world, and reduce population and "lebensraum" pressures, but
the technology is ripe to do this in the relatively near term. This technology is wholly compatible with the experience and capabilities
of the Aerospace Industry.
The provision and distribution of unlimited, low cost, energy could be the new, high technology, pasture of the Aerospace corporations
by the turn of the century. Success in pursuing this goal by U.S. corporations would not only meet the conversion aspirations of the President but also fit the characteristics of this specialized industry group.
The economic potential and benefits to the nation, or nations, that do this are almost unlimited. And there is plenty of work to go around, and no need to fight over it.
The customer to start with would obviously be the
Shifting the primary role of most Aerospace corporations from weapon-system development to energy should be relatively simple.
government - probably the Department of Energy (DOE) or NASA. The balance of basic and advanced research, development, and engineering people required should roughly equate to what these corporations now
employ to meet U.S. defense and space programs, and the talents are similar. The management talent for multi-billion dollar, long lead-time, global-scale systems and efforts is similar to what they have been doing for the past
twenty years or more. This job would clearly fit the Aerospace Industry's "pistol."
19
Aerospace – SSP boosts US competitiveness
SSP greatly expands U.S. launch services and space competitiveness
NSSO, 7 (National Security Space Office, Report to the Director, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security;
Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study” October 10, 2007, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-
release-01.pdf)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the nation’s existing EELV‐based space logistics
infrastructure could not handle the volume or reach the necessary cost efficiencies to support a cost‐
effective SBSP system. America’s existing space manufacturing base is not suitably aligned at present
for full‐scale SBSP deployment.
• Some participants argued that at high enough launch rates some of the newer expendable
concepts might be able to get close to the target, however in general, most participants felt
that while expendables could get an SBSP to a demo, it could not reach the economic
efficiencies necessary for SBSP. Some participants also emphasized that expendable launch
systems will not be able to achieve the desired level of safety needed for routine and
frequent passenger transport to space or the operation of terrestrial launch sites in the interior
of the country.
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development would have a transformational, even
revolutionary effect on space access for any nation which develops it.
• SBSP cannot be constructed without routine 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.
20
Aerospace – key to US heg
Aerospace is key to U.S. leadership
Walker et al, 02 - Chair of the Commission on the Futureof 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 will be at the core of America’s leadership and strength in the 21st century. The role of aerospace in establishing America’s
global leadership was incontrovertibly proved in the last century. This industry opened up new frontiers to the world, such as freedom
of flight and access to space. It provided products that defended our nation, sustained our economic prosperity and safeguarded the
very freedoms we commonly enjoy as Americans. It has helped forge new inroads in medicine and science, and fathered the
development of commercial products that have improved our quality of life.
Given a continued commitment to pushing the edge of man’s engineering, scientific and manufacturing expertise, there is the promise
of still more innovations and new frontiers yet to be discovered. It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains healthy to
preserve the balance of our leadership today and to ensure our continued leadership tomorrow. (v)
Our Urgent Purpose
The contributions of aerospace to our global leadership have been so successful that it is assumed U.S. preeminence in aerospace
remains assured. Yet the evidence would indicate this to be far from the case. The U.S. aerospace industry has consolidated to a
handful of players—from what was once over 70 suppliers in 1980 down to 5 prime contractors today. Only one U.S. commercial
prime aircraft manufacturer remains. Not all of these surviving companies are in strong business health. The U.S. airlines that rely
upon aerospace products find their very existence is threatened. They absorbed historical losses of over $7 billion in 2001 and
potentially more this year.
The industry is confronted with a graying workforce in science, engineering and manufacturing, with an estimated 26 percent
available for retirement within the next five years. New entrants to the industry have dropped precipitously to historical lows as the
number of layoffs in the industry mount. Compounding the workforce crisis is the failure of the U.S. K-12 education system to
properly equip U.S. students with the math, science, and technological skills needed to advance the U.S. aerospace industry. (v)
The Commission’s urgent purpose is to call attention to how the critical underpinnings of this nation’s aerospace industry are
showing signs of faltering— and to raise the alarm.
This nation has generously reaped the benefits of prior innovations in aerospace, but we have not been attentive to its health or its
future. During this year of individual and collective research, the Commission has visited and spoken with aerospace leaders in the
United States, Europe, and Asia. Wenoted with interest how other countries that aspire for a great global role are directing intense
attention and resources to foster an indigenous aerospace industry. This is in contrast to the attitude present here in the United States.
We stand dangerously close to squandering the advantage bequeathed to us by prior genera-tions of aerospace leaders. We must
reverse this trend and march steadily towards rebuilding the industry.
21
Aerospace – key to Heg
A strong aerospace sector is key to hegemony
Wright, 93 - Major, USAF [Stephen, “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE NATION”,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf]
A more dramatic indication of military dysfunction is evident in the DoD response to Senator Sam Nunn’s questioning of the efficacy
of the military having four air forces [meaning the four services}.{14} The DoD response came in General Colin Powell’s report on
roles and missions.{15} The report argues that "the other services have aviation arms essential to their specific roles and functions but
which also work jointly to project America’s air power."{16} The debate argues that as it makes no sense to assign all radios or trucks
to one service, so to it would not make sense to assign all aircraft to one service. Is this an aerospace rationale? Would we need
aerospace forces to operate differently in the services’ strategies if there were only one air service? Would we not be better served to
describe what we want U.S. forces (land, sea, and aerospace) to do and develop an integrated strategy to achieve some desired end
state? For example, if the nation wants a highly mobile amphibious assault capability it needs Marines with airpower. If the nation
wants sea control and power projection capabilities with minimal reliance on other nation support, it needs a Navy with airpower in
the form of carrier air wings. If the U.S. wants an Army with the capability to do sustained, heavy combat with low casualties, it will
need aerospace power. If the nation wants to exploit air and space forces as in it did in Desert Storm, it will need many air and space
capabilities. As we found in Chapter 4, the future service strategies depend on aerospace power. The political imperatives driving
those strategies devolve upon aerospace capabilities. If the Defense Department is to answer Senator Nunn, it must answer within the
context of a military aerospace strategy.
The ties linking the aerospace with its military counterpart were forged through two world wars, a cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and other
lesser conflicts. Add to this crucible of the past the economic challenges of the future and one sees the desideratum of aerospace
power. To achieve a position of predominance in aerospace, the U.S. requires a national aerospace strategy.
Whither the Aerospace Nation? {17}
If this paper serves no other purpose, it must serve as a wake-up call, a call to action for the aerospace nation. United States policy
makers must view aerospace power as a national treasure. If economists like Robert Reich, Michael Porter and Lester Thurow, are
correct, the aerospace industry will be critical to America’s future economic prosperity. Each argues that the future belongs to those
nations with trained, skilled workers that add unique, high value to products. Each agrees that aerospace is one of those industries.
Militarily we cannot operate without control of aerospace--all military strategies rely upon it. Aerospace dominance provides the
capability for U.S. forces to win within the political imperatives of the future, especially with reference to casualties. Aerospace
power, both its economic and military elements, is under great pressure to succeed in the future. To do so requires a national aerospace
strategy.
Aerospace is vital to hegemony and the economy

Wright, 93 - Major, USAF [Stephen, “AEROSPACE STRATEGY FOR THE AEROSPACE NATION”,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p195.pdf]
The transition and development of the U.S. into an aerospace nation underwent many starts and stops in both its economic and
military elements. What this paper showed was the absolutely essential contribution aerospace power makes to the security and well-
being, economically and militarily, of the United States. There can be no doubt that America is an aerospace nation. However, many
problems cloud U.S. aerospace power necessitating a national strategy that encompasses both elements of its power. The aerospace
industry provides the jobs, skills, and products that serve to increase the U.S. standard of living. It serves as a visible symbol of the
technological expertise and economic power of America. Militarily, the U.S. faces uncertainty about potential threats; however, as
long as she can control and exploit aerospace at will, her future is secure from hostile intent.
22
China – US vulnerable now
China could attack American assets using a microsatellite, preventing any American detection of the attack
China's burgeoning microsatellite program enhances its ability to attack American spaceborne assets. Beijing could discretely launch
such small, lightweight and difficult to detect satellites as secondary payloads on otherwise overt missions. When desired, the
hitchhiker could then maneuver into position for attack. With the help of Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, (the leading microsat
development company in Europe, if not the world) China is making tremendous strides in microsat design, fabrication, and operations.
China has the ground-based laser capacity to devastate U.S. satellites
It is highly likely China is developing ground-based directed energy weapons with the capability to temporarily disable, damage, or
even destroy a satellite. With roughly 300 organizations, 3,000 engineers, and 10,000 total personnel participating in laser-related
efforts, Beijing's aggressive pursuit of advanced directed energy technology has given its program world-class status. As early as
1994, the Chinese successfully tested a free electron laser with a 140 megawatt output. They have since pursued miniaturization of
laser systems, perhaps to enable a mobile system. According to other reports, China is seeking to build an ASAT system using a high-
energy deuterium fluoride laser, mimicking the US Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) design.
23
China – war coming
China is already challenging U.S. space dominance in the status quo
Pfaltzgraf & Van Cleave, 7 -* Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University
and President Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and ** Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri
State University
(Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraf and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Independent Working Group, “Missile Defense, The Space Relationship, and
the 21st Century”, 2007, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf.)
China has also begun to erode American space dominance. In the wake of its successful October 200 launch of the Shenzhou V
spacecraft, Beijing is developing advanced military capabilities as part of an exoatmospheric “deterrent” force even while Beijing
warns against any U.S. weaponization of space. China’s emerging space force will include both lasers and missiles capable of
destroying satellites. It will incorporate- rate the PRC’s Dongfeng 31, Dongfeng 41, and Julang 2 medium- and long-range missiles.
China has also developed a range of “nanosatellite” technologies for space warfare, apparently for the purpose of crippling American
space assets.5 Other Chinese advances in space include the Ziyuan 1 and Ziyuan 2 remote-sensing satellites and the development,
through a joint venture between China’s Tsinghua University and the United Kingdom’s University of Surrey, of a constellation of
seven minisatellites (weighing between 101 and 500 kilograms) with 50-meter-resolution remote-sensing payloads. Notably, Beijing
launched the Shenzhou VI in October 2005, marking the second successful Chinese manned spacelight.
24
China – space dominance solves
If the U.S. fails to develop a more competitive aerospace industry, they will lose the space race to China
Herrnstadt, 8 -- Associate General Council of International Associations of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Director of
International Policy (Owen E., “Offsets and the lack of a Comprehensive U.S. Policy,” Economic Policy Insitute Briefing Paper #201,
04-14-08, http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp201.html) // DCM
<China is likely to be the largest customer—and possibly an emerging competitor—of the U.S. aerospace industry in the future.
China's aerospace manufacturing base is enormous. U.S. companies (and European companies to a lesser extent) have successfully partnered with Chinese companies that provide
components or parts for a number of commercial aerospace programs. However, China also is seeking to become a world-class prime commercial aerospace manufacturing industrial base, both through indigenous
development programs and joint ventures with non-Chinese companies. (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b, xii)
In testimony in 2001, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) singled out China for developing an effective industrial policy in an effort to create its own aerospace industry. It noted in its
testimony that the U.S. International Trade Commission had already found with respect to China, "…the nation's aviation sector intends to pursue a principal role in commercial aircraft manufacturing."11
During a 1998 visit to China to tour aerospace facilities, IAM participants observed the country's enormous aerospace capacity.12 China's aviation industry "consists of more than 200 enterprises that produce and manufacture
products such as aircraft, turboprop engines, aircraft components and subsystems, helicopters, industrial gas turbines, and various electromechanical products" (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b, 58). China's huge
industrial capacity has been noted by other observers as well.13 For example, one research group notes that in China there are six companies devoted to "airframe assembly," eight "engine" companies, 28 entities involved
with "components," and 20 "research institutes."14 The two leading aircraft companies in China (China Aviation Industry Corporation I [AVIC I] and Aviation Industry Corporation II [AVIC II]) "and their subsidiaries have
How did China develop such a huge capacity for aerospace production? While there are
about 491,000 employees" (U.S. Department of Commerce 2005b, 5815).
many different and related methods China uses, a significant one is offsets.16 As globalization critic Jeff Faux said in testimony to Congress, "China is one of
the most aggressive countries in pursuing offsets agreements and, with its market potential and minimal labor standards, it has
substantial leverage in negotiating these agreements" (Faux 2002). And as a business person told the Wall Street Journal, "they're interested in having total access to technology…."17
Of particular concern to the United States is the huge involvement of Boeing in China, an involvement the company acknowledges.
According to its Web site: "Boeing procurement from China is significantly greater than other aviation companies" (Boeing 2007). According to company summaries:
Since the 1980s, Boeing has purchased more than $1 billion in aviation hardware and services from China.
Approximately 4,500 Boeing airplanes with parts and assemblies built by China are flying throughout the world today.
Boeing and Boeing supplier partners have active supplier contracts with China's aviation industry valued at well over $2.5 billion (Boeing 2007).
A detailed listing illustrating Boeing's extensive procurement activities, production work, and supplier involvement in China appears in the appendix.
According to a news report, "Boeing is expanding its relationship with China through plans to double its annual purchases from Chinese companies over the next six years to more than $1 billion per year by 2010" (U.S.
Department of Commerce 2005b, 59, citing Business Daily Update, "Boeing Seeks Higher-Level Cooperation With Chinese Suppliers").
Boeing is, of course, just one of many aerospace companies investing in China's aerospace industry; another is Boeing's chief rival,
Airbus. As quoted in The Australian ("Airbus Enlists China," June 14, 2004), Airbus Chief Executive Noel Forgeard explained his company's philosophy with respect to China: "Airbus is not only selling aircraft in
China but is also committed to the long-term development of China's aviation industry." The Australian also reported that parts of the A380 will be produced in China:
European aircraft maker Airbus has subcontracted a state-owned Chinese manufacturer to make parts for its super-jumbo A380 plane, in a deal worth about $170 million. China Aviation Corp. I (AVIC I) will make panels for
A380 nose-landing gear….China's Shenyang Aircraft Corp., affiliated with AVIC I, would also be subcontracted to make A330/A340 forward-cargo door projects….Five Chinese companies are now making parts for Airbus.
The New York Times reported that Airbus is committed "to buy at least $60 million yearly in parts from China by 2007, rising to $120 million
yearly by 2010."18
According to other news reports, China will "build wing boxes for Airbus" in a $500 million deal,19 and Airbus and China have agreed on "a $9 billion order…for 150 narrow-body A320 aircraft, and said they would study
the possibility of building a final assembly line for the aircraft in China."20 That study apparently produced positive results; as stated in an Airbus press release ("Joint Venture Contract Signed for the A320 Family Final
Assembly Line in Tianjin," June 28, 2007): "The FAL [final assembly line] in Tianjin will be based on the latest state-of-the-art Airbus single-aisle final assembly line in Hamburg, Germany. The aircraft will be assembled and
delivered in China to the same standards as those assembled and delivered in Europe." The significance of such a development cannot be overstated: "the memorandum of understanding between China's National
Development and Reform Commission and Airbus…meant that China was likely to become only the third country assembling Airbus aircraft, after France and Germany."21
Brazil's aerospace industry is also teaming up with China. "In order to supply its domestic market while continuing to learn how to assemble a modern, complete aircraft to Western
standards, two AVIC-II companies teamed with Embraer…in 2002 for co-production of their regional jet (ERJ-145) in Harbin" (Andersen 2008).
Eurocopter, a subsidy of EADS, is also involved with China's aerospace industry. "France's Eurocopter and Singapore Technologies Aerospace have signed with Hafei Aviation, a listed arm of one of China's top military
contractors, to make helicopters for domestic civil use."22
China's aerospace industry is apparently not content to maintain its current level of success. According to news reports, "China is
likely to start developing its own large aircraft rather than rely solely on foreign giants Boeing and Airbus…."23 The country recently announced that it would be
entering the large civil aircraft industry in the next 20 years,24 and, according to news reports, much of the success of this effort depends on the transfer of production and technology from other countries, presumably in the
form of outsourcing and offsets from U.S. and other aerospace companies. And according to a report in Jane's Defence Weekly, "China is developing a new stealthy fighter jet aircraft and many of the design concepts and
components have already been created….This new aircraft is the first Eastern rival to the West's F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to be put into development…."25
China's aerospace industry may even be expanding to space. In an article headlined "The Next Space Race: China Heads to the Stars," the New York Times
(January 22, 2004) raises the possibility of a space race with China, noting:
The Chinese plan to send more astronauts into space next year, to launch a Moon probe within three years, and are aiming to land an
unmanned vehicle on the Moon by 2010….
Will the U.S. aerospace industry remain the strongest in the world? As other countries implement industrial policies based on outsourcing and offsets, the
question becomes more urgent. Moves by countries like China to implement industrial policies targeting U.S. leadership in such
essential industries as aerospace call for a response by U.S. policy makers. Even if China's aerospace industry remains behind that of the United States, it is poised to
contribute to growing global competition. It has the capacity, skilled workforce, and the will to make this a reality.
While the U.S. government continues a hands-off approach to this market-distorting
The virtually unregulated world of offsets only exacerbates this situation.
scheme, other countries are giving their companies significant backing based on well-developed industrial policies.>
25
China – Aerospace prevents war
Maintaining aerospace superiority is key to prevent Sino-US war
Griffin and Lin, 8 - Research Assistant, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
(Christopher Griffin and Joseph Lin, Armed Forces Journal, “China’s Space Ambitions” April 8, 2008,
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27772/pub_detail.asp)
After a decade of fighting the tide, it appears that American attempts to frustrate China's growing military space capabilities have
reached a critical point of failure. This dilemma has no easy solution. A combination of European arms manufacturers and aerospace
firms appear to have decided to provide China with arms and dual-use technology so long as they can avoid providing Beijing with the
lethal tip of its military hardware. Faced with this defeat, the U.S. must retake the initiative in its dealings with both the Chinese and
the Europeans in this critical matter.
In its relationship with China, the U.S. must recognize that the militarization of space inspires the most revisionist elements of Chinese
strategy. Beijing appears to have made the long-term decision that it is in a struggle with the U.S. over a variety of security issues in
East Asia and that preparing for potential military conflict will require the ability to cripple the U.S. military satellite system.
There should be opportunities to engage China on military space issues, even if it has already made this fundamental calculation. It
would be worthwhile to develop a Sino-American strategic dialogue on space in which the U.S. could explain its self-imposed
restrictions on the militarization of space, and how more provocative steps by China may result in the erosion of those restrictions.
Such a dialogue would also provide the U.S. with the opportunity to present nonsensitive areas for cooperation, such as the
standardization of spacecraft docking hatches, a move that helped to decrease tensions during the Cold War. Likewise, as China's
military lawyers analyze the terms under which the PLA could conduct ASAT and other space operations against the U.S., Washington
should demarcate some red lines for Chinese behavior.
Further, recognizing the potential for long-term competition with China over the future control of space, the U.S. must take steps to
mitigate its potential losses and guarantee that it retains escalation superiority in any future conflict. Investing in a hardened, robust
satellite system is the obvious first step in any such effort. Developing redundancy through additional layers or C4ISR capabilities is
another necessary step in this regard. Rapid improvements in unmanned aerial vehicles promise to facilitate such an effort, and would
push the Sino-American competition to a cutting-edge field in which the U.S. retains a clear technological lead.
26
China – A2 only attack out of fear
China’s militarization of space results from his own security concerns, especially over Taiwan, than from any U.S.
militarization
China possesses both the intent and a growing capability to threaten US space systems in the event of a future clash between the two
countries. The PLA's development of ASAT weapons is primarily not a reaction to US space control initiatives. It is driven instead by
very practical considerations of regional security and influence, and the desire to conduct asymmetric warfare against a superior foe if
conflict arises. First, Beijing seeks to offset the dominance of US conventional forces by exploiting their dependence on spaceborne
information assets. Second, China hopes to guarantee the viability of it's nuclear deterrent by holding the critical space-segment of
American missile defense systems at risk. Both of these goals are deeply rooted in the issue of Taiwanese reunification and the
potential for armed conflict over the status of the island. China's growing capability to attack American satellites could play an
important role in a future military confrontation over Taiwan.
27
Solvency – Procurement solves
DOD procurement creates a commercial market for SSP
Mahan, 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/)
What are the main hurdles to developing and deploying space-based solar power?
Let me start by saying that I believe there are three solutions to every complex problem. First, the technical solution - how are we
going to solve the problem (often the easiest). Second, the financial solution - who is going to pay for / profit from the solution.
And third, the political solution - who is going to organize the solution … and take credit for it.
The technical solution for space-based solar power is exciting because no scientific breakthroughs are needed. It is essentially a
complex engineering project. The technical solution will initially be dependent on developing low cost and reliable access to
space, but later we could use resources mined from Moon and near Earth objects like asteroids.
The financial solution will admittedly be very expensive at first, so there must be an early adopter, like the Defense Department, to
provide a market and rewards for those willing to invest in space based solar power and the supporting technologies. Engineering
and scientific advancements and the commercialization of supporting technologies will soon lead to ubiquitous and low cost access
to space and more widespread use of wireless power transmision. Economies of scale will eventually make space-based solar
power affordable, but probably never cheap again, like energy was fifty years ago. Eventual Moon based operations will reduce
costs significantly, since it takes twenty-two times less energy to launch from Moon than from Earth’s gravity well and the use of
lunar materials will allow heavier, more robust structures.
The political solution will most likely be the biggest hurdle to the development of space-based solar power because so many areas
have to be negotiated and agreed upon, not only within the United States, but with our allies around the world, too. Strong energy
independence legislation is the first step that needs to be taken immediately. Treaties and agreements for the military and
commercial use of space must be negotiated and put into place. Universal safety measures must be agreed upon and integrated into
related legislation and treaties. Getting widespread voter (i.e. tax-payer) support to prompt Congress to take action may be the
highest hurdle of all.
Who should be responsible for developing space-based solar power?
The U.S. Government must take a lead role in creating an environment that will enable the development of space-based solar
power. Congress must organize a public - private effort because existing agencies, such as the U.S. House Committee on Science
& Technology, the Department of Energy, the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy, the Pentagon’s National Security
Space Office and NASA, are not set up for the large scale manufacturing that will be required.
The U.S. private sector will be key in the development of space-based solar power, and there is much precedent for Congress to
foster just that kind of private sector development. The 1984 Commerical Space Launch Act was signed by President Reagan and
the 1990 Launch Services Purchase Act was signed by President Bush. These Acts resulted in the private partnership, the United
Launch Alliance (ULA), which places most U.S. payloads in orbit today. Arianespace, another private company, is similarly
responsible for most European payloads. Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), such as Space Exploration
Technologies (SpaceX) and Rocketplane Kistler (RpK) are already competing for U.S. orbital services contracts. Virgin Galactic,
owned and operated by Sir Richard Branson and Burt Rutan, are already making inroads in space tourism.
28
Solvency – boosts civilian market
Military procurement jumpstarts the civilian market for SPS
The Space Review 7, (Taylor Dinerman, “Solar power satellites and space radar”
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/July/07262007/07262007-16.htm, July 16, 2007) // CCH
The first steps in such a program would be to begin work on an experiment to prove that power transmission in space via laser is
possible. Already lasers are being used for communications in civil and military applications; taking this one step beyond to encompass power should be within the
state of the art. At the same time the US Defense Department and NASA could begin joint work on a new generation of high-capacity power systems for future
spacecraft. The power management and thermal control needs of a spacecraft that will carry a human crew to Mars may not be all that different from those of an SPS or
an SR satellite.
The bulk of the development work on the radars themselves can be left until later in the program. Meanwhile, the US could profitably study less ambitious space radar
programs such as Canada’s Radarsat. Launching one or two modest technology development satellites over the next five or ten years would be a helpful way to set the
stage for a new SR program. In the long term, say, by around 2010, the GMTI radar could be replaced and supplemented by an Air Moving Target Indicator (AMTI),
which would need even more power.
Instead of using a single large antenna or multiple smaller ones on the same spacecraft, a future stealthy SR could use radars on multiple satellites. Formation flying is
now commonplace and coordinating multiple beams from two or three satellites in different orbits should not be that hard. The biggest problem will be to prove to
Congress that the technology is ready for prime time.
Almost all of America’s major military space programs are too far along to effectively incorporate the lessons of China’s ASAT test. SR, due to repeated budget cuts, is
the great exception. Other satellite programs that could be modified to incorporate the needs of the new space warfare requirements include the T-SAT Transformational
Communications project and the possibly the NRO’s problem-plagued Future Imagery Architecture (FIA).
The stealthiness and robustness of all these programs, or their successors, would benefit from being able to draw electricity from a set
of SPSs in GEO. The solar power satellites themselves would not necessarily have to be owned by the US government. They could be
built privately based on a contract that promises that the Defense Department would buy a given amount of power at a predetermined
price. This would be similar to the “power by the hour” contracts that are sometimes signed with jet engine manufacturers or the privately-financed initiative that the
British RAF has established with a consortium for a new squadron of Airbus refueling tanker aircraft.
In GEO an SPS is a large and conspicuous target. A realistic new space architecture would have to find ways to give both active and passive
protection to such valuable assets. At the same time, these measures must not detract from the commercial profitability of the operation. The Civil Reserve
Air Fleet system is a possible model; airlines buy some planes that are modified for possible military use in an emergency and the
government compensates them for the extra weight they carry while in normal commercial use.
Space solar power is, in the long run, inevitable. The Earth’s economy is going to need so much extra power over the next few decades
that every new system that can be shown to be viable will be developed. If the US were to develop space solar power for military
applications it would give the US civilian industry a big head start. As long as the military requirements are legitimate, there is no
reason why this cannot be made into a win-win outcome.
DOD purchasing creates incentives for private sector development

Boyle, 07 (Alan, MSNBC.com, “Power from space? Pentagon likes the idea,” 10/12, lexis)
The report - which was done on an unfunded basis and took advantage of online collaboration with outside contributors - notes that
several factors have changed in the decade since NASA took its most recent in-depth look at the space power concept (PDF file).
Today's best solar cells are about three times as efficient as they were in 1997, while crude-oil prices are roughly three times as high.
And in the post-9/11 era, energy security has taken on far more importance.
"The technology has advanced vastly, and the security situation has changed quite a bit, as well as the economic situation," Marine Lt.
Col. Paul Damphousse, who took over the study from Smith last month, told msnbc.com. "Those things warranted another look."
Those factors still don't make space solar power attractive for commercial users, but a better case could be made for the Defense
Department. The U.S. military pays a premium for its power in the battlefield, when you consider the cost of shipping oil out of the
Middle East, refining it, then shipping the fuel back to the combat zone and burning it in electrical generators, Miller said. All that
brings the current power price tag to $1 or more per killowatt-hour, compared with 5 to 10 cents on the domestic market, the report
says.
Even then, the economic equation still doesn't add up, due primarily to the high cost of launching payloads to orbit. But in the near
future, the U.S. military could become a potential "anchor tenant customer" for space-generated power, the report says.
"The business case may close in the near future with appropriate technology investment and risk-reduction efforts by the U.S.
government, and with appropriate financial incentives to industry," the report says.
Smith said the military would prefer to buy its power from a commercial space provider, rather than operating the system itself. "It is
our goal to move this entire project out of DOD [the Department of Defense] as quickly as possible," he said. "Energy is not our
business. We want to be a customer."
29
Solvency – SSP will work
Resources, capital, and technology are available for space-based solar power
The Engineer, 5 (“Solar Power From Space: Sun Seekers” 03-11-05, LN) // DCM
the increase in launch frequencies required to build an SPS system would go some way to
<This will require a significant reduction in launch costs. But
reducing these costs, and this reduction could well open up new markets, further decreasing prices. Companies such as California- based SpaceX are already
developing low-cost launch vehicles with the aim of making access to space more affordable. But with launch costs of $15.8m (£8.2m) for SpaceX's 6,020kg payload Falcon V (£1,362 per kilo), there is still some way to go.
The concept of solar power-generating satellites is also being investigated as a means of transmitting power to bases on the Moon or Mars, where lunar eclipses and Martian dust storms would hamper the effectiveness of
ground-based solar generators.
Beyond Europe and Japan, US researchers have also been looking at the concept . NASA first began studying SPS after the oil embargo of the mid- 1970s. Over the years the agency has
evaluated almost 30 systems. Chief among these is the Suntower concept. Similar in principle to the European Sail Tower, it consists of a constellation of tether-based solar satellites that would initially be deployed in low
Earth orbit, then moved to an elliptical Earth orbit for operation.
While the status of the core technology meant that early concepts were prohibitively expensive, studies over the past 20 years have identified a steady improvement in many
key technologies.
John Mankins, manager of NASA's Exploration Systems Research and Technology division and a key advocate of SPS, puts much of this progress down to advances in exploration technology. He said that while there's
currently no focused SPS programme at NASA, much of the core technology required to build an SPS system has advanced significantly in the past
couple of years.
Mankins explained that important work has been done on the development of modular space structures that can be assembled and maintained in orbit by robots. The agency has been developing a range of walking and
crawling robots since the late 1990s, including the anthropomorphic 'robo-naut', a highly flexible 'snake' robot, and the Skyworker mobile crane system concept.
'We have made
Once an SPS system has been assembled it must still be moved into the optimum operational orbit, and Mankins said that work carried out on in- space transportation could be extremely important.
substantial investment into advanced electromagnetic propulsion that is able to move large payloads cheaply out of low Earth orbit.'
But perhaps the most important strides have been made in the improvement in the conversion efficiency rate of solar cells. 'We have developed new types of solar cell that are highly
efficient and lightweight,' he said.
Like their ESA counterparts, NASA's researchers have also investigated a variety of approaches to wireless power transmission, including
microwave phased arrays using magnetrons or solid state transmitters, as well as visible light transmission using solid state lasers. But Mankins said that beaming is one area in which NASA has made little progress.
The other key obstacle, he said, is the cost of access to space. 'Large space solar power systems are going to weigh so much more than anything else we're ever going to do that we've got to have really low-cost launches.'
While this may remain something of a dream one proposed method of keeping launch costs down for SPS is to develop smaller concepts that use solar mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays.
Mankins said that while the technology exists to produce small-scale demonstration systems and put them into orbit with existing launchers, an economical system that sells power for profit is a couple of decades away. 'If we
so many technologies are being driven by the needs of exploration that there's a good
make the right kind of progress, you could see SPS systems by 2030 -
foundation for it.'
But while Mankins believes that the SPS will be driven by exploration, others have claimed that the concept will be moved forward by more commercially minded industries.
Prof Marty Hoffert, a leading expert in climate change from New York University's physics department, has suggested that, with co-operation from the communications and utility companies, it should be possible to
piggyback space solar power systems on the ever-increasing number of low-Earth-orbiting (LEO) communications satellites.
Such a system would help share launch costs and provide access to an existing space-based infrastructure of sorts. Also, by using communications satellites in low Earth orbit, only a few hundred miles up, microwaves used to
beam energy to Earth would disperse less than those beamed from geostationery orbit, enabling the construction of smaller ground-based receivers.
While there's little government backing for such a system, researchers like Hoffert believe that private sector activity could help push the concept forward. One promising host for such a project would be the Iridium Satellite
System, which uses a constellation of 66 low Earth- orbiting (LEO) satellites operated by Boeing to provide its customers, including the US Department of Defence, with complete coverage of the Earth. Satellite phone
company Globalstar also operates a constellation of 48 LEO satellites, while Virginia-based global data service provider Orbcomm has 30 operational LEO satellites and a licence for 17 more.
Hoffert claimed that the future of SPS depends on the willingness of electrical and telecoms companies to get involved. He said that there is a general level of ignorance in the business community about the potential of SPS,
'Engineers can solve the problem of transforming the world energy system away from fossil fuels, but it's a major
and energy technology in general.
challenge, and we need to be open to new ideas like space solar power,' he said.
Hoffert is one of an increasingly vocal group of engineers, physicists, atmospheric researchers and economists calling for a massive R&D programme in the US along the lines of the Manhattan & Apollo projects to develop a
broad spectrum of alternative energy technologies. 'Right now decisions on the global climate/energy problem are predominantly made by economists and politicians. Good guys, sometimes, but more people need to work on
this who have the expertise and skills to make something happen. Once innovative energy technologies are demonstrated convincingly, and the potential for cost-effectiveness shown, venture capitalists will pile on, as they
did for computers, telecommunications, biotech and now nanotech.'
Could SPS be a compelling enough technology to make this happen? NASA's John Mankins certainly thinks so. 'The US currently
generates something like 700 or 800GW, the world generates four times that. A hundred years from now it's going to take thousands of
gigawatts to satisfy the world's needs. We will require a whole set of energy sources to do that and SPS could be one of the major
ones.'>
SSP is technologically feasible

Cho, 07 (Dan, New Scientist, “Can Solar Power work in Space?”, 11/24, lexis)
John Mankins, a former NASA research manager who worked on space solar power, says a lot has changed since then. Mankins now spends his days
as a cheerleader for space solar power through his company Managed Energy Technologies, based in Ashburn, Virginia. He points to three key developments that could bring down
the size and cost of a solar power satellite to realistic levels. First, solar cells are now four times as efficient at converting solar
energy to electricity as they were in the 1970s, and improving, so the area of solar arrays required can be cut. Beaming technology has improved too.
Solid-state devices can now be used to point microwave beams electronically rather than relying on a swivelling antenna, so small, easily assembled modular antennas could
be used in place of the kilometre-high monolith originally called for. Finally, robots are now capable enough to do much of the construction work.
30
Solvency – A2 – long time off
There are no technological barriers and the first demonstration would occur in 4 years
Ashworth, 08 - Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society (Stephen, The Space Review, “In defense of the knights”, 6/23,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1)
Usually, Day’s articles are among the best-written and most informative space commentary on the market. But this time he appears to have made a number of
unjustified assertions.
He writes: “Space activists, who are motivated by the desire to personally live and work in space, do not care about SSP per se […] they have latched on to SSP because
it is expedient.” There may well exist people who answer to this description, but if so, they must be remarkably shortsighted. The facts are clear: fossil fuels have served
civilization well in the first phase of its industrialization (approximately 1700–2000), but possess a number of problems, of which the current climate hysteria is only
one; the others concern the long-term sustainability and growth of industrial energy consumption. Therefore we can predict an imminent shift of the baseload energy
supply away from fossil fuels to, most likely, a mixture of artificial nuclear fission and fusion, and terrestrial and space-based solar power.
I should add that my personal chances of ever living and working in space are zero. My concern is that society should make the best strategic choices for its prosperity
and growth. Given the fact that almost all the natural resources of the universe of potential economic value are extraterrestrial, I am therefore bound to argue the
importance of systematic access to those resources.
SSP is not merely expedient, rather it is strategic, in the sense that it has the potential to permanently raise the whole of human civilization to a higher level of
prosperity, security and spatial range. According to Day’s reading of the NSSO study, this is not for us, but only apparently for future generations, many decades in the
future: “The NSSO study […] states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP […] that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently
exist… and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years.”
This came as news to me. Since SSP has been regularly used on a small scale to power satellites for forty years already (in marked contrast
to the development effort that has gone into nuclear fusion), how could the NSSO have concluded that the technology “does not
exist”? What actually does the NSSO report say? It reports:
“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.” (p.20)
“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.”
(p.20)
This sounds promising. Does it mean we’ll be able to start work in forty years time?
“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 capable agency with a transformational agenda. A proposed spiral demonstration project can be found in Appendix B.” (p.22–23)
Turning to Appendix B, we find that its introductory paragraphs point out that significant technological progress has been achieved in the past decade, which would
allow an accelerated pace of progress compared with that proposed by NASA in the late 1990s. But Day is not impressed, for his article reads: “from a technological
standpoint, we are not much closer to space solar power today than we were when NASA conducted a big study of it in the 1970s.” He seems to have been reading a
completely different report.
Appendix B is subheaded: “AN AGGRESSIVE AND ACHIEVABLE SBSP TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR ROADMAP: 10 Years — 10 Megawatts — $10
Billion”. It offers an updated program to build “an integrated large-scale demonstrator, to be flown in less than 10 years, at a cost of less than $10B, and delivering
power to the Earth of approximately 10 megawatts.” Again, Day’s assertion that the technology is “unlikely to exist for the next forty years” is
completely contradicted by the actual contents of the NSSO study report.
31
Solvency – A2 cost too high
Cost estimates are based on old studies when solar components were much more expensive
Nansen 2000 - President Solar Space Industries, (Ralph, Statement to the United States Congress Subcommittee on Space Science
“The Technical Feasibility of Space Solar Power” Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, United States House of
Representatives Committee on Science September 7, 2000, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=2571) // CCH
The situation is much different now than it was in 1980 when the earlier studies were terminated. In the ensuing years much has
changed. Other programs have sponsored research and development of several of the enabling technologies and much of the required
infrastructure has been developed. Studies have continued in several countries outside of the United States and some limited activity is
sustained by individuals and companies on their own funds within the United States. The development of terrestrial solar cells has
caused the photovoltaic industry to grow from a very small specialty group of companies manufacturing expensive solar cells in
laboratory quantities to an industry that is approaching maturity. Annual production is now well over a hundred megawatts and
growing rapidly. Production processes have become automated and the number of different types of cells is greatly expanded. Thin
film cells with efficiencies over 18% on metal film substrates and with inherent resistance to space radiation degradation will soon be
in production. These cells will produce 1400 watts per kilogram of mass with a cost potential of 35 cents per watt. The decreased
weight and cost will significantly reduce satellite cost and weight from earlier estimates.
SSP will be cost competitive

Mankins, 8 - president of the Space Power Association, and former Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies, Office of Space Flight at
NASA (John, Ad Astra, “Inexhaustible Energy from Orbit” Spring 2008, pg. 20, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf)
The economic goal of any new energy technology must be to deliver energy at prices that are competitive with existing and expected
new providers. In the case of renewable energy, this goal has allowed for policy-driven “price adjustments” such as tax incentives or
baseline price targets that may be set by government players interested in the development of a specific new technology. Such price
adjustments have been commonplace in the development of renewable energy during the past several decades. In addition, price
adjustments may be introduced for the purpose of achieving some other public good. For example, trading in carbon dioxide (CO2)
“credits” is a form of price adjustment, intended to reduce overall CO2 emissions that are widely believed responsible for global
climate change. In the case of space solar power, what cost goals must be achieved in order for energy from space to compete with
Earth-bound competitors?
Historically, manufactured spacecraft have been few in number, highly sophisticated in design and critical in operations. Examples
include global communications satellites (as of 2007, the satellite radio industry in the U.S. was based on only two competing
spacecraft), billion-dollar scientific probes in deep space (NASA’s Cassini spacecraft to Saturn was a one-of-a-kind engineering
marvel, as was the European Huygens probe it dropped on Titan), or a handful of military reconnaissance satellites that are essential to
national security. Each of these space systems is a near-miracle, a uniquely-designed “Swiss watch” that must operate for years on a
single winding. Most space systems developments are also highly expensive, prone to cost overruns during their implementation, and
subject to sometimes lengthy schedule delays.
Space solar power need not be impossibly cheap to compete. However, two high-level goals must be achieved. First, the mass of the
system in space cannot be greater than about 3-6 kilograms (7-19 lbs.) for each kilowatt of energy delivered to the ground. Second, the
cost for mass in space cannot be greater than about $3,000/kg ($1360/lb). I.e., the total installed cost of a space solar power system
cannot be more than about $10,000 per kilowatt of power delivered on the ground. Remarkably, these cost goals now appear
achievable using the technical approaches described previously.
32

Solar Power Satellites Affirmative

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Solar Power Satellites Affirmative

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Solar Power Satellites Georgia

Affirmative Novice Packet

AND current technology lacks sufficient funding

the United States is losing its dominance

U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us

You can count with one hand

Everything we think of when we consider

With its allies, the United States has labored to create an

American generosity has done more to

AND – china has the technology to devastate us now

DOD purchasing is the number one incentive for SSP development

Military procurement reduces financial risk to the commerical industry

U.S. space leadership is declining

A Job For America's Aerospace Industry

Aerospace is vital to hegemony and the economy

DOD purchasing creates incentives for private sector development

SSP is technologically feasible

SSP will be cost competitive

Você também pode gostar