Northwestern Debate Institute1
2011Space Debris Aff (ARB)
Space Debris Affirmative
Space Debris Affirmative......
***1AC......
Space Debris 1AC......
***Inherency......
Debris =Making Space Useless......
Space Debris Increasing......
The Brink is Near......
Debris Destroys Satellites......
Space Debris=Damage to ISS......
Space Debris Problem has Recently Escalated......
Mitigation Fails......
Tracking and Avoidance Fails......
***Military Advantage......
Satellites Key-Military......
Satellites Key-Disaster Response......
Military Key - Heg......
Heg Key......
***Economy Advantage......
Link – Debris Destroys Satellites......
Link – Geostationary orbit......
IL – Satellites key to Econ......
IL – Satellites key to EU economy......
Impact – Global War......
***Miscalc Advantage......
Space Debris Miscalc......
***Solvency......
Active Debris Removal Key......
US leadership key......
Solvency- US leadership Key to technology......
US ACTION Key......
US Solves-HEG+ECON......
Must Act ASAP......
EDDE Solves - Quick......
EDDE Solves – Eliminates Debris......
EDDE Solves - Durable......
EDDE Solves - Cost Effective......
EDDE solves – Uses Clean Energy......
Lasers Solve Debris......
Lasers Solve – Cheap......
Tethers Solve......
Funding – Fees Solve......
***Addons......
Add-on - Asteroids......
Space Debris Lasers key asteroids......
A2: Alternative methods......
A2: Lasers Don’t Solve......
Add-on – Laundry List of Impacts......
Add-On - Satellites key to Natural Disaster Relief......
Add-on - Space Debris Removal Tech Innovations......
***A2 Neg Arguments......
A2 Space Weaponization DA......
A2 Commercial CP......
A2 International CP......
AT: Topicality Mesoshere......
***Misc......
Shared Blame for Space Debris......
***Neg......
Status Quo Solves......
AT: Tethers Solve......
Space Weaponization Link......
AT: Active Remediation Solves......
A2 Hegemony Adv......
***1AC
Space Debris 1AC
The Plan:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its removal of orbital debris in space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
CONTENTION ONE: SATELLITES
Status quo efforts to mitigate space debris are insufficient -- left unchecked, collisions will cause a runaway cascade of debris that threatens the ability to place satellites in Earth’s orbit
Ansdell ’10 [Megan – Graduate student in International Science and Technology Policy at GWU Elliott School of International Affairs, focusing in space policy. Princeton University Journal of Public and International Affairs. Spring. “Active Space Debris Removal”]
Although the probability of catastrophic collisions caused by space debris has increased over the years, it remains relatively low and there have been only four known collisions between objects larger than ten centimeters (Wright 2009, 6). Nevertheless, the real concern is the predicted runaway growth of space debris over the coming decades. Such uncontrolled growth would prohibit the ability of satellites to provide their services, many of which are now widely used by the global community. Indeed, in a testimony to Congress for a hearing on “Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and Commercial Uses,” the Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, Dr. Scott Pace, stated that, ...space systems such as satellite communications, environmental monitoring, and global navigation satellite systems are crucial to the productivity of many types of national and international infrastructures such as air, sea, and highway transportation, oil and gas pipelines, financial networks, and global communica- tions (Pace 2009). As early as 1978, scientists postulated that the runaway growth of space debris owing to collisional cascading would eventually prohibit the use of Earth’s orbit (Kessler and Cour-Palais 1978). Recent scientific studies have also predicted uncontrolled debris growth in low-Earth’s orbit over the next century. One NASA study used predictive models to show that even if all launches had been halted in 2004, the population of space objects greater than ten centimeters would remain stable only until 2055 (Liou and Johnson 2006). Beyond that, increasing collisions would create debris faster than debris is removed naturally, resulting in annual increases in the overall space object population. The study concluded that, “only the removal of existing large objects from orbit can prevent future problems for research in and commercialization of space” (Liou and Johnson 2006, 340). The European Space Agency (ESA) has come to similar conclusions using its own predictive models (ESA 2009a). Consequently, there is growing international consensus in the space debris community that active removal will be necessary to prevent “collisional cascading,” or the increasing number of collisions resulting from debris created from previous collisions, in Earth’s orbit. The 5th European Con- ference on Space Debris concluded that, “active space debris remediation measures will need to be implemented in order to provide this sustain- ability...there is no alternative to protect space” (ESA 2009b). Similarly, Nicholas Johnson from NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office stated in a testimony to Congress that, “in the future, such collisions are likely to be the principal source of new space debris. The most effective means of limiting satellite collisions is to remove non-functional spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital stages from orbit” (Johnson 2009a, 2).
Furthermore, collisions of space debris cause fragmentation, producing an uncontrollable cascade of growing debris
Liou and Johnson ‘8 [J.-C. Liou- ESCG/ERC,, Nicholas L. Johnson - Orbital Debris Program Office, NASA Johnson Space Center. “Instability of the present LEO satellite populations” Advances in Space Research 41 (2008) 1046–1053]
Since the launch of Sputnik 1, space activities have cre- ated an orbital debris environment that poses increasing impact risks to existing space systems, including human space flight and robotic missions. Although the Space Shuttle and International Space Station normally operate in the relatively pristine regime between 200 and 400 km above the Earth, their large cross-sectional areas yield col- lision rates comparable to their smaller robotic cousins in the more densely populated, higher altitude regions. Three accidental collisions between cataloged satellites during the period from late 1991 to early 2005 have already been doc- umented (Anon, 2005), although fortunately none resulted in the creation of large, trackable debris clouds. Currently, more than 9000 Earth orbiting man-made objects, with a combined mass exceeding 5 million kilograms, are tracked by the US Space Surveillance Network (SSN) and main- tained in the US satellite catalog (Anon, 2006). As the satellite population in the low Earth orbit (LEO, 200–2000 km altitude) region increases, the probabilities of mutual collisions among orbiting objects also increase. High collision activities may produce more fragments than those removed by drag in some altitude regimes. This off- balance may lead to a collision cascade such that collision fragments induce more collisions in the environment (Kess- ler and Cour-Palais, 1978; Eichler and Rex, 1990). The con- cept of ‘‘critical density’’ was pioneered by Kessler (1991) to characterize this uncontrollable population growth. Additional studies, based on analytical, semi-analytical, and numerical approaches, were carried out by various groups to analyze this phenomenon (Su, 1993; Rossi et al., 1994; Anselmo et al., 1997; Kessler, 2000; Kessler and Anz-Meador, 2001; Krisko et al., 2001a). These studies adopted different model assumptions, initial conditions and future launch rates. Some of them even included different postmission disposal measures in the simulations. They all came to a similar conclusion that, indeed, the LEO deb- ris populations at some altitudes would be unstable. Colli- sions would take over as the dominant debris generation mechanism, and the debris generated would feed back to the environment and induce more collisions.
And, we’re on the brink - increased fragmentation is already resulting in super-critical debris zones
Wright ‘7 [David Wright is codirector and senior scientist with the global security program of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. October 2007 Physics Today pp 35-40 “Space debris”]
If the debris density becomes large enough at some altitudes, those regions of space can become “supercritical,” meaning that collisions between objects are frequent enough that they produce additional debris faster than atmospheric drag re- moves debris from the region. The additional particles further increase the collision probability in the region, which leads to a slow-motion chain reaction or cascade as the large objects in orbit are ground into smaller fragments. That situ- ation is sometimes called the Kessler syndrome after Donald Kessler, who studied the possibility.11 A study released by NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Of- fice in 2006, before the Chinese test, showed that parts of space have already reached supercritical debris densities.12 In particular, the study shows that in the heavily used altitude band from 900 to 1000 km, the number of debris fragments larger than 10 cm is expected to more than triple over the next 200 years, even assuming no additional objects are launched into the band. The study estimates that the total population of large debris in LEO will increase by nearly 40% during that time, still under the assumption of no additional launches. The debris from the Chinese test will make matters worse. An important implication of the study is that while mitigation efforts are important for slowing the increases, only debris-remediation measures such as removing large, massive objects already in orbit can hope to prevent their conse- quences. Remediation efforts such as robotic missions to re- move defunct satellites and rocket stages are very expensive, but are being studied. A second implication is that the intentional destruction of satellites would add large amounts of debris at already- crowded altitudes and thus would significantly increase the collision rate and therefore the rate at which cascades would increase the debris population.
We’ll Isolate Three Impacts:
First - Hegemony
Satellites are key to hegemony – disruptions from space debris threaten all aspects of military operations
Imburgia 10 -United States Air Force Academy(1994); J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law (2002); LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, Va. (2009))[Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk, Vol. 44:589, pg. 608]
These gloomy prognostications about the threats to our space environment should be troubling to Americans. The United States relies on the unhindered use of outer space for national security.151 According to a space commission led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “[t]he [United States] is more dependent on space than any other nation.”152 According to Robert G. Joseph, former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department, “space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well-being.”153 Therefore, a catastrophic collision between space debris and the satellites on which that national security so heavily depends poses a very real and current threat to the national security interests of the United States. Since “the [1991] Gulf War, the [United States] military has depended on satellites for communications, intelligence and navigation for its troops and precision-guided weapons.”154 Satellites are also used for reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and control of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.155 According to the United States Space Command’s Fact Sheet: Satellites provide essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and fleet operations and threat warning. Ground-based radar and Defense Support Program satellites monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile attack on North America. Space surveillance radars provide vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the nation and the world. Maintaining space superiority is an emerging capability required to protect our space assets.156 With the modern speed of warfare, it has become difficult to fight conflicts without the timely intelligence and information that space assets provide. Space-based assets and space-controlled assets have created among U.S. military commanders “a nearly insatiable desire for live video surveillance, especially as provided from remotely piloted vehicles like the Predator and now the Reaper.”157 Moreover, military forces have become so dependent on satellite communications and targeting capabilities that the loss of such a satellite would “badly damage their ability to respond to a military emergency.”158 In fact, the May 2008 malfunction of a communications satellite demonstrates the fragile nature of the satellite communications system.159 The temporary loss of a single satellite “effectively pulled the plug on what executives said could [have been] as much as 90 percent of the paging network in the United States.”160 Although this country’s paging network is perhaps not vital to its national security, the incident demonstrates the possible national security risks created by the simultaneous loss of multiple satellites due to space debris collisions. Simply put, the United States depends on space-based assets for national security, and those assets are vulnerable to space debris collisions. As Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Edward Markey stated, “American satellites are the soft underbelly of our national security.”161 The Rumsfeld Commission set the groundwork for such a conclusion in 2001, when it discussed the vulnerability of U.S. space-based assets and warned of the Space Pearl Harbor.162 Congress also recognized this vulnerability in June 2006, when it held hearings concerning space and its import to U.S. national power and security.163 In his June 2006 Congressional Statement, Lieutenant General C. Robert Kehler, then the Deputy Commander, United States Strategic Command, stated that “space capabilities are inextricably woven into the fabric of American security.”164 He added that these space capabilities are “vital to our daily efforts throughout the world in all aspects of modern warfare” and discussed how integral space capabilities are to “defeating terrorist threats, defending the homeland in depth, shaping the choices of countries at strategic crossroads and preventing hostile states and actors from acquiring or using WMD.”165
And, Satellite capabilities are critical to the broader ability of the United States to project power
C.A. DutchRuppersbergerFebruary 10, 2011[Worldwide Threats Hearing Opening Statement American politician, has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing the 2nd District of Maryland. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland, was educated at University of Maryland and the University of Baltimore, and was a lawyer and member of the Baltimore City Council before entering the House. gov/files/documents/RMOpeningWorldwideThreatsHearing.pdf]
The last issue I would like to discuss is space. We have some of the best satellite systems. America is the most powerful country in the world, in part, because we control the skies. Satellites are important because they keep us safe. We use satellites and their images to track suspected terrorists around the world and stop future attacks. Satellites allow us to monitor important global developments and provide real-time data to our troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. When our troops climb a hill on the battlefield, they know what is on the other side of that hill because of our technology. We can find that needle in the haystack because we have the best satellites in the world. You may have heard the President of the United States mention our “Sputnik moment”. Well, he stole my line. I have been talking about this for years. More than 50 years ago, the Soviet Union rocked our world by launching Sputnik into space. Just 12 years later, America answered the challenge and landed a man on the moon. The space industry was born. America made a massive investment in research and development, employed the best and brightest scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and put unprecedented emphasis on science education. America made worldwide headlines and just about every kid on Earth wanted to be Neil Armstrong. Today, America’s dominance in space is fragile.
Loss of hegemony results in nuclear war
Kagan 2007, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, 7/19,
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World Wariand other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World Wariiwould never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World Warii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.