Big Sky Debate Page
THE MICROWAVE POWER AT THE CENTER OF AN SBSP BEAM IS 3% OF A MICROWAVE OVEN-Logan ‘09
Download 1.79 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- THE MICROWAVE BEAM WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON BIRDS OR BEES-Logan ‘09
- ONLY SENSIBLE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES WOULD BE NEEDED IN THE RECTENNA AREA-Logan ‘09
- INFRARED LASERS COULD ELIMINATE ANY OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT MICROWAVES-Edwards ‘10
- MICROWAVES POSE NO DANGER TO HUMANS OR ANIMALS-Bova ‘08
- THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT MICROWAVE TECH-Betancourt ‘10
- A/T: INTERNATIONAL OBJECTIONS/CPLAN THERE ARE NO NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT BLOCK THE SBSP-Rouge, et al ‘07
- THE US IS A LOGICAL LEADER FOR INTERNATIONAL JOINT EFFORTS TO DEVELOP SBSP-Hsu ‘10
- SBSP WILL PROVIDE A REASON FOR ALL NATIONS TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCE OF SPACE-Medin ‘10
- AMERICAN LEADERSHIP CAN LEAD TO GLOBAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE SOLUTIONS - Rouge, et al ‘07
- A/T: SBSP AS A WEAPON SBSP BEAMS COULD NEVER BE USED AS WEAPONS-Logan ‘09
- Space Debris Affirmative Note
- Observation 1. THERE IS NO COORDINATED WILL TO SOLVE SPACE DEBRIS IN THE STATUS QUO A. NO ONE IS ACTING TO CONTROL DEBRIS NOW-Johnson and Hudson ‘08
- Observation 2. HARMS A. THE AMOUNT OF DEBRIS IS BUILDING TO A CRITICAL MASS, AFTER WHICH DEBRIS WILL CASCADE, CRIPPLING OUR MILITARY SPACE SYSTEMS AND COMMERCIAL SATELLITES-Doctorow ‘11
- B. TOO MUCH SPACE DEBRIS COULD LEAD TO A CHAIN REACTION OF COLLISIONS, CREATING A BELT OF DEBRIS AROUND THE EARTH-Schwartz ‘10
- C. FAILURE TO CONTROL SPACE DEBRIS IN THE NEXT DECADE WILL LEAD TO UNCONTROLLABLE CASCADE-Imburgia ‘11
- D. SPACE DEBRIS POSES A CRITICAL THREAT TO AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY-Imburgia ‘11
- Plan: The USFG will develop and use a laser debris removal system. Observation 3. Solvency
- B. A DEBRIS REMOVAL DEMONSTRATION IS CRITICAL FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS-Johnson and Hudson ‘08
- C. LASERS ARE A TECHNOLOGICALLY MATURE, SCALABLE SOLUTION TO THE DEBRIS PROBLEM-Mason, Stupl, et al ‘11
THE MICROWAVE POWER AT THE CENTER OF AN SBSP BEAM IS 3% OF A MICROWAVE OVEN-Logan ‘09 [Dr. James; PhD and 18 year career at NASA; Safety of Space-Based Solar Power; Feb 2009; http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/pdf/safety_paper.pdf; retrieved 17 Jun 2011] In a typical SBSP system, the beam transmitting the energy from space would be approximately 2 to 4 kilometers wide. The strength of the beam is highest in the center and rapidly decreases to very low levels at the periphery of the beam. The peak power density at the center of the beam at it intersects the rectenna is on the order of 300 watts per square meter (W/m2) or 30 miliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2). To put 30 mW/cm2 in perspective, the energy generated inside a typical kitchen microwave oven is approximately 1000 mW/cm2. This means the power density at the center of an SBSP beam is only 3% as strong as a typical countertop microwave oven. THE MICROWAVE BEAM WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON BIRDS OR BEES-Logan ‘09 [Dr. James; PhD and 18 year career at NASA; Safety of Space-Based Solar Power; Feb 2009; http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/pdf/safety_paper.pdf; retrieved 17 Jun 2011] [NOTE: Such peak power densities envisioned for SBSP could never even come close to ‘cooking’ birds in flight. Studies have shown that at 25 mW/cm2, some birds exhibit behaviors suggesting they might be able to detect microwave radiation. If true, some migratory birds, flying above the rectenna, might suffer disruption of their flying paths. At higher ambient temperatures, larger birds, having greater body mass and thus absorbing a relatively greater amount of microwave radiation, could tend to experience more heat stress than smaller ones. No doubt birds would learn to avoid areas of the sky associated with transient local heating. No evidence hasbeen found that continuous power densities from 1 to 50 mW/cm2 (at 2.45 GHz) have any biological effects on honeybees]. ONLY SENSIBLE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES WOULD BE NEEDED IN THE RECTENNA AREA-Logan ‘09 [Dr. James; PhD and 18 year career at NASA; Safety of Space-Based Solar Power; Feb 2009; http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/pdf/safety_paper.pdf; retrieved 17 Jun 2011] During normal operations microwave intensity in the area above the rectenna (and perhaps even around the rectenna in some circumstances) exceeds the human exposure standards documented in the previous section. Except for maintenance personnel, human exposure would normally not be permitted in these areas. However, in the case of occupationally required presence, the only protective measures required to reduce exposures to permissible levels are simple personal protective equipment such as glasses, gloves and reflective garments. INFRARED LASERS COULD ELIMINATE ANY OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT MICROWAVES-Edwards ‘10 [Lin; European space company wants solar power plant in space; Physorg.com; 21 Jan 2010; http://www.physorg.com/news183278937.html; retrieved 17 Jun 2011] Earlier concepts of beaming power to Earth from space were criticized because they relied on microwaves to transmit the power to the ground, which has safety concerns, so Astrium plans to use infrared lasers instead, which means that even if they were misdirected people and objects hit by the laser beams could not be scorched. The transmission of power via infrared laser has been tested in Astrium’s laboratories, and they are now concentrating on improving the system’s efficiency. Work on developing converters to convert received infrared energy to electricity is proceeding rapidly, and Astrium is collaborating in this work with scientists at the University of Surrey, in the UK. The company is hoping to achieve 80% efficiency in the conversion. According to Astrium’s chief technology officer, Robert Laine, at present the power handled by the system is limited by the size of the laser that can be built. A demonstration mission would also be necessary to prove the system works, and this should be possible within the present decade.
[Ben; president emeritus of the National Space Society; An Energy Fix Written in the Stars; Washington Post; 12 Oct 2008] Some people worry about beaming gigawatts of microwave energy to the ground. But the microwave beams would be spread over a wide area, so they wouldn't be intense enough to harm anyone. Birds could fly through the thinly spread beams without harm. Nevertheless, it would be best for the receiving stations to be set up in unpopulated areas. The deserts of the American Southwest would be an ideal location. You could gain votes in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and California! THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT MICROWAVE TECH-Betancourt ‘10 [Kiantar; JD student, University of Maryland; Legal Challenges Facing Solar Power Satellites; Online Journal of Space Communication; Winter 2010; http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/betancourt.html; retrieved 24 Jun 2011] Public health and safety issues with microwave use have been examined extensively. Microwaves used in space solar power have no ionizing effect and there is no danger of cancer or genetic alterations due to microwave radiation.[16] The potential danger of microwaves, like energy from the sun and from artificially light sources, relates directly to the energy’s density in a given area. The design of SBSP systems calls for power densities well within safe limits at the planet’s surface. For example, the average power density of the sun’s rays is about 100 mW/cm2 while the design maximum of satellite solar power systems is 25 mW/cm2 on the planet’s surface.[17] Even high flying birds would still remain well within safe limits.[18] Scientist should still plan further safety studies, a necessary precaution for technology on this scale. A/T: INTERNATIONAL OBJECTIONS/CPLAN THERE ARE NO NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAT BLOCK THE SBSP-Rouge, et al ‘07 [Joseph; Acting Director, National Security Space Office; Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; 10 2007; retrieved 24 Jun 2011; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf] The SBSP Study Group found that no outright policy or legal showstoppers exist to prevent the development of SBSP. Full‐scale SBSP, however, will require a permissive international regime, and construction of this new regime is in every way a challenge nearly equal to the construction of the satellite itself. The interim review did not uncover any hard show‐stoppers in the international legal or regulatory regime. Many nations are actively studying Space‐Based Solar Power. Canada, the UK, France, the European Space Agency, Japan, Russia, India, and China, as well as several equatorial nations have all expressed past or present interest in SBSP. International conferences such as the United Nations‐connected UNISPACE III are continually held on the subject and there is even a UN‐affiliated non‐governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is dedicated to promoting the study and development of SBSP. The International Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at least one document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is presently ongoing. THE US IS A LOGICAL LEADER FOR INTERNATIONAL JOINT EFFORTS TO DEVELOP SBSP-Hsu ‘10 [Feng; Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management, Space Energy Group; Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity's Next Giant Leap; Online Journal of Space Communication; Winter 2010; http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/hsu.html;retrieved 23 Jun 2011] It is imperative that a multi-governmental organization or entity be put in place. For the U.S. - or any single nation - to implement a full-scale SPS project alone will be extremely difficult, if not inconceivable, due to the many political, regulatory and technological reasons stated. However, it is equally important that there be a lead nation providing the necessary leadership in such a complex and interdependent international effort. The various project elements involving multiple government and industry partnerships must be clearly defined. The United States is a logical leader in this area because of the breadth of its technology infrastructure and capability, as well as the magnitude of financial resources available in its industry and financial community. Building, launching and operating a system of Solar Power Satellites in space orbit is going to be a technology and engineering endeavor requiring great human effort and ingenuity. If we can go to the Moon and achieve the splitting of atoms, we can also overcome the inefficiency problems of solar-electric conversion, and we can achieve affordable access to space. We can make Solar Power Satellites a cost competitive source of energy for all of humanity. SBSP WILL PROVIDE A REASON FOR ALL NATIONS TO PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCE OF SPACE-Medin ‘10 [Kristin; Chief Industrial Designer, NewSpace DesignLabs; Disruptive Technology: A Space-Based Solar Power Industry Forecast; The Next Generation Of COMSATS; Online Journal of Space Communication; Winter 2010; http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/medin.html; retrieved 24 Jun 2011] Another, less often considered, benefit is that solar power satellites give all nations reasons to protect space as a natural resource for the benefit of all mankind. Space Law is in itself a future career path. As national economies become more space-bound, there will be a need for further resolution and definition of space peace treaties, such as the Commercial Space Act initiated by the United States in 1998, and laws governing the peaceful use of space for commercial development. AMERICAN LEADERSHIP CAN LEAD TO GLOBAL ENERGY AND CLIMATE SOLUTIONS-Rouge, et al ‘07 [Joseph; Acting Director, National Security Space Office; Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security; 10 2007; retrieved 24 Jun 2011; http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf] If the United States is interested in energy, sustainable development, climate change, and the peaceful use of space, the international community is even hungrier for solutions to these issues. While the US may be able to afford increased energy prices, the very availability and stability of energy is a threat to other countries’ internal stability and ability for development. SBSP offers a way to bypass much terrestrial electrical distribution infrastructure investment and to purchase energy from a reliable source at receiver stations that can be built by available domestic labor pools without significant adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse gas emissions. A/T: SBSP AS A WEAPON SBSP BEAMS COULD NEVER BE USED AS WEAPONS-Logan ‘09 [Dr. James; PhD and 18 year career at NASA; Safety of Space-Based Solar Power; Feb 2009; http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/pdf/safety_paper.pdf; retrieved 17 Jun 2011] [NOTE: Microwave beams associated with SBSP operations could never be used as weapons. Microwave weapons, if they are ever developed, will use very high‐power pulses at short ranges. Their design is quite different from that projected for SBSP]. Space Debris Affirmative Note: There are two files you may find useful if you decide to use this Affirmative. Extensions for the space exploration advantage can be found in the Helium-3 Affirmative and additional space debris scenarios—hegemony and economy—are located in the Space Debris Disadvantage in the Copernicus Negative Positions book. This Affirmative is currently written as a traditional Inh-Harms-Solvency Aff, but would be quite easy to modify. Observation 1. THERE IS NO COORDINATED WILL TO SOLVE SPACE DEBRIS IN THE STATUS QUO A. NO ONE IS ACTING TO CONTROL DEBRIS NOW-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] In regards to space operations, while improvement of space situational awareness (SSA) is a major focus for debris tracking, it may not be needed for remediation purposes. Dr. Johnson stated that debris tracking itself is not necessarily a prerequisite for debris elimination, noting that the U.S. Space Catalog is “reasonably complete” at 10 centimeters (viewing debris 10 centimeters in diameter and larger).103 Conversations with Dr. Johnson also elicited a wealth of information about the current state of international governance.104 “National governments do not yet see a need to put money into debris removal,” he stated. “There is no commercial application yet…. Who is going to pay for [it]? Where will the money come from?”105 Calling UN adoption of IADC debris mitigation guidelines a “tremendous success,” Johnson explained its sphere of influence. “The space community has to adhere…by means of simple peer pressure.” Observation 2. HARMS A. THE AMOUNT OF DEBRIS IS BUILDING TO A CRITICAL MASS, AFTER WHICH DEBRIS WILL CASCADE, CRIPPLING OUR MILITARY SPACE SYSTEMS AND COMMERCIAL SATELLITES-Doctorow ‘11 [Cory; staff writer; Space debris to go critical, reduce all satellites to junk?; BoingBoing; 11 May 2011; http://boingboing.net/2011/05/11/space-debris-to-go-c.html; retrieved 16 Jun 2011] The amount of debris in the orbits used by our communications and weather satellites is building toward critical mass, a point of no return in which debris starts to smash into active satellites, turning them into more debris that smashes more sats, and so on. There's no cost-effective solution to the space-junk problem and none are on the horizon. Marshall Kaplan (Johns Hopkins Space Department) believes that it's inevitable that all the satellites in use will be percussively decommissioned and their orbits will be unusable. He speculates that we'll replace them with lower orbit satellite constellations that relay to one another in order to achieve the coverage attained by today's high-orbit sats. Here's Gen. William Shelton, commander of USAF Space Command: The traffic is increasing. We've now got over 50 nations that are participants in the space environment," Shelton said last month during the Space Foundation's 27th National Space Symposium. Given existing space situational awareness capabilities, over 20,000 objects are now tracked. "We catalog those routinely and keep track of them. That number is projected to triple by 2030, and much of that is improved sensors, but some of that is increased traffic," Shelton said. "Then if you think about it, there are probably 10 times more objects in space than we're able to track with our sensor capability today. Those objects are untrackable ... yet they are lethal to our space systems -- to military space systems, civil space systems, commercial -- no one's immune from the threats that are on orbit today, just due to the traffic in space." B. TOO MUCH SPACE DEBRIS COULD LEAD TO A CHAIN REACTION OF COLLISIONS, CREATING A BELT OF DEBRIS AROUND THE EARTH-Schwartz ‘10 [Evan; The Looming Space Junk Crisis: It’s Time to Take Out the Trash; Wired; 24 May 2010; http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/kessler-syndrome/; retrieved 16 Jun 2011] On clear winter nights, when the trees are bare, Donald Kessler likes to set up a small telescope on the back deck of his house in Asheville, North Carolina, and zoom in on the stars shining over the Blue Ridge Mountains. It’s not the most advanced home observatory, but the retired NASA scientist treasures his Celestron telescope, which was made in 1978. That also happens to be the year Kessler published the paper that made his reputation in aerospace circles. Assigned to the Environmental Effects Project Office at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, the astrophysicist had gotten interested in the junk that humans were abandoning in the wild black yonder—everything from nuts and tools to defunct satellites and rocket stages the size of school buses. In that seminal paper, “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt,” Kessler painted a nightmare scenario: Spent satellites and other space trash would accumulate until crashes became inevitable. Colliding objects would shatter into countless equally dangerous fragments, setting off a chain reaction of additional crashes. “The result would be an exponential increase in the number of objects with time,” he wrote, “creating a belt of debris around the Earth.” At age 38, Kessler had found his calling. Not that his bosses had encouraged him to look into the issue—”they didn’t like what I was finding,” he recalls. But after the paper came out, NASA set up the Orbital Debris Program Office to study the problem and put Kessler in charge. He spent the rest of his career tracking cosmic crap and forming alliances with counterparts in other nations in an effort to slow its proliferation. His description of a runaway cascade of collisions—which he predicted would happen in 30 to 40 years—became known as the Kessler syndrome.
[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]
According to a space commission led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ““[t]he [United States] is more dependent on space than any other nation.””152 According to Robert G. Joseph, former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department, ““space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well-being.””153 Therefore, a catastrophic collision between space debris and the satellites on which that national security so heavily depends poses a very real and current threat to the national security interests of the United States.
[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] A recent NASA study that simulated active debris removal over the next 200 years showed that certain pieces of space debris are more dangerous than others, in that they are more likely to cause debris-creating collisions (Liou and Johnson 2007). These more dangerous objects have masses of 1,000 to 1,500 kilograms and 2,500 to 3,000 kilograms; orbital inclinations of 70 to 75, 80 to 85, and 95 to 100 degrees; and orbital altitudes of 800 to 850, 950 to 1,000, and 1,450 to 1,500 kilometers. The study found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly stabilize the future space debris environment (Liou and Johnson 2007, 3). These results suggest that the threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing several large pieces from critical orbits. This would make effective space debris removal much more straightforward and potentially manageable by one nation or a small group of nations. In other words, the countries responsible for the majority of the current space debris population—China, Russia, and the United States not only should take responsibility, but also now can take responsibility. Efforts to develop removal systems should begin immediately. B. A DEBRIS REMOVAL DEMONSTRATION IS CRITICAL FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS-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] United States space policies have evolved to a formal recognition of the debris problem through the creation of national space debris mitigation guidelines. Although decades of research have given policymakers multiple options for debris remediation, the research remains untested. A debris removal demonstration is needed and should be domestically proposed and international in scope. Signaling the serious nature of the problem through global outreach, such a demonstration would enable the scientific community to move beyond theoretical debris removal techniques to practical applications. A conduit for funding of applied research would then be opened, with an exercise of actual debris removal as the next logical step toward enhanced science and policy. C. LASERS ARE A TECHNOLOGICALLY MATURE, SCALABLE SOLUTION TO THE DEBRIS PROBLEM-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] If improved accuracy catalogs or tracking data become available then it is feasible that the system could engage thousands of (non-high impact) objects per year, or conversely that up to hundreds of high impact objects could be shielded by one facility per year. This is an order of magnitude more objects than one needs to remove in order to stabilize the growth (Liou & Johnson, 2009). Preventing collisions on such a large scale would therefore likely reduce the rate of debris generation such that the rate of debris reentry dominates and the Kessler syndrome is reversed. Continued operation over a period similar to the decay timescale from the orbital regions in question (typically decades) could thus reverse the problem. Additionally, scaling such a system (eg. multiple facilities) on the ground would be low cost (relative to space missions) and can be done with currently mature technology, making it a good near term solution. Further, if the current analysis proves optimistic, raising the power to 10kW and having 3-4 such facilities would increase the number of conjunctions that it is possible to mitigate by a further order of magnitude, and also would raise the maximummass and reduce the minimum A=M threshold for the system. 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:
|