1ac heg Advantage Scenario 1 is Leadership
Perception Solves Deterrence
Download 1.32 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Pfaltzgraff and Van Cleave et al. 9
- BP overview No longer constrained by ABM Cost and tech challenges are not main impediment Tech already developed
- Testing has been done already Most components of BP have already been shown to work Tests have been done to give insights and support for further development
- BP tech is proven to work in space BP sensors and computer system was used in Clementine mission Clementine space-qualified BP tech except propulsion system
- Iridium proves production works Iridium launched 95 spacecrafts Only 2 of 95 didn’t fail (good rate for space stuff)
- Would need maybe 10 people to operate Wood et. Al 9
- Pebble tech in current context Key tech is better in a lot of ways Pebble now would be smaller and perform better
Perception Solves Deterrenceno weapon is perfect, but still need to go forward even imperfect BMD would deter adversaries(desert storm proves) Frederick 9- Lt Col Lorinda A. Frederick, USAF, Master of Airpower Art and Science, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air & Space Power Journal Fall 2009 – Volume XXIII, No. 3, No. AFRP 10-1, http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/fal09/frederick.html#frederick The United States may need to examine the standards it applies to the fielding of other BMD systems and adjust expectations for an initial SBMD capability. Henry Kissinger has commented on the standard of perfection applied to missile defense: The experts had all the technical arguments on their side, but Reagan had got hold of an elemental political truth: in a world of nuclear weapons, leaders who make no effort to protect their peoples against accident, mad opponents, nuclear proliferation, and a whole host of other foreseeable dangers, invite the opprobrium of posterity if disaster ever does occur. That it was not possible at the beginning of a complicated research program to demonstrate SDI’s maximum effectiveness was inherent in the complexity of the problem; no weapon would ever have been developed if it first had had to submit to so perfectionist a criterion.55 Fielding even imperfect elements of the architecture may deter an adversary, as occurred in Desert Storm when imperfect TMD helped keep Israel out of the war. The fact that senior leaders and policy makers tend to focus on current issues because they are more tangible puts the United States at risk of not funding research critical to its future defense. America may need to avoid pressures to sacrifice long-term research for the sake of short-term procurement by moving away from having policy determine the technologies pursued and letting feasible technologies inform policies necessary to deter threats. Tech exists now Better than in the 1990s We are more developed now Pfaltzgraff and Van Cleave et al. 9, Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. 28 Although the Brilliant Pebbles program was terminated in the early 1990s, advances in the commercial, civil, and other defense sectors since that time would now permit even lighter mass, lower cost, and higher performance than would have been achieved by the 1990-era technology base. Thus, lighter weight and smarter components could now empower a Brilliant Pebbles interceptor with greater acceleration/ velocity, making possible boost-phase intercept of even short- and medium-range ballistic missiles as well as high-acceleration ICBMs, thus surpassing the capabilities of the 1990 Brilliant Pebbles.16 BP overview No longer constrained by ABM Cost and tech challenges are not main impediment Tech already developed Tech has advanced a lot since then Built and deployed in 5 years at a cost of $5-10 billion Wood et. Al 9- Drs. Lowell Wood, Ed English, Lyn Pleasance and Arno Ledebuhr who principals in conducting the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine programs contributed in writing the appendix. Report chaired by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Appendix I: The Legacy of Brilliant Pebbles, Clementine, and Iridium for Future Space-Based Missile Defenses”, in the report “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. I60 Since withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, the United States is no longer legally precluded from acquiring highly effective space-based interceptor defenses, moreover in a very short time-interval. The primary impediment to doing so arises from lack of political will, rather than diffcult or costly technical challenges. The needed technology was developed during the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations (1984-1992), was abandoned by the Clinton administration in 1993, and has not yet been revived. At best, there have been hints that the current administration may initiate a plan to begin a “space-based testbed” in a future administration, sometime in the next decade. Such plans often reflect a false view that space-based interceptor systems are much more complex and costly – or less “technically ready” – than ground-based defenses, which are the primary focus of ongoing missile defense programs. But that premise does not square with history, which should be reviewed from time to time to make clear that the choice for not giving the American people the benefits of space-based defenses is purely a political decision – made quite deliberately by the past two administrations, indicating the bipartisan nature of the political aversion to building effective space-based defenses. Current missile defense programs are often traced to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), launched by President Ronald Reagan in his March 23, 1983 speech and the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) formed in April 1984. But, while many SDI programs indeed have descendants in ongoing missile defense programs, notably missing since 1993 is any serious effort to consider space-based defenses, which were previously crucially important – literally, primal – to the overall layered defense architecture.1 In particular, as discussed below, space-based interceptors were easily the most innovative, most mature, cost-effective defense system to result from the $30 billion invested in the SDI during the Reagan and Bush-41 administrations.2 The following discussion briefly traces the evolution of space-based interceptors during the SDI era and relevant technology demonstrations through the mid-1990s, when all the needed technologies were demonstrated such that there can be little objective doubt of the SDI claims for spacebased interceptor systems. Since then, technology outside of Department of Defense (DoD) missile defense programs has advanced several generations, so great confidence can be placed in building and deploying a highly-effective spacebased defense within 5 years for $5-10 billion, as soon as it is politically correct to initiate such development. Testing has been done already Most components of BP have already been shown to work Tests have been done to give insights and support for further development Tested to be hard enough to deal with nuclear weapons Other testing has already been done Wood et. Al 9- Drs. Lowell Wood, Ed English, Lyn Pleasance and Arno Ledebuhr who principals in conducting the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine programs contributed in writing the appendix. Report chaired by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Appendix I: The Legacy of Brilliant Pebbles, Clementine, and Iridium for Future Space-Based Missile Defenses”, in the report “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. I62-64 The Brilliant Pebbles Program conducted seven flight tests – three orbital and four sub-orbital ones – and developed an extensive capability for integrated system testing on the ground, including tethered flight-tests. Unfortunately, the last test of a highly optimized “pebble” that had passed all ground qualifications failed when the Minuteman launch vehicle had to be destroyed before releasing the pebble. The DoD decision to invest in the development programs of the two selected DemVal teams meant that the prototype hitto- kill vehicle would not be fully “battle” tested. Although these tests were not always completely successful, they provided an impressive data base to support the formal development process and provided many useful insights into key phenomena important to dealing with potential countermeasures and indeed to demonstrating latent unanticipated capabilities. For example, one intercept failure due to a faulty target warhead nevertheless demonstrated the pebbles’ unanticipated capability to track and close on a reentering warhead in the earth’s upper atmosphere. The program also participated in a major manner in three underground nuclear weaponry effects tests at the Nevada Test Site, validating the designed-in hardness against key nuclear weaponry effects of various pebbles components and technologies.9 Concurrent testing of pebbles components against other types of threats to its effectiveness – e.g., laser and microwave beams, “engineered space debris,” etc. – also took place at various specialized DoD test facilities. BP tech is proven to work in space BP sensors and computer system was used in Clementine mission Clementine space-qualified BP tech except propulsion system Astrid flight space-qualified propulsion Wood et. Al 9- Drs. Lowell Wood, Ed English, Lyn Pleasance and Arno Ledebuhr who principals in conducting the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine programs contributed in writing the appendix. Report chaired by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Appendix I: The Legacy of Brilliant Pebbles, Clementine, and Iridium for Future Space-Based Missile Defenses”, in the report “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. I65-66 Clementine’s implementation and mission-execution expressed a basic division of labor between the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and LLNL, where the Brilliant Pebbles concept originated. NRL built the Clementine spacecraft, integrating into it then-state-of-the-art technologies useful or essential for high-performance space-based interceptors. LLNL provided a version of the Brilliant Pebbles sensors and control computer system adapted for long-term use in the deep space environment and modified to accommodate the science goals of the Clementine mission. The figure above indicates the Clementine sensor suite was somewhat heavier than the Brilliant Pebbles sensor suite to accommodate different and to some degree more demanding conditions of the extended Clementine space mission.13 Though heavier than pebbles, the mass of the more extensive sensor suite still compares very favorably to the far lower-performance ones of the kill vehicles of current missile defense systems. Remarkably severe budgetary stringencies and the unprecedentedly fast pace of the Clementine mission compelled creation of spacecraft-controlling software throughout virtually all of the mission, with required software often delivered to the spacecraft mere days before its missioncritical use – another Clementine ‘first’. This unique “just in time” mode of software delivery worked spectacularly well for the first 7 months of the remarkably-complex mission, but resulted in a crucial failure after the main portion of the mission – the lunar mapping – had been completed, just before the asteroid ‘near-miss’ could be attempted. The Clementine spacecraft is presently in circumsolar orbit, and was operational when contacted most recently by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s NASA) Deep Space Network, more than a year after mission- termination. In recognition of its many unique features and singular accomplishments, Clementine’s flight back-up spacecraft is on permanent display in the Lunar Alcove of the National Air and Space Museum.14 Most notably, Clementine space-qualified all Brilliant Pebbles technology except for the light-weight miniature propulsion system – and that capability was demonstrated on an Astrid flight test in 1994.15 Astrid Demonstrated Pebbles Miniature Propulsion. The Astrid flight-test series employed a 21 kg fully fueled groundlaunched rocket using 3rd generation Brilliant Pebbles propulsion hardware. A lightweight titanium propellant tank formed the vehicle structure and a re-configured BP propulsion system was constructed to support the simultaneous thrusting of four axial thrusters. Fast liquid valves using warm pilot gas were used to control the four thrusters. The lightweight hardware shown above is similar to other key Brilliant Pebbles component masses shown on page i:62. This experiment used a four cylinder “quad” pump assembly with twice the number of pump cylinders used in the Brilliant Pebbles design. The final Astrid flight-test experiment successfully demonstrated all the key subsystems needed for a Brilliant Pebbles propulsion system. Warm gas thrusters and lightweight piston-tanks-as-structure had previously been tested separately,16 so this experiment validated that a boot-strapping, on-demand propulsion system was flight-feasible and performed according to expectations. This effort complemented prior development work that was carried out in rocket vendor test cells and at LLNL and represented an end-to-end validation of the miniaturized reciprocating pump concept. This Astrid vehicle is believed to be a world record-holder in flight-demonstrated change in velocity (∆v) for this size and mass. This flight experiment demonstrated the validity of the Brilliant Pebbles Divert and Attitude Control System (DACS) mass budget. Iridium proves production works Iridium launched 95 spacecrafts Only 2 of 95 didn’t fail (good rate for space stuff) Marginal cost was less than 10 million, less than what was thought 4 were made per week Total cost was 5 billion over 5 years Would need maybe 10 people to operate Wood et. Al 9- Drs. Lowell Wood, Ed English, Lyn Pleasance and Arno Ledebuhr who principals in conducting the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine programs contributed in writing the appendix. Report chaired by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Appendix I: The Legacy of Brilliant Pebbles, Clementine, and Iridium for Future Space-Based Missile Defenses”, in the report “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. I66-67 Nevertheless, these concerns were also laid to rest in the 1990s by a Motorola-led consortium, with its manufacture, launch-integration, launch, orbital deployment and subsequent operation of the Iridium worldwide satellite cellular telephony- supporting constellation. Iridium built and launched a constellation of 95 mid-sized (800 kg each – over 10 times more mass than the 50 kg pebble) spacecraft between May 1997 and November 1998, at a peak build-rate of 4 spacecraft- per-week, employing 19 launchers from a wide variety of American and foreign space-launch service-suppliers.18 Spacecraft quality has been operationally demonstrated to be exceptionally high – only 2 of the launched 95 failed in the first half-dozen years of operation, an in-service mortality rate unrivalled in mass-produced spacecraft of all types and origins. As illustrated on the previous page, the Iridium constellation provided world-wide coverage for communications via handheld cellphones and pagers. The documented marginal unit cost of these spacecraft was less than $10 million, comparable to (though 50-percent higher than) the meticulously-prepared Bush-41 pebble cost-estimates on a “per-pound” basis (the actual perpound marginal cost of an Iridium satellite in 1997 was <$12 K/kg, and the projected per-pound marginal cost of a pebble in 1990 was ~$8 K/kg).19 Moreover, the peak build-rate of these much larger spacecraft was spacecraft-mass-comparable to that planned for Brilliant Pebbles by the Bush-41 DoD. The total cost for developing and deploying the 66-satellite operational constellation within a half-decade interval was about $5 billion, all paid for by the private investment community. Quite importantly, the entire Iridium constellation, in full commercial operation, is operated by a ground-crew of fewer than ten people, implicitly validating the pebbles estimate of a required ground crew of the same magnitude – versus the thousands of personnel postulated by traditional rules-of-thumb. Just as Clementine demonstrated that a first-of-a-kind, very high-performance deep space mission can be controlled by a mission control center crew of typically two people (in marked contrast to the many dozens of staff characteristic of NASA missions of comparable complexity), Iridium established that complex operations of large constellations of sophisticated spacecraft can be controlled, year-after-year through the present day, by a literal handful of staff supported by highly automated expert system control software. Iridium, though an economic disaster for its initial investors, has been an outstanding technological success, and its current commercial operation is cash-flow-positive. Quite importantly in the present context, the creation and operation of Iridium has provided complete, essentially quantitative validation of several of the key economic, logistics and operational postulates of the Brilliant Pebbles ballistic missile defense architecture. When combined with the legacy of Clementine and Astrid, Iridium demonstrates that there cannot be any rational controversy regarding any of the major technical issues to be addressed in building a cost-effective effective spacebased interceptor system. Technological advances since BP was first conceived Lightweight inertia units continue to be developed Infrared sensors and coolers have improved Digit systems have greatly improved University in Britain has flown many systems similar to BP Wood et. Al 9- Drs. Lowell Wood, Ed English, Lyn Pleasance and Arno Ledebuhr who principals in conducting the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine programs contributed in writing the appendix. Report chaired by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Appendix I: The Legacy of Brilliant Pebbles, Clementine, and Iridium for Future Space-Based Missile Defenses”, in the report “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. I67 With applications mostly outside of the United States, lightweight inertial measurement unit (IMU) development has continued, infrared sensors and coolers have improved significantly and most importantly, digital electronic systems have improved by more than 100-fold, as Moore’s Law would indicate. The Danish company Terma offers a Wide Field of View Star Tracker. As discussed in Appendix B, the University of Surrey in Great Britain has been the leading proponent for lightweight space systems and has flown many lightweight systems using technology basically similar to and in some cases performance-comparable to the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine technology-set. The People’ s Republic of China appears to have embraced the idea of lightweight, high performance space systems, with Surrey aid. Pebble tech in current context Key tech is better in a lot of ways Pebble now would be smaller and perform better Cost would be about $16 billion over the life cycle in 2006 dollars Wood et. Al 9- Drs. Lowell Wood, Ed English, Lyn Pleasance and Arno Ledebuhr who principals in conducting the Brilliant Pebbles and Clementine programs contributed in writing the appendix. Report chaired by Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. is Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave is Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, with Ambassador Henry F. Cooper Chairman, High Frontier former Director Strategic Defense Initiative Organization former Chief U.S. Negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, 2009, “Appendix I: The Legacy of Brilliant Pebbles, Clementine, and Iridium for Future Space-Based Missile Defenses”, in the report “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century” The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, p. I68 Brilliant Pebbles as specifically designed in 1990 couldn’t be reproduced these days, as many of the key technologies have so modernized that their 1990 versions are found only in technology museums. As would be expected from considering consumer-familiar features of the ongoing Silicon Revolution, such key pebbles technologies have become somewhat smaller, lower mass, less power-consumptive and less expensive over the 14-year interval since the pebbles design was ‘frozen’ by the Bush-41 DoD – but they typically express more than a hundred-fold improvement in performance. A modernized pebble thus would be somewhat smaller, lower-mass and less expensive than the ‘Government Pebble’ of a decade-and-a-half ago – and would offer far greater military performance in its sensing, data-processing, and communications sub-systems. The present- day total life-cycle cost of the Bush-41 pebbles GPALS missile defensive system, as then designed-and-operated, would be of the order of $16 billion (2006 dollars). Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.32 Mb. Share with your friends:
|