Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers!

1NC

On Solvency (1/2)

1. There are major technical barriers to Solar Power Satellites – conversion efficiency, waste heat,
expensive access, and environmental damage – and the technology their cards claim to use has never
been tested in space

Mankins 8. John C. Mankins, former manager of NASA’s Advanced Concepts Studies Office of Space Flight, Spring ’08,
“Energy Free from Orbit,” Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society), http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-
2008.pdf

If collecting solar power in space is such a good idea, why isn’t it already being done today? The simple answer:
because it’s hard! The platform itself offers major challenges. One challenge is to efficiently convert sunlight
into electrical power, and in turn efficiently create an electrically (not mechanically) steered beam for
transmission to a receiver on Earth. Another closely related platform challenge is to cost- effectively remove
the remaining waste heat from the platform and its electronics so that it won’t overheat and fail. The platform must
meet these challenges while being as lightweight and inexpensive as possible. There are also a range of detailed
issues involving pointing and control of the platform, and of designing platform systems for assembly, maintenance, and
repair.
A major barrier to all space endeavors also applies to space solar power, and that is affordable access to space.
This barrier is one of compelling importance. The problem of space access includes both low-cost and highly-
reliable Earth-to-orbit transportation, and in-space transportation. (Fortunately, one of the key ingredients in
overcoming this barrier is having a market that requires many flights. It’s hard to imagine how air travel between
continents would be affordable if the aircraft were used once or twice per year rather than once or twice per day!)
Advances that drive down the cost of space operations present significant hurdles, too. These hurdles
involve a range of capabilities, most of which have never been demonstrated in space—but all of which are
entirely taken for granted here on Earth. The kinds of capabilities in question include the highly-autonomous assembly of
large structures, the deployment and integration of modular electronic systems, refu eling, and repair and maintenance.
(The key ingredient is to perform such operations without large numbers of operators and sustaining engineers on Earth—
which drive the high cost of contemporary space operations.)
Environmental interactions pose another potential challenge. It is not yet understood how the space
environment may affect the space solar power platform or how transmitting the energy may affect
Earth’s atmosphere.

2. Satellites are vulnerable to space debris – anything larger than an M&M can destroy them

Lewis 4. Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the Nuclear Strategy and Nonproliferation Initiative at the New America Foundation,
July ’04, “What if Space Were Weaponized?”, Center for Defense Information http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf

There are, however, dangers to placing such important assets in space. Satellites are inherently
vulnerable. They travel in predictable, fixed orbits — this is the reason that some in the Air Force call
intercepting a satellite “scheduling.” Because of the high velocities of objects in orbit, even a small object can
destroy the most durable military satellite. For example, engineers cannot shield satellites against orbital
debris larger than one centimeter in diameter – anything larger than an M&M.

3. The plan has a long timeframe – satellites won’t even be launched until 2050
Foust 7. Jeff Foust, aerospace analyst and editor/publisher of The Space Review, 8-13-07, “A Renaissance for Space
Solar Power?”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/931/1

Smith made it clear, though, that he’s not looking for a quick fix that will suddenly make solar power satellites feasible in
the near term. “If I can close this deal on space-based solar power, it’s going to take a long time,” he said.
“The horizon we’re looking at is 2050 before we’re able to do something significant.” The first major
milestone, he said, would be a small demonstration satellite that could be launched in the next eight to ten
years that would demonstrate power beaming from GEO. However, he added those plans could change
depending on developments of various technologies that could alter the direction space solar power systems would go.
“That 2050 vision, what that architecture will look like, is carved in Jell-O.”

[“Smith” refers to Lt. Col. Michael Smith, an officer in the US Air Force and Chief of Future Concepts of the National
Security Space Office]

1
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On Solvency (1/2)

4. Satellite arcing destroys satellites and solar cells

T. Kitamura et al.; Sanmaru, Y.; Kawasaki, T.; Hosoda, S.; Toyoda, K.; Mengu Cho Discharges and Electrical Insulation
in Vacuum, 2006. ISDEIV apos;06. International Symposium on Volume 2, Issue , 25-29 Sept. 2006 Page(s):nil4 - nil4
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4193815/4194906/04194989.pdf?temp=x)

Recently, an arcing on satellite solar array due to interaction between space plasma and the array threatening
safety of spacecraft is a big issue. The arcing causes degradation of solar array at malfunction of
instruments on satellites. The discharge is caused by differential potential between satellite body and insulator surfaces
like coverglass of solar array, which are charged by ambient plasma. This single shot discharge is called "primary arc".
The primary arc can evolve to so-called "sustained arc" that permanently short-circuits adjacent solar cells
or a solar cell and conductive substrate. In order to prevent arcs on the surface of solar array, it is necessary to carry out
arc tests simulating discharge phenomenon on solar array. In this paper, we investigated the effect of plasma
environments on sustained arcs. GaAs solar cells were used for the test. Laboratory tests were carried out with an external
circuit simulating a spacecraft power system. Solar array coupon panels simulating the hot and return ends of a string
circuit were tested under various combinations of string voltage and string current. We revealed that the threshold
conditions for sustained arc formation were different in test plasma environment even when the string voltage and the
string current are same.

2
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On NASA

1. NASA runs extremely expensive and inefficient programs

Jim Grichar, CIA Analyst, 1/24/04, Wielding the Budget Axe: It’s Time to Abolish NASA,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar33.html

NASA has a history of running expensive boondoggle programs, from the man on the moon program of the
1960's–mid-1970's (three men lost their lives early in that program), to the colossal, costly and deadly space
shuttle program (13 or 14 astronauts have lost their lives and the shuttle cannot put satellites into orbit
for less than the Europeans or the Chinese), to the wasted billions on the international space station, the
soon to be shut-down Hubble telescope, and other failed satellite missions. In fact, NASA is essentially
nothing more than a lobbying arm for the public funding of expensive science projects and subsidies to
the aerospace industry.

2. NASA would not pursue space solar power. Current priorities prove

Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, “NASA and Space Solar Power,”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1

There was no follow-up to this study, partly because of a lack of urgency in the era of cheap energy that existed a decade
ago and also because NASA did not, and does not today, see itself as an auxiliary to the Department of Energy.
NASA does science and exploration and not much else. Along with its contractors it can develop new technologies
that apply directly to those two missions, but outside of that it will resist being forced to spend money on projects
that it does not see as falling within those two missions.
Technology development in general has been cut back. The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has been closed. There
is a minimal ongoing effort to build up some technologies that may in the future be useful for reusable launch vehicle
development, but it is hard to see how this fits into a coherent future program. The agency has its priorities and is
ruthlessly sticking to them.

3. Space solar power through NASA will be blocked by other departments

Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, “NASA and Space Solar Power,”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1

NASA is not the US Department of Spatial Affairs: it does not have the statutory authority to control, regulate, or promote
commercial space activities such as telecommunications satellites, space tourism, space manufacturing, or space solar
power. Such powers are spread throughout the government in places like the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, the Department of Commerce, and elsewhere. Even if NASA were somehow to get the funds and the
motivation to do space solar power, these other institutions would resist what they would recognize as an
encroachment on their turf.

4. NASA has no room for space solar power programs

Taylor Dinerman, author and journalist based in New York City, 5/19/08, “NASA and Space Solar Power,”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1130/1, Malek

Until the shuttle is retired and NASA has a new and secure method of getting people into space, either
with the Orion capsule on top of the Ares 1 or perhaps another rocket, or using the SpaceX Dragon
capsule and Falcon 9 combination, there is no room for any other major programs. It will require all they
can do to cope with their current programs and to deal with a new president and his or her
administration. They don’t need any more distractions right now.

3
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On Colonization

1. Space exploration is driven by greed, environmental exploitation, and war. The consequences of
expanding it are space epidemics, nuclear arms race, and global conflicts.

Gagnon 99. Bruce Gagnon. Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce
K., "Space Exploration and Exploitation," http://www.space4peace.orglarticleslscandm.htm )

We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having
shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers"
are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that
regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden
space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new
epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious
ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will
create new global conflicts and confrontations.

2. Humanity is resilient. Extinction highly unlikely.

Bruce Tonn, Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, 2005, “Human Extinction Scenarios,”
www.budapestfutures.org/downloads/abstracts/Bruce%20Tonn%20-%20Abstract.pdf)

The human species faces numerous threats to its existence. These include global climate change, collisions
with near-earth objects, nuclear war, and pandemics. While these threats are indeed serious, taken separately
they fail to describe exactly how humans could become extinct. For example, nuclear war by itself would
most likely fail to kill everyone on the planet, as strikes would probably be concentrated in the northern
hemisphere and the Middle East, leaving populations in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand some
hope of survival. It is highly unlikely that any uncontrollable nanotechnology could ever be produced but
even it if were, it is likely that humans could develop effective, if costly, countermeasures, such as producing the
technologies in space or destroying sites of runaway nanotechnologies with nuclear weapons. Viruses could indeed kill
many people but effective quarantine of a healthy people could be accomplished to save large numbers of
people. Humans appear to be resilient to extinction with respect to single events.

4
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

Links to Militarization

1. Solar Power satellite research will be implemented for space weapons technology.
Kim Ramos, Major, Air Force, 4/00, "Solar Power Constellations Implications for the United States Air force,"
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA394928

As the world population increases and natural resources used to produce energy decrease, alternative methods to produce
sustainable, environmental cost effective energy are required. One proposed solution to the problem is solar power
satellites. Solar power satellites are satellites, which collect the energy of the sun, convert it onto a beam, and beam that
energy to a receiving antenna. The receiving antenna converts the beam into electricity and feeds the electricity into a
power grid. The receiving antenna may be located on another satellite, or on Earth. Presented here are several solar power
satellite proposals, architectures, incremental technology demonstrations and predictions as to when they will become
commercially viable. Given the previous information, this paper analyzes the implications for the Air Force in relation to
doctrine and future plans. The research method consisted of a search of scientific journals, published symposium papers,
and research reports. The search focused on the current research on solar power satellites, and Air Force
programs, which have power issues. Based on the research, the Air Force should plan to capitalize on the
advantages of solar power satellite constellations. Solar power satellites can assist with implementing
various plans (i.e., long endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, space-based radar, lasers, and small
satellites), complying with public law, and reducing the logistics tail associated with an expeditionary force.

5
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On Militarization (1/2)

1. Space weapons are prone to accidents, their deployment makes nuclear, biological, and chemical
warfare inevitable.

Mitchell et. al. In 1. Gordon Mitchell et al, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pittsburg,
7/2001. ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense no. 6, , http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html.

A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale
glosses over the tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased likelihood of
their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to
arming the heavens, 'antiballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking
nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of
spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament,
explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35
To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such
interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the
Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure
into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting
Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability of
vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands
and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of
accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled'
industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each
other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to
foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is
meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36
Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely
make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate
the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering
from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than
would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a
quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever
conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction,
it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum
force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a
computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

2. Space weapons would undermine U.S. conventional strength

Michael Katz-Hyman, research associate for the Space Security Project of the Henry L. Stimson Center, and Michael
Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, directed defense policy and programme reviews at the US Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, April 03, “Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space,”
pg. 89

Given the extraordinary and growing differential in power that the United States enjoys in ground
warfare, sea power, and air power, it is hard to propound compelling arguments for seeking to
supplement these advantages by weaponizing space. The current U.S. lead in the military utilization of
space has never been greater and is unchallenged. If the United States pushes to extend its pronounced
military dominance into space, others will view this through the prism of the Bush administration's
national security strategy, which places emphasis on preventive war and preemption. Foreign leaders
will not passively accept U.S. initiatives to implement a doctrine of space dominance. They will have
ample, inexpensive means to take blocking action, as it is considerably easier to negate U.S. dominance
in space than on the ground, at sea, and in the air. The introduction of space weaponry and ASAT testing
are therefore likely introduce grave complications for the terrestrial military advantages that the United
States has worked so hard, and at such expense, to secure.

6
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On Militarization (2/2)

3. Space Based Solar Power is not a reliable weapon – it can’t hit targets with intense light, and cheaper
options exist

Rouge 8. Joseph D. Rouge, director of the National Security Space Office, space-based solar power study group under a
government organization that is responsible for integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and
commercial space activities , Spring ’08, “Strategic Importance,” Ad Astra (magazine of the National Space Society),
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less- expensive
options. For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to
destroy large enemy targets.
3. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that
reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sun- light; a worker could safely walk in the center of the
beam. The physics of microwave trans- mission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent
beam focusing above a pre-determined maximum intensity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a
unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever
be lost or disrupted.
4. SBSP would not be a preci- sion weapon. Today’s militar- ies are looking for more precise and lower
collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is
just too wide to shoot indi- vidual targets—even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm.

4. Space weapons damage military power by opening military assets to new and various threats

Deblois in 3. Bruce M. Deblois, Summer 03, “The Advent of Space Weapons,” Astropolitics, Vol. 1 No. 1

In this view, a space-weaponizing country creates both the powder keg of global instability (where it has
weakened its own international posture) as well as the spark of regional instability (where it has made
itself a target of pre- emption and escalation). Coupled with this very unstable environment, it can also be
argued that the same country that weaponizes space may actually damage its own military power. Much of
the impetus behind space weaponization stems from perceived military utility, to include national missile
defense applications for boost-phase intercept, time-critical targeting, and defense mechanisms for critical space systems.
Ironically, the posturing of more military assets in space could actually weaken the military posture of
those that seek further military advantage in that domain. Space assets are already a center of gravity (CoG), or
at least a critical concentration of military force enhancement assets. To deploy more systems in space in an attempt to
protect this CoG only complicates the problem. In spite of the added defenses, the preponderance of threats will
remain: denial and deception, electronic warfare (e.g. uplink and downlink jamming), ground facilities
disruption, micro-satellites (e.g. space mines), direct ascent interceptors or even a nuclear detonation in
space.

5. Space Weapons kill cooperation crucial to solve proliferation, climate change, and terrorism

Union For Concerned Scientists, 6/23/08, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/

Left unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger
a space arms race. That would divert economic and political resources from other pressing issues, and
hinder international cooperation necessary to make progress on such problems as nuclear
nonproliferation, climate change, and terrorism. In addition, increasing reliance on satellites for crucial
military functions could cause instability in a crisis. Military war games suggest that the loss of
important satellites, such as reconnaissance satellites, could spark a quick escalation in a conflict.

7
Charles Page HS Say No to Lasers! 1NC

On Asteroids

1. Asteroids won’t cause extinction. Extinction level collisions happen less than every 500,000 years.
Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, 2006, Global Agenda,
www.globalagendamagazine.com/2006/Bostrom.asp)
It is sad that humanity as a whole has not invested even a few million dollars to improve its thinking about how it may best
ensure its own survival. Some existential risks are difficult to study in a rigorous way but we will not know what insights
we might develop until we do the research. There are also some sub-species of existential risk that can be measured, such
as the risk of a species-destroying meteor or asteroid impact. This particular risk turns out to be very small. A
meteor or an asteroid would have to be considerably larger than 1km in diameter to pose an existential
risk. Fortunately, such objects hit the Earth less than once in 500,000 years on average.