Space Debris/Ozone da 1 debris disad 2
Download 165.07 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Ozone Impact—Extinction
- Ozone Impact—Biodiversity
- **AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS** Aff—Debris Inevitable
- Experts Agree- China’s Makes Space Debris Inevitable.
- Inevitable—large objects in crowded orbits
- Multiple Alt causes—Russia, china, and US ASAT missions
Ozone Link—SPSSBSP launching costs are astronomical and create gigantic disruptions to the ozone layer.Howard 9 (George, President of NSS Heart of America, Sept 6, A Position Paper on Space Solar Power Satellite Technology, http://www.nssheartofamerica.org/sspskc.html) According to The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology, copyright 1981; the total mass to be placed in space would be 88,000 to 110,000 US tons for SSPS that could produce a commercially viable amount of power. Using this information we can determine that if boosters capable of placing 100 tons into orbit were used it would require 880 to 1100 such launches. A Saturn 5 booster of the Apollo program could launch about 140 tons into orbit. This is about the size needed for a booster to accomplish the task to launch one booster per day for about 3 years. One hundred tons for cargo and 40 tons for a crew module. 110000 tons of equipment ___ = 1100 days to launch completion or 3.01 years. 100 tons launched per day. Each carrier vehicle with a 100 ton payload would be about the size of an Apollo Saturn 5 rocket, the Apollo program required 15 to 18 Saturn 5 boosters to be built. The SSPS program would require over 1000 of this size booster to be built. This is a tall order to say the least. Environmental impact: There is no real world comparison to launch one Saturn 5 sized rocket every day for three years. However it is known what happens when one Saturn 5 rocket is launched or a Space Shuttle or Energia booster. The launch results in an approximately 150 mile wide disruption of the ozone layer for several days. If you launch one rocket this size each day it would result in a persistent disruption that would extend over several thousand miles. If as an example the ozone hole persisted for 15 days before ozone completely recovered you may end up with the following result. A rough calculation would be 150 miles multiplied by 15 equaling a 2250-mile long disruption area. If you do this for three years it may result in a wider disruption area. The affected area will vary based on the fuels and oxidizers used. SBSP damages atmosphere, and raises the risk of cancer Bansal 11 (Gaurav, staff writer for EcoFriend , May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, EcoFriend, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/) Potential damage to Atmosphere: Till now microwave and other transmission methods that are adopted for all over the world are for communication and broadcast purposes only. However, for energy transmission, the wavelength has to very high which can be potentially dangerous to our atmosphere and will increase the risk of leukemia and cancer among humans. Suggested concentration and intensity of such microwaves at their center would be of 23 mW/cm2 and at periphery would be 1 mW/cm2 , which compares to the current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves. Similarly very high frequency used for such long distance propagation can be very dangerous and may lead to increase in radioactivity in earth’s environment. Ozone Impact—ExtinctionDestruction of the ozone causes extinction of the human race Festive Earth Society 9, 17 February 2009, http://festiveearth.com/content/view/96/54/index.html The ozone layer is essential for human life. It is able to absorb much harmful ultraviolet radiation, preventing penetration to the earth’s surface . Ultraviolet radiation (UV) isdefined as radiation with wavelengths between 290-320 nanometers, which are harmful to life because this radiation can enter cells and destroy the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of many life forms on planet earth. In a sense, the ozone layer can be thought of as a ?UV filter? or our planet?s ?built in sunscreen? (Geocities.com, 1998). Without the ozone layer, UV radiation would not be filtered as it reached the surface of the earth. If this happened, cancer would break out and all of the living civilizations, and all species on earth would be in jeopardy. Thus the ozone layer essentially allows life, as we know it, to exist. The ozone is a key factor is human life Gruijl 95 (Frank R. de Gruijl, Summer 1995, is a biophysicist on the research staff of the Dermatology Department, University Hospital, University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Since 1977 he has been involved in studies of effects of ultraviolet radiation on health, and now serves on the committee of the United Nations Environment Programme that deals with effects of an ozone depletion., Impacts of a Projected Depletion of the Ozone Layer, http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/impacts.html Life on Earth depends in part on a thin shell of gaseous ozone that stretches from about 10 to 25 miles above our heads, encompassing the planet like an invisible, protective shield. At this altitude, it lies well above the height at which normal commercial aircraft fly, and far beneath the orbital paths of spacecraft. The ozone layer is the main barrier between us and the hazardous ultraviolet radiation that streams toward the Earth, day in and day out, from the burning surface of the Sun. Ozone--a form of oxygen--is selective in what it takes from sunlight: screening out, through a process of atomic absorption, only the more energetic ultraviolet rays while allowing the visible light and the warm infrared to pass through, untouched Ozone Impact—BiodiversityIf the ozone is diminished then it would severely affect biodiversity Gruijl 95 (Frank R. de Gruijl, Summer 1995, is a biophysicist on the research staff of the Dermatology Department, University Hospital, University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Since 1977 he has been involved in studies of effects of ultraviolet radiation on health, and now serves on the committee of the United Nations Environment Programme that deals with effects of an ozone depletion., Impacts of a Projected Depletion of the Ozone Layer, http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/impacts.html ) All animals and plants and other organisms that are exposed to the Sun, though well shielded by the ozone layer, have developed ways to cope with and protect themselves from the small fraction of solar UVB radiation that normally reaches the Earth's surface. Even a small amount of UVB radiation can have a significant effect on ecosystems. In the tropics, for example, where a thinner ozone layer and a higher Sun result in systematically stronger UV dosage, certain trees have been found to be restricted in their growth by current levels of solar UV radiation. In ecosystem studies, as in medicine, science has not yet reached the point where any practically useful assessments of the consequences of increased dosages can be made. Research has thus far been mainly limited to more rudimentary studies in laboratories and greenhouses that test the sensitivity of different plant species to enhanced UV radiation. Only a few field investigations have been performed on an appreciable scale, and proper ecological studies are still in their infancy. In general, it appears that plant species can react in widely different ways to increased levels of UVB radiation: some may be clearly limited in their growth; other varieties may be insensitive or rapidly become so by adaptive mechanisms; and still others may even exhibit enhanced growth. Under added stress, as through drought, the differences in UV sensitivity may be completely lost. The majority of plant species that have been tested were agricultural plants; trees appear to run a higher risk of accumulating UV damage over their far longer lifetimes. In addition to direct effects on photosynthesis and growth, there may also occur more subtle changes, such as a delay in flowering, a shift in the distribution of leaves, a change in leaf structure, or a change in a plant's metabolism. As verified in field studies, such subtle changes may have far-reaching consequences by causing a plant to loose ground to neighboring plants with whom they compete. Thus, dramatic shifts in plant populations and in biodiversity may ensue. Biodiversity loss leads to extinction Diner 1994 (Major David N. Diner, Judge Advocate General's Corps, “The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangered Now? “143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, Winter 1994 Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. Ozone Impact—BeesDistruption of the ozone will destroy all of the bees Climate Change Report, 2011, Forest Partners, Global Warming, Pollution and Bees What’s the Buzz?, http://www.centerforabetterlife.com/eng/magazine/article_detail.lasso?id=106 When birds, bees, bats and, to a lesser degree, moths and butterflies disappear, so, too, will flowers, trees, vegetables, fruits and forage for livestock. Pollinators are critical for preserving healthy ecosystems, agricultural crops and vegetable gardens. Indeed, worldwide approximately 80 percent of plants grown for food, beverages (including chocolate and coffee) and medicine need pollinators to transfer pollen between flowers for successful seed and fruit production. Even cotton needs pollination. Honey bees, the most important of these pollinators, are “responsible for $15 billion in added crop value. About one mouthful in three in the diet directly or indirectly benefits from honey bee pollination,” explains the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In October 2006 beekeepers started noticing a significant loss in their honey bee hives – up to 60 percent. In fact, managed honey bee colonies have dropped from 5 million in the 1940s to less than 2.5 million today, according to the USDA. In addition, honey bee health has been steadily declining because of unknown causes such as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and known causes such as new pathogens and pests, new stresses and pesticides. “Despite its apparent lack of marquee appeal, a decline in pollinator populations is one form of global change that actually has credible potential to alter the shape and structure of terrestrial ecosystems,” stated May R. Berenbaum, Ph.D., professor and head of the entomology department at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences’ report Status of Pollinators in North America. Berenbaum’s research on chemical interactions between insects and the plants they pollinate makes her uniquely qualified to consider pesticide effects on honey bees. “It’s a double-edged sword. From a grower’s perspective, it’s hard to imagine achieving the level of productivity we have achieved without some way to assist plants in fending off their enemies even if you grow organically. The problem we have is prophylactic use; people tend to use a chemical before there’s really a need . . . the American idea that if a little is good, then more is better,” says Berenbaum. Chemical misuse is just one of the stressors causing pollinator disappearance. Another is global climate change. “Global climate change appears to be contributing to a mismatch between pollinators and plants. European data shows there have been shifts in distribution of pollinators, especially bumble bees. And the plants that depend upon them are also undergoing shifts,” says Berenbaum. Evidence suggests that global warming is to blame for modifying plant and animal ranges in the past few decades; that, in turn, is altering migration travel patterns. Migratory pollinators journey along routes where flowers bloom at the appropriate time during their migrations. If the timing doesn’t coincide, plants could suffer less pollination while travelers could face a long flight with no opportunity to replenish their energy along the way. In addition, increased carbon dioxide may change the production of nectar, the sweet liquid secreted by flowers and gathered by bees for making honey. And these alterations in nectar production can affect foraging pollinator behavior. Another contributing factor is increasing ultraviolet-B radiation caused by ozone depletion, which can delay flowering or reduce flowering production altogether (thus impacting plant and pollinator reproductive success). The loss of the bee will destroy humanity Environmental Quality Management 07 (Winter 2007, “The Case of the Disappearing Honeybees: An Environmental Harbinger?” http://www.entheogen.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-12279.html “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.” This widely cited quote has been attributed to Albert Einstein—although debunkers of “urban legends” say it is doubtful that he actually authored it. Regardless of the source, however, this statement underscores the important role bees play within the ecosystem and in the modern human food web. In order to bear fruit, three-quarters of all flowering plants, including most food crops, rely on pollinators for fertilization. Honeybees are the insects most important to the human food chain. They are the principal pollinators for hundreds of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and flowers. But what if we lost this important source of pollination? Colony Collapse Disorder Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is a bizarre, recently experienced phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive colony virtually vanish into thin air, leaving the vacated hive and precious honey supply behind. Beekeepers are watching their hives become bare in a matter of weeks, sometimes days. This makes CCD difficult to study. For example, a beekeeper who recently traveled with two truckloads of bees to California for pollination found nearly all of his bees gone or dead upon arrival. Commercial beekeepers are reporting losses of 50 to 90 percent, an unprecedented level even for an industry accustomed to die-offs. Many scientists are becoming increasingly alarmed at this epidemic. Honeybees pollinate one-third of the food eaten by Americans. Some worry that what’s shaping up to be a honeybee catastrophe could disrupt the national or even global food supply. The United States House of Representatives’ Committee on Agriculture has held hearings on the “missing bee” phenomenon. **AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS**Aff—Debris InevitableSpace debris inevitable- Even if launches ceased space junk would continue to expand.Schimd ‘6. AP Science Writer More than 9,000 pieces of space debris are orbiting the Earth, a hazard that can only be expected to get worse in the next few years. And currently there's no workable and economic way to clean up the mess. The pieces of space junk measuring 4 inches or more total some 5,500 tons, according to a report by NASA scientists J.-C. Liou and N. L. Johnson in Friday's issue of the journal Science. Even if space launches were halted now — which will not happen — the collection of debris would continue growing as items already in orbit collide and break into more pieces, "On the other hand, we are not claiming the sky is falling," he said, "We just need to understand what the risks are." Liou said in a telephone interview. The most debris-crowded area is between 550 miles and 625 miles above the Earth, Liou said, meaning the risk is less for manned spaceflight. The International Space Station operates at about 250 miles altitude, and Space Shuttle flights tend to range between 250 miles and 375 miles, he said. But the junk can pose a risk to commercial and research flights and other space activities. Much of the debris results from explosions of satellites, especially old upper stages left in orbit with leftover fuel and high pressure fluids. A 2004 NASA report identified Russia as the source of the largest number of debris items, closely followed by the United States. Other sources were France, China, India, Japan and the European Space Agency. Even without any launches adding to the junk, the creation of new debris from collisions of material already there will exceed the amount of material removed as orbits decay and items fall back to Earth, the researchers estimated. Only removal of existing large objects from orbit "can prevent future problems for research in and commercialization of space," they wrote. "As of now there is no viable solution, technically and economically, to remove objects from space," Liou said. He said he hopes the report will encourage researchers to think about better ways to do this. Tethers to slow down orbiting materials and cause them to fall back to Earth sooner could work, but attaching tethers to the space junk would be excessively expensive for the benefit gained, the researchers said. Newly launched satellites and boosters could include engines that would direct them back to Earth, but that would require costly and complex power and control systems. And use of ground-based lasers to disturb the orbits of satellites isn't practical because of the mass of the satellites and the amount of energy that would be needed. "The bottom line is very simple." Liou said. "Although the risk is small, we need to pay attention to this environmental problem." Aff—Debris InevitableExperts Agree- China’s Makes Space Debris Inevitable.Broad 7 – Pulitzer Prize winning science writer William Broad, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat,” 2-2007, NYT, Proquest Now, experts say, China’s test on Jan. 11 of an antisatellite rocket that shattered an old satellite into hundreds of large fragments means the chain reaction will most likely start sooner. If their predictions are right, the cascade could put billions of dollars’ worth of advanced satellites at risk and eventually threaten to limit humanity’s reach for the stars. Federal and private experts say that early estimates of 800 pieces of detectable debris from the shattering of the satellite will grow to nearly 1,000 as observations continue by tracking radars and space cameras. At either number, it is the worst such episode in space history. Today, next year or next decade, some piece of whirling debris will start the cascade, experts say. “It’s inevitable,” said Nicholas L. Johnson, chief scientist for orbital debris at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “A significant piece of debris will run into an old rocket body, and that will create more debris. It’s a bad situation.” Inevitable—large objects in crowded orbitsBombardelli et. al. 11(Claudio Bombardelli, and Jesus Peláez,Technical University of Madrid, “ Ion Beam Shepherd for Contactless Space Debris Removal”, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1289v1.pdf) According to a study by Liou and Johnson even assuming no new satellites were launched, the increase rate of trackable objects generated by accidental collisions would exceed the decrease rate due to atmospheric drag decay starting from about the year 2055. This trend is mostly due to large and massive objects placed in crowded orbits, that is, at altitudes between 800 and 1000 km and near-polar inclination. Aff—Alt CausesMultiple Alt causes—Russia, china, and US ASAT missionsImburgia 11(Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, (B.S., United States Air Force Academy (1994); J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law (2002); “ Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk”, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-of-transnational-law%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D6574&rct=j&q=Joseph%20S.%20Imburgia%20is%20usaf%20University%20of%20Tennessee%20College%20of%20Law&ei=m9wITqmzFsfV0QHt4KnbCw&usg=AFQjCNEglOEqH_3OfmcbgE6HXwiHKrBz8g&sig2=NRXHp8brVZYLKQSpoUqqFA&cad=rja) Although China drastically increased the space debris population through its 2007 ASAT mission, it is certainly not the only originator of space debris. As evidenced by the February 2009 satellite collision, Russia and the United States are also responsible.108 With its January 2007 ASAT mission, China is the number one space polluter per satellite in terms of the ratio of space debris created to satellites launched.109 However, the United States and Russia rank second and third respectively. 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 165.07 Kb. Share with your friends:
|