1ac - Space Junk (bbr)

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 1 of 8

(Introduction) Our Earth’s environment is the cause of much controversy. But while everyone is so concerned about their immediate surroundings, an enormous section of the environment goes ignored: space. We’re trashing it with debris, commonly called “space junk”. It is because of this that my partner and I stand Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy. In order to clarify the topic at hand, we offer important definitions and the goal. Both definitions are from Oxford American Dictionaries: Environmental: “relating to or arising from a person's surroundings”. Policy: “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual”. The goal the affirmative team has is that of a comparative-advantage over the current system. Essentially, we believe that the current system, or status quo, is not an adequate solution for the problems we have. Now let’s move on to the contentions of the Affirmative case.

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 2 of 8

Contention 1 is Risk of Extinction A. Space Junk poses a bigger risk than shuttle accidents Dan Michaels, “A Cosmic Question: How to Get Rid Of All That Orbiting Space Junk?” staff reporter of The Wall Street Journal, has covered aviation and aerospace industries since 1999, published by the Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672891900989069.html#project%3DSLIDESHOW08%26s %3DSB123566617343383835%257Csection%253DUS%26articleTabs%3Darticle In the 1980s, Jim Hollopeter helped design rockets that shot into orbit. Today, some of those launchers are still cluttering up space, and he wants to wash them away with a rocket-powered water gun. Like many aerospace engineers, Mr. Hollopeter is worried about thousands of pieces of useless equipment circling Earth. Bits of spent rocket boosters, old exploded satellites and tools dropped by space-walking astronauts are just some of the trash racing along in the near-vacuum of space. The volume of man-made space debris has grown so large that scientists say garbage now poses a bigger safety threat to the U.S. space shuttle than an accident on liftoff or landing. The International Space Station occasionally fires thrusters to dodge junk. The problem hit home Feb. 10, when a defunct Russian military satellite smashed into an American one used for commercial communications, spewing shards across thousands of cubic miles. B. Humanity faces a risk of being confined or “exiled” on Earth Taylor Dinerman, "Space debris: not just an American problem?" Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review, November 29, 2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/279/1 All too often, people claim that space debris constitutes an imminent crisis. They say that there is so much stuff is up there that it is going to destroy numerous satellites and, eventually, render any human activity in orbit impossible. There are, in fact, several million kilograms of man-made gear, some of it in the form of operational satellites and spacecraft, and some of it useless junk. A few experts say that, eventually, there will be so much garbage up there that humanity will be confined to the Earth whether it wants to leave or not. C. Impact: Extinction – space needs to be preserved as a path for humanity George Henry Elias, “Breakout into Space: Mission for a Generation - An Argument for the Settlement of Space” an argument for the settlement of space by George Henry Elias. Presents a broadly, effectively argued case for moving civilization beyond earth's limits and into the solar system, page 177, Published by William Morrow & Co., 1990,ISBN: 0-688-07703-X, brackets not in original [T]o protect the mother planet from the apocalyptic forces that bedevil it, we must build an interplanetary civilization. The problems of nuclear war, overpopulation, and environmental damage, and political oppression will never be solved by a humanity pent up on this small rock. We must begin the movement of Earth's life into the rest of the universe. The enlargement of territory, wealth, and spirit that all nations of the world will experience in space is far more likely to preserve the species than the restrictions of a planetbound mankind sweating on increasingly barren, increasingly smaller patches of ground.

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 3 of 8

Contention 2 is Global Communications Desolation Part of our critical national infrastructure is at risk from space junk Paul Marks, “Satellite collision 'more powerful than China's ASAT test'”, Published by NewScientist [Won Awards & Recognitions: PPA interactive consumer magazine of the year 2008, Royal Statistical Society 2008 Awards, Awards for Statistical Excellence in Journalism, Joint 2nd prize Peter Aldhous, New Scientist, The Society of Environmental Journalists 7th Annual Awards for Reporting on the Environment Outstanding Beat Reporting, Print 2nd Place: Peter Aldhous, New Scientist – Past Achievements Include: Wistar Institute Science Journalism Award 2007, Peter Aldhous, BT IT Security Journalist of the Year Award 2007, Paul Marks, 2007 US Association of Health Care Journalists third place, Peter Aldhous and Jessica Marshall, European School of Oncology Best Cancer Reporter Award 2007, runner up, Linda Geddes, Medical Journalists’ Association, Health Journalist of the Year, 2006, Andy Coghlan, Medical Journalists’ Association, Health Editor of the Year 2006, Michael Le Page, PPA Interactive Consumer Magazine of the Year 2006 and 2002, BSME Magazine Website Editor of the Year 2005, PPA Award for Continuous Excellence 2003], February 13, 2009, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16604-satellite-collision-more-powerful-than-chinasasat-test.html, brackets in original

“Space weapons are dangerous – but out-of-control, defunct satellites can do just as much damage, if not more. So says a leading space scientist who has calculated that Tuesday's collision between an Iridium communications satellite and the defunct Soviet-era Cosmos 2251 spacecraft expended a great deal more destructive energy than China's infamous anti-satellite missile test did in January 2007. In 2003, space debris expert Hugh Lewis and colleagues at the University of

Southampton in the UK ran predictions on the debris field that would be created in a hypothetical Iridium satellite break-up owing to a collision with just 1 kilogram of space junk (Acta Astronautica, doi:10.1016/S0094-5765(02)00290-4). Now, based on initial analysis of Cosmos 2251's orbital data, mass and velocity, he has estimated some of the dynamics involved in last week's much more energetic collision event. To be completely obliterated, a spacecraft must suffer a direct hit with an energy of 40 joules for every gram of its mass. In China's anti-satellite (ASAT) test, a defunct weather satellite called Fengyun-1C was destroyed by a missile that imparted an estimated 350 joules per gram of its mass. (The figure is an estimate because the missile's mass is not known for certain.) But the Iridium and Cosmos satellites collided at 42,120 kilometres per hour, Lewis calculates, imparting 50,000 joules per gram of their mass. 10,000 tennis ballsThe resulting "unprecedented" debris field, says Lewis, is still being analysed by space agencies. But he expects it to create an extra 10,000 debris shards varying in size from centimetres to tennis-ball sized – more than triple the number created in the ASAT test. "There was more energy here than in the Chinese ASAT test so it's possible we'll see more debris," Lewis says. Nicholas Johnson, chief scientist for orbital debris at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, says the exact amount of debris generated in the collision depends on the geometry of the smashup, which is not yet known. "If they collided main body to main body, that would create the maximum amount of debris," Johnson told New Scientist. "It is possible that one satellite hit an appendage of the other or only a small portion of the other think about the different ways that two cars can collide and how that affects the extent of damage." Further collisionsWorryingly, the new debris will raise the collision risk for other Iridium satellites. That's because the 65 remaining satellites in the Iridium network move in circular orbits that cross each other at the Earth's poles. "The debris cloud that is forming will create a torus

[doughnut] of high-density debris that Iridium satellites will now need to pass through," warns Richard Crowther of the British National Space Centre. In his 2003 study, Lewis estimated that the further collision risk to other Iridium satellites over the month following a collision rose by several orders of magnitude over the previously quoted chance of 1 in millions. “So whilst it's too early to say for sure, the risk to other Iridium satellites now looks like it's going to be significantly higher than the background risk, based on our earlier work," says Lewis. 'Unfortunate but inevitable'Observers expected a collision sooner or later, given the number of dead and defunct satellites beyond anyone's control in various orbits. Less than 10% of the 18,000 objects monitored in low- and high-Earth orbits are working satellites – the rest are dead craft, spent rocket stages and debris. "It was unfortunate but inevitable", says Crowther, the UK delegate on the

Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordinating Committee, an umbrella group of 11 space agencies that presses satellite operators to deploy measures to mitigate debris creation. Such measures include ensuring end-of-life craft have the capacity to either be deorbited – burned up in the atmosphere – or have fuel and guidance to reach a safe 'graveyard' orbit beyond the geostationary ring. Without such measures, debris remains in orbit for a long time. 'Critical infrastructure'"The concern now is the orbital lifetime of the Iridium and Cosmos 2251 debris. It will take many tens of years to decay," Crowther says. "Given we rely so much on space-based

assets for communications, navigation and Earth observation as part of our critical national infrastructure, this is one of the weak links in the chain that needs more attention," Crowther adds. Lewis agrees: "I think now this has happened, it's much more likely that governments are going to take this issue seriously."”

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 4 of 8

Contention 3 is Our Government Does Nothing It is improbable that Congress will fund NASA to clean up space junk even if NASA wanted to Kirk Woellert, “Space debris: why the US cannot go it alone”, former Navy intelligence officer with experience in space systems and information technology, graduate student at The Space Policy Institute, George Washington University, May 18, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1373/1 Policy From a policy perspective a unilateral approach by the US is counter to historical precedent and trends in US space policy. The ISS the most audacious example to date of international cooperation cost an estimated $100 billion to design and deploy. Would the ISS exist today if the U.S. were the only country willing to pony up the money? Space science program managers appear to want more international cooperation. Indeed, as noted in this publication, NASA and ESA are actively working to promote international cooperation in space science programs as a way to address limited budgets (see “Doing more for less (or the same) in space science”, The Space Review, May 4, 2009). The U.S. civil space budget is already under considerable stress with the competing requirements of safely retiring the Space Shuttle, operating the ISS, and pursuing the Constellation program. It seems improbable Congress would appropriate the additional funding for NASA to effectively clean up space debris. The assertion that space debris is a problem best left to the DOD seems misguided. The US military budget is already committed to fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, as evident in recent news, may need to commit resources to stabilize Pakistan. The DOD space acquisition track record is not exactly a paragon of success with several major programs experiencing major cost and schedule overruns (e.g. NPOESS, FIA). More fundamentally, assigning the responsibility of cleaning up space debris to the DOD has implications for the US as a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty. As space assets are dual-use by nature, what prevents a space debris removal vehicle from also performing in the role as a space adversary ASAT?

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 5 of 8

Contention 4 is Necessary Reform, or the Plan Agency & Enforcement: The USFG, specifically NASA and the Dept. of Commerce. The following mandates will be made the top priority of each: Mandates: 1. The USFG should upgrade and implement laser-detection systems until space debris as small as 1 cm is detectable. 2. The USFG should upgrade and implement a near-term & longer-term ground-based-laser system, capable of redirecting space debris as small as 1 cm at 1500km. Funding: Any funding will come from NASA’s research on the origin of life – $300 million is the maximum foreseen cost. Timeline: Work to achieve the mandates will begin immediately. …And the Affirmative team reserves the right to clarify as needed.

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 6 of 8

Contention 5 is Solvency and Workability of the Plan A. Further R&D can reduce the minimum detectable size of space junk to 1cm Ben Greene, Electro Optic Systems Pty Limited, "Laser Tracking of Space Debris", Pages 5 & 7, chief executive of Electro Optic Systems (EOS), an Australian high-technology company, 2002-2003, http://cddis.nasa.gov/lw13/docs/papers/adv_greene_1m.pdf The Stromlo SLR system was upgraded for debris tracking during 2001/2002. Results were obtained for space debris objects down to 10 cm in size. [graphs omitted] The results shown in Figures 5 and 6 appear very similar to normal SLR residual plots, except the residual scale here is much larger. This difference is very significant, since it conveys a sense of the poor quality of a priori orbital elements available for debris objects. Although the orbital elements obtained by the Stromlo laser tracking system after acquisition were excellent, a significant problem in acquiring and tracking debris is the poor initial quality of the debris elements. A purported benefit of the laser technique is the rapid determination of accurate orbits and elements. This was verified. With only 10 seconds of laser data, orbits could be generated in real time, with an accuracy suitable for downrange re-acquisition. The smallest tracked object was estimated by multi-spectral cross-section analysis to be 10 cm. The theoretical sensitivity plot is shown in Figure 7. It can be seen that the system performed as expected, in the deployed mode [200m footprint at target plane]. During 2003 the operating mode will be varied to allow <5 cm objects to be tracked. 4. CONCLUSIONS Laser tracking systems can almost certainly meet the sensitivity and accuracy requirements of the space debris catalogue task. Further experiments are required to demonstrate 1 cm sensitivity, but this seems routine given the reliability of performance projections so far. The cost-effectiveness of a laser-maintained debris catalogue must now be determined. The orbits obtained from this work were sufficiently accurate to allow re-acquisition down-range, but the optimisation of the real-time orbit quality and down-range tracking network configuration require further analysis and experimentation. The cost-effectiveness of a laser-maintained debris catalogue must now be determined. B. 2 ground-based-laser systems could remove all space junk from up to 1500 km, costing a total of about $250 million Ivan Bekey, "Orion's Laser: Hunting Space Debris", Aerospace America, Vol 35, No 5, pp 38-44, President of Bekey Designs, Inc., former Director of Advanced Concepts at NASA liQ, May 1997, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/orions_laser_hunting_space_debris.shtml, brackets not in original Several Orion systems were defined by the team, as were the characteristics and performance of two representative systems. The nearer term system would be able to remove from orbit essentially all of the 30,000 1-10-cm debris objects at or below about 800-km altitude within three years, for an estimated total cost of $60 million-$80 million, including R&D [research and development] and operations. The longer term system would be able to remove essentially all of the 125,000 1-10-cm debris objects at or below 1.500-km altitude within two years, for an estimated total cost of $150 million-$180 million. C. Impact, or Advantages: CRISIS AVERTED. Affirmative completes the necessary steps to prevent humanity’s destruction and the desolation of part of our critical national infrastructure. In order to preserve humanity and prevent this catastrophe, we urge that the USFG should significantly reform its environmental policy.

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 7 of 8

Contention 6 is Increased International Hegemony (1/2) Link 1: The United States is the authoritative source for the world on space junk Geoff Brumfiel, “Kaputnik chaos could kill Hubble”, former writer for New Scientist, ScienceNOW, and Physical Review Focus, holds a double-degree in physics and English from Grinnell College in Iowa, and a master's in science writing from John's Hopkins University. Covers physics, space, and policy from a European perspective, February 17, 2009, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090217/full/457940a.html Making avoidance easier is a matter of data and resources. Whereas Russia has its own system for tracking objects in space, the rest of the world depends more or less entirely on data released by the US Department of Defense's Space Surveillance Network. The military keeps far better analyses of its data than those released to the public, according to Brian Weeden, a former analyst with the US Strategic Command, which oversees the Pentagon's sensor network. These analyses are used to look out for dangers to military and intelligence satellites, as well as some high-value civilian missions such as the International Space Station. Those data should be released in the interest of "the public good", says Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at Harvard University who keeps track of satellite launches as a hobby. McDowell believes that nations should consider a multinational "space air-traffic control" to warn of such collisions. Link 2: An international consortium would not work; the job of cleaning up space junk is left to the US of A Taylor Dinerman, “Unilateral orbital cleanup”, Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Defense Department, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review, May 4, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1365/1 It is often claimed that the US depends more on space activities than any other nation. It certainly spends more than anyone else. So while the degree of America’s dependence on satellites for military, commercial, and civil purposes may be legitimately questioned, its interest in seeing the near-Earth space environment kept as free of debris as possible is all too obvious. Over the years there have been many ideas floating around on how to deal with this problem. While international agreements, such as the 2007 Debris

Mitigation Guidelines or proposals to share space situational awareness information, may be marginally useful, they will never, by themselves, remove a single speck of space junk from our planet’s neighborhood. When it comes to actually doing something about the problem the task and most of the cost will almost inevitably fall to the Americans. Nick Johnson, NASA’s top expert on space debris, has stated, “This is a big environment and the US doing something by itself is not sufficient.” However, if the Americans do nothing then it’s likely no one else will either. It sometimes seems as if those in power in Washington and elsewhere are more interested in making excuses and explaining why they cannot actually do anything about the problem than they are in trying to figure out an effective response. This raises the question of what would actually work? High-powered lasers, like those developed for the Airborne Laser (ABL) missile defense system recently cut back by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, might be useful dealing with a limited amount of debris in very low Earth orbit. It would certainly be worthwhile testing this idea instead of dismissing it out of hand. The big problem, however, is well beyond the range of any existing laser. What is required is a new type of space maneuver vehicle, one that can rendezvous with, catch, and store a bit of debris, and then proceed to the next one. Such a vehicle would not need to move very fast: the process would be a leisurely one, and thus would allow for the use of a highly efficient space propulsion system such as a pulse plasma thruster or ion engine.

[EVIDENCE CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE]

Will Malson

1AC – Space Junk V.2

Page 8 of 8

[EVIDENCE CONTINUES UNABRIDGED] Each move could be as carefully planned as the moves of the Mars rovers are. The operations could be carried out according to a plan that would deal with the most dangerous pieces of debris first. Designing and building these spacecraft would involve a virtuous technology cycle: a steady process of marginal improvements, somewhat akin to what we have seen with the GPS satellites. Each advance in the subsystems would be integrated into a new block of satellites The design and manufacturing teams involved will constantly be sharpening their skills. Again, as with GPS, the companies building these spacecraft will have to compete for the contracts and will thus have to pay careful attention to the quality and cost of their work. As with GPS cleaning up Earth orbit is a job best left to the US Department of Defense. It may legitimately be argued that the Pentagon already has too much to do and that the last thing it needs is to take on yet another task, especially one that involves providing the international community with another “global good”. However, in the broad scheme of things it would be better for the US military to provide this essential service than to leave it to NASA or to a nebulous international consortium. By the end of the next decade, NASA, if all goes well, will be getting out of the business of operating spacecraft in Earth orbit. The ISS may still be useful but one hopes that by then the Earth sciences mission will have been handed over to NOAA and to the National Science Foundation. In any case the agency has its hands full trying to accomplish the exploration goals that the President and Congress have already agreed on. An international consortium is a recipe for doing almost nothing and doing it very,

very slowly. The process of negotiating the preliminary agreement would probably take more time than it took the Defense Department to go from concept to the first GPS satellite in orbit. Figuring out the industrial politics of a multinational debris collection spacecraft manufacturing project would add years to the whole program. Certainly the Pentagon’s procurement process leaves much to be desired—and that’s putting it mildly—but it is far better than the alternatives. Of course the expertise the US would develop while performing this task would have many useful military applications, and as such would be objected to by those who are always on the look out for anything that looks like a US “space weapon”. Such spacecraft, though, would move far too slowly to themselves be used in an effective anti-satellite mode. The skills involve would in fact be far more useful in the robotic building of large structures in space, including solar power satellites. Eventually other nations would see America gaining prestige and technological advantages from its efforts and would try and emulate it. Such emulation would only show that Washington had the right, public-spirited idea in the first place. It would be far better for President Obama’s administration to begin the process of developing the spacecraft that will clean up Earth’s celestial neighborhood now, rather than to wait for an international consensus or for more incidents to happen.

Impact 1: International Hegemony (leads to influence). Because the US is the authoritative source for the world on space junk, coupled with the fact that the job of cleaning space up is left to the US, we achieve the advantage of international hegemony – by redirecting debris with modern technology, we send a message to the international community that their inaction will be countered by our action, increasing US supremacy and influence throughout the world.

Impact 2: International Influence (leads to action). By sending this message, we reduce the potential power-play between countries contending with the US and increase our ability to influence international action – examples of this are (1) reducing human trafficking, (2) effective negotiation of the release of POWs, and (3) mitigation of state-sponsored terrorism.