IF MISSILES WERE LAUNCHED AT FIVE MINUTE INTERVALS, SPACE BASED LASERS COULD ONLY DESTROY ONE-Deblois, Garwin, et al ‘05

[Bruce, director of systems integration for BAE Systems and Richard, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the

Thomas J. Watson Research Center; Star Crossed; Spectrum; March 2005; http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/IEEE%20Spectrum%20-%20Star%20Crossed.pdf; retrieved 09 Jul 2011]
Except for those in geosynchronous orbit, all satellites are in motion relative to Earth. Space weapons would be no different. A satellite in LEO, for example, circumnavigates the globe roughly every 90 minutes. Traveling at high speed relative to the ground, each satellite has a limited window during which to strike a particular ground location--from LEO, typically 1 or 2 minutes, during which time the satellite moves 500 to 1000 km.

A reasonable response time, then, means having an overlapping constellation of many satellites. A satellite capable of destroying a target up to 3000 km away could cover a circular area of 28 million square kilometers, or about one-18th of Earth's total area. In theory, 18 identical laser-weapon satellites would be needed to cover every location on Earth. Unfortunately, the circular coverage areas of the individual satellites would provide overkill at some points and no effectiveness at others. For example, in a 2002 Air Force-sponsored RAND report, "Space Weapons, Earth Wars," Bob Preston and his coauthors describe how a constellation of twenty-four 5-MW hydrogen-fluorine lasers with 10-meter-diameter mirrors would usually be able to destroy two to four ballistic missiles launched simultaneously from a small area, but if one missile was launched every 5 minutes or so, the constellation would be able to destroy just one.

SPACE-BASED LASERS ARE VULNERABLE TO SMOKE AND COUNTERMEASURES-Deblois, Garwin, et al ‘05

[Bruce, director of systems integration for BAE Systems and Richard, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the

Thomas J. Watson Research Center; Star Crossed; Spectrum; March 2005; http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/IEEE%20Spectrum%20-%20Star%20Crossed.pdf; retrieved 09 Jul 2011]
For lower-power lasers, the number of satellites escalates. For 1-MW beam power, 120 satellites could kill a launch of four missiles most of the time, but occasionally would be able to destroy only three. The main point is that many weapons (of any type) need to be orbiting to ensure that at least one weapon is within range to strike any possible target at any given time.

An additional challenge for space-based lasers is their vulnerability to countermeasures. As we have noted, even the highest-power lasers do not penetrate clouds or smoke, and some wavelengths cannot penetrate Earth's atmosphere, including those used by the HF laser currently proposed for space-based missile defense. For ground targets, smoke pots could disrupt an attack already in progress.

[Bruce, director of systems integration for BAE Systems and Richard, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the

Thomas J. Watson Research Center; Star Crossed; Spectrum; March 2005; http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/IEEE%20Spectrum%20-%20Star%20Crossed.pdf; retrieved 09 Jul 2011]
Vulnerability is increased by the need to keep the laser on target for tens of seconds at least. The target could move in an unpredictable path or simply be covered with a reflective coating or paint, which could increase the time required for a successful kill by a factor of 10 or more. A layer of titanium oxide powder, for instance, could reflect 99.9 percent of the incident laser energy. Even a shallow pool of dyed water would offer serious protection for structures. Since a 20-MW laser boils water at a rate of 10 kg/s, a pool of water about 3 centimeters deep on the flat roof of a two-car garage would protect against 100 seconds of illumination by a space-based laser. This all adds up to abundant opportunity to thwart laser weapons.

Meanwhile, the laser would be burning its supply of hydrogen and fluorine at a rate of 500 kg/s. Over the course of 100 seconds, it would consume 50 tons of fuel, for which the launch costs alone are about half a billion dollars.

[Bruce, director of systems integration for BAE Systems and Richard, IBM Fellow Emeritus at the

Thomas J. Watson Research Center; Star Crossed; Spectrum; March 2005; http://www.princeton.edu/~rskemp/IEEE%20Spectrum%20-%20Star%20Crossed.pdf; retrieved 09 Jul 2011]
The issue of energy requirements warrants a closer look. Today, the most efficient high-power lasers typically consume 2 to 3 kg of chemical fuel per megawattsecond. So a pulse of 20 seconds from a 10-MW laser corresponds to about 400 to 600 kg of fuel per target in the absence of any countermeasures. At current launch costs of some $22 000/kg into low Earth orbit, each 20-second laser shot would cost approximately $11 million. For a constellation of 17 lasers, each loaded with a 12-shot capacity, the launch cost to maintain on-orbit fuel alone would exceed $2 billion. Weigh that against a stock of highly effective $6 smoke grenades, a stray cloud, or a 3-cm-deep pool of water, and this multibillion-dollar weapon system starts to look like a poor investment.

SBL SYSTEMS FACE TECHNOLOGICAL HURDLES THAT, EVEN IF MET, MEAN SOLVENCY IS LOW-Kosiak ‘07

[Stephen, defense analyst at Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectivenessof Space-Based Weapons; 2007; http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2007.10.31-Spaced-Based-Weapons.pdf]

Against these advantages, however, are a number of disadvantages. The most significant of these is the extremely short time available for engaging the target. Not only is booster burn time short, but much of the time available would have to be spent detecting and tracking the booster. According to a 2003 study, Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense, conducted the American Physical Society (APS), “even state of the art sensors would require 45-60 seconds or longer to detect the launch of a potentially threatening rocket and determine its direction” (i.e., obtain a firing solution).

[US Space, Missile Defense Programs Lack Quality Control; Air Force Magazine; 22 July 2011; http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2011/July%202011/July%2022%202011/USSpace,MissileDefenseProgramsLackQualityControl.aspx; retrieved 13 August 2011]

[George and Lisbeth; Debunking the Missile Defense Agency’s 'Endgame Success' Argument; Arms Control Today; December 2002; http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1170; retrieved 13 August 11]

INHERENCY: ALREADY HAPPENING

[Kit; staff writer; Russia, U.S. Plan a Nuclear-Powered Space Rocket, Making Mars Mission More Feasible; Fast Company; 05 April 2011; http://www.fastcompany.com/1744745/russia-us-plan-a-nuclear-powered-space-rocket-should-we-worry; retrieved 11 Aug 2011]

The announcement was made by agency director Anatoly Perminov, and the joint project will also include other nations with a "high level of reactor manufacturing technology." This list could include France, Britain, Germany, China, and Japan. The design is to be completed by 2012, and Russia alone expects to inject around 17 billion rubles ($600 million). The intention is to create a powerful engine that could surpass conventional rocket-fueled engines, and even make a manned mission to Mars plausible.

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Despite Solar Options, NASA-Nuclear Alliance Continues Plutonium-Powered Missions; Truthout; 10 Aug 2011; http://www.truth-out.org/despite-solar-options-nasa-nuclear-alliance-continues-plutonium-powered-missions/1312560708; retrieved 11 Aug 2011]

Between November 25 and December 15, 2011, NASA plans to launch for use on Mars a rover fueled with 10.6 pounds of plutonium, more plutonium than ever used on a rover.

The mission has a huge cost: $2.5 billion.

But if there is an accident before the rover is well on its way to Mars and plutonium is released on Earth, its cost stands to be yet more gargantuan.

[Fraser; NASA and Department of Energy Working on Nuclear Reactor; Universe Today; 18 Mar 2004; http://www.universetoday.com/9411/nasa-and-department-of-energy-working-on-nuclear-reactor/; retrieved 07 Aug 2011]

NR brings 50-plus years of practical experience in developing safe, rugged, reliable, compact and long-lived reactor systems designed to operate in unforgiving environments. NR is a joint DOE and Department of the Navy organization responsible for all aspects of naval nuclear propulsion.

The partnership is responsible for developing the first NASA spacecraft, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO), that will take advantage of a nuclear-reactor energy source for exploring our solar system. JIMO will visit Jupiter’s three icy moons, Ganymede, Callisto and Europa. These icy worlds, in particular Europa, are believed to have liquid-water oceans, under a thick layer of ice on their surfaces, which could potentially harbor life.
HARMS: NUCLEAR PROPULSION IS NOT NECESSARY
SOLAR-POWERED SPACE PROBES PROVE THAT NUCLEAR PROPULSION IS NOT NECESSARY-Grossman ‘11

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Despite Solar Options, NASA-Nuclear Alliance Continues Plutonium-Powered Missions; Truthout; 10 Aug 2011; http://www.truth-out.org/despite-solar-options-nasa-nuclear-alliance-continues-plutonium-powered-missions/1312560708; retrieved 11 Aug 2011]

"Juno will provide answers to critical science questions about Jupiter, as well as key information that will dramatically enhance present theories about the early formation of our own solar system," says NASA on its web site. "In 2016, the spinning, solar-powered Juno spacecraft will reach Jupiter." It will be equipped with, "instruments that can sense the hidden world beneath Jupiter's colorful clouds" and make 33 passes of Jupiter.

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Plutonium in Space (Again!); Covert Action Quarterly; Summer 2002; http://www.space4peace.org/articles/morenukesinspace.htm; retrieved 26 Jul 2011]

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Plutonium in Space (Again!); Covert Action Quarterly; Summer 2002; http://www.space4peace.org/articles/morenukesinspace.htm; retrieved 26 Jul 2011]

The silicon solar cells "developed decades ago" which now power the International Space Station, notes NASA’s website, have 14.5% efficiency, and the branch is "exploring new ways to harness the Suns power - including more efficient solar cells, laser-beaming energy to distant spacecraft and solar power systems for the Moon and Mars." This includes solar systems for exploring and powering bases on Moon and Mars. 20

NASA’s website includes detailed NASA plans such as "Photovoltaic Power for the Moon," 21 "Power Systems for Bases and Rovers on Mars" 22 and "A Solar Power System for an Early Mars Expedition." 23

There is no "edge" or limit to solar power, says a solar scientist at the NASA branch, Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis. "In the long term, solar arrays wont have to rely on the Sun. We're investigating the concept of using lasers to beam photons to solar arrays. If you make a powerful-enough laser and can aim the beam, there really isn’t any edge of sunshine."

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Plutonium in Space (Again!); Covert Action Quarterly; Summer 2002; http://www.space4peace.org/articles/morenukesinspace.htm; retrieved 26 Jul 2011]

Then there are "solar sails" making use of the ionized particles emitted by the Sun which constitute a force in space. 26 They can be utilized just like wind by a sailboat on Earth. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California is considering a launch at the end of the decade of a space probe to Pluto using either solar sails or solar electric propulsion.

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Plutonium in Space (Again!); Covert Action Quarterly; Summer 2002; http://www.space4peace.org/articles/morenukesinspace.htm; retrieved 26 Jul 2011]

Jack Dixon, for 30 years an aerospace engineer, takes issue with those against nuclear power in space for being critical of it for "politically correct," anti-nuclear reasons. His criticism is cost - what he says is an enormous cost. The solar sail system "may be implemented at about 10% of the cost of nuclear and quickly." It is "simple and relatively low tech."

[Tariq; Solar Sail Passes Big Test in Deep Space; Space.com; 12 Jul 2010; http://www.space.com/8748-solar-sail-passes-big-test-deep-space.html; retrieved 27 Jul 2011]

Observations of the Ikaros solar sail built by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) confirmed that the spacecraft has received a growing speed boost from light radiated by the sun, the space agency said.

"The small solar power sail demonstrator 'Ikaros,' which successfully deployed its solar sail, was confirmed to accelerate by [the] solar sail receiving solar pressure," JAXA officials said in a July 9 update.?

SOLVENCY: WEAPONIZATION

[Bruce; Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space; Bush Expanding Nuclear Power for Space: Threatens Planetary Ecosystem; Synthesis/Regeneration Winter 2003; http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-13.html; retrieved 01 Aug 2011]

In April, 1964 a US military satellite with 2.1 pounds of plutonium-238 on board fell back to Earth and burned up as it hit the atmosphere…

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space maintains that missile defense is a Trojan horse for the Pentagon’s control and domination of space, and NASA’s nuclear rocket is a Trojan horse for the militarization of space.

NASA’s new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O’Keefe said, “I think it’s imperative we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. … You can’t differentiate between…military application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature.”

[Karl; professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College of New York; Despite Solar Options, NASA-Nuclear Alliance Continues Plutonium-Powered Missions; Truthout; 10 Aug 2011; http://www.truth-out.org/despite-solar-options-nasa-nuclear-alliance-continues-plutonium-powered-missions/1312560708; retrieved 11 Aug 2011]

Personifying the NASA-military connection now is NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former NASA astronaut and Marine Corps major general. Appointed by President Barack Obama, he is a booster of radioisotope thermoelectric generators as well as rockets using nuclear power for propulsion. The United States has spent billions of dollars through the years on such rockets, but none have ever taken off. The programs have all ended up cancelled, largely out of concern about a nuclear-powered rocket blowing up on launch or falling back to Earth.

[Robin; staff writer; Protesters Fear Nuclear Arms in Space; The Observer; 05 Oct 2003; http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/oct/05/spaceexploration.observersciencepages; retrieved 04 Aug 2011]

'Third, the technologies that Nasa develops will inevitably be used by the military. So its new generation of orbiting reactors will end up in the hands of Star Wars technicians who will use them to power space-based laser systems that can give America even greater world dominion.'

SOLVENCY: DANGEROUS

[Bruce; Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space; Bush Expanding Nuclear Power for Space: Threatens Planetary Ecosystem; Synthesis/Regeneration Winter 2003; http://www.greens.org/s-r/30/30-13.html; retrieved 01 Aug 2011]

“NASA hasn’t learned its lesson from its history,” says Kaku, “and a hallmark of science is that you learn from previous mistakes. NASA doggedly pursues its fantasy of nuclear power in space.”

Since the 1960s there have been eight space nuclear power accidents by the US and the former Soviet Union, several of which released deadly plutonium. In April, 1964 a US military satellite with 2.1 pounds of plutonium-238 on board fell back to Earth and burned up as it hit the atmosphere, spreading the toxic plutonium globally as dust to be ingested by the people of the planet. In 1997 NASA launched the Cassini space probe carrying 72 pounds of plutonium that fortunately did not experience failure. Hundreds of thousands of people could have been contaminated.