Remade RLVS

8/2/2019 Remade RLVS

1/94


2/94

UTNIF RLV starter pack2

Arms Race DA-Link XTN.....................................................................................................................79

Space Weapons Bad Impact XTNS ................................................................................................. .....81

***Add Ons*** ........................................................................................................................................83

SPS no solvo..........................................................................................................................................85

No overview effect .................................................................................................................. ..... ..... ...86***DA Links*** ........................................................................................................................... ...........87

SLV unpopular .................................................................................................................................... .89

***Counterplan***....................................................................................................................................91

Privatization Counterplan 1NC .............................................................................................................93

Solvency XTNS ....................................................................................................................................94


3/94


***Reusable Launch Vehicle 1AC***


4/94



5/94


1AC Inherency-No RLV

The Obama administrations budget offers no funding for a NASA developed reusable launch

vehicle-absent a continued commitment to its development there is no hope any commercial

space development programs to be effectiveMoney 11 (Stewart, 2-21, .A. in History from Auburn University and a M.A. in Science, Technology andPublic Policy from The George Washington University ,Taking the initiative: SLI and the nextgeneration, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1784/1)From the moment the Obama Administration announced its decision to cancel the controversial Ares booster family and the

Constellation program for which it was intended, a vacuum formed concerning what would fulfill the

perceived need for a heavy lift space launch system. In the bitter and morbidly entertaining melee which ensued, the three

primary playersNASA, the Obama Administration, and the Congressas well as their supporters, appear to

have forgotten the concept of reusability altogether. Instead, arguments have raged about the relative benefitsof a particular shuttle-derived heavy-lift rocket configuration, either in-line or sidemount; Ares V boosters; or multiple launches of expendable

rockets. Yet each of these proposals, and any new program of exploration beyond low Earth orbi t for

which they would be used, ignore the reality behind the painful but simple truth highlighted in the conclusion of the Augustine Committee

that no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue in

any meaningful way. As it now appears, with even the best-case scenario a five-year freeze at FY 2012 levels, as Jimmy Buffett wouldsay, theres trouble right here in River City. The Department of Defense, proud owner of the EELV program, has its own problems. Aviation Week

reported on January 14th that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated the need to increase the DoD budget for 2012

launch acquisitions by $450 million over previous estimates in part to provide stability for the

industrial base. Launches under the ULA contract would increase from three to five per year starting in 2012 essentially to keep the ULAAtlas and Delta production lines in business. This is a privilege for which the taxpayer is already paying a costly annual subsidy in addition to the

per launch price. Increasing the number of DoD launches should lower the average price for all users, but how much is another question. Risingprices from suppliers are fingered as the primary culprit in escalating ULA costs, and this is no doubt an important factor, but then again, that is partof the problem with an expendable system to begin with. Ford is experiencing rising supplier prices (and profits) as well, but that doesnt materiallyaffect the cost of a taxi ride because each fare doesnt require a new Crown Vic. Second Generation: the path not taken While both the Atlas and

Delta launchers have compiled an outstanding success record, the rising costs are a serious problem even for NASAs

unmanned space missions, which only pay the per launch cost. Presented with the $187-million price tag for a bare

bones Atlas V Mars launch for 2013, one official quoted in the article pondered the implications andasked How do we get out of

low Earth orbit on a regular basis? Good question. Ironically, in the first years of the new millennium, NASA was on the way to answering that question untila dizzying series of priority changes led to the current dead end. In the days before GPS, when you got lost on a diverging path, the only certain alternative was to retrace your steps to the point ofdeparture and start over. Such is now the case with US space launch policy. April 2011 will mark the thirtieth anniversary of Space Shuttle Columbias lift off in the first flight of the NationalSpace Transportation System and our first attempt at lowering the costs of getting to orbit by reusing part o f a launch system. As we all know, it came up a little short on that measure. The shuttlesystem was limited from the outset by a budget environment right out of todays headlines. In 1971, the Nixon administration OMB imposed a five-year freeze on NASAs budget, resulting in adesign that offered lower development costs but higher operating costs. Nevertheless, it was a failure brought about by both attempting to achieve too much in one great leap, and bettingeverything on the outcome of that attempt. That it failed to lower costs says far more about the flawed specific approach taken than about the ultimate viability of reusable launch hardware ingeneral. Acknowledging that failure, as well as disappointing outcomes in subsequent X-33 and X-34 experimental reusable programs, NASA in 2001 established the Second GenerationReusable Launch Vehicle Program as part of the Space Launch Initiative. This time, the challenge of lowering launch costs through reusable flight hardware would be met by undertaking severaldevelopmental programs, including the X-37 Approach and Landing Test Vehicle, as well as the RS-84 reusable engine. The end result would presumably be a fully reusable two-stage-to-orbit(TSTO) architecture. While TSTO lacked the cutting edge allure of the single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) approach, it also left behind the truly serious engineering challenges which bedeviled X-33and left the proposed VentureStar flying in viewgraph form only. Instead, the TSTO path offered steady, linear, almost boring progress from existing technology base, with the absence of anappropriate engine being the biggest challenge. Second Generation started with a review of over 100 possible configurations, and called for following a down select process from 15 to 3 to 2vehicle concepts, resulting in a development decision by 2006 and a potential operational vehicle in the 2010s. Second Generation was one component of NASAs 1999 Integrated SpaceTransportation Plan, which was envisioned as living document to ensure that NASAs goals matched its actual requirements. Unfortunately, NASA quickly concluded that, according to thisframework, the must have program of the moment was a new crew transfer and r eturn vehicle for the International Space Station, so for FY 2003, the Second Generation RLV program wasdiverted to the Orbital Space Plane program. For its part, OSP would initially be launched by a human-rated EELV while retaining a possible transition path to a reusable launcher. Following theColumbia disaster, the Orbital Space Plane project gave way to the Crew Exploration Vehicle, as result of the V ision for Space Exploration announced on January 14, 2004. Project Constellationsoon followed. Ten years after Second Generation was originally conceived, one cannot help but observe that if policy makers had stayed the course, 2011 might have found the US close tofielding a TSTO reusable system rather than occupying essentially the same position as in 2002or 1961 for that matter. Second Generation was, of course, only one of many projects over timethat started with great promise only to be subsequently abandoned or altered beyond recognition. Like much else in life, it is quite easy to consider the path not taken through a gentler light thanthe harsh reality that comes with actual experience, and this may be the case with Second Generation. Any program can be mismanaged, any opportunity wasted, and one need look no further

than current programs for confirmation. Virtually every development program appears to go over budget and take longer than originally scheduled. Nevertheless, disappointment is more easilyavoided by pursuing the right goal in the first place. Now, in the twilight of the shuttle program and with Constellation

cancelled as unaffordable, the challenge the Space Launch Initiative and Second Generation RLV

originally sought to resolve still remains. Financial reality suggests it is a challenge that still must be

overcome if the US expects to witness a new era of private spaceflight, affordably launch defense

payloads, or initiate a return to the Moon or venture to points further beyond. For anyone without

a financial or political stake in the status quo, the original goal of the 2001 Second Generation RLVProgramdevelopment of flexible, commercially produced reusable launch vehiclesremains

both logical and achievable, and absolutely necessary.


6/94


1AC-ADV1-Economic leadership

Humanitys current economic condition is unsustainable-no amount of manipulating

financial markets are jumpstarting service sectors will change the reality that we need access

to more resources to prevent bigger future financial crisisis-space development is key toprovide access to those resources

Hsu and Cox 09 (Feng, Ph.D. Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group, Ken, Ph.D.Founder & Director Aerospace Technology Working Group, 2-20, Sustainable Space Exploration andSpace Development - A Unified Strategic Vision, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702)Many of us believe that mankind must solve all our crises on earth before expanding into space can beachieved successfully and peacefully. In fact, humanity isn't going to solve all its problems here on earth,ever. While resolving some of our crises, humanity always creates more. Regardless, mankind goes intospace for reasons that our ancestors had historically gone elsewhere: for adventure with unknowns,resources, freedom, and better lives. The recent human history of industrial revolutions,along withthe current collapses of the world's economy an d energy and financial markets, has taught us a

harsh lesson: that merely manipulating financial capital and producing services has failed to builda sustainable global economy for mankind. Instead of fighting over what's limited and restricting

human development on this planet, we must now expand our horizons, and look upward and outwardfor resources, embarking on economic and commercial development into space
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702


7/94


Developing a reusable launch vehicle is critical to revitalize space development it would

jumpstart vital economic sectors, lift the United States out of its current economic

catastrophe and send a signal of Americas economic leadership for decades

Hsu and Cox 09 (Feng, Ph.D. Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group, Ken, Ph.D.Founder & Director Aerospace Technology Working Group, 2-20, Sustainable Space Exploration andSpace Development - A Unified Strategic Vision, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702)Technology innovations have always lifted human society out of the economic gridlocks, and have

led mankind from many of the worst economic crises to vast industrialization and enduring prosperity and

growth. The history of human civilization has shown that technology innovations and human ingenuity are our best hope to power humanity out

of any crisis, and especially a U.S.-lead human economic development into low earth orbit that will not

only lift us out of the current acute global depression, but will most certainly bring about thenext economic and industrial revolution beyond the confinement of Earth gravity. Commercial aircraft transportation andoperations in the past 100 years since the Wright Brothers' first successful test flight have advanced significantly in all areas, and have contributed

tremendously to the world economy and modern civilization. Nonetheless, space access capability and associated LEO infrastructure

has generally not advanced in nearly half a century. Particularly, as elaborated in the previous sections, given the current

plans under the Bush VSE forthe next generation of human space transportation being pursued by NASA,there exists little hope of making any substantial improvements in safety, affordability, or commercial

operations of any LEO transportation infrastructure for another generation. With the impact of the upcoming

termination of Space Shuttle operations, as guided by the Bush VSE, it is very clear that the U.S. needs substantially improved

crew and cargo space access capabilities, and such improved space access capabilities are largelyrepresented by a two-stage, fully reusable launch vehicle (RLV) system (in the short- to mid-term). An evolutionary infrastructure buildup ofsuch a RLV system that is largely based on existing heritage or capabilities shouldbe a key element of a reliable and low-cost cargo/crew space transportation development. Indeed,development and government investment in such an affordable space transportation infrastructure in the

Earth-Moon system is of paramount importance ;it's all about the crossroads the U.S. is at with thecurrent economic crisis and how Space could be a key part of the answer. A key component of a sound strategicspace vision that was missed almost entirely by the Bush VSE is the vision for space development (VSD), or a space-based economic and

commercial expansion into low earth orbit. Such a vision should be to place the highest priority on embarking on a national and internationalstrategic space development goal that will ensure the technological, and with it, the economical leadership of

America for the 21 century and the next few hundred years ahead. Otherwise, we riskcontinuing on the

course of the Bush VSE, allowing it to drift into the back waters of history. Investing in space

infrastructure development--such as low-cost RLV systems or fully reusable, two-stage (or ultimately single-stage)space access system developed as an extension of safe and reliable airplane operations or investing in SBSP (space based solar power) and spacetourism infrastructures as a significant part of the national space economy and energy programs--is the choice of a strategic space goal that certainly

will re-ignite the American spirit and jump-start its high-tech manufacturing sector. It will send aprofound message to the world: that America is still a nation where great bold endeavors arethe order of the day. , Or else, it will be a message that we will allow the nation to continue its driftinto obscurity and signal that America's greatest days are in the past. Yes, there may be those who are againstany space-based economic development, such as developing a low cost RLV capability, a stepping stone that could

enable a whole host of private space industries, such as space tourism and space energy industries. Many of us may also

argue that RLV or SBSP are too expensive or too hard to be realized. However, as Americans, we must not forgotwhat makes a nation and its people thrive and prosper are not based on what they do for easy or

short-term gains; it's largely based on what the nation and its people do that most others dare not to do or cannot do!


8/94


A U.S. economic collapse leads to global economic depression-

Walter Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, March/April, 2004

Americas Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, Proquest

Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio

private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system.A collapse of theU.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United State s .Without their

best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength ofevery

country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse .Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, nota weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, alarge national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by

maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S.

economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world .

Global economic collapse causes extinction-

Thomas Bearden, Association of Distinguished American Scientists and LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), 2000 ("TheUnnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly", http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm) )

History bears out thatdesperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress onnations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where th e arsenals ofweaponsof mass destruction(WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released .~ As an example, suppose a

starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Orsuppose a desperate China--whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States--attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate

responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic

nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions,once a few nukes are launched,adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch [nukes ]on perception of preparations by one'sadversary.~ The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the onlychance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly andmassively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will

be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}.The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilizationas we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

The possibility of extinction requires that we address the issue as if nuclear war is the result,

no matter how slight the real risk is-

Schell 1982 - policy analyst and proliferation expert, 1982 (Schell, Jonathan, The Fate of the Earth, p. 94-5)

We are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust, that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that

the global effects, including effects of which we are as yet unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may

suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be extinguished.... In the shadow of this power, theearth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the question of human extinction hasbeen on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated, and there was noneed for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. At just what pointthe species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroyitself and actually having the arsenals at hand, ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it isclear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with morebeing added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction.But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greaterthan, that of any other risk, and as we make our decisions we have to take thatsignificance into account. Up to

now, every risk has been contained within the frame of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents notthe defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purposes would be drowned for all time. We have noright to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risks that we run in the

ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a mathematicalanalogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking,infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to

extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else

will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world

between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are

the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty
http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htmhttp://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm


9/94


that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our own fate, we standbefore a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in deep ignorance. Ourignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our humility should inspire us toreverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat wenow pose to the earth and to ourselves.


10/94


US Economic leadership is key to economic interdependence, and multilateral cooperation on

all global problems. The alternative is competitive mercantilism and fractured international

cooperation-ensures global conflictPosen 09 (deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics Adam,Economic leadership beyond the crisis, http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)In the postwar period, US power and prestige, beyond the nations military might, have been based largely on

American relative economic size and success. These facts enabled the US to promote economic

openness and buy-in to a set of economic institutions, formal and informal,that resulted in increasing

international economic integration . With the exception of the immediate post-Bretton Woods oil-shock period (1974-85), this

combination produced generally growing prosperity at home and abroad, and underpinned the

idea that there were benefits to other countries of following the American model and playing by Americanrules. Initially this system was most influential and successful in those countries in tight military alliance with the US, such as Canada, WestGermany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. With the collapse of Soviet communism in 1989, and the concomitant switch of importantemerging economies, notably Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, to increasingly free-market capitalism, global integration on American termsthrough American leadership has been increasingly dominant for the last two decades. The global financial crisis of 2008-09, however, represents a

challenge to that world order. While overt financial panic has been averted , and most economic forecasts are for recovery to

begin in the US and the major emerging markets well before end of 2009 (a belief I share), there remain significant risks for theUS and its leadership. The global financial system, including but not limited to US-based entities, has not yet been sustainably reformed.In fact, financial stability will come under strain again when the current government financial guarantees and public ownership of financial firmsand assets are unwound over the next couple of years. The growth rate of the US economy and the ability of the US government to finance responsesto future crises, both military and economic, will be meaningfully curtailed for several years to come. Furthermore, the crisis will accelerate at leasttemporarily two related long-term trends eroding the viability of the current international economic arrangements. First, perhaps inevitably, theeconomic size and importance of China, India, Brazil, and other emerging markets (including oil-exporters like Russia) has been catching up withthe US, and even more so with demographically and productivity challenged Europe and northeast Asia. Second, pressure has been building over the

past fifteen years or so of these developing countries economic rise to give their governments more voice and weight in international economicdecision-making. Again, this implies a transfer of relative voting share from the US, but an even greater one from overrepresented Western Europe.The near certainty that Brazil, China, and India, are to be less harmed in real economic terms by the current crisis than either the US or most otheradvanced economies will only emphasise their growing strength, and their ability to claim a role in leadership. The need for capital transfers fromChina and oil-exporters to fund deficits and bank recapitalisation throughout the West, not just in the US, increases these rising countries leverageand legitimacy in international economic discussions. One aspect of this particular crisis is that American economic policymakers, both Democraticand Republican, became increasingly infatuated with financial services and innovation beginning in the mid-1990s. This reflected a number offactors, some ideological, some institutional, and some interest group driven. The key point here is that export of financial services and promotion of

financial liberalisation on the US securitised model abroad came to dominate the US international economic policy agenda, and thus that of the IMF,the OECD, and the G8 as well. This came to be embodied by American multinational commercial and investment banks, in perception and in

practice. That particular version of the American economic model has been widely discredited, because of the crisis apparent origins in US lax

regulation and over-consumption, as well as in excessive faith in American-style financial markets. Thus, American global economic

leadership has been eroded over the long-term by the rise of major emerging market economies, disrupted in the shortterm by thenature and scope of the financial crisis, and partially discredited by the excessive reliance upon and overselling of US-led financial capitalism.

This crisis therefore presents the possibility of the US model for economic development being

displaced , not only deservedly tarnished, and the US having limited resources in the near-term to try to

respond to that challenge. Additionally, the US traditional allies and co-capitalists in Western Europe and Northeast Asia have been atleast as damaged economically by the crisis (though less damaged reputationally). Is there an alternative economic model? The precedingdescription would seem to confirm the rise of the Rest over the West. That would be premature. The empirical record is that economic recoveryfrom financial crises, while painful, is doable even by the poorest countries, and in advanced countries rarely leads to significant politicaldislocation. Even large fiscal debt burdens can be reined in over a few years where political will and institutions allow, and the US has historicallyfit in that category. A few years of slower growth will be costly, but also may put the US back on a sustainable growth path in terms of savingsversus consumption. Though the relative rise of the major emerging markets will be accelerated by the crisis, that acceleration will be insufficient torapidly close the gap with the US in size, let alone in technology and well-being. None of those countries, except perhaps for China, can think interms of rivaling the US in all the aspects of national power. These would include: a large, dynamic and open economy; favorable demographicdynamics; monetary stability and a currency with a global role; an ability to project hard power abroad; and an attractive economic model to export

for wide emulation. This last point is key. In the area of alternative economic models, one cannot beat something

with nothing communism fell not just because of its internal contradictions, or the costly military build-up,

but because capitalism presented a clearly superior alternative. The Chinese model is in part the

American capitalist (albeit not high church financial liberalisation) model, and is in part mercantilism. There has

been concern that some developing or small countries could take the lesson from China that

building up lots of hard currency reserves through undervaluation and export orientation is smart.


11/94


That would erode globalisation, and lead to greater conflict with and criticism ofthe US-led system. Whilein the abstract that is a concern, most emerging markets and notably Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea are not pursuing thatextreme line. The recent victory of the incumbent Congress Party in India is one indication, and the statements about openness of Brazilian PresidentLula is another. Mexicos continued orientation towards NAFTA while seeking other investment flows (outside petroleum sector, admittedly) to andfrom abroad is a particularly brave example. Germanys and Japans obvious crisis-prompted difficulties emerging from their very high exportdependence, despite their being wealthy, serve as cautionary examples on the other side. So unlike in the1970s, the last time that the US economic

performance and leadership were seriously compromised, we will not see leading developing economies like Brazil and India going down the importsubstitution or other self-destructive and uncooperative paths. If this assessment is correct, the policy challenge is to deal with relative US economic

decline, but not outright hostility to the US model or displacement of the current international economic system. That is reassuring, for it leaves us inthe realm of normal economic diplomacy, perhaps to be pursued more multilaterally and less high-handedly than the US has done over the past 20years. It also suggests that adjustment of current international economic institutions is all that is required, rather than desperately defending

economic globalisation itself. For all of that reassurance, however,the need to get buy-in from the rising new players to

the current system is more pressing on the economic front than it ever has been before. Due to the crisis,the ability of the US and the other advanced industrial democracies to put up money and markets for rewards and side-payments to those new

players is also more limited than it has been in the past, and will remain so for at least the next few years. The need for the US to avoid excessivedomestic self-absorption is a real concern as well, given the combination of foreign policy fatigue from the Bush foreign policy agenda andeconomic insecurity from the financial crisis. Managing the post-crisis global economy Thus, the US faces a challenging but not truly threateningglobal economic situation as a result of the crisis and longer-term financial trends. Failure to act affirmatively to manage the situation, however,

bears two significant and related risks: first, that China and perhaps some other rising economic powers will opportunistically divert countries in US-

oriented integrated relationships to their economic sphere(s); second, that a leadership vacuum will arise in international

financial affairs and in multilateral trade efforts, which will over timeerode support for a globally

integrated economy. Both ofthese risksif realisedwould diminish US foreign policy influence, make the

economic system less resilient in response to future shock s (to every countrys detriment), reduce economicgrowth and thus the rate of reduction in global poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals

like controlling climate chang e or managing migration and demographic shifts. If the US is to rise to the challenge, it shouldconcentrate on the following priority measures.


12/94



13/94


1AC ADV 2-Space Heg

US Space dominance is becoming seriously threatened rival nations are rapidly gaining

control of spaceBrown 09 (Trevor, is a Ph.D. candidate at Auburn University with a focus on political, economic, andmilitary strategy for the medium of space. He has previously written for the Air and Space Power Journaland The Space Review. Author for Air and Space Power Journal, Soft Power and SpaceWeaponization, Ebsco)Some people speak as if they believe that a country can choose whether to pursue national securitythrough arms or through arms control.10 But Russias interest in banning space weapons is motivatedby a desire to stunt the growth of US military space programs in order to buy time for covertly

advancing its own space-weapons program and achieving technological parity.11 Russia bases itsopposition to space weaponization not on a scrupulous set of principles but on strategic objectives. Twoscholars contend that to understand whether Russia could indeed change its position on theweaponization of space, we need to go beyond official statements and discussion among Russian military

experts. The course of the military space program in Russia will be determined primarily by theavailability of the resources required to support the program and by the ability of the industry and themilitary to manage development projects for the military use of space.12 despite Chinas repeated callsfor a ban on all space weapons, historical evidence suggests that little separates Chinese and

Russian motivations for such bans. Because a broad interpretation of space weapons would rule outalmost all U.S. missile defense systems, Chinese officials who want to limit U.S. missile defensedeployments would advocate a ban that used this interpretation.13 interestingly, after the Clintonadministration scrapped the Strategic defense initiative in 1993, China redoubled its efforts in militaryspace and gained ground on the United States.14 By 1999 Chinas test of a spacecra ft intended formanned flight demonstrated a low-thrust rocket propulsion system that could be used to makewarheads maneuver to defeat a BMD [ballistic missile defense] system.15 Perhaps there remains abelief in the US strategic community that the deployment of U.S. space weapons is likely to make spaceassets including commercial communications and broadcast satelliteseven more vulnerable, since noother country is pursuing, let alone deploying, space attack weapons.16 Such notions were shatteredwhen China conducted its first successful ASAT test in January 2007, suggesting that it had spentmany years developing aSaT capabilities. The United States as well as the rest of the world, for thatmatter should not allow itself to be duped. The record shows that although officials in the ChineseCommunist Party rail against military space as a threat to peace and stability, the PeoplesAALiberation Army busies itself with the acquisition of space weapons.


14/94


Developing a RLV would guarantee US military leadership well into the future

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies,National Security Implications of Inexpensive Space Acces, http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)

The maneuverability of RLV space ships would also make them useful for missions that are more

accurately described as denial than destruction. They could mine decisive orbits (as could ELVs), but theycould also conduct mine clearing operations, soft landing the cleared mines for storage back on Earth, something an ELV could not.

These mine fields could be laid in a crisis and cleared afterward, giving new flexibility to national policy makers. RLVs would also be

able to respond to crisis situations with all of these capabilities more quickly than the ELV due to launch

preparation times that are forecast to be months shorter.The increased mobility provided by the RLV would enable

the United States to move its forces to decisive orbits in space or overhead any trouble spot onEarth more quickly (typically 31,000 feet per second with reference to the Earths surface) than any form of terrestrial military power.Threatened uses of force or non-lethal inspection of enemy forces (space or terrestrial) could work to achieve policy objectives without firing a shot.As the Presidents National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement puts it, "all nations are immediately accessible from space." It

follows that when space itself becomes immediately accessible to the United States, then the United States will have immediateaccess to all other nations. This access can mean the ability to observe, or it can mean the ability to

influence . We have discussed the movement of space forces to threaten on-orbit force structure, but RLV space ships would also

allow the United States to deliver destructive or non-lethal power to any point on Earthless than an hour after launch. Although many of the missions made possible by the RLVs maneuverability discussed to this point are not captured in presentspace doctrine, the idea of force application from space is. Although the perception exists that force application from space is prevented by international treaty or US policy, it is not. Joint Pub 3-14 puts it this way, "international law. . .allows the development, testing, and deployment of force application capabilities that involve non-nuclear, non-ABM weapon systems (i.e., space-to-ground kinetic energy weapons)." Because it has been d ifficult to access space, however, it has been difficult to develop any such concept beyond the idea stage. Concepts such as SandiaNational Laboratorys Winged Re-entry Vehicle Experiment, a ballistically delivered, non-nuclear, long range, precision guided kinetic energy penetrator flew three times on the front end ofICBMs before it ran out of funds. Many other studies never got past the paper stage. Studies with acronyms such as DAC, PMP, ICE, BRIM, and GPRC spent hundreds of thousands of dollarsand produced stacks of reports without really demonstrating any technology. With reusable space ships and routine access to space, however, research payloads can be flown on operationalmissions without waiting for rare ICBM test launch opportunities. Separation tests would be scheduled much as US Air Force SEEK EAGLE weapons carriage and separation tests are for air

breathers today. The RLV could also deliver non-lethal payloads such as ground based sensors, radio and

television transmissions, and humanitarian relief supplies (via sub-orbital lift into secure areas or via shielded reentry

containers in denied areas) to places that may not be accessible even to airpower (due to threat, distance, or overflightrestrictions). If fuel costs for an orbital mission are $360,000 and overall launch costs can fall to $1 million, then sub-orbital missions requiring lessD v and therefore less fuel should cost even less. These missions could be cost competitive with military aircraft. A 1991 Air Force regulation saysthat in FY92, the DOD would have had to charge NASA $403,132 for a 28 hour, 450 knot average speed, 12,500 nm nonstop C-5 mission. In theRLV era, if NASA has priority cargo to transport to its few remaining overseas tracking stations, it might be smarter to pay the same or similar costs

and cut the trip time by 27 hours. Such a capability would allow the United States to protect its interests, on

Earth or in orbit, at times and places of its choosing, without having to consider the risk of loss to enemy action.States or other groups with nascent ballistic missile or space programs will soon have primitive ASAT capability in the formof sounding rockets carrying kinetic energy submunitions (as simple as sixpenny iron nails) launched in the path of an oncoming satellite in a

predictable orbit. These ASATs, a threat to any satellite in a predictable low Earth orbit, are of limited utility against anRLV space ship launched on a sub-orbital or fractional orbital trajectory. There is very little possibility that non-spacefaring nations or groups could detect launches from US sovereign territory (at present, only the United Stateshas a publicly disclosed missile warning satellite, although the Russians have reconnaissance satellites and are likely to have missile warning satellites left over from the Cold War as well), and ifdetected, these nations do not have the data processing infrastructure to predict and disseminate sub-orbital trajectories and impact points to space weapon defense forces (while making a case foran independent European satellite reconnaissance capability in the wake of the Gulf War, former French Foreign Minister Pierre Joxe acknowledged the "supremacy of the US space surveillancemachine with its range o f missile early warning, ocean surveillance, photographic and radar reconnaissance, electronics eavesdropping and weather satellites...with its massive supportingprocessing and communications chain". Frances and Britains $1 billion investment in military spacecraft could not match the $200 billion US military space machine during the war, and it isnot likely that many other nations on Earth could do so in the foreseeable future.
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htmhttp://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm


15/94


This level of space dominance would be able to deter all conflict

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies,National Security Implications of Inexpensive Space Acces, http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)This leads us to the important advantage of space power over other forms of military power. This advantage is

the previously cited corollary of air and space powers elevation: higher energy states. The energy states inherent in orbital and suborbital

spacecraft can provide an enormous amount of firepower for a relatively small investment in the size of agiven vehicle or weapon. As Collins notes, Offensive kinetic energy weapons (KEW) plummeting from space to Earth at Mach 12 or more withterrific penetration power have a marked advantage over defensive Earth-to-space counterparts that accelerate slowly while they fight to overcomegravity.138 Space forces will look very much like air forces to those who are at the receiving end of their effects on earth. They will also look verymuch like air forces at their terrestrial bases. They must, after all, traverse the atmosphere in order to get into space. In this respect, they are much

like air forces, vulnerable and useless while on the ground. The compensating factor is their range. American military RLV bases

are likely to be far from the US coastline and secured against terrorist attack. This is beyond the strategic reach of most

nations on earth. They will, however, (within the limits of RLV response time and dispersability) be vulnerable to intercontinental,submarine-launched, or space-launched hypersonic strikes. If such an attack were launched, though, with or without nuclear weapons, the United

States would have larger concerns than RLV survivability. The d emonstrated ability to strike any target on earth with

precision and discrimination could, in fact, be a potent deterrent to or factor in conflict. This deterrent ,

unlike nuclear weapons, could be used against nonnuclear powers without the collateral damageand the negative moral and political fallout of nuclear weapons use

Independently, space weapons deter all conflict globallyDolman and Cooper 11 (Everett, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air Force School of Advanced Airand Space Studies and Recipient of Central Intelligences Outstanding Intelligence Analyst Award, and Henry, PhD and Former Deputyfor the Strategic and Space Systems, Chapter 19: Increasing the Military Uses of Space, Part of Toward a Theory of Spacepower,Edited by Charles Lutes and Peter Hays, National Defense University Press,http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/spacepower/spacepower.pdf, )

Such dire speculations call for enlightened leadership. Such a call is not new, but it is as yet unanswered. For example, in their

February 2000 report, the co-chairmen of the Defense Science Board on Space Superiority wrote that: space superiority isabsolutely essential in achieving global awareness on the battlefield, deterrence of potentialconflict, and superior combat effectiveness of U.S. and Allied/Coalition military forces. . . .An

essential part of the deterrence strategy is development of viable and visible (and perhaps demonstrated)capabilities to protect our space systems and to prevent the space capabilities being available toa potential adversary. . . . The Task Force recommends that improvements be made to our space surveillancesystem, higher priority and funding be placed on the "protection" of U.S. space systems, and thatprograms be started to create a viable and visible offensive space control capability.9
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htmhttp://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/spacepower/spacepower.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htmhttp://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/spacepower/spacepower.pdf


16/94



17/94


1AC Solvency

Plan The United States federal government should provide all necessary support to fulfill the

mandate of the 2001 second generation reusable launch vehicle program

If the United States government where to provide the necessary financial support and it

make it a top priority the United States could posses a reusable launch vehicle within the

decade

Money 11 (Stewart, 2-21, .A. in History from Auburn University and a M.A. in Science, Technology andPublic Policy from The George Washington University ,Taking the initiative: SLI and the nextgeneration, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1784/1)Ironically, in the first years of the new millennium, NASA was on the way to answering that question

until a dizzying series of priority changes led to the current dead end. In the days before GPS, when you got lost ona diverging path, the only certain alternative was to retrace your steps to the point of departure and start over. Such is now the case with US spacelaunch policy. April 2011 will mark the thirtieth anniversary of Space Shuttle Columbias lift off in the first flight of the National SpaceTransportation System and our first attempt at lowering the costs of getting to orbit by reusing part of a launch system. As we all know, it came up a

little short on that measure. The shuttle system was limited from the outset by a budget environment right out of

todays headlines. In 1971, the Nixon administration OMB imposed a five-year freeze on NASAs budget, re sulting in a design thatoffered lower development costs but higher operating costs. Nevertheless, it was a failure brought about by bothattempting to achieve too much in one great leap, and betting everything on the outcome of that attempt. That it failed to lower costs says far moreabout the flawed specific approach taken than about the ultimate viability of reusable launch hardware in general. Acknowledging that failure, as

well as disappointing outcomes in subsequent X-33 and X-34 experimental reusable programs, NASAin 2001established the

Second Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program as part of the Space Launch Initiative. This time, the challenge oflowering launch costs through reusable flight hardware would be met by undertaking several developmental programs, including the X-37 Approachand Landing Test Vehicle, as well as the RS-84 reusable engine. The end result would presumably be a fully reusable two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO)architecture. While TSTO lacked the cutting edge allure of the single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) approach, it also left behind the truly seriousengineering challenges which bedeviled X-33 and left the proposed VentureStar flying in viewgraph form only. Instead, the TSTO path offeredsteady, linear, almost boring progress from existing technology base, with the absence of an appropriate engine being the biggest challenge.

Second Generation started with a review of over 100 possible configurations, and called for

following a down select process from 15 to 3 to 2 vehicle concepts, resulting in a development decision by 2006 and apotential operational vehicle in the 2010s. Second Generation was one component of NASAs 1999 Integrated Space Transportation Plan, which

was envisioned as living document to ensure that NASAs goals matched its actual requirements. Unfortunately, NASA quicklyconcluded that, according to this framework, the must have program of the moment was a new

crew transfer and return vehicle for the International Space Station, so for FY 2003, the Second

Generation RLV program was diverted to the Orbital Space Plane program. For its part, OSP would initially be launched by ahuman-rated EELV while retaining a possible transition path to a reusable launcher. Following the Columbia disaster, the Orbital Space Plane

project gave way to the Crew Exploration Vehicle, as result of the Vision for Space Exploration announced on January 14, 2004. Project

Constellation soon followed. Ten years after Second Generation was originally conceived, one cannot help

but observe that if policy makers had stayed the course, 2011 might have found the US close to

fielding a TSTO reusable system rather than occupying essentially the same position as in 2002or

1961 for that matter. Second Generation was , of course, only one of many projects over time that started with

great promise only to be subsequently abandoned or altered beyond recognition. Like much else in life, it isquite easy to consider the path not taken through a gentler light than the harsh reality that comes with actual experience, and this may be the casewith Second Generation. Any program can be mismanaged, any opportunity wasted, and one need look no further than current programs forconfirmation. Virtually every development program appears to go over budget and take longer than originally scheduled. Nevertheless,

disappointment is more easily avoided by pursuing the right goal in the first place. Now, in the twilight ofthe shuttle program and with Constellation cancelled as unaffordable, the challenge the Space Launch Initiative and Second Generation RLV

originally sought to resolve still remains. Financial reality suggests it is a challenge that still must be overcome if

the US expects to witness a new era of private spaceflight, affordably launch defense payloads, or

initiate a return to the Moon or venture to points further beyond. For anyone without a financial or political stake in

the status quo, the original goal of the 2001 Second Generation RLV Programdevelopment of

flexible, commercially produced reusable launch vehiclesremains both logical and achievable,

and absolutely necessary.


18/94


Fulfilling the mandate to build a RLV would provide all the necessary military and

commercial needs to solve the advantages and set the stage for future improvements to allow

for efficient space development and exploration

Henry 03 (Gary N., February, Lt Col, USAF, THE DECISION MAKERS GUIDE TO ROBUST,RELIABLE AND INEXPENSIVE ACCESS TO SPACE, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927)

A two-stage-to-orbit space launch system using a first stage waverider design leveraging combined

cycle engine technology is the best and fastest route to R2ISA. First, it provides a flexible spacetransportation solution for DoD, NASA, and commercial customers. Second, the core first stage hassignificant military (reconnaissance/strike) and commercial (package delivery/passenger) potential.Third, the core first stage vehicle can experience the high flight rates necessary for R2 ISA. . Fourth,a horizontal takeoff and land system with fly-back capability provides a wide array of basing/landingoptions. The use of hydrocarbon fuels keeps vehicle size and dry-weight low (relative to rockets andhydrogen fueled reusables) enabling a vehicle to approach aircraft-like operations. Finally, supporting X-vehicle program can validate combined cycle engine concepts that merit use on the objective systemwhile a sub-scale Y-prototype first stage could be built today using existing propulsion technology(either a rockets, advanced turbine, pulse detonation) until a turbine combined cycle engine was ready.

This vehicle would provide the system experience necessary to build a highly maintainable andoperationally efficient objective system, possess residual space launch capability, and act as a test

bed for sorely needed hypersonic research. The two-stage-to-orbit objective system would deliver up to20,000 pounds to low earthorbit (100 nm, 28.5 deg inclination) using a Mach 4-6 horizontal take-off /horizontal land waverider powered by hydrocarbon fueled Revolutionary Turbine Accelerator derivedturbinecombined-cycle-engine with the capacity to return to its launch site. The second stage wouldideally be an airbreathing waverider using hydrogen rocket-based-combined cycle engine but couldimplement a simpler wing/fuselage rocket design as an alternative if sufficient second stage performancecan be demonstrated. Separate DoD and NASA upper-stages could be developed and tailored toaccommodate their unique mission requirements. The DoD could develop any combination of a separateSpace Maneuver Vehicle for space control and earth/space reconnaissance, a Modular Insertion Stage foraffordable space access, or a Common Aero Vehicle to enable prompt global strike. Additional militaryfirst stage utility can be explored through tests as a strategic reconnaissance and global strike

platform capable of reaching any point on the earth within three hours and returning to its launch

location. A commercial first stage variant will enable inexpensive low-earth-orbit satellite insertion,

demonstrate global two to three hour package delivery, and serve as a test bed for a potential

future passenger vehicle. NASA requirements will likely focus on a second stage maximizing payloaddelivery to the International Space Station. As rocket and hypersonic propulsion technology continues tomature, one will likely prove superior for incorporation into third generation single-stage-to-orbit launchsystems. The knowledge and experience gained through the approach outlined above would proveintegral to its future success
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927


19/94


It critical for the government to demonstrate the feasibility of a reusable launch vehicle

before the private sector will get on board-only a certain sustained government investment

can produce a working RLV

Henry 03 (Gary N., February, Lt Col, USAF, THE DECISION MAKERS GUIDE TO ROBUST,RELIABLE AND INEXPENSIVE ACCESS TO SPACE, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927)Chapter 3 articulated the technical and economic nature of the barriers to R2 ISA. A n understanding of the fundamental

metrics commonly used within the space launch arena provides a powerful tool to compare

expendable versus reusable launch vehicles as well as to quantify the impact of technological progress. Four main

technology areas - to include propulsion, advanced materials, vehicle integration, and thermal protection - represent the major

requisite technologies for R2 ISA . These topics in turn explain the challenges with single-stage to-orbit and why it cannot currentlydeliver as well as explaining why two-sage-to-orbit vehicles can. This difference can be summed up on a single concept design margin twostage-

to orbit designs have it, single-stage-to-orbit designs currently do not. The economic side of the equation is dominated by a

market failure in space transportation , making it clear that it is unreasonable for the government to

expect or demand a large commercial cash commitment until ISAR2 is demonstrated. The swiftest

and most certain solution demands a disciplined and wellconceived government policy backed up

by decisive action.

RLVS are key to all aspects of space travel

Dr. PatrickCollinsSenior Partner, Editorial and Researchhttp://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml 8/13 /20 11Dr. Patrick Collins is an exceptionally well known and respected authority on space economics, space tourism, reusable launch vehicles, and space

solar power. Dr. Collins joins us again to discuss space tourism, space economics, space solar power and much more. Dr. Collins was the initial

guest on The Space Show, the 100th guest, and the 1,000th on The Space Show. He is a professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, and a

Collaborating Researcher with the Institute for Space & Astronautical Science, as well as adviser to a number of companies. The focus of Dr.

Collin's research for the past 25 years has been on how to stimulate growth of commercial space activities, the two main opportunities being tourism

and energy supply. Dr. Collins performed the first market research on space tourism in Japan in 1993, and in the USA in 1995 and it has been very

satisfactory for him to see his results confirmed by Nasa-funded studies performed in last two years. In addition, Dr. Collins is the co-founder of

Space Future Consulting, which maintains the Spacefuture.com website among other activities. Space Future Japan recently opened and is making

great progress in the country, especially among young people. Dr. Collins will update us on this exciting development. He is closely involved with

Japanese work on space tourism and space solar power, subjects which are gradually getting more and more attention. Dr. Collins is widely

published, including Aviation Week, he spoke a the AIAA Wright Brothers Centenary Celebration in Dayton Ohio and it is an honor and privilege to

have him return to The Space Show.

In order for people to be able to travel economically to space, for space tourism and for other purposes, we need

reusable launch vehicles. All commercial transport industries use reusable vehicles - and so will the commercial

space transport industry. Luckily research aimed at developing low-cost reusable launch vehicles has increased

recently - though total funding is still barely 2% (!) of government funding for space activities.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927mailto:Patrick.Collins~at~spacefuture.commailto:Patrick.Collins~at~spacefuture.comhttp://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA424927mailto:Patrick.Collins~at~spacefuture.comhttp://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/designs.shtml%208/13%20/20%2011


20/94



21/94


***2AC Add Ons***


22/94


2AC Solar Power Satellites Add on

Creating a reusable launch vehicle is key to make solar power satellites economically viable

Collins and Taniguchi 97 (Patrick, Azabu university professor, H, Writer for Space Future,

The Promise of Reusable LaunchVehicles for SPS,http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_promise_of_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_sps.shtml.)The majority of the SPS research performed to date has concerned the technology required for the large-scale satellites that are to be used to collect solar energy in space and transmit microwave energy to userson Earth. As a result of this work there is now fairly good understanding of the technologicalrequirements of such systems - at least at the scale of pilot plants of several MW output. However, themain reason why the world electricity industry continues to give little support to SPS research is

that the probability of SPS becoming competitive with other sources of energy is considered to be

low, because all space activities are very costly. In addition, although the electricity industry is one ofthe largest industries in the world, it is quite separate from space engineering, and it is understandable thatelectrical engineers shouldnot understand the great potential for reducing the cost of space activities. Themain reason why space activities are so costly today is because launchcosts are very high - more than$10,000 to place 1kg in low Earth orbit. At such launch costs the construction and operation of SPSunits with masses of thousands of tons would cost tens of $billions, which is much too expensive tobe able to compete with other electricity generation systems. However, with the end of the Cold War,taxpayers' willingness to pay for the activities of government space agencies has been declining, and theirbudgets are being cut. This has led space agencies to acknowledge that launch costs are too high: MrGoldin , the administrator ofNASA , even stated that the US space industry should "...hang their headsin shame" because they have not developed a new rocket engine for 25 years (1). This revival of interestin developing re-usable launch vehicles with much lower launch costs has created a growing body ofopinion that, with appropriate technology development, reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) could be

developed with operating costs of 10% of today's costs or less. Some of the more important projectsunder way are described briefly in the following section.

SPS can prevent all energy wars-avoids great power conflict

Rouge 07(Joseph D., Oct. 9, Acting Director of National Security Space Office,2K7 , Space-BasedSolar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long term route to alleviate the security challengesof energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuelproduction of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energys own Energy InformationAgency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do notcome on line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on theglobal economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimumrequirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developedand poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP issuccessful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an alternative in thethird dimension to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
http://www.spacefuture.com/http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_promise_of_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_sps.shtmlhttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=who&term=Goldinhttp://www.nasa.gov/http://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=who&term=NASAhttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=who&term=NASAhttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=who&term=Goldinhttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/cgi/glossary.cgi?gl=term&term=SPShttp://www.spacefuture.com/http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_promise_of_reusable_launch_vehicles_for_sps.shtmlhttp://www.nasa.gov/


23/94


2AC World Peace/Mindsetshift Add On

Space development will fundamentally alter human psychology and society-the overview

effect will unite us-creating the conditions for world peace

Hsu and Cox 09 (Feng, Ph.D. Sr. Fellow, Aerospace Technology Working Group, Ken, Ph.D.Founder & Director Aerospace Technology Working Group, 2-20, Sustainable Space Exploration andSpace Development - A Unified Strategic Vision, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702)

Mankind, in the current stages of our single-planet civilization, may feel compelled or threatened to

fight over resources and living spaceon the surface of the earth. However, such an inherent conditionand competitive human psychology (deep in our consciousness) will most likely change by expandingthe human horizon outward into space. As evidenced by human experience as astronauts, the"overview effect" will be the most profound nature bond for humanity to cherish one another,when we first looked back at our obscure blue home planet from the deep space. We must notunderestimate the paramount importance of expanding human habitats outside the earth confinement as acritical benefit contributing to the acceleration of human conscious evolution, and hence bringing

about transformed geopolitical governance, and ultimately leading to sustainable and peacefulhuman development back on earth. Much like a political vacuum existed in the New World some fivecenturies ago, which allowed early American settlers to experiment with more efficient and just forms ofgovernment, there is little doubt that humanity's expansion into space will help us develop healthierand more peaceful societies on earth.


24/94



25/94


***2AC Case XTNs***


26/94



27/94


RLV solves the Economy

Developing a RLV would be a bigger boom for the US economy than the IT revolution

Moore 98 (ROSCOE M., winter, The author is an Astronautical Engineer who received his degree from

the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He left the U.S. Air Force as a Captain afterworking as a Nuclear Missile Treaty Inspector in Votkinsk, Russia. He is a candidate to receive hisJ.D.from the Georgetown Uni versity Law Center in 1999, RISK ANALYSIS AND THE REGULATIONOF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES, 64 J. Air L. & Com. 245)RLVs hold the potential to reduce space launch costs from over $10,000 per pound to orbit to under$1000 per pound to orbit. This reduction in launch costs would allow the United States space launchindustry to dominate the global multi-billion dollar satellite launch services market. At present, theEuro pean Arianespace consortium dominates the geostationary earth orbit (GEO) portion of thismarket.4 Cheaper access to space through RLVs has the potential to give the space and satelliteindustry the same exponential growth that the microprocessor has given the personal com puter andsoftware industries. Tens of thousands of new high paying jobs in the space industry could becreated when new companies take advantage of the ability to launch payloads into orbit for millions ofdollars per launch instead of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per launch. Advances in technologythat have encouraged RLV development would allow the United States to lead the economic

revolution in space just as it has led the economic revolution in information technology.


28/94



29/94


RLVs reduce launch costs-studies

Studies suggest that an RLV would reduce launch costs 100 times

Ward 00 (John E., May, Lt Colonel, USAF, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Space Operations,

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf.)The foreign firms are also interested in RLVs. The European Space Agency, with Great Britain in thelead, initiated the Skylon program in the 1980s. This program investigated the viability of developingcheap and easy access to space without the need for the traditional infrastructure or large ground crews.The program centered on a 270-foot long space plane that was capable of carrying 20,000 pounds intolow Earth orbit.61 A number of European states continue to have interest in RLVs. Recent study effortsof the European Space Agency included the Ascender project, which is a sub-orbital airplane that issuitable for carrying passengers. It takes off from an ordinary airfield using a turbofan engine, which at26,000 feet starts a rocket engine and climbs vertically at Mach 2.8 to reach a maximum altitude of over325,000 feet. Ascender plans to carry two crew and two passengers, making it a possible Europeanentrant for the X-Prize. Follow-on plans include a fully orbital spaceplane that is suitable for smallsatellite delivery to orbit, which is called the Spacecab, and is designed to be 100 times less expensivethan the Space Shuttle. An even larger design, called the Spacebus, is designed to carry 50 people to andfrom orbit or fly passengers from Europe to Australia in 75 minutes. 62
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdfhttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf


30/94



31/94


RLVs lead to space development-tourism

RLVS will enable space tourism to take off-which will increase there demand and raise

public support for future space development projects

Ward 00 (John E., May, Lt Colonel, USAF, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Space Operations,http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf.)Commercial Space Tourism. The broad objective of space tourism is to provide access to space for lessthan $20,000 per round trip. Some market surveys have indicated that this price will open space tourismto enough of the market to assure success.177 The essential capability for RLVs that are used forspace tourism includes the ability to operate on a scheduled status, a large payload capability with

passenger comforts, and rated to carry passengers. The primary challenges for space tourism are todevelop a market for reliable, safe, and affordable space flight. Before people will be interested in touringspace, safety must exceed that of current levels Launch failures might be tolerated if these resulted inaborted takeoffs that were followed by safe landings. One reasonable target for reliability might be thestandard that applies to commercial airliners, which is clearly higher than that which exists for expendablelaunches today. With respect to cost, large numbers of flights are essential to amortize the development

and production costs rapidly, and as this occurs the dominant factor in cost effectiveness will be therecurring operational costs. If space tourism is to succeed, the reusable system must have anoperational efficiency that is 200 times greater than that of the Space Shuttle.178 If space tourism issuccessful, it might encourage or support other space programs, such as the exploration of Mars. It

is conceivable that an industry devoted to commercial space might help to amortize the costs that

are associated with the development of RLVs, including the costs for vehicles, operating bases, andon-orbit support, and raise the publics support for space travel.179 Space tourism will only

succeed if the cost of space access can be sufficiently reduced.An alternative to space tourism is thatof space travel, which includes sub-orbital and even orbital flights


32/94



33/94


RLVS solve Space leadership

4 reasons an RLV would solve for US heg in space

Bruner 96 (William W., Masters from the School of Advanced Airpower Studies,

National Security Implications of Inexpensive Space Acces, http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm)RLV will play in this military geography of earth orbital space in four ways. First and foremost, itgives the United States routine access to these orbits for peaceful purposes, for political signaling andother nonlethal propaganda purposes, as well as for military purposes. One of these purposes willbe to take unimpeded advantage of one of the corollaries of space powers elevation, superior view.

A space-faring powers awareness of what is going on on earth is far superior to that of nonspace-faringnations. A nation with routine access to space will multiply that advantage with the ability to access anyorbit at will. Second, as noted above, the RLV will be able to occupy these orbits to prevent others fromusing them. Third, it will allow the United States to engage adversary space forces at times and places ofits choosing from a position of energy advantage. Fourth, it will allow the United States to engageadversary ground, air, and sea forces and political entities at times and places of its choosing from aposition of energy advantage. As mentioned above, one of the corollaries to the elevation of air and spacepower is the energy advantage of superior altitude (what fighter pilots call Gods G). This discussionnaturally leads to a concept which may be most useful in understanding the importance of this energyadvantage to space doctrine in the RLV era
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htmhttp://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/bruner.htm


34/94


RLV is possible

New technologies make it possible to develop an economically efficient RLV

Moore 98 (ROSCOE M., winter, The author is an Astronautical Engineer who received his degree from

the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He left the U.S. Air Force as a Captain afterworking as a Nuclear Missile Treaty Inspector in Votkinsk, Russia. He is a candidate to receive hisJ.D.from the Georgetown Uni versity Law Center in 1999, RISK ANALYSIS AND THE REGULATIONOF REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES, 64 J. Air L. & Com. 245)The new technologies that enable the development of RLVs are lighter thermal protection systems

(TPS), lighter than alumi num composite building materials, higher efficiency liquid rocket engines,and guidance and control (G&C) systems utiliz ing satellite navigation updates. New TPSs will allowRLVs to survive the high temperatures of re-entry that result from fric tion between the atmosphere andthe rocket body. Lighter composite building materials will yield lighter weight cryogenic 14 Mostcompanies developing RLVs desire to capture the low earth orbit (LEO) launch market. Lockheed Martin,with its Venture Star RLV design, in tends to compete with Arianspace in the heavy lift GEO launchservices market. fuel tanks and lighter rocket bodies, allowing rocket designers to reduce or eliminate theseparating stages that make ELVs so complex and expensive. Higher efficiency rocket engines allowRLVs to decrease their fueled weight and increase their payload capacity. New and cheaper guidancesystems based on the Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS) allow RLV designers to accurately trackand steer their vehicles while the rocket is out of sight or is reentering the atmosphere.

The US could create an RLV in less than a decade if it significantly invested in one

Ward 00 (John E., May, Lt Colonel, USAF, Reusable Launch Vehicles and Space Operations,http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat12.pdf.)For the purposes of this study, RLVs are defined as vehicles that are capable of carrying at least 20,000pounds into low Earth orbit, returning to Earth for servicing, and then performing another mission withindays. A number of concepts for RLVs have been proposed, including single-stage to orbit, two-stage toorbit, and Trans-atmospheric vehicles, all of which seek routine access to space at greatly reduced cost.

While none of the concepts for RLVs have reached this elusive goal, it is possible for the United Statesto produce a reusable launch vehicle within the next ten years if it makes a significant investment intechnology. This study does not focus on the performance of RLVs, but examines the more significantmilitary missions and commercial applications for RLVs and their strategic implications.9


35/94



36/94


***DA 2AC***


37/94



38/94


2AC Space weapons DA/Turn

1) We control Uniqueness-extend our Brown 09 ev-it answers your characterization of

Chinas space program as passive they have specifically developed space crafts for the

purpose of blowing past current US missile defense efforts and has tested military antisatellite technology-they clearly arent sitting back on securing space dominance-prefer our

ev it speaks to the nature of Chinese internal politics

2) Other Nations will inevitably challenge US space dominance-The US must maintain

leadership or risk being preemptively attacked-the anarchic nature of the international arena

demands that

Kueter 07 (Jeff, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit think tank dedicated to scienceand technology in public policy, New Atlantis, China's Space Ambitions -- And Ours, Spring, lexis)On January 11, 2007, a missile was launched from Chinese territory. It arced upwards into space to analtitude of about 537 miles, where it slammed directly into its target, an obsolete Chinese weather

satellite. The target was destroyed, reportedly producing some 900 trackable pieces of space debris in

orbits from 125 miles to about 2,300 miles and resulting in an increase of 10 percent in the total amountof manmade debris in orbit. This demonstration of an anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) wasjust the latestin a series of tests of China's space weapons program, and was a warning sign the United States shouldtake very seriously. In the decades after the Soviet Union and the United States first designed anddeployed so-called space weapons, some observers came to hope it would be possible to turn backhistory's pages and preserve space as a sanctuary, a pristine place of peace and internationalcooperation, where terrestrial disputes could be left behind. Ifthese hopes were ever given credence, theyhave surely been dispelled by China's recent actions in space: vivid demonstrations that the countrycould threaten essential satellitesboth directly, by physically destroying them, and indirectly,employing lasers and other jamming techniques to make them unusable. China is now a military

space power and space is once again an undeniably contested arena. There are severalpolicycourses the United States could take in responding to this new reality. It could assume that China is not a

significant threat to American space assets and determine that inaction is preferable to overreaction. Butsuch a do-nothing approach would expose the United States to the dangers of what has been called a"space Pearl Harbor," a surprise attack on U.S. space capabilities with immediate consequences forthe American military and for American interests the world over. Alternatively, Americanpolicymakers could conclude that negotiation and diplomacy offer the best path forward. Following thisapproach, the U.S. would embrace efforts to ban the introduction of weapons into space and negotiatecodes of conduct to regulate the behavior of nation-states. But while some good could undoubtedly comefrom the emergence ofinternational norms and rules, it is unlikely they would be sufficient topreserve security. Instead, the United States should adopt an active defensive posture, invigoratingthe research and technical base needed to defend or replenish space assets. This posture can

complement diplomatic effortsby providing important verification and enforcement capabilities. Suchan approach will be expensive and will need to overcome bureaucratic inertia as well as domestic and

international opposition--but it is the only option that can ensure the security of American spaceassets.


39/94


3) TurnSecuring space dominance now would prevents a worse space arms race in the future-and

will quickly secure international stability

Dolman 10 (September, Dr. Everett Carl, Associate, Assoc. Professor of Comparative Military Studies@ US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies The Case for Weapons in Space: AGeopolitical Assessment)Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at

continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the majority ofstates seem to regard it as at least tolerable. A continuation of the status quo is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working toward its demise.As long as the United States does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time.Mirror-imaging does not apply here. An attempt by China to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of theUnited States in preparation for a new international order. Such an action would challenge the status quo, rather than seek to perpetuate it. Thiswould be disconcerting to nations that accept, no matter how grudgingly, the current international orderincluding the venerable institutions of

trade, finance, and law that operate within itand intolerable to the United States. As leader of the current system, the United

States could do no less than engage in a perhaps ruinous space arms race, save graciously decide to step

aside and accept a diminished world status. Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now,

while the United States is dominant in space infrastructure, would do much to stabilize the

international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attemptby another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial

anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races

less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage ofholding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force todefend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of afuture war in space is remote. Moreover, if the United States were willing to deploy and use a military space force that maintained effective control

of space, and did so in a way that was perceived as tough, non-arbitrary, and efficient, such an action would serve to discourage

competing states from fielding opposing systems. It could also set the stage for a new space regime,

one that encourages space commerce and development. Should the United States use its advantage to police the heavensand allow unhindered peaceful use of space by any and all nations for economic and scientific development, over time its control of LEO could beviewed as a global public good. In much the same way the British maintained control of the high seas in the nineteenth century, enforcinginternational norms of innocent passage and property rights, and against slavery, the US could prepare outer space for a long-overdue burst ofeconomic expansion.

4) There evidence doesnt take into account how big of an advantage an RLV will give us in

control of space. Theyll give the United States the ability to have unparallel mobility in space

allowing is to clear enemy defenses and maintain the high ground in any conflict. Moreover it

will give the United States unparallel intelligence gathering capabilities. The 1AC Bruner

evidence says that the combination of these capabilities would make current anti space

weapons like ASATS completely ineffective and discourage other nations from trying to

counter the US


40/94

UT

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	darius24564544
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Remade RLVS

Documents