space debris da planet debate 5-10-11 jfn 1

8/6/2019 Space Debris DA Planet Debate 5-10-11 JFN 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-debris-da-planet-debate-5-10-11-jfn-1 1/58

Space Debris DAPlanet Debate

Space Debris DA-Planet Debate

Space Debris DA-Planet Debate..................................................................................................................................................................1Space Debris DA—1NC (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................3Space Debris DA—1NC (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................4***Uniqueness***.......................................................................................................................................................................................5Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (1/2)..............................................................................................................6

Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (2/2)..............................................................................................................7***Links***................................................................................................................................................................................................8Space Debris DA—Link Magnifier—Cascade Effect ................................................................................................................................9Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (1/3)...................................................................................................................................................10Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (2/3)...................................................................................................................................................11Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (3/3)...................................................................................................................................................12Space Debris DA—Link—Space Weapons ..............................................................................................................................................13Space Debris DA—Link—ASAT’s ..........................................................................................................................................................14Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites ......................................................................................................................................15Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites/Rockets ........................................................................................................................16Space Debris DA—Link—Satellites ........................................................................................................................................................17Space Debris DA—Link—Rocket Launches ...........................................................................................................................................18***Impacts***...........................................................................................................................................................................................19

Space Debris DA—Impact—Satellites .....................................................................................................................................................20Space Debris DA—Impact—Weather Satellites ......................................................................................................................................21Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Hegemony ..........................................................................................................................................22Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (1/2)................................................................................................................................23Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (2/2)................................................................................................................................24Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Economy ............................................................................................................................................25Space Debris DA—Impact—Multilateral Space Cooperation .................................................................................................................26Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (1/2).......................................................................................................................................27Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (2/2).......................................................................................................................................28Space Debris DA—Impact—Insurance Rates ..........................................................................................................................................29Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (1/2).............................................................................................................................30Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (2/2).............................................................................................................................31Space Debris DA—Impact—Accidental War ..........................................................................................................................................32

Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Conflict ............................................................................................................................................33Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (1/2)....................................................................................................................34Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (2/2)....................................................................................................................35Space Debris DA—Impact—Radioactive Contamination ........................................................................................................................36Space Debris DA—Impact—Data Collection ..........................................................................................................................................37Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (1/2)...............................................................................................38Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (2/2)...............................................................................................39Space Debris DA—Impact—Magnitude—Remains a Threat for Centuries ............................................................................................40***Answers To***....................................................................................................................................................................................41Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Space Debris Increasing Now ..................................................................................................42Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Kessler Syndrome.....................................................................................................................44Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Future Missile Tests .................................................................................................................45Space Debris DA—AT—No Link—New Technologies Don’t Produce Debris ......................................................................................46Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Technology Solves .....................................................................................................................47Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—U.S. Efforts Solve .......................................................................................................................48Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Lasers Solve ................................................................................................................................49Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Electrodynamic Tethers Solve ....................................................................................................50Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Solar Sails Solve .........................................................................................................................51Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tungsten Clouds Solve ...............................................................................................................52Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tracking Solves ..........................................................................................................................53Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—De-Orbiting Solves .....................................................................................................................54Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Graveyard Orbits Solve ..............................................................................................................55Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Shielding Solves .........................................................................................................................56Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Voluntary Measures Solve ..........................................................................................................57

1Planet Debate



Space Debris DAPlanet DebateSpace Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Computer Modeling Solves .............................................................................................. ...... ...58

2Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—1NC (1/2)

A) Uniqueness—Risk of space debris collisions are low now

Space Daily, 10-15-10 (“Space Debris’ Environmental Impact,” accessed 5-6-11,

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Space_Debris_Enviromental_Impact_999.html)

Current estimates place the total number of trackable RSOs at about 22,500 with most of these in an

altitude band of approximately 700 km to 1200 km. In addition, there are thought to be millions of debrisobjects that are too small to track. While it is true that operational spacecraft in this altitude band are at risk

of colliding with debris, space is still "big" and collision probabilities are still low.

B) Link—Any vehicle launched into space increases the amount of space debris in orbit

Magnuson, Writer for National Defense Magazine, 10 (Stew, “Taking Out the Trash: What Can Be Done About Space

Debris?,” July 2010, accessed 5-7-11,http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/July/Pages/WhatCanBeDoneAboutSpaceDebris.aspx)

Retired Lt. Gen. Brian Arnold, vice president for space strategy at Raytheon space and airborne systemsand former commander of the Air Force’s space and missile systems center, said, “Virtually every time

we launch a vehicle into space, we contribute and continue to contribute to space debris. Fuel tanks, bolts,

and screws come loose, paint chips come off and eventually satellites die in orbit.”

C) Impact—Space debris proliferation risks collapsing the global economy, U.S. hegemony, and causing

mass starvation and global conflict

Moore, Independent Institute Research Fellow, 2-22-09 (Mike, “SPACE JUNK IT'S BEEN A NUISANCE; IT SOON

MAY BECOME A NIGHTMARE,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, accessed 5-3-11, p. factiva)

At the moment, the amount of debris in "low-Earth orbit" -- the region of space that extends a few hundredmiles above the atmosphere -- is merely a nuisance. The United States tracks objects in space and shares thedata with the world. Satellite handlers based in many countries use the data to slightly alter the course of their birds if a collision seems possible. End of story? Not quite. "Orbital space" is a natural resource, as surely

as land, air and water. It must be protected because it is home to nearly a thousand satellites put up by

many countries -- communications, geo- observation, geopositioning, weather and other types.

"Globalization" would not be possible without commercial satellites. Further, the United States' military-

related birds permit the country to conduct "precision" war. For the first time in history, satellites

provide the data and the guidance necessary to enable bombs and missiles to actually hit the targets they

are fired at. That's a moral plus. If a war must be fought, it should be prosecuted in such a way that militarytargets are hit and civilians spared to the greatest extent possible. No other country can fight a conventional

war as cleanly and humanely as the United States. Satellites make the difference. Because of theimportance of satellites to the American way of war, the United States insists that it must achieve the capabilityto militarily dominate space in a time of conflict. It is the only country that claims that right. Space, saysinternational law, is the common heritage of humankind and must be devoted to "peaceful purposes." America'struculent space-dominance language annoys many of its friends and allies.

Card continues on the next page…

3Planet Debate

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Space_Debris_Enviromental_Impact_999.html

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/July/Pages/WhatCanBeDoneAboutSpaceDebris.aspx


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/July/Pages/WhatCanBeDoneAboutSpaceDebris.aspx




Space Debris DA—1NC (2/2)

The card continues…

Meanwhile, some major powers -- particularly China and Russia -- think it smells of imperialism. A countrythat could control space in a time of conflict might also exercise that control in a time of peace. Since 1981,

virtually every country save the United States and Israel has gone on record in the U.N. General Assembly asfavoring a treaty that would prevent an arms race in space. Every year, the United States -- under presidentsRonald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- has used its veto power at theConference on Disarmament in Geneva to prevent serious talks. No one, including the United States, is likely tohave actual weapons in space in the foreseeable future. Space control does not require such weapons. Ground- based, sea-based and even air-based antisatellite weapons (ASATs) can do the trick. The United States has long been working on a variety of highly sophisticated ASAT programs -- indeed, the infrastructure for missiledefense is the sort of infrastructure needed for ASAT systems. When a country builds ever greater militarycapabilities, potential rivals react. China, in particular, is wary of the coercive possibilities of U.S. military power. The Middle Kingdom says it wants a space treaty, but in January 2007, it tested its own somewhat primitive ASAT -- a kinetic-kill device that roughly replicated a test the United States carried out in 1985. Is a

space-related arms race under way? Yes. But there is still time to ratchet it down, and the Obama administrationhas signaled that it might do so. That will be difficult, though. The belief in America as the exceptional nation isa major driver of U.S. foreign policy, and influential people and hard-line think tanks are comfortable with theidea that full-spectrum dominance in all things military is America's right. A nightmare scenario: The UnitedStates continues to work on its "defensive" ASAT systems. China and Russia do the same to counter U.S.capabilities. India and Japan put together their own systems. Ditto for Pakistan, if it survives as a coherentcountry. Israel follows suit, as does Iran. In a time of high tension, someone preemptively smashes spy satellitesin low-Earth orbits, creating tens of thousands of metal chunks and shards. Debris-tracking systems areoverwhelmed and low- Earth orbits become so cluttered with metal that new satellites cannot be safely

launched. Satellites already in orbit die of old age or are killed by debris strikes. The global economy,

which is greatly dependent on a variety of assets in space, collapses. The countries of the world head back

to a 1950s-style way of life, but there are billions more people on the planet than in the '50s. That's arecipe for malnutrition, starvation and wars for resources.

4Planet Debate




***Uniqueness***

5Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (1/2)

Space debris collision risks are low now

Swiss Reinsurance Company, 3-24-11 (Leading insurer for functioning satellites, “Space debris: on collision course for

insurers?,” accessed 5-2-11, http://media.swissre.com/documents/Publ11_Space+debris.pdf )

Much has been written about the collision risk in LEO and the results are well documented. For example, in

sun-synchronous orbit within LEO, the annual probability of collision of a 1 cm size debris with a 10 m

satellite exceeds 0.8%. This is the largest debris collision hazard anywhere in Earth orbit.

Space debris situation will be stable for the near future

David, Space.com Columnist, 5-9-11 (Leonard, “Ugly Truth of Space Junk: Orbital Debris Problem to Triple by 2030,”

accessed 5-9-11, http://www.space.com/11607-space-junk-rising-orbital-debris-levels-2030.html)

The good news is that no immediate action is necessary in terms of removing debris objects, Kaplan

advised, as experts estimate that the situation will not go unstable anytime soon.

Risk of space debris hitting space assets are low

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, “Space Security 2010,” August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,

http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf )

Collisions between such space assets as the International Space Station and very small pieces of untracked

debris are a frequent but manageable problem. Collisions with larger objects remain rare. A US National

Research Council study found that within the orbital altitude most congested with debris (900–1,000 km),the chance of a typical spacecraft colliding with a large fragment was only about one in 1,000 over the

spacecraft’s 10-year functional lifetime.

Debris threat is low in LEO and GEO orbits currently

Baiocchi and Welser, 10 (Dave and William, “Confronting Space Debris: Strategies and Warnings from Comparable Examples

Including Deepwater Horizon,” accessed 5-9-11, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1042.html)

Orbital (space) debris represents a growing threat to the operation of man-made objects in space.2 According to

Nick Johnson, NASA’s chief scientist for orbital debris, “[T]he current orbital debris environment poses

a real, albeit low level, threat to the operation of spacecraft” in both LEO and GEO (Johnson, 2010).There are currently hundreds of thousands of objects greater than one centimeter in diameter in Earth’s orbit.The collision of any one of these objects with an operational satellite would cause catastrophic failure of that

satellite.

6Planet Debate

http://media.swissre.com/documents/Publ11_Space+debris.pdf

http://www.space.com/11607-space-junk-rising-orbital-debris-levels-2030.html

http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1042.html








Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (2/2)

Space debris risks are low now

Hackett, Washington Times Contributing Writer, 4-25-07 (James, “Much ado about space debris,” Washington Times,

accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Some 80 percent of debris orbits between 500 and 600 miles altitude. The Chinese test, at 527 miles, createdmore debris right where traffic is heaviest. Air Force Space Command is tracking more than 1,000 pieces of debris from the Chinese test, plus 14,000 that were there before. So far, none has hit an active spacecraft. Infact, over the last 50 years there have been only three documented debris impacts with operational

spacecraft, and none have been destroyed. A Space Command Web site describing the Space Surveillance Network that tracks debris notes there is only a small amount in the low orbits of the space shuttle and

space station, and gives a worst-case estimate of 1 chance in 10,000 years of a piece of debris of baseball sizeor larger hitting either one. Even in the debris-heavy area around 500 miles altitude, Space Command says

normally there are only three or four objects orbiting in an area equivalent to the airspace over the

continental United States up to an altitude of 30,000 feet. Thus, it states, the likelihood of a collision is very

small.

Status quo space debris will only hit a satellite once every three years

Guterl, Newsweek International Senior Editor, 8-17-09 (Fred, “Space Junk: Earth is being engulfed in a dense cloud of

hazardous debris that won't stop growing,” Newsweek, p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

The event served as a wake-up call to space planners. Insurance rates for the $18 billion worth of activecommercial satellites now in orbit have ticked upwards by 10 to 20 percent since the accident. Governments,too, have grown to rely on networks of satellites to gather intelligence, direct weapons systems, forecast climateand weather changes, monitor agriculture, and operate communications and navigation systems. Experts

calculate that debris will now strike one of the 900 active satellites in LEO every two or three years . For the first time, junk is the single biggest risk factor to equipment in some orbits. Among the orbital threats aretwo former Soviet nuclear reactors. Even the International Space Station may one day be at risk, as debrisslowly descends to its 350-kilometer orbit.

7Planet Debate




***Links***

8Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Link Magnifier—Cascade Effect

Increased space debris causes the cascade effect—meaning one piece of debris can spawn thousands of

pieces

Williams, 95 (Christopher, “SPACE: THE CLUTTERED FRONTIER,” 60 J. Air L. & Com. 1139, May/June 1995, accessed 5-6-

11, p. lexis)

One of the most serious dangers posed by debris, and also one of the greatest theoretical dangers, is the

"cascade effect." The cascade effect is "a process by which space debris will become self-generating andtherefore uncontrollable." The more space objects there are in orbit, the greater the probability that there

will be a collision. With each new collision, there is a corresponding increase in the amount of debris,

which would then result in an even greater probability of collisions . Some experts state that, even if mankind launched no new objects into orbit, the debris population would continue to increase exponentially andmake at least parts of Earth orbit, such as LEO, unusable. While this is still a largely theoretical problem,simulations demonstrate the population of large space objects needed to begin such a chain-reaction is

only two to three times the current number of objects in orbit.

Space debris colliding creates more debris



The consequences go far beyond merely the loss of two pieces of property. Each satellite weighed more than

half a metric ton and was moving at 7.5 kilometers per second. The resulting explosion was catastrophic ,generating a massive cloud of cosmic debris--perhaps 100,000 pieces of junk bigger than one centimeter indiameter, estimates David Wright, a space expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In one stroke, the

accident increased by nearly a third the number of stray objects in the crucial 700-to-900-kilometer bandknown as low Earth orbit (LEO). The junk cloud will eventually disperse around the entire planet, like a

shroud.

9Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (1/3)

Space exploration and development ensures more space debris

Brisibe and Pessoa-Lopes, INMARSAT Regulatory Information Officer and Principal Consultant @

Space Risks, 01 (Tare and Isabel, “The Impact of Orbital Debris on Commercial Space Systems,” accessed 5-3-11, http://www.on-

orbit-servicing.com/pdf/Debris_Commercial.pdf )

However, the debris population in LEO may grow in an accelerated manner in the future if space flight

continues to be conducted as it was in the past. This was comprised of instances with the same launch andexplosion frequencies, coupled with the absence of end-of-life de-orbiting of either payloads or rocket boosters.Most models agree that rapid population growth can occur in the absence of appropriate debris

mitigation. The models also agree that the population level required to trigger rapid growth in a given

orbital region will be achieved before rapid growth is observed. In this regard, the Re-orbiting (boosting) of GEO spacecraft into disposal orbits (‘graveyard orbits’) at the end of their active life is a measure already in practice, and will contribute to a sustainable debris population in GEO.

Any space mission produces space debris

Taylor, USAF Major, 07 (Michael, “Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth's Orbital Debris Problem,” 20 Geo.

Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1, Fall 2007, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

C. SOURCES OF ARTIFICIAL ORBITAL DEBRIS As of August 2007, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network ("SSN")

had cataloged approximately 12,300 pieces of orbital debris. In addition to the cataloged objects, several thousand other objects aretrackable but have not been added to the SSN catalog because of delays in completing the detailed analysis required before an objectcan be cataloged. Although the international community has agreed that comprehensive debris tracking efforts will benefit everyone,the community has not reached agreement on the definition of orbital debris. The following proposal made by David Tan is, however,a good beginning: "Any man-made earth-orbiting object which is non-functional with no reasonable expectation of assuming or resuming its intended function or any other function for which it is or can be expected to be authorized." Of course, this definition properly excludes naturally-occurring space objects and particles as well as functioning satellites. The definition, however, does not

clearly address the issue of what makes a satellite non-functional. For example, functionality could be defined in terms of the ability toaccomplish the intended mission or in terms of maneuverability, or both. Considering this definition and its limitations, expertsgenerally identify four sources of orbital debris: inactive payloads, operational debris, fragmentation debris, and microparticulate

matter. The following paragraphs discuss these sources of orbital debris. 1. Inactive Payloads Inactive payloads are primarily

made up of satellites that have run out of propellant for station-keeping operations or have

malfunctioned and are no longer able to maneuver. The payload is the raison d'etre for a launch, asdistinguished from the rocket and upper stages used to place the payload into orbit. The SSN currently tracksalmost 3000 objects in this category, only a few hundred of which are active satellites, and the remainder of which are debris. 2. Operational Debris Operational debris includes any intact object or component part

launched or released into space during normal operations. Intact rocket bodies that remain in orbit after

launching a satellite constitute most of this type of debris . The SSN currently tracks approximately 1600

rocket bodies still in orbit around Earth, and an additional 1400 miscellaneous operational debris objects,including rocket nose cones, payload separation hardware, bolts, straps, and propellant tanks resulting from thenormal process of launching a satellite into orbit. 3. Fragmentation Debris The breaking apart of a space

object through explosions, collisions, and deterioration creates fragmentation debris. Over 170 space

objects have fragmented in this manner. The SSN tracks approximately 7300 pieces of fragmentation-typedebris--the largest category of trackable debris. Explosions create most of this type of debris. For example, between 1957 and 1999, fifty-seven rocket upper stages created fragmentation debris because the residual propellant in the upper stage exploded. These explosions account for 30% of all the cataloged debris.

10Planet Debate

http://www.on-orbit-servicing.com/pdf/Debris_Commercial.pdf








All space activities produce space debris

Jakhu, McGill Univ. Professor, 07 (Ram, “Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications, the Geostationary Orbit, and Space

Debris,” Astropolitics, Volume 5, Issue 2, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

There are various forms of space debris, but it mostly ‘‘consists of jettisoned spacecraft parts, nuts and

bolts, solar cells, abandoned satellites, paint chips, nuclear reactor cores, spent rocket stages, and solid

fuel fragments.’’ All space missions inevitably create space debris, e.g., rocket booster stages are

expended and released to drift in space and exhaust products are created. The testing of ASAT weaponshas also created hundreds of pieces of debris. It is the space powers that have created the problem, particularlythe U.S. and Russia. Together, they have accounted for more than 80% of all debris, though the space activitiesof other space-faring nations are contributing to the problem.

Any space mission will produce space debris



While all space missions inevitably create some amount of space debris, mainly as rocket booster stages

are expended and released to drift in space along with bits of hardware, more serious fragmentations areusually caused by energetic events such as explosions. These can be both unintentional, as in the case of unusedfuel exploding, or intentional, as in the testing of weapons in space that utilize kinetic energy interceptors.Catastrophic events of both types have created thousands of long-lasting pieces of space debris.1 More recently,2009 was the third consecutive year during which a major debris-creating event occurred. In January 2007 theChinese weather satellite FY-1C was destroyed with an Anti-Satellite Weapon (ASAT) and in February 2009two satellites – the Russian satellite Cosmos 2251 and the US satellite Iridium 33 – collided for the first time.

Launch events are the principal cause of space debris—more launches equals more debris



Two key factors affecting the amount of space debris are the number of objects in orbit and the number of

debris-creating launches each year. Growth in the debris population increases the probability of inter-

debris collision, which may in turn create further debris . A study by NASA has shown that, in LEO, inter-debris collisions will become the dominant source of debris production within the next 50 years. As debris

collides and multiplies, it will eventually create a “cascade of collisions” that will spread debris to levels

threatening sustainable space access.4 As of 2003 it was estimated that 43 percent of tracked debris resulted mostly from

explosions and collisions.5 Additional space debris in LEO could be created by use of ground- and space-based midcourse missiledefense systems currently under development, or other weapons testing in space.6 Between 1961 and 1996 an average of approximately 240 new pieces of debris were cataloged each year; these new pieces were the result, in large part, of fragmentation and

the presence of new satellites. Between 8 October 1997 and 30 June 2004 only 603 new pieces of debris were

cataloged — a noteworthy decrease, particularly given the increased ability of the system. This decline can

be related in large part to international debris mitigation efforts, which increased significantly in the 1990s,combined with a lower number of launches per year. In recent years, however, an increase in the annual rateof debris production has again been observed, as a result of the aforementioned major debris-creating eventsobserved in three consecutive years (2007–2009). Debris events in 2009 alone resulted in more than 1,650cataloged pieces of debris (i.e., 10 cm in diameter or larger).

11Planet Debate









Space debris is inevitable while conducting operations in space

O’Neill, Writer for Universe Today, 2-24-08 (Ian, “Space Debris May be Catastrophic to Future Missions,” accessed 5-7-

11, http://www.universetoday.com/12933/space-debris-may-be-catastrophic-to-future-missions-and-google-earth-is-watching/)

Even the most tightly controlled missions, such as the International Space Station, are expected to shed bits

and pieces over the course of their lifetimes. Space junk comes in all shapes and sizes and can be anythingfrom a small screw to entire dead satellites. Recorded examples of space junk include an old glove lost by EdWhite during the first ever US space walk in 1965 (during the Gemini-4 mission), a camera that MichaelCollins let slip in space in 1966 (during the Gemini-8 mission) and a pair of pliers that International SpaceStation astronaut Scott Parazynski dropped during an EVA last year.

12Planet Debate

http://www.universetoday.com/12933/space-debris-may-be-catastrophic-to-future-missions-and-google-earth-is-watching/

http://www.universetoday.com/84093/gemini-7/

http://www.universetoday.com/12933/space-debris-may-be-catastrophic-to-future-missions-and-google-earth-is-watching/

http://www.universetoday.com/84093/gemini-7/




Space Debris DA—Link—Space Weapons

Development of kinetic-intercept weapons causes space debris



Security concerns arising from the development of negation capabilities are compounded by the fact that manykey space capabilities are inherently dual-use. For example, space launchers are required for many anti-satellitesystems; microsatellites offer great advantages as space-based kinetic-intercept vehicles; and space surveillancecapabilities can support both space debris collision avoidance strategies and targeting for weapons. The

application of some destructive space negation capabilities, such as kinetic-intercept vehicles, would also

generate space debris that could potentially inflict widespread damage on other space systems and

undermine the sustainability of space security, as discussed in Chapter 1. In addition, a HAND isindiscriminate in its effects and would generate long-term negative impacts on space security.

13Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Link—ASAT’s

Development of ASAT’s causes space debris



Because actors may seek to offset space-based threats, the deployment of space-based strike systems wouldmost likely encourage the development of anti-satellite weapons and legitimize attacks on space assets in self-defense, thereby undermining certain normative restrictions and moratoria concerning such attacks. To ensure arapid response, strike systems would have to be placed in low earth orbit, making them vulnerable to attack.4Further, the testing and deployment of ASAT systems in response to the development of space-based strikecapabilities could generate space debris, further compromising the sustainable use of space for all space

actors.

14Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites

Launching satellites produces lots of space debris



Mission-related debris is hardware released as part of the normal deployment and operations of a spacecraft. A

typical space mission involves the launch of one or more satellites into orbit while releasing a variety of

pieces of hardware along the way from the launch process, such as explosive bolts and adaptor rings .Spent rocket bodies are a special type of mission-related debris treated separately due to their large mass and proclivity to explode. Likewise, once the satellite is placed into its final orbit, hardware may also be

released as the satellite is “started up.” This mission-related debris includes lens covers, solar panel

clamps and the like.

15Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Link—Satellites

Satellites cause lots of space debris

Pusey, JD Candidate @ Univ. of Colorado Law School, 10 (Natalie, “The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a

Global Response to the Space Debris Problem,” 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 425, Spring 2010, accessed 5-6-11, p.lexis)

Debris also enters Earth orbit as a by-product of normal satellite function . For example, when a satellite

deploys instruments or solar panels, it may accidentally release small pieces of hardware, such as bolts.

Additionally, a gradually deteriorating space object can produce "microdebris," such as bits of metal and

paint flecks. Extravehicular activity ("EVA"), i.e., astronaut spacewalks, also generates a relatively smallquantity of space debris; International Space Station astronauts have lost an access panel, a foot restraint, and athermal blanket during EVAs. Finally, satellites create debris when they stop functioning. When satellitesrun out of power or fuel, operators can no longer maneuver these dead satellites, also known as inactive payloads. Thus, these inactive payloads become debris. As recently as February 2009, an inactive Russiansatellite collided with a functional American commercial satellite; the two former satellites are now 402 piecesof orbital debris.

17Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Link—Rocket Launches

Rocket launches produce lots of space debris



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 fragmentations 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.

18Planet Debate






***Impacts***

19Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Satellites

Increased space debris risks uncontrolled chain reactions that destroy or disrupt commercial and

military satellites

Blake, Writer for the London Telegraph, 5-27-10 (Heidi, “Space debris threatens global communications; Orbiting junk

could destroy satellites, poses a risk to astronauts: Pentagon,” London Daily Telegraph, accessed 5-6-11, p. factiva)

Space is so littered with debris that a collision between satellites could set off an "uncontrolled chain

reaction" capable of destroying the communications network on Earth, according to a Pentagon report.The volume of abandoned rockets, shattered satellites and missile shrapnel in the Earth's orbit is

reaching a "tipping point" and now threatens the $250-billion U.S. space services industry, scientists say.A collision between two satellites or large pieces of "space junk" could send thousands of pieces of debris

spinning into orbit, each capable of destroying satellites. Global positioning systems, international phone

connections, television signals and weather forecasts are among the services at risk of being disrupted, theU.S. Defence Department's interim Space Posture Review says. This chain reaction could leave some orbits

so cluttered with debris, they would become unusable for commercial or military satellites , the report says

Access to low Earth orbit is key for allowing communications and civilian satellites to function

The Economist, 8-21-10 (“Junk science: the problem of space pollution,” accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Such low-Earth orbits, or LEOs, are among the most desirable for artificial satellites. They are easy for

launch rockets to get to, they allow the planet's surface to be scanned in great detail for both military and

civilian purposes, and they are close enough that even the weak signals of equipment such as satellite

phones can be detected. Losing the ability to place satellites safely into LEOs would thus be a bad thing .And that is exactly what these two incidents threatened. At orbital velocity, some eight kilometres a second,even an object a centimetre across could knock a satellite out. The more bits of junk there are out there, themore likely this is to happen. And junk begets junk, as each collision creates more fragments—a phenomenonknown as the Kessler syndrome, after Donald Kessler, an American physicist who postulated it in the 1970s.

20Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Weather Satellites

Reliable and accurate data from weather satellites are key to saving millions of lives each year

Brearley, Univ. of Southampton Professor, 05 (Andrew, “Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: Orbital Debris,” Astropolitics,

Volume 3, Issue 1, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

The usefulness of satellites is not limited to hi-tech telecommunications; satellite imagery can be utilised to

predict the optimal location to plant crops in harsh conditions. The importance of accurate

meteorological information, which can only be provided by satellites, is measured by saved lives . Clarkenotes that these satellites have already saved thousands, and would have saved more in a single instance –

when a cyclone was tracked across the Bay of Bengal but the warning did not reach the population on the

ground in time, half a million people were killed.

21Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Hegemony

Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit

The Economist, 2-21-09 (“Flying blind; debris in space,” p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

Space junk is dangerous. Anything larger than a fleck of paint poses a hazard to the useful workingsatellites that surround the Earth, and on which the world increasingly depends for communications,

broadcasting and surveillance. Space waste is not biodegradable. You cannot sweep it up. Instead, it will stay

in orbit for decades, or even centuries, before it eventually falls to earth and burns up.

Commercial satellites are vital to upholding U.S. hegemony

Akir, Ohio Univ. Doctoral Student, 03 (Ziad, “Space Security: Possible Issues and Potential Solutions,” accessed 5-7-11,

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf )

Commercial space systems are vital in support of military and other governmental operations and

activities. Military forces can often operate in environments with little or no existing communicationinfrastructure. Collecting information in the form of mapping and real-time movements of enemy forces

is of crucial importance. Commercial satellite imagery systems are used by governments to achieve their national security interests.15 During the U.S. showdown with Iraq earlier this year, the U.S. government usedsatellites to track the movement of the Iraqi military as well as keeping track on the where-abouts of the Iraqiweapons.16 Failure in commercial satellite operation may have devastating consequences on the outcome

of a military or political conflict.

U.S. hegemony is key to preventing great power wars, arms races and miscalculation

Khalilzad, 2-8-11 (Zalmay, “The Economy and National Security,” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-

national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)

The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the

era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive

dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar

international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating

consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to

balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms

races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking toaccommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the

United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.

22Planet Debate

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad?page=2




http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad?page=2




Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (1/2)






Commercial satellites are vital to the global economy



Space communication, particularly satellite communication, is becoming an integral component of our

overall global telecommunication infrastructure. Satellites are being used for communication, navigation,remote sensing, imaging, and weather forecasting. Satellites are also providing backup communicationcapabilities when terrestrial communication is interrupted in cases such as earthquakes or other natural (or unnatural ) disasters. The September 11th events in 2001 demonstrated the value of redundant satellite systemsin supporting rescue efforts.1 Many governments around the world, including the United States, rely on

commercial satellite systems for communication, commerce, and defense. Commercial satellite systemsinclude groundbased components such as earth station antennas, data terminals, and mobile terminals; andspace-based components include satellites and other systems (e.g. space station and launching vehicles) nowessential to global function. Commercial sectors and governments around the globe have huge investments inspace ranging from GEO and LEO satellites to the currently being constructed International Space Station(ISS). These assets are being used to support essential operations such as banking, telecommunication,

imaging, manufacturing, and research as well as defense. Moreover, satellites provide services whichcontemporary human life and well being have come to depends on such as predicting natural disasters, guidingships and aircrafts, providing distance education, and telemedicine.

23Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (2/2)

Economic decline triggers global conflicts

Auslin and Lachman, scholar and fellow at American Enterprise Institute , 09 (Michael and Desmond, “The

Global Economy Unravels”, 3-6, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravels-opinions-contributors-g20.html)

The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, justreported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China facedupward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats

to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own

people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil statecompletely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtownMoscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic

largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a

continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face

increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict . As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans.Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off.Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country.Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerouslyincreasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who haveincreased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999,while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. Thexenophobic labor strikes in the U.K . do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn,let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible

protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of

the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may

be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

24Planet Debate

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravels-opinions-contributors-g20.html

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravels-opinions-contributors-g20.html




Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Economy






Loss of commercial satellites would immediately crash the U.S. economy



Economic sectors such as telecommunication;, energy and utilities; transportation; and banking and

finance; rely on satellite systems. Damage to satellite operations will cause huge and painful monitory lossesto the operators of such services. The more dependent countries become on the information and services provided by satellites, the more significant the impact of failure are sure to be. For a country such as the United

States, an attack on its commercial satellite systems will create an “Information Pearl Harbor.” Such an

attack can damage the U.S. economy via its financial markets. Moreover, economic consequences can also be due to hijacking satellite links that provide telephony and television broadcast.

25Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Impact—Multilateral Space Cooperation

Diminishing the number of available orbital slots denies access to space and hurts multilateral space

cooperation efforts



The distribution of scarce space resources, including the assignment of orbital slots and radio frequenciesto spacefaring nations, has a direct impact on the ability of actors to access and use space. Growing

numbers of space actors, particularly in the communications sector, have led to more competition and

sometimes friction over the use of orbital slots and frequencies , which have historically been allocated on afirst-come, first-served basis.

26Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (1/2)

Increased space debris causes ozone depletion and disruptions in the Earth’s radiation belts

Seymour, JD @ Georgetown Univ. Law Center, 98 (Jennifer, “Containing the Cosmic Crisis: A Proposal for Curbing the

Perils of Space Debris,” 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 891, Spring 1998, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

The use of certain rocket and stratospheric aircraft fuels has been found to speed the depletion of the earth's

ozone layer. Specifically, the chlorine, aluminum, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide that are present in thesefuels have been detected in the ozone layer by scientists. At least one study has concluded that the presence of

nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide in the earth's atmosphere "may reduce the temperature of the

earth's surface," potentially impacting agricultural production. Another study has predicted that if space

missions began using liquid fuels, rather than the solid fuels that have been found to deposit ozone-

depleting chlorine and aluminum, "there would be a reduction in acid rain, ozone depletion, toxicity, the

production of aluminum particulates, and ice." In addition, scientist Andrei Konradi has suggested that

the introduction of debris into the near-earth environment has altered "high-energy proton fluxes in the

Van Allen radiation belt." Using data about the debris environment in near-earth orbit, Konradi's study found

that projected impacts between protons and debris particles would shorten the lifetimes of such protons, whichcould affect the radiation environment in near-earth orbit. Konradi's conclusion was based on data obtainedten years ago, not reflecting the significant increase in commercial uses of space that has prompted concernabout the orbital debris issue. Thus, the risk would likely be even more serious if current data were considered.Finally, at least one author has suggested that extensive use of the earth's atmosphere to burn up space

objects, either intentionally or incidentally, could damage the upper atmosphere. This concern does notreflect current conditions but predicts a possible side-effect of the number of current and future space objectsthat could become debris.

Ozone depletion leads mass death due to cancer, diseases, and global warming

Environmental Protection of Asia Foundation, 06 (“The Environment,” accessed 5-9-11,

http://www.environmentalprotectionofasia.com/primer/environment.htm)

The ozone layer, a thin band in the stratosphere, the upper part of the atmosphere, serves to shield the earth

from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. In the 1970s, scientists discovered that the layer was being attacked by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals used in refrigeration, air-conditioning systems, cleaning solvents,and aerosol sprays. CFCs release chlorine into the atmosphere; chlorine, in turn, breaks ozone down into itsconstituent parts of oxygen. Because chlorine is not affected by its interaction with ozone, each chlorinemolecule has the ability to destroy a large amount of ozone for an extended period of time.The consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer are dramatic. Increased ultraviolet radiation will

lead to a growing number of skin cancers and cataracts and also reduce the ability of people's immune

systems to respond to infection. Additionally, the growth rates of the world's oceanic plankton, the base of

all marine food chains, will be negatively affected, perhaps leading to increased atmospheric carbondioxide and thus to global warming. Even if the use of CFCs was immediately banned, the chlorine alreadyreleased into the atmosphere would continue to destroy the ozone layer for many decades. Additionally, thelatest studies suggest that global warming may increase the amount of ozone destroyed.

27Planet Debate

http://www.environmentalprotectionofasia.com/primer/environment.htm

http://www.environmentalprotectionofasia.com/primer/environment.htm




Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (2/2)

Increased space debris threatens the ozone layer and access to space



The recent increase in commercial space activity has brought to the table an issue that has been literally hangingover us for forty years: space debris. In fact, since the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, the problem of

human-made pollution in near-earth orbit has grown to a very dangerous level. Without swift action by both international regulators and the commercial space industry, this hazard will reach a level of self-

perpetuation that will significantly limit the possible human uses of space, threaten the earth's ozone

layer and potentially "permanently alter the near-Earth trapped radiation environment."

28Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Insurance Rates

Increased space debris causes the cost of space insurance to skyrocket

Taylor, USAF Major, 07 (Michael, “Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth's Orbital Debris Problem,” 20 Geo.

Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1, Fall 2007, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

E. INSURANCE Increased space debris will eventually affect the cost of insurance for space operations.

Insurance for space operations falls into one of two categories. The first type compensates a satellite owner or operator for the loss of a functional satellite and covers different phases of a satellite's life. The most commoninsurance of this type provides coverage for the phases of launch-in-orbit commissioning and in-orbit life. In atypical policy, 25% of the premium covers the launch and 75% applies to the remainder of the satellite'soperational life. Many satellites undoubtedly fail due to design or operational reasons unrelated to orbital debris but some satellites do collide with orbital debris. Thus, insurance underwriters will eventually have to

consider debris when setting insurance premiums for a satellite's operational phase. The insurance

market changes rapidly in response to launch successes and launch failures, even though launch coveragemakes up only 25% of the premiums. Similarly, as the risk of collision with orbital debris increases,

insurance underwriters will undoubtedly pay attention to that trend and respond by increasing

premiums or excluding damage caused by orbital debris from their policies.

Increased space debris causes higher insurance rates and risks destroying vital communications and

military satellites



The event served as a wake-up call to space planners. Insurance rates for the $18 billion worth of activecommercial satellites now in orbit have ticked upwards by 10 to 20 percent since the accident .Governments, too, have grown to rely on networks of satellites to gather intelligence, direct weapons

systems, forecast climate and weather changes, monitor agriculture, and operate communications and

navigation systems. Experts calculate that debris will now strike one of the 900 active satellites in LEO everytwo or three years. For the first time, junk is the single biggest risk factor to equipment in some orbits.Among the orbital threats are two former Soviet nuclear reactors. Even the International Space Station may oneday be at risk, as debris slowly descends to its 350-kilometer orbit.

29Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (1/2)

Increased space debris causes the cost of launch and orbit insurance to rise—which deters private access

and investment in space



Insurance affects both the cost and risk of access to space. Insurance rates also influence the ease with

which start-up companies and new technologies can enter the market.75 Although governments play animportant role in the insurance sector insofar as they generally maintain a certain level of indemnification for commercial launchers, the commercial sector assumes most of the insurance burden. There are two types of coverage: launch insurance, which typically includes the first year in orbit, and on-orbit insurance for subsequent years. Most risk is associated with launch and the first year in orbit. When covering launches,insurance underwriters and brokers discriminate among launch vehicles and satellite design so that the mostreliable designs subsidize the insurance costs of the less reliable hardware.76 Following a decade of tumultuousrates due to tight supply of insurance and a series of industry losses, many companies abandoned insurance

altogether, but recently there has been a softening of the launch insurance market.77 The approximate premium for launch vehicles (as a percentage of launch costs) has recently been in the range of: Ariane-5, 6.5 percent; Atlas-5, 6.6 percent; Sea Launch, 7.5 percent; Chinese Long March, 7.9 percent; and Proton, 10.3 percent.78 Terms have also become more restricted. Insurers do not generally quote premiums more than 12months prior to a scheduled launch and in-orbit rates are usually limited to one-year terms and often do notcover events such as terrorism or “Acts of God.”79 It is possible that insurance costs may go higher in the

future, owing to the risk caused by the significant increase in space debris in recent years.

Private space initiatives are key to sustain exploration efforts and spearhead the colonization of Mars

Sarath, 2-25-11 (Patrice, “Space, Inc: as the shuttle program lands for good, private companies step in,” accessed 5-9-10,

http://www.bizmology.com/2011/02/25/space-inc-as-the-shuttle-program-lands-for-good-private-companies-step-in/)

This warms the cockles of any science fiction writer’s heart, and it’s certainly dear to mine. However, as sad asI am to see the shuttle program go dark, it’s important to note that NASA is still in business, working on a newrocket among other technological initiatives. Still, political and financial considerations have kept the

brakes on government space exploration through the past 30 years of triumphs and heartbreaks. This is

where private companies and private initiatives step in. The X Prize, Burt Rutan, Richard Branson’s VirginGalactic, all of these initiatives will drive the commercialization of space flight. Private funding along withspace tourism may be able to fill the void left behind by the end of the shuttle program, and provide the

research and development necessary to put humans on Mars. It’s not just the plot of a science fiction novel,either. Humans are a resource-hungry species. With the right infrastructure, from rockets to shuttles to spacestations, to automated mining equipment to space elevators (my personal favorite in the pie-in-the-sky space

exploration Olympics), it is possible that the exploration of space will become the business of space in afairly short time. It’s interesting to compare the development of space flight with the development of mannedflight. It’s only now that the private sector has stepped in, after the government has stepped back, whereas theWright Brothers and their intrepid ilk led the way in their rickety airplanes. At a recent discussion of spaceflight at ConDFW, a science fiction convention, several experts in the space industry said that is exactly

what space flight needs now to carry it forward: the barnstormers and the space tourists to put it within

reach.

30Planet Debate


http://www.bizmology.com/2011/02/25/space-inc-as-the-shuttle-program-lands-for-good-private-companies-step-in/

http://www.hoovers.com/company/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration/hcxyci-1.html

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Constellation/posts/post_1231529149634.html


http://www.xprize.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan

http://www.virgingalactic.com/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Wrights.html

http://www.condfw.org/


http://www.bizmology.com/2011/02/25/space-inc-as-the-shuttle-program-lands-for-good-private-companies-step-in/

http://www.hoovers.com/company/National_Aeronautics_and_Space_Administration/hcxyci-1.html



http://www.xprize.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

http://www.wright-house.com/wright-brothers/Wrights.html

http://www.condfw.org/




Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (2/2)

Mars colonization is key to prevent extinction

Zubrin, President of the Mars Society, 94 (Robert, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier,” accessed 5-9-11,

http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html)

Turner presented his paper in 1893. Just three years earlier, in 1890, the American frontier was declared closed:the line of settlement that had always defined the furthermost existence of western expansion had actually metthe line of settlement coming east from California. Now, a century later, we face the question that Turner himself posed — what if the frontier is gone? What happens to America and all it has stood for? Can a

free, egalitarian, democratic, innovating society with a can-do spirit be preserved in the absence of room

to grow? Perhaps the question was premature in Turner's time, but not now. Currently we see around us an evermore apparent loss of vigor of American society: increasing fixity of the power structure and bureaucratizationof all levels of society; impotence of political institutions to carry off great projects; the cancerous proliferationof regulations affecting all aspects of public, private and commercial life; the spread of irrationalism; the banalization of popular culture; the loss of willingness by individuals to take risks, to fend for themselves or

think for themselves; economic stagnation and decline; the deceleration of the rate of technological innovationand a loss of belief in the idea of progress itself. Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall. Without a

frontier from which to breathe life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that

America has offered to the world for the past several centuries is fading. The issue is not just one of national loss — human progress needs a vanguard, and no replacement is in sight. The creation of a newfrontier thus presents itself as America's and humanity's greatest social need. Nothing is more important:

Apply what palliatives you will, without a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire

global civilization based upon Western enlightenment values of humanism, reason, science and progress

will die. I believe that humanity's new frontier can only be on Mars.

Private space initiatives are vital to overall space innovation—turning the case

Diamandis, X Prize Foundation CEO, 2-1-10 (Peter, “ NASA Embraces American Capitalism and Entrepreneurship,”

accessed 5-9-11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-diamandis/nasa-embraces-american-ca_b_444673.html)

The U.S. Government doesn't build your computers, nor do you fly aboard a U.S. Government owned andoperated airline. Private industry routinely takes technologies pioneered by the government and turns

them into cheap, reliable and robust industries. This has happened in aviation, air mail, computers, and

the Internet. It's about time that it happen in space. The President's plan for commercial competition willultimately take us much farther and much faster, not only to the Moon, but to Mars, the asteroids and beyond.Private companies will drive a very high level of safety because they will cease to exist if they do not.

America's capitalist engine drives reliability in our aircraft, our cars, our computers and will do so in

space, as well. Private companies will also inject innovation and breakthrough technology into our space

program because that is their ethos.

31Planet Debate

http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-diamandis/nasa-embraces-american-ca_b_444673.html


http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html






Space Debris DA—Impact—Accidental War

Collision of space debris with sensitive military satellites could spark miscalculation and accidental war



There have been several recorded close encounters with space debris and one confirmed collision, in which thespent third stage of Ariane Flight 16 collided with and disabled the French military micro-satellite CERISE on24 July 1996. Several Space Shuttle flights, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Long Duration Exposure Facility,and the International Space Station (ISS) have suffered numerous times damage due to space debris. In 1985, aU.S. kinetic energy ASAT test produced over 250 pieces of catalogued debris, some of which came within1.3km of the ISS. The last piece of debris generated from this test de-orbited almost twenty years later in2002.A collision of a piece of space debris with an active military satellite , such as the CERISE accident,during a period of high tension could have very serious implications between the concerned states. Debrisnot only pose a threat to active satellites in orbit, but can also cause damage on the surface of the Earth. For example, the Soviet satellite COSMOS 954 disintegrated in 1978 and scattered radioactive debris over a large

area in Northern Canada.

32Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Conflict

Increased space debris risks nations using it as a weapon to disable enemy satellites



In addition to the incidental dangers that space debris poses, it has the potential to be intentionally used as a

military weapon. Nations could deliberately create debris and use it to harm or destroy enemy

reconnaissance satellites, communications devices, and even astronauts. Space debris could also be

intentionally used to effectively render a particular orbit unusable for space activity. The lack of international law regarding the intentional and aggressive use of space debris makes this problem even moreconcerning. While Cold War-era space treaties prohibited nuclear warfare and the use of weapons of massdestruction in space, international space law does not prohibit the use of conventional explosives in Earth orbit.

33Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (1/2)

More space debris threatens to disrupt global communications

Graham-Rowe, Science Writer, 6-3-10 (Duncan, “Junk in space,” The Times, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Of the 20,000 or so large objects now in orbit only 5 per cent are active spacecraft; apart from the Moon the restis junk. And with an average speed of more than 22,000mph even very small pieces of debris have the potentialto rip open anything in their path. Besides the space-faring passengers of Virgin Galactic, this poses a real threatto any orbiting spacecraft, satellite or probe unlucky enough to end up in the firing line. If the problem is left

unchecked, the implications for the rest of us here on Earth are: increasing disruptions to our

communications and weather services, satellite navigation devices taking a wrong turn and TV

transmissions zoning out. The situation is already out of our control and experts agree that it is going to getworse - much worse.

Telecommunications satellites are vital tools for global development and economic growth



It is generally known that telecommunications infrastructure and services are indispensable tools for

socioeconomic and cultural development of a country. Telecommunication ‘‘facilities and services are not

only the consequence of economic growth, but a prerequisite for overall development;

telecommunications are an integral part of the national and international development process.’’ Abouttwo-thirds of world’s population does not have reasonable access to basic telecommunications and theremaining one-third keeps expanding its communications requirements. This implies that there is a need for amajor expansion of telecommunications in the world. Consequently, there might be an enormous market for telecommunications equipment and services. It is undisputed that satellites are the best means for a rapid

expansion of telecommunications, particularly for thin-route traffic, and mobile and broadcasting services.

Because of the unique advantages of satellites, their use is, and will be, expanding. However, the level of thatexpansion is, and will be, greatly determined by the availability of the two indispensable tools for satellites,which are orbital positions and radio frequencies, i.e., electromagnetic spectrum.

Space debris proliferation threatens global communications and future space missions

Schwartz, Wired Magazine Contributing Writer 5-24-10 (Evan, “The Looming Space Junk Crisis: It’s Time to Take

Out the Trash,” Wired Magazine, accessed 5-3-11, http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/kessler-syndrome/)

Incidents like these served as clear signs from above that something must finally be done about space junk . Itsproliferation threatens not only current and future space missions but also global communications—

mobile phone networks, satellite television, radio broadcasts, weather tracking, and military surveillance,

even the dashboard GPS devices that keep us from getting lost. The number of manufactured objectscluttering the sky is now expected to double every few years as large objects weaken and split apart and newcollisions create more Kesslerian debris, leading to yet more collisions.

34Planet Debate

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_space_junk/


http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/kessler-syndrome/



http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/kessler-syndrome/




Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (2/2)

GEO satellites are vital to enable global communication



GEO exists much further away from the planet than LEO; it is located in a ring around the Earth’s equator, at amean altitude of approximately 36,000 km.34 GEO is extraordinarily useful, as satellites within it have the

appearance of being fixed in the sky when viewed from the planet’s surface.35 Several authors refer to it interm of a ‘unique natural resource’; Yasaka goes further, stating that its importance is such that in terms of

human welfare its contribution could never be over-emphasised. Arthur C. Clarke first identified this orbitin a 1945 paper, wherein he calculated the altitude at which an object would remain stationary in the sky. The

threat of debris is brought into focus by the immense importance of geostationary orbit; satellites located

there allow for instant telephone, television and e-mail contact from any point on the planet, they are the

‘back-bone’ of global communications. Such revolutionary means of communications, provided by satellitetechnology, have been a primary force in the phenomenon of globalisation. The origin of these communications

can be traced to 1967 when one television broadcast, ‘Our World’, linked 24 countries for the first time, a broadcast witnessed by 400,000,000 people. Technology used in GEO has developed in the last 20 years suchthat direct satellite broadcasts are possible to homes with a receiver dish. It is by this means that the Skysatellite network is broadcast in the UK; more importantly, from a political perspective, it is the means by whichal-Jazeera can broadcast, without restriction, to countries throughout the Middle East.

35Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Radioactive Contamination

Increased space debris risks atmospheric radioactive contamination



Another possible danger of space debris is its potential surface harm when it re-enters the atmosphere.

Approximately 200 objects return to Earth from space each year. Despite this frequency, re-entry does not posea notable risk to people, property, or the environment, as most of the debris incinerates when it enters theatmosphere. The dangers of radioactive debris re-entry, however, represent a disconcerting reality. Cold

War-era satellites were often built with radioactive components. Approximately 1,500 kilograms of

radioactive material orbits Earth. If this type of debris re-enters Earth's atmosphere over a populated

area, it could greatly harm human health and property. In addition to the alarming possibility thatradioactive debris can re-enter the atmosphere, it also presents a safety hazard for manned space operations.

36Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Data Collection

Space debris hurts the collection of accurate scientific data



"Scientists believe space debris may impair the accuracy of scientific data by settling on optical surfaces,

thereby reducing their transmission, cause interference with radio signals, and may degrade the surfaces

of optical instruments and solar panels, thereby impairing the accuracy of the data collected ." Thesefactors make it difficult for scientists to accurately determine the value not only of independent research, butalso of their assessments of the debris condition in near-earth orbit.

37Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (1/2)

Increased space debris leads to more spacecraft shielding—hurting space exploration efforts and denying

access to space

Broad, New York Times Science Writer, 2-6-07 (William, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat,” New York

Times, accessed 5-5-11, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html)

If nothing is done, a kind of orbital crisis might ensue that is known as the Kessler Syndrome, after Mr. Kessler.A staple of science fiction, it holds that the space around Earth becomes so riddled with junk that launchings arealmost impossible. Vehicles that entered space would quickly be destroyed. In an interview, Mr. Kessler calledthe worst-case scenario an exaggeration. “It’s been overdone,” he said of the syndrome. Still, he warned of an

economic barrier to space exploration that could arise. To fight debris , he said, designers will have to give

spacecraft more and more shielding, struggling to protect the craft from destruction and making them

heavier and more costly in the process. At some point, he said, perhaps centuries from now, the costs will

outweigh the benefits. “It gets more and more expensive,” he said. “Sooner or later it gets too expensive

to do business in space.”

More space debris threatens all future space missions

David, Secure World Foundation Research Associate, 09 (Leonard, “Space Debris; a growing challenge,” Aerospace

America, October 2009, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Orbital debris "is the gravest threat to new and existing space systems." That is a view shared by two

RAND experts, Caroline Reilly, a research assistant working on defense strategy and planning, and Peter Zimmerman, former chief scientist for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former State Dept.science advisor. They cite the sheer volume of debris and the lack of any mechanism for cleaning it up, factorsenhancing the odds that more orbital junk, if left unchecked, may render portions of space temporarily or

permanently unusable.

Even small space debris can threaten spacecraft and deny space access



Space is a harsh environment and orbital debris represents a growing threat to the secure access to, and

use of, space due to the potential for collisions with spacecraft. Because of orbital velocities of up to 7.8 km per second (~30,000 km per hour) in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), debris as small as 10 cm in diameter carries

the kinetic energy of a 35,000-kg truck traveling at up to 190 km per hour. While objects have lower relative velocities in Geostationary Orbit (GEO), debris at this altitude is still moving as fast as a bullet – about1,800 km per hour. No satellite can be reliably protected against this kind of destructive force and, whilesome satellites and spacecraft have been hardened to withstand minor impacts from space debris, it isconsidered impractical to shield against objects bigger than a few centimeters.

38Planet Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html







Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (2/2)

Space debris limits the number of orbital slots available



Earth orbits are limited natural resources. Actors who wish to place a satellite in orbit must secure an

appropriate orbital slot in which to do so and secure a portion of the radio spectrum to carry their satellitecommunications. Both radio frequencies and orbital slots are indispensable tools for all space operations,and in certain orbits their national assignments are coordinated through the International TelecommunicationUnion (ITU). This chapter assesses the trends and developments related to the demand for orbital slots and radiofrequencies, as well as the conflict and cooperation associated with the distribution and use of these scarcespace resources. This includes compliance with existing norms and procedures developed through the ITU tomanage the use and distribution of orbital slots and radio frequencies.

Keeping access to Low Earth Orbit is vital to space exploration efforts



LEO is the lowest altitude at which orbit can be sustained; it exists up to approximately 2,000km from thesurface of the Earth and it is in this area that the majority of debris exists. There is a simple reason why LEO is

the most polluted section of near Earth space; it is the area that has been utilised most. A wide range of

satellites are to be found there, including those conducting astronomical observation, along with those for

meteorology and navigation; as this orbit provides optimal viewing of the planet it is also used for

military surveillance satellites. There are also projected future means in which LEO will be utilised, the

most promising being pharmaceuticals based upon crystals grown in the absence of gravity and as a

launching point for missions carrying crews to other planets.

39Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—Impact—Magnitude—Remains a Threat for Centuries

Space debris can remain a threat for centuries



The total amount of manmade space debris in orbit is growing each year and is concentrated in the orbits

where human activities take place. LEO is the most highly congested area, especially the Sun-synchronousregion. Some debris in LEO will reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and disintegrate in a relatively short period of time due to atmospheric drag, but debris in orbits above 600 km will remain a threat for decades and even

centuries. There have already been a number of collisions between civil, commercial, and military spacecraftand pieces of space debris. Although a rare occurrence, the reentry of very large debris could also pose a threatto Earth infrastructure and human lives.

40Planet Debate






***Answers To***

41Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Space Debris Increasing Now

1) 2009 increase in space debris was due to freak debris generating events that are not common



After a year of relatively minor fragmentation events and an overall decrease in the orbital debris population,2009 saw one significant debris-generating event and a number of smaller ones. By the end of the year, thetotal number of large- and medium-sized objects (>10cm) in orbit cataloged by the US SSN was 15,090.24 This

number represents an increase of 2,347 objects or 15.6% percent over yearend data for 2008.25 Thisnumber does not include the objects tracked by the SSN but not catalogued, which number at least 6,000additional objects. In addition to the collision between the Iridium and Cosmos satellites, there were two

minor fragmentation events in 2009. The first was of an ullage motor from a Russian SL-12 rocket, object1991-025F, which was used to place three GLONASS navigation satellites into medium earth orbit (MEO).26Each SL-12 launch vehicle has two ullage motors (also known as aux motors), which are auxiliary motors usedto boost the upper stage and accompanying payloads into a highly elliptical transfer orbit from the original LEO

parking orbit. The ullage motors are usually jettisoned after this burn and left in the transfer orbit. They have a proclivity to fragment: the 2009 breakup was the 37th detected event of this type.27 The second minor breakupin 2009 was of Cosmos 192, a 42-year-old Russian LEO navigation satellite, on 30 August. It released as manyas 20 trackable pieces at an altitude of around 710 kilometers.28 Although the exact cause of this event isunknown, it is speculated that it was due to a breach of the pressurized spacecraft, possibly from the impact of asmall piece of debris.

2) Short term increase in space debris is only due to China’s ASAT test



As Kessler and his team worked against the clock to slow the accumulation of debris, the cloud continued toexpand. The Soviets tried ejecting the liquid metal at the cores of its nuclear satellites in the hope that theradioactive droplets would burn up harmlessly upon reentering the atmosphere; instead the liquid hardened into100,000 or so metal balls, each too small to detect but big enough to cause significant damage to other satellitesIn 1991, Cosmos 1934 hit a piece of junk that had previously broken off Cosmos 296. In 1996, France's Cerisesatellite struck a discarded Ariane rocket stage. Junk struck a U.S. weather satellite in 1997 and a Russiansatellite in 2002. Discarded U.S. and Chinese rocket stages collided with each other in 2005. In 2007, inseparate collisions, the Meteosat 8 weather satellite and NASA's UARS satellite were knocked out of their orbits. Even so, for a while the total number of objects in the sky seemed to be leveling off , appearing toundermine Kessler's forecasts, until the China incident. China's medium-range missile took off from itsXichang space center without incident on Jan. 11, 2007. It climbed to about 850 kilometers, the typical altitudeof U.S. intelligence satellites (which is probably not a coincidence). The missile's lower stages dropped away to burn up in the atmosphere, leaving the "kill vehicle" to continue on to its target: a defunct Feng Yun weather

satellite. The engineering was flawless. The missile blew the satellite to bits--2,500 of them, each larger than10 centimeters, according to the experts who keep count. The explosion increased orbital debris in LEO byabout 40 percent. What Beijing hoped would be an impressive display of military prowess instead made Chinathe world's biggest space litterbug. In one move it undid a decade of diplomatic progress in slowing the buildupof debris.

42Planet Debate






43Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Kessler Syndrome

1) The Kessler Syndrome cascading effect won’t happen until 2055


How you define the point at which Earth's orbit will become unusable very much depends on your perception ofwhat risks are acceptable. From Nasa's perspective, there is still plenty of time. "We're talking about

hundreds of years of doing nothing before it gets to be a serious issue," says Johnson. But Nasa's idea of "safe" is unlikely to tally with that of the average space tourist. What's more, even if it does take 200 years toget to this stage, a tipping point will arrive long before that. Around 2055 we will start to see a shift in the

main cause of debris. Exploding obsolete satellites will cease to be the main source of junk and collision

debris will take over.

2) Even Kessler concedes his theory has been over-hyped by others

Broad, New York Times Science Writer, 2-6-07 (William, “Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat,” New York

Times, accessed 5-5-11, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html)

If nothing is done, a kind of orbital crisis might ensue that is known as the Kessler Syndrome, after Mr.Kessler. A staple of science fiction, it holds that the space around Earth becomes so riddled with junk that

launchings are almost impossible. Vehicles that entered space would quickly be destroyed. In an interview,Mr. Kessler called the worst-case scenario an exaggeration. “It’s been overdone,” he said of the

syndrome.

44Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Future Missile Tests

1) Future missile tests won’t happen—especially one’s conducted by China


As for missile attacks, or target practice on satellites, even China appears to be mending its ways . "TheChinese incident was extremely unfortunate," says Johnson. "But to China's credit they now understand that

and we don't anticipate that kind of event will be repeated." To show it had fallen into line, when Chinatested another missile test in January it went out of its way to point out that the rocket would not produce anyorbital debris or pose a risk to satellites.

45Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—AT—No Link—New Technologies Don’t Produce Debris

1) Even with new technology the generation of space debris is unavoidable

Perek, Czech Academy of Sciences, 04 (Lubos, “SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION AND PREVENTION:

HOW TO BUILD A STRONGER INTERNATIONAL REGIME,” Astropolitics, Volume 2, Issue 2, accessed 5-10-11, p. EBSCO)

It is up to the designer of spacecraft not to let any loose parts separate from the vehicle. Explosive boltsshould be used with caution; covers should be attached to the vehicle even if they are not needed anymore, etc.But it is impossible to avoid the generation of any debris. The unavoidable debris should, however, have alimited lifetime of less than 25 years. This limit is both significant and technically attainable.

46Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Technology Solves

1) There is no existing technology that can remove space debris in the short term



In December 2009, NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) jointly held the firstInternational Conference on Orbital Debris Removal.67 The conference brought together government,academia, and the private sector to discuss the problem of actively removing space debris from orbit. Various

technical solutions were presented, along with discussions on the related economic, legal, and policychallenges. Although some techniques have promise, none have been operationally proven and all have

significant nontechnical and political challenges that need to be addressed.

2) Modest debris mitigation efforts can only account for a small percentage of total debris


One thing that seems certain is that regardless of which organisation takes on the salvage operation, it will

only go after the big stuff. And that will leave a gaping hole in the defence against space debris. Although

it makes perfect sense to try to remove large objects that can do significant damage, these represent a

small percentage of the total debris.

3) Political controversies and lack of practical technology prevent short term debris removal

Space Daily, 10-15-10 (“Space Debris’ Environmental Impact,” accessed 5-6-11,

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Space_Debris_Enviromental_Impact_999.html)

For several reasons, action is unlikely to occur anytime soon. The technology for removing RSOs does not

exist. Although there are many suggestions, none are practical at this time. The economics of debrisremoval are simply overwhelming. Culturing and political issues may prove to be the most difficult to

overcome. It seems entirely possible that access to space may be denied at some point in the future.

47Planet Debate










Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—U.S. Efforts Solve

1) U.S. has no plans for space debris mitigation technology

David, Space.com Columnist, 5-9-11 (Leonard, “Ugly Truth of Space Junk: Orbital Debris Problem to Triple by 2030,”

accessed 5-9-11, http://www.space.com/11607-space-junk-rising-orbital-debris-levels-2030.html)

When asked if the U.S. Air Force plans on funding space debris mitigation capability, Shelton responded:

"We haven’t found a way yet that is affordable and gives us any hope for mitigating space debris. The best we can do, we believe, is to minimize debris as we go forward with our operations. As we think about howwe launch things, as we deploy satellites, minimizing debris is absolutely essential and we’re trying to convinceother nations of that imperative as well."

2) There’s no short or medium term solution to space debris—governments and private industry are not

interested in the problem



When viewed in light of the comparable problems, there is evidence to suggest that orbital debris does not at present pose a great-enough risk to warrant the deployment of a remediation technology.6 A community willonly move on to the next stage shown in Figure S.1 when the current stage is not sufficient to properly addressthe problem. While everyone in the space community certainly agrees that orbital debris poses a risk, the

lack of government and private industry funding for this effort suggests that the perception of risk has

not yet crossed a critical threshold that would prompt demands for remediation. The current lack of

private funding for debris remedies is particularly telling. Today, the majority ownership of operational spaceassets (as a percentage of the total operational inventory) has shifted from government to commercial industry.7For this new majority of commercial stakeholders, the “imperative to create shareholder value entails that anyinvestment in a technical system be guided by its value creation potential” (Brathwaite and Saleh, 2009). In

other words, if debris were deemed to represent an unacceptable risk to current or future operations, aremedy would already have been developed by the private sector.

48Planet Debate








Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Lasers Solve

1) Lasers are too controversial to be developed

Kushner, Writer for Popular Science, 7-13-10 (David, “Five ideas to fight space junk,” Popular Science, accessed 5-6-11,

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/cluttered-space)

Lasers How It Works: In a ground-based configuration, a detection system could be made up of radar or lidar tolocate a piece of stray debris. Then a laser fires a series of pulses at the object, altering its orbit and knocking itinto the atmosphere, where it descends and is incinerated. Space-based systems require a shorter range andlower laser power. Pros: A laser system is effective on objects smaller than four inches in size, because they areless apt to create more debris during the removal process. A laser-equipped satellite would wait in orbit for atarget to pass by and then zap it. “The duck-hunter paradigm is becoming an option,” says Richard Fork, a principal investigator for the Laser Science and Engineering Laboratory at the University of Alabama atHuntsville. “You sit and wait for debris to come past you. Then you can hit it with enough impulse to deorbitit.” Cons: Because the ground-based lasers would need to be powerful, the systems are alarming to

countries that see in them the potential for anti-satellite military technology. Plausibility: It’s technically

possible but still very controversial for political reasons.

49Planet Debate

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/cluttered-space





Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Electrodynamic Tethers Solve

1) Electrodynamic tethers are not a feasible solution in the short term



The progressive development of international and national debris mitigation guidelines has been complemented by research on technologies to physically remove debris, such as electromagnetic “tethers” that could help tosafely de-orbit non-operational satellites or debris.46 However, a 2006 IADC report concluded that, while

“electrodynamic tethers have strong potential to become effective mitigation measures…various

problems are still to be solved before this technique can be practically adopted.”47 Currently, natural

decay due to atmospheric drag remains the only feasible way to remove debris, although research into thisarea continues.

50Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Solar Sails Solve

1) Solar sails cannot remove space debris in the short term

Kushner, Writer for Popular Science, 7-13-10 (David, “Five ideas to fight space junk,” Popular Science, accessed 5-6-11,

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/cluttered-space)

Solar Sails How It Works: The sun’s radiation exerts force on the ultrathin fabric of solar sails, much like wind propels a sailboat. These sails can clean up orbit by slowing debris enough that it deorbits. For example, anexpandable 97-square-foot sail can be launched as a secondary payload on even a small 110-pound satellite, andan onboard system or ground control triggers its deployment. Conductive coils embedded in the sail control itsangle, so it can maneuver a satellite out of orbit; sail and satellite disintegrate together in the atmosphere. Pros:The material is cheap and portable. Cons: The sail’s expansion and the spacecraft’s altitude need to be

carefully calculated beforehand. Plausibility: The technology has existed for decades, from a sail-equippedcraft in the mid-1970s intended to ride along with Halley’s Comet (the craft never flew, and the project wasscrapped) to large solar arrays currently affixed to the Messenger spacecraft, which are helping steer it toMercury. Most recently, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency launched a solar-sail-propelled “space yacht”

called Ikaros in May. But the solar sails precisely controllable enough to remove debris are still yearsaway.

51Planet Debate






Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tungsten Clouds Solve

1) Tungsten clouds are too controversial to be used in the short term

Discover Magazine, 4-12-11 (“Astronomers Say: Spew 20 Tons of Dust Into Orbit to Clear the Junk,” accessed 5-6-11,

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/12/astronomers-say-spew-20-tons-of-dust-into-orbit-to-clear-the-junk/)

What’s the News: The many bits of space junk orbiting Earth, from foil scraps to lens caps to chunks of frozenurine, can damage satellites and spacecraft, which is why researchers have long sought methods to removedebris from orbit. Scientists at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory have proposed a new way of taking out thetrash (in two senses): They want to pump 20 tons of tungsten dust into Earth’s orbit; this dust would exert

drag on the junk’s orbit, slowing it down and gradually lowering it until Earth’s atmosphere can burn it

up. This bid to protect Earth’s 900 active satellites is controversial because the dust could potentially harm

solar panels on satellites and obstruct astronomical measurements, but it’s a handy fix because it doesn’trequire ambitious new technology.

52Planet Debate

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/12/astronomers-say-spew-20-tons-of-dust-into-orbit-to-clear-the-junk/


http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26634/?ref=rss

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html



http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26634/?ref=rss

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html




Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—De-Orbiting Solves

De-orbiting is complicated and doesn’t always work

Perek, Czech Academy of Sciences, 04 (Lubos, “SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION AND PREVENTION:

HOW TO BUILD A STRONGER INTERNATIONAL REGIME,” Astropolitics, Volume 2, Issue 2, accessed 5-10-11, p. EBSCO)

The technique of re-orbiting into disposal orbits is rather ambitious because it requires a fairly good

estimate of fuel which remained in the storage tanks and can be used for necessary maneuvers. The re-

orbiting is not always successful and not always attempted. Besides, some commercial ventures hesitate to

re-orbit at the approaching end of activity of the satellite because at that time all income from the venture

is pure profit. Shareholders are not very pleased to support re-orbiting instead of continuing for some time a profitable operation.

54Planet Debate




Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Graveyard Orbits Solve

1) Graveyard orbits don’t solve for the space debris threat

Christensen, 11-17-04 (Bill, “The Terminator Tether Aims to Clean Up Low Earth Orbit,” accessed 5-9-11,

http://www.space.com/537-terminator-tether-aims-clean-earth-orbit.html)

It has been suggested that every satellite deployed should carry extra propellant so the satellite can boost

itself up to a higher "graveyard" orbit. Unfortunately, not only must the extra kilograms of propellant be boosted up from Earth, the rocket and guidance systems must be usable for many years after launch. Also,graveyard orbits merely leave satellites up higher, where micrometeorite damage slowly causes these

objects to break apart; smaller fragments will filter back down, leaving this problem for our children to

solve. These smaller fragments are almost impossible to clean up.

55Planet Debate

http://www.space.com/537-terminator-tether-aims-clean-earth-orbit.html

http://www.space.com/537-terminator-tether-aims-clean-earth-orbit.html




Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Shielding Solves

1) Shielding all spacecraft isn’t feasible or possible

Johnson, 10 (Nicholas, “Orbital Debris: The Growing Threat to Space Operations,” accessed 5-9-10,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100004498_2010003521.pdf )

Shielding techniques, however, are practical only for particles on the order of 1 cm or less. Moreover,many robotic spacecraft cannot not afford the mass penalty associated with orbital debris shields, and

payload elements frequently cannot host shields for operational reasons.

56Planet Debate

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100004498_2010003521.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100004498_2010003521.pdf




Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Voluntary Measures Solve

1) Voluntary measures to reduce space debris fail



It is becoming increasingly evident to all space operators that the creation of space debris and other irresponsible behavior in space can have negative implications for all space users, given the indiscriminatenature of the adverse effects. While policymakers are working to implement the existing debris mitigationguidelines, scientists have begun research on the next phase – orbital debris removal – that will be a necessarycomplement to debris mitigation to ensure continued space security. However, creating voluntary guidelines

has proven to be insufficient, as demonstrated by the continued failure of spacecraft operators to comply

with end-of-life requirements in the GEO belt. To enhance the positive impact that the implementation of agreed guidelines may have on debris mitigation, the establishment of enforcement mechanisms at either theinternational or national level is necessary.

2) Voluntary measures to prevent space debris fail



A yearly report on the GEO region produced by the European Space Agency found that, of the 21 GEO

spacecraft that reached end-of-life in 2009, only 11 were moved 250 kilometers above the active GEO belt

and into the disposal region outlined by the IADC debris mitigation guidelines.57 Six of the noncompliantspacecraft were partially reorbited, but not to the altitude in the guidelines. Three spacecraft, all Russian,

appear to have been abandoned in the active GEO region. Figure 1.8 shows the general trend of increasedcompliance with the guidelines since 2002; however, it should be noted that in 2009 six spacecraft were movedfrom the operational zone but were not boosted to the altitude outlined in the IADC guidelines.

3) Voluntary norms to reduce space debris won’t solve the problem



In the case of orbital debris, the established behavioral norm is that most countries have agreed not to

pollute the space environment if they can avoid doing so. This norm is merely a suggestion; there are

currently no direct legal or financial penalties for littering in space. However, the U.S. space communityhas adopted this practice on good faith and does not purposefully release debris into the environment. Norms

tend to discourage unwanted behavior, but some individuals or groups will continue to flout them. To

discourage these wrongdoers, the next step is to establish mitigation practices, which may consist of anycombination of rules, regulations, standards, incentives, or penalties. These incentive structures are usually veryeffective at reducing, while not necessarily eliminating, the population of rule-breakers.

57Planet Debate










Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Computer Modeling Solves

Trajectory of space debris cannot be predicted by computer models

Excell, 2-22-10 (Jon, “Man Made Junk: The Waste of Space,” The Engineer, accessed 5-10-11, p. lexis)

The problem is compounded by the fact that space debris does not behave in a particularly predictablemanner. The collisions or explosions that generate the debris impart a slightly different velocity and

angular inclination on every single particle and it is not always possible to model the resulting erratic

orbit with much accuracy. It was just this uncertainty that caused the ISS crew to scamper for cover last year.

space debris da planet debate 5-10-11 jfn 1

Documents