SPS
Every SPS put in space would require at least 120 launches
NASA Academy 08 (Leadership development summer program for undergraduate and graduate students interested in pursuing careers in space-related fields at Goddard Space Flight Center) August 7, 2008 “Roadmap to a Space Faring Civilization” http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/NA08_GSFC_RSFC_VER_1.0.pdf
The major obstacle to developing and improving SBSP is a lack of organization and funding. Since the National Security Space Office (NSSO) SBSP study came out in fall 2007, no funded work has been completed. The first step is to determine who should be in charge of coordinating the development. Although SBSP clearly involves space, it is mainly an energy technology, and therefore should be managed by someone such as the DOE. An organization within or directed by DOE, such as Energy Research and Development Organization (ERDO), which preceded DOE and no longer exists, should take responsibility. At this point in development, a relatively small amount of funding is necessary. We propose funding on the scale of $10 million, and it can easily be justified to congress as a small investment into new technology that will help us attain energy independence. A small amount of successful funded research should grow exponentially when the technology potential is seen and pursued by industry and universities. Since it was first proposed in the 1960s, approximately $80 million has been spent in the study of SBSP. In contrast, since the 1950s, approximately $21 billion has been spent for the development of fusion power (40). Government funding for SBSP should be increased to a comparable level. The other major factor preventing SBSP development is high launch costs and the lack of easy access to space. According to the SBSP Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study by (NSSO), construction of a single SBSP satellite would require at least 120 launches. In general, launch costs are the only major factor limiting the development and use of space, and SBSP will encourage companies to develop technology to decrease these costs. SBSP will catalyze the development of commercial access to space, and in the same way, development of commercial access to space will catalyze the use of SBSP. It is impossible to put a price tag on SBSP because the technologies involved still need to be developed and demonstrated. For example, the current specific power of solar arrays is 180 W/kg, but is expected to improve to 1000 W/kg over the next two decades (41). Technologies 28 such as this should be able to be applied to many things other than SBSP along the way, and that should offset the cost of development. Once SBSP is actually deployed in space and customers purchase its electric power, it will pay for itself.
Weaponization
Space Weaponization Causes Permanent Debris
Scheetz 6 [Lori Scheetz: J.D. Candidate, Georgetown University Law Center, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review Georgetown International Environmental Law Review Fall, 2006 19 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 57, Infusing Environmental Ethics into the Space Weapons Dialouge, Fri
It is important to note that debris orbiting approximately 800 kilometers above Earth resulting from testing, deployment, and use of space weapons will reside there for decades. n81 After debris settles into orbit at more than 1,500 kilometers above Earth's surface, it will remain there indefinitely. n82 Collisions involving debris exceeding just one centimeter can be disastrous. n83 In LEO, a marble-sized debris fragment can collide with satellites "with about the same energy as a one ton safe dropped from the top of a five story building." n84 When these fragments collide, the quantity of debris increases. This prospect is compounded if each nation, in the long-term future, rationally takes advantage of the space commons and introduces its own weapons systems.
Weaponization of Space increases space debris
Katz-Hyman and Krepon 03 Michael Krepon (co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a Diplomat Scholar at the University of Virginia, and director of the South Asia and Space Security programs) Michael Katz-Hyman (member of the Stimson Center) Stimpson Center April 2003 “Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case against Weaponizing Space”
The weaponization of space, particularly with respect to the flight-testing of antisatellite weapons, would greatly compound existing concerns over safe passage. In the event of a resumption of ASAT tests, the Pentagon would attempt to mitigate space debris, as it does with respect to missile defense tests, but the effectiveness of such efforts is questionable. Moreover, other states that test ASATs may not be as conscientious about debris creation. The actual use of ASATs would compound these dangers exponentially. Space warfare would not only constitute a threat to targeted satellites, it would also create debris fields that would threaten satellites operating in low earth orbit, including NTM, space transportation systems such as the U.S. space shuttle, and the International Space Station. The damage resulting from warfare that includes ASAT use could be more long lasting in space than on Earth.
Rockets
Rocket Launches produce space debris
Lippe 11 (CEO of Leading insurer for functioning satellites, Chair of actuarial science at the University of Mannheim, Prize of the Kurt-Hamann-Foundation, Chief Operating Officer and Deputy CEO for Swiss Re) Stefan Lippe Swiss Re “Space Debris: On collision course for insurers? March 24, 2011
In examining GEO, the population of 190 rocket bodies residing near the GEO arc is troubling. Historically, the explosion of rocket bodies has been a major contributor to the debris environment with nearly 100 rocket body fragmentation leading to nearly 40% of the total in-orbit population catalogued, mostly in LEO. Many of these events happened years after the rocket body’s release in orbit
Share with your friends: |