Big Sky Debate Page
THERE IS NO CLEAR INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON DEBRIS-Ansdell ‘10
Download 1.79 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A/T: PRIVATE COUNTERPLAN FOLLOWING A NATIONAL PROGRAM, THE US COULD ENGAGE THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR-Ansdell ‘10
- THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR A PRIVATE ENTITY TO BUILD SPACE DEBRIS TECHNOLOGY-Johnson and Hudson ‘08
- THERE IS NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT REMOVING DEBRIS, SO NO PRIVATE COMPANIES-Michaels ‘09
- GOVERNMENTS ARE THE KEY ACTORS TO PREVENT LOSS OF SPACE-Mason, Stupl, et al ‘11
- A/T: BIG SKY THEORY THE BIG SKY THEORY IS WRONG; WE ARE NEAR A TIPPING POINT FOR UNUSABLE ORBITS-Szoka and Dunstan ‘09
- THE COLLISION OF TWO SATELLITES IN 2009 DISPROVED THE BIG SKY THEORY-Ansdell ‘10
- A/T: PREVENTION IS ENOUGH PREVENTION WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH EXISTING DEBRIS PROBLEM-Johnson and Hudson ‘08
- PREVENTATIVE MEASURES FOR DEBRIS ARE VITAL, BUT INSUFFICIENT-Johnson and Hudson ‘08
- THE REAL THREAT IS SATELLITES ALREADY IN SPACE-The Economist ‘10
- A/T: LASERS=SPACE WEAPONS TURN: THE SUDDEN LOSS OF A SATELLITE DUE TO DEBRIS COULD PROVOKE ESCALATION-Wright ‘07
- NASA’S NEW NASA PROPOSAL DOES NOT USE WEAPONIZED, EXPENSIVE LASERS-Grossman ‘11
- THE LASER IS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED NOT TO RAISE FEARS OF WEAPONS IN SPACE-Satnews Daily ‘11
- A/T: LIABILITY CONVENTION THE LIABILITY CONVENTION DOES NOTHING TO REGULATE DEBRIS CREATION-Imburgia ‘11
- THE LIABILITY CONVENTION IS A LIMITED DETERRENT TO DEBRIS AT BESTImburgia ‘11
- THE LIABILITY CONVENTION CANNOT BE USEFUL TO CONTROL DEBRIS-Imburgia ‘11
THERE IS NO CLEAR INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON DEBRIS-Ansdell ‘10 [Megan; graduate student, George Washington, International Science and Technology; Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment; Journal of Public and International Affairs; 2010] There is also a lack of clear policy on both national and international levels. Space-faring countries and the United Nations have only adopted mitigation guidelines and have not cited the development of active debris removal systems as part of their space policies. Moreover, there has been a lack of discussion about what entity is responsible for financing and operating these systems. This is a complicated issue as some nations have created more debris than others, yet all space-faring nations and users of satellites services would benefit from space debris clean up. A/T: PRIVATE COUNTERPLAN FOLLOWING A NATIONAL PROGRAM, THE US COULD ENGAGE THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR-Ansdell ‘10 [Megan; graduate student, George Washington, International Science and Technology; Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment; Journal of Public and International Affairs; 2010] Going forward, the U.S. government should engage the commercial sector in space debris removal. Government contracts with several commercial firms would create a competitive environment, encouraging innovation and cost minimization. Having several companies working on the problem at the same time would also accelerate remediation as several critical orbits could be addressed at once. Furthermore, early investments in a domestic space debris removal industry would give the United States a head start in what may become a critical industry over the coming decades. THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE FOR A PRIVATE ENTITY TO BUILD SPACE DEBRIS TECHNOLOGY-Johnson and Hudson ‘08 [Lt. Kevin and John, PhD; project supervisors, Global Innovation and Strategy Center; Eliminating Space Debris: Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions; January 2008; http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination; retrieved 27 Jul] There is little incentive for a commercial entity to build its own space surveillance network. With information currently provided at zero cost, there is no profit potential to reward commercial entrepreneurship. Instead, commercial entities are strongly encouraging governments such as that of the United States to continue publishing orbital element sets. In a statement to Congress, Iridium Satellite, the operator of the largest commercial satellite installation in the world, stated, “We encourage continued funding of the Commercial and Foreign Entities (CFE) pilot program to provide space surveillance data to commercial operators to help promote safe operations in space.”162 Some space operators within the commercial sector believe that the TLEs provided through the CFE program are not good enough. David McGlade, the CEO of Intelsat, has stated, “Although CFE has been advantageous for governments and industry, the accuracy of the data currently provided is not sufficient for precise collision detection/assessments, support of launch operations, end of life/re-entry analyses, nor anomaly resolution.” THERE IS NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT REMOVING DEBRIS, SO NO PRIVATE COMPANIES-Michaels ‘09 [Daniel; staff writer; A Cosmic Question: How to Get Rid Of All That Orbiting Space Junk; Wall Street Journal; 11 March 2009;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672891900989069.html; retrieved 16 Jun 2011] Multibillion-dollar budgets have parked people in space, allowed global telecommunications and brought Star Wars military systems within reach. But cleanup missions to pick up all the trash cast off by a launch are prohibitively expensive. "The problem with removing space debris is you don't have any financial benefit from doing it," says Dr. Klinkrad. To rocket scientists, who defy gravity for a living, that's an irresistible challenge. Mr. Hollopeter says he got excited by water-blasting because it's so low-tech. "This is basically the cheapest way I could come up with," says the 61-year-old engineer, who now works for Satellite Communications in Austin, Texas. Mr. Hollopeter's recent work was sparked by a request last November for space-cleaning ideas from Launchspace Training, a space consulting firm in Bethesda, Md. Launchspace ran the project, which drew more than 100 responses, as a promotion and to tap aging engineers with experience from the U.S.-Soviet space race of the 1960s, says director Robert Russo. "There's a magnificent pool of knowledge and talent out there, and I think they're just not being asked," says Mr. Russo. He says Mr. Hollopeter's idea was one of the most original, although nuttier concepts were also submitted by "techno-geeks who read science fiction and know nothing about space." GOVERNMENTS ARE THE KEY ACTORS TO PREVENT LOSS OF SPACE-Mason, Stupl, et al ‘11 [James, NASA Ames Research Center and Universities Space Research Association and Jan, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University; Orbital Debris-Debris Collision Avoidance; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1690v1.pdf; 10 Mar 2011] While several maneuvers have been required since then, the operational risk is still insufficient to provide incentive for large scale debris remediation effort and this highlights the need for low-cost, technologically mature, solutions to mitigate the growth of the debris population and specifically to mitigate debris-debris collisions which owner/operators can not influence with collision avoidance. Governments remain the key actors needed to prevent this tragedy of the commons that threatens the use of space by all actors. A/T: BIG SKY THEORY THE BIG SKY THEORY IS WRONG; WE ARE NEAR A TIPPING POINT FOR UNUSABLE ORBITS-Szoka and Dunstan ‘09 [Berin, Senior Fellow at The Progress & Freedom Foundation and Jim, practices space and technology law; Beware of Space Junk: Global Warming Isn’t the Only Major Environmental Problem; Space Frontier; 20 Dec 2009; http://spacefrontier.org/2009/12/20/beware-of-space-junk-global-warming-isnt-the-only-major-environmental-problem/; retrieved 27 Jul 2011] The engineering wizards who have fueled the Information Revolution through the use of satellites as communications and information-gathering tools also overlooked the pollution they were causing. They operated under the “Big Sky” theory: Space is so vast, you don’t have to worry about cleaning up after yourself. They were wrong. Just last February, two satellites collided for the first time, creating over 1,500 new pieces of junk. Many experts believe we are nearing the “tipping point” where these collisions will cascade, making many orbits unusable. THE COLLISION OF TWO SATELLITES IN 2009 DISPROVED THE BIG SKY THEORY-Ansdell ‘10 [Megan; graduate student, George Washington, International Science and Technology; Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment; Journal of Public and International Affairs; 2010] The second major space-debris creating event was the accidental collision between an active Iridium satellite and a defunct Russian military satellite on February 10, 2009. The collision created two debris clouds holding more than 200,000 pieces of debris larger than one centimeter at similar altitudes to those of the 2007 Chinese ASAT test (Johnson 2009b). It was the first time two intact satellites accidentally crashed in orbit, challenging the “Big Sky Theory,” which asserts that the vastness of space makes the chances of a collision between two orbiting satellites negligible (Newman et al. 2009). A/T: PREVENTION IS ENOUGH PREVENTION WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH EXISTING DEBRIS PROBLEM-Johnson and Hudson ‘08 [Lt. Kevin and John, PhD; project supervisors, Global Innovation and Strategy Center; Eliminating Space Debris: Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions; January 2008; http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination; retrieved 27 Jul] Prevention is the most cost effective way to keep space clean. However, prevention alone will not be enough to secure the future of space assets. The ability to remove space debris actively is imperative and there is no single solution to remove all debris sizes. Current technologies are promising, but further development remains necessary, and no debris elimination technology has yet to be fully demonstrated. Ground-based lasers were found to be the most effective way to remove small debris from LEO. They are much more cost effective than adding shielding to space assets and a demonstration could prove the ability of lasers to remove smaller debris from space. Orbital rendezvous vehicles provide an example of a technology which could be used to remove large debris. The vehicles could be used to move the debris itself or used in conjunction with a drag device such as an electrodynamic tether to de-orbit debris or to place it in a graveyard orbit. PREVENTATIVE MEASURES FOR DEBRIS ARE VITAL, BUT INSUFFICIENT-Johnson and Hudson ‘08 [Lt. Kevin and John, PhD; project supervisors, Global Innovation and Strategy Center; Eliminating Space Debris: Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions; January 2008; http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination; retrieved 27 Jul] When small debris pieces collide with space assets, the result is not simply a matter of speed, but also of motion. “Because the (low earth orbit) velocities are so high, the kinetic energy is very high. It’s the equivalent of exploding several sticks of dynamite in your spacecraft,” noted a BBC report on the problem.33 Debris fragments as small as one-tenth of one millimeter could potentially puncture the suit of an astronaut.34 The “Kessler effect”35 complicates matters further: as the volume of satellites increases, so does the probability that they will collide with each other.36 Such a chain reaction is “inevitable,” according to Dr. Johnson37 in an interview with The New York Times, “A significant piece of debris will run into an old rocket body, and that will create more debris. It’s a bad situation.” In summary, while preventative measures against debris creation are vital, they will not prevent further growth arising from existing debris. THE REAL THREAT IS SATELLITES ALREADY IN SPACE-The Economist ‘10 [Scientists are Increasingly Worried About the Amount of Debris Orbiting the Earth; The Economist; 19 Aug 2010; http://www.economist.com/node/16843825?story_id=16843825&fsrc=rss; retrieved 27 Jul 2011] The real threat now comes from collisions between things that are already up there—so much so that since the demise of Iridium 33, the normally secretive Strategic Command (Stratcom) of America’s Defence Department has become rather helpful. Brian Weeden, an expert on space debris at the Secure World Foundation, a think-tank, says Stratcom now screens every operational satellite, every day, looking for close approaches, and notifies all operators. Even the Chinese? “Everybody,” he says, “the Russians, the Chinese, even the Nigerians.” This means that satellites’ owners have better information with which to decide whether to use a small amount of their precious fuel reserves to avoid a collision. A/T: LASERS=SPACE WEAPONS TURN: THE SUDDEN LOSS OF A SATELLITE DUE TO DEBRIS COULD PROVOKE ESCALATION-Wright ‘07 [David, PhD, ; Union of Concerned Scientists;Debris in Brief: Space Debris from Anti-Satellite Weapons; December 2007; http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/debris-in-brief-space-debris.html; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] The Chinese destruction of a relatively small satellite roughly doubled the debris threat to satellites in the most heavily used part of LEO. Fortunately, the debris threat to satellites is still relatively small, but continued testing of destructive ASAT weapons against satellites, or their use against several large satellites in a conflict, could result in a much higher risk. ASAT weapons could therefore significantly increase the cost of using space, and could hinder using regions of space that today are widely used for a range of purposes. Beyond that, the sudden loss of a satellite due to debris during a crisis could remove important capabilities, or could lead to dangerous reactions and the escalation of the crisis, especially if the adversary was known to have an ASAT capability. NASA’S NEW NASA PROPOSAL DOES NOT USE WEAPONIZED, EXPENSIVE LASERS-Grossman ‘11 [Lisa; staff writer; NASA Considers Shooting Space Junk With Lasers; Wired; 15 Mar 2011; http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/lasering-space-junk/#more-54167; retrieved 16 Jun 2011] NASA scientists have suggested shooting space junk with lasers before. But earlier plans relied on military-class lasers that would either destroy an object altogether, or vaporize part of its surface and create little plasma plumes that would rocket the piece of litter away. Those lasers would be prohibitively expensive, the team says, not to mention make other space-faring nations nervous about what exactly that military-grade laser is pointing at. The laser to be used in the new system is the kind used for welding and cutting in car factories and other industrial processes. They’re commercially available for about $0.8 million. The rest of the system could cost between a few and a few tens of millions of dollars, depending on whether the researchers build it from scratch or modify an existing telescope, perhaps a telescope at the Air Force Maui Optical Station in Hawaii or at Mt. Stromlo in Australia. “This system solves technological problems, makes them cheaper, and makes it less of a threat that these will be used for nefarious things,” said space security expert Brian Weeden, a technical adviser for the Secure World Foundation who was not involved in the new study. “It’s certainly very interesting.”
[NASA Laser to Remove Space Debris?; SatNews Daily; 17 Mar 2011; http://www.satnews.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?number=1202250009; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] The idea of using an industrial-strength laser — not something more powerful — is meant to help assuage fears that the technology would be used for nefarious purposes, such as blasting another nation's satellite. "We are intentionally trying to make the system non-threatening ... this is, in general, not enough intensity to mechanically damage a satellite," he said. Brian Weeden, a technical adviser for the Secure World Foundation, told Wired.com the concept is less of a threat than other proposed systems, but "I don't think it is a long term solution. I might be useful to buy some time, but I don't think it would replace the need to remove debris, or stop creating new junk." A/T: LIABILITY CONVENTION THE LIABILITY CONVENTION DOES NOTHING TO REGULATE DEBRIS CREATION-Imburgia ‘11 [Lt. Colonel Joseph; Judge Advocate, US Air Force; Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law; Volume 44:589, 2011]
““shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.””226 Accordingly, absent fault, which can be difficult to prove in the space environment, no liability attaches when space debris unintentionally causes damage in space. Therefore, from a liability cost––benefit analysis, the Liability Convention provides little motivation for space-faring nations to minimize space debris or to clean up the debris currently in existence. THE LIABILITY CONVENTION IS A LIMITED DETERRENT TO DEBRIS AT BESTImburgia ‘11 [Lt. Colonel Joseph; Judge Advocate, US Air Force; Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law; Volume 44:589, 2011]
[Lt. Colonel Joseph; Judge Advocate, US Air Force; Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk; Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law; Volume 44:589, 2011] Finally, the Liability Convention fails to ““provide any specific mechanism for establishing the identity of space objects launched into outer space, or the associated debris that might”” be created.231 Instead, the Liability Convention operates under the assumption that the launching state of any given space object will be easily identifiable.232 With space debris, however, ““[t]his is quite clearly not the case.””233 Accordingly, even if the Liability Convention did apply to space debris, ““[l]iability for damage caused by space debris [would be] difficult to establish, as it [would be] difficult to determine the specific source of a piece of debris, particularly when it is a small piece that has not been cataloged.””234 The Liability Convention therefore leaves ““too many gaps to be very useful regarding the problem of [space] debris. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.79 Mb. Share with your friends:
|