1ac Moon by keralaguest

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 20

									b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                            DDW 2011
                                                                                          1
                                           1ac – Plantext
Plan: The United States federal government should establish a colony on the Moon.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                          1
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
                                                         1ac – Meteors
Contention __: Meteor strike
Meteor Strike Coming - causes extinction – lunar colony key to deflect
Siegfried 03 (W. H. Siegfried, Chief Project Engineer for Space Platforms and Exploration at The Boeing Company, 2003, Written
for American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, http://www.aiaa.org/participate/uploads/acf628b.pdf)
     Over the last decade a large mass of evidence has been accumulated indicatingthat near-Earth-object (NEO) impact events
     constitute a real hazard to Earth. Congress held hearings on the phenomenon in 1998, and NASA created a small NEO
     program. Since 1988, a total (as of 7 August 2002) of some many thousand near-Earth objects (of which about 1,000 are
     larger that 1 km in diameter) have been catalogued that are potentially hazardous to Earth. New discoveries are
     accelerating. In just the last few months, a 2-mile-wide crater was discovered in Iraq dating from around 2000 to 3000 B.C.
     This impact was potentially responsible for the decline of several early civilizations. A similar crater was recently
     discovered in the North Sea. Major events have occurred twice in the last hundred years in remote areas where an object
     exploded near the Earth‘s surface bur did not impact (such as in Russia). If either of these events had occurred over a
     populated area the death toll would have been enormous. Our armed forces are concerned that an asteroid strike could be
     interpreted as a nuclear attack, thus triggering retaliation. What higher goals could Space Colonization have than in helping
     to prevent the destruction of human life and to ensure the future of civilization? The odds of an object 1 km in diameter
     impacting Earth in this century range between 1 in 1,500 and 1 in 5,000 depending on the assumptions made. A 1-km-
     diameter meteoroid impact would create a crater 5 miles wide. The death toll would depend on the impact point. A hit at
     Ground Zero in New York would kill millions of people and Manhattan Island (and much of the surrounding area) would
     disappear. The resulting disruption to the Earth‘s environment would be immeasurable by today‘s standards. A concerted
     Space Colonization impetus could provide platforms for early warning and could, potentially, aid in deflection of
     threatening objects. NEO detection and deflection is a goal that furthers international cooperation in space and Space
     Colonization. Many nations can contribute and the multiple dimensions of the challenge would allow participation in many
     ways—from telescopes for conducting surveys, to studies of lunar and other planet impacts, to journeys to the comets. The
     Moon is a natural laboratory for the study of impact events. A lunar colony would facilitate such study and could provide a
     base for defensive action. Lunar and Mars cyclers could be a part of Space Colonization that would provide survey sites and
     become bases for mining the NEOs as a resource base for space construction. The infrastructure of Space Colonization
     would serve a similar purpose to the solar system as did that of the United States Interstate Highway system or the flood
     control and land reclamation in the American West did for the United States development. In short, it would allow
     civilization to expand into the high frontier.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     2
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
                                                          1ac - Meteors
Even if strike, lunar colony key to repopulation.
Shapiro 99(Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Chemistry Department of New York
University and He has served on several NASA committees concerned with topics in astrobiology, October 1999,
http://www.robertshapiro.org/an_alliance_to_rescue_civilization_25558.htm)
      We who live on Earth are menaced by an array of potential catastrophes that go far beyond what is usually taken to be
      merely dangerous.And they require a truly radical strategy to prevent our collective civilization all of culture itself from
      essentially vanishing....We therefore believe that it is urgent to hedge against such calamities by preparing a copy of our
      civilization and moving it out of harm's way. Even if the Earth were turned into a vast field of devastation, humanity and its
      achievements would survive. Think of it as backing up the planet's hard drive and keeping the "disk," constantly updated, in
      a secure location. Many of the possible disasters would affect our entire planet, so the logical location for such a haven
      would be off of it, in a base on another world. The Moon would appear to be the most likely candidate, and we will use it in
      our discussion, but we do not rule out the possibility that it could be elsewhere, for example on Mars. We hope that the
      project would be international, and propose to call it the Alliance to Rescue Civilization, or ARC. In addition to insuring
      the longterm survival of our culture, ARC would have more immediate virtues. It would provide a central, unifying theme
      for our Space Program, one that has been lacking since the demise of the Apollo project. Many citizens who find no point
      in exploration for its own sake, or spending huge sums to advance planetary science, will readily grasp the need to insure
      the survival of our species and its achievements. No debate will be launched as to whether this project will be manned or
      unmanned. To guard against the worst possibilities, the ARC must support enough human beings (and supporting species)
      to repopulate the Earth.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       3
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                            1ac Meteors
Colonizing moon key to solve multiple extinction threats now – overpopulation, overreliance,
computerization, bioweapons
Shapiro 07 (Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Chemistry Department of New York
University and He has served on several NASA committees concerned with topics in astrobiology, March 19, 2007,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/832/1)
      I am not writing here to add my voice to the chorus of Moon-bashers, but to express my astonishment that NASA, and most
      supporters of space, have overlooked the one goal that, even if taken alone, would justify the massive cost of a permanent
      lunar base: insuring the survival of our species, and of the civilization that sustains us. Each year I insure my home for
      perhaps one percent of its value, and use a smaller amount to rent a safe deposit box to store valuable documents. What
      value do we place on our entire scientific, medical, and technical literature, together with our literary, artistic, and musical
      heritage? To raise the stakes, let me add the value of our own lives and those of all of our unborn descendents. This
      possibility was described eloquently more than two decades ago by Johnathan Schell in his anti-nuclear was treatise The
      Fate of the Earth. In his words: ―But although the untimely death of everyone in the world would in itself constitute an
      unimaginably huge loss, it would bring with it a separate, distinct loss that would be in a sense even huger-the cancellation
      of all future generations of human beings.‖Of course, we have been hearing predictions of Doomsday for years, and we are
      still here. According to geologists, the eruption of Mt. Toba in Indonesia 71,000 years ago darkened the sky for years. The
      event caused killed much of plant life on the planet. The famine that resulted caused a severe drop in the human population
      of that time. The Black Death of the 14th century killed perhaps one-third of the population of Europe and the great flu
      epidemic of 1918 claimed an estimated 40 million victims. Despite these disasters, and others such as global wars,
      humanity has muddled through and even prospered. Why should things be different now? The answer is simple. Our
      prospects have worsened because we have come to a unique place in human history. Suppose we wanted to conjure up a
      recipe for human disaster. Here is my suggestion about steps that we might take: (1) Let the population swell up to seven
      billion or more. Then we will need vast and complex systems to ensure the production of food, materials, and energy
      sources, as well as transportation to deliver the goods. By increasing our numbers, we will also increase the playing field in
      which new viruses can develop, increase pollution and the probability of dramatic climate change, and hasten the day when
      important natural resources are exhausted. (2) Computerize the operation of the food, energy, and transportation systems,
      and store all of the instruction manuals and needed references within the computers. Similarly, place all of our scientific,
      technical and medical knowledge within computers. Make the computers more and more complicated, so that only a
      handful of experts are prepared to deal with a massive failure. (3) Arrange to have the computers, and most other functions
      of society, dependent upon the operations of an intricate power grid that is subject to massive and unexplained failure. We
      have already had a rehearsal of such an event. For example, on August 14, 2003, 50 million people in the northeast United
      States were deprived of power for many hours. The main cause of the blackout, according to the task force charged with its
      investigation, was the failure of an Ohio power company to trim trees in part of its service area. In September of that year, a
      similar blackout shut off power to almost all of Italy and part of Switzerland. Unintended causes might of course be
      eclipsed by the deliberate actions of terrorists. Gregory McNeal estimated in the New York Times that ―a coordinated
      attack on four or five critical sites could send much of the nation into darkness for weeks.‖ (4) Streamline the production of
      nuclear and biological weapons so that they become available not only to most heads of state, but also to groups of religious
      zealots and of extreme nationalists. Encourage both the exchange of information about such weapons, and their availability
      on the international black market. Individuals who are technically competent but mentally unbalanced will then also have
      access to such weapons, enriching their current arsenal of computer viruses, bombs, and hijacked airplanes. All of the
      above events have already taken place or are likely to occur in the near future. We may also expect that single disasters may
      trigger a cascade of others. For example, my local power company has circulated a card advising its customers to assemble
      ―at least a three-day supply of water and non-perishable food‖ as part of a ―family emergency preparedness plan‖. But what
      would we do, in urban centers, when that supply was exhausted but power and transportation had not been restored?
      Looting of stores and warehouses might be expected, together with an attempt by residents to flee to less populated areas
      where conditions might be better. Famine and civic disorder will inevitably produce casualties; unburied bodies could then
      lead to disease epidemics.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         4
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                            1ac Meteors
Lunar colonization is feasible – use of regolith and moon materials
O’Neill 08 (Ian O‘Neill, British solar physics doctor and founder of Astroengine, February 7, 2008,
http://www.universetoday.com/12726/building-a-base-on-the-moon-challenges-and-hazards/)
      So, we want to go to the Moon. Why? Because the Moon is an ideal ―staging post‖ for us to accumulate materials and
      manpower outside of the Earth‘s deep gravitational well. From the Moon we can send missions into deep space and ferry
      colonists to Mars. Tourists may also be interested in a short visit. Mining companies will no doubt want to set up camp
      there. The pursuit of science is also a major draw. For what ever reason, to maintain a presence on this small dusty satellite,
      we will need to build a Moon base.Be it for the short-term or long-term, man will need to colonize the Moon. But where
      would we live? How could we survive on this hostile landscape? This is where structural engineers will step in, to design,
      and build, the most extreme habitats ever conceived…The debate still rages as to whether man should settle on the Moon or
      Mars first. Mars is often considered to be the ultimate challenge for mankind: to live on a planet other than Earth. But
      looking down on us during cloudless nights is the bright and attainable Moon. From here we can see the details of the lunar
      landscape with the naked eye, it is so close astronomically when compared with the planets, that many believe that the
      Moon should be our first port of call before we begin the six month (at best) voyage to the Red Planet. It also helps as
      we‘ve already been there… Opinion has shifted somewhat in recent years from the ―Mars Direct‖ plan (in the mid-1990s)
      to the ―Moon First‖ idea, and this shift has recently been highlighted by US President George W. Bush when in 2004 he set
      out plans for re-establishing a presence on the Moon before we can begin planning for Mars. It makes sense; many human
      physiological issues remain to be identified, plus the technology for colonization can only be tested to its full extent
      when… well… colonizing. Understanding how the human body will adapt to life in low-G and how new technologies will
      perform in a location close enough to home will be not only be assuring to lunar colonists and astronauts, it will also be
      sensible. Exploring space is dangerous enough, minimizing the risk of mission failure will be critical to the future of
      manned exploration of the Solar System. So where do you start when designing a moon base? High up on the structural
      engineers ―to do‖ list would be the damage building materials may face when exposed to a vacuum. Damage from severe
      temperature variations, high velocity micrometeorite impacts, high outward forces from pressurized habitats, material
      brittleness at very low temperatures and cumulative abrasion by high energy cosmic rays and solar wind particles will all
      factor highly in the planning phase. Once all the hazards are outlined, work can begin on the structures themselves. The
      Moon exerts a gravitational pull 1/6th that of the Earth, so engineers will be allowed to build less gravity-restricted
      structures. Also, local materials should be used where and when possible. The launch costs from Earth for building supplies
      would be astronomical, so building materials should be mined rather than imported. Lunar regolith (fine grains of
      pulverized Moon rock) for example can be used to cover parts of habitats to protect settlers from cancer-causing cosmic
      rays and provide insulation. According to studies, a regolith thickness of least 2.5 meters is required to protect the human
      body to a ―safe‖ background level of radiation. High energy efficiency will also be required, so the designs must
      incorporate highly insulating materials to insure minimum loss of heat. Additional protection from meteorite impacts must
      be considered as the Moon has a near-zero atmosphere necessary to burn up incoming space debris. Perhaps underground
      dwellings would be a good idea? The actual construction of a base will be very difficult in itself. Obviously, the low-G
      environment poses some difficulty to construction workers to get around, but the lack of an atmosphere would prove very
      damaging. Without the buffering of air around drilling tools, dynamic friction will be amplified during drilling tasks,
      generating huge amounts of heat. Drill bits and rock will fuse, hindering progress. Should demolition tasks need to be
      carried out, explosions in a vacuum would create countless high velocity missiles tearing through anything in their path,
      with no atmosphere to slow them down. (You wouldn‘t want to be eating dinner in an inflatable habitat during mining
      activities should a rock fragment be flying your way…) Also, the ejected dust would obscure everything and settle,
      statically, on machinery and contaminate everything. Decontamination via air locks will not be efficient enough to remove
      all the dust from spacesuits, Moon dust would be ingested and breathed in – a health risk we will not fully comprehend
      until we are there.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        5
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                           1ac Meteors
Mining makes colonization feasible
O’Neill 08(Ian O‘Neill, British solar physics doctor and founder of Astroengine, February 7, 2008,
http://www.universetoday.com/12758/building-a-base-on-the-moon-part-2-habitat-concepts/)
      Ultimately, it is hoped that a settlement on the Moon will have an infrastructure capable of mining local materials,
      fabricating basic quantities and constructing structures with little or no input from Earth. This degree of autonomy would be
      required if a thriving Moon base is to succeed. However, to maintain airtightness within the habitats, a new form of
      concrete would need to be manufactured. All components for a lunar concrete mix can be found on the Moon, although
      water (and therefore hydrogen) will be at a premium. As the Moon is sulphur-rich, a different type of concrete (minus the
      need for water) may be created to aid with the construction of arced and domed habitats. Some ―geotextiles‖ may also be
      made via some advanced refining, creating filmy materials to seal habitat interiors. Building using locally mined materials
      will most likely be one of the more advanced methods of construction on the Moon, so in the first stages at least, settlers
      will be dependent on the Earth for support.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      6
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                    DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                         1ac – Economy
Contention __: Econ
American Public expects another Great Depression
Huffington Post, June 30 2011, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/us-economy-decline-permanent_n_887717.html)
      As QE2 comes to an end Thursday, and experts try to predict what‘s next for the U.S. economy, a new poll suggests a
      significant percentage of American thinks the economy will only continue to get worse, forever. A New York Times/CBS
      News poll finds that 39 percent of respondents believe ―the current economic downturn is part of a long-term permanent
      decline and the economy will never fully recover.‖ The survey is only one of a recent spate indicating widespread distress
      over the state of the economy. On June 8, a CNN poll found that 48 percent of Americans believe another Great Depression
      is either very likely or somewhat likely. A striking chart from the University of Michigan showed a steep decline in the
      number of consumers who expected their family income to rise within the next 12 months. Another survey, conducted by
      the company BIG Research, found similar results -- in that poll, 89 percent of respondents said theydon't expect to receive a
      salary increase in the next year. And a poll taken by Harris Interactive and released Wednesday found that 74 percent of
      Americans had an overall negative opinion of the way President Obama is handling the employment situation. Obama
      escapes relatively unscathed in the NYT/CBS poll: Only 8 percent of respondents think his administration is ―mostly to
      blame for the current state of the nation‘s economy.‖ The Bush administration comes in for the biggest share of blame -- 26
      percent -- while another 25 percent say Wall Street and financial institutions are at fault.


US Economy on the brink – need something to turn it around
Jeff Davis 4.8.11, blogger, April 8th 2011, (http://whitelocust.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/us-economy-%E2%80%9Con-the-brink-
of-collapse%E2%80%9D-2/)
     Europeans seem to have a far greater awareness of the degree of trouble, that the USA is in, than anyone here does. The
     liberal media wants us to think everything is all ―rainbows and unicorns‖ with Obama in office. An article on
     Breitbart reports: ―Economists peddling dire warnings that the world‘s number one economy is on the brink of collapse,
     amid high rates of unemployment and a spiraling public deficit, are flourishing here. The guru of this doomsday line of
     thinking may be economist Nouriel Roubini, thrust into the forefront after predicting the chaos wrought by the subprime
     mortgage crisis and the collapse of the housing bubble. ‗The US has run out of bullets,‘ Roubini told an economic forum in
     Italy earlier this month. ‗Any shock at this point can tip you back into recession.‘‖ ―Back‖ into recession? Did we ever
     leave? Seems more like we bottomed out at about a 20 percent real unemployment rate while foreclosures and bankruptcies
     continued at an alarming pace.


Lunar Mining and moon exploration good for the economy
Dean Davis a Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works, 2009,
(https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf)
      As time passes, viable mission designs are expected to experience reductions in risk, cost, and time optimization for
      translunar, crewed missions. The communications network infrastructure will use the Moon in revolutionary new ways and
      will enable further expansion of what is already a $300 billion market, driven by space systems. The Moon may be the
      cornerstone for expansion and survival of this critical segment of our global economy. In addition, U.S. efforts in human
      interplanetary space exploration and colonization may stimulate a new generation of students to take science, technology,
      engineering, and mathematics classes in preparation for emerging high-technology engineering and science careers.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      7
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                 DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                  1
                                                       1ac – Economy
Lunar exploration helps the economy
Space exploration a space exploration day holiday website, (http://www.spaceexplorationday.us/benefits/space-economics.html)
      A strong manned space exploration program will put more strength into the national economy, than the financial resources
      taken out to support it. Many macroeconomic studies of the past 35 years have proven this fact. Space Progress expands
      and strengthens the nation's scientific & technological base. Since the early 1970s NASA has had Biomedical Application
      Teams at each of the NASA Research Centers, whose purpose is to facilitate the transfer of Space Program technology to
      the medical industry. This reduced the cost of medical technological research, and development, for the companies. Health
      care costs, passed on to the patients, would have been higher then they are now without these developments. Technology
      Application Teams have promoted the transfer of NASA technology to many industries. Many areas of concern to mankind
      have benefited from technological advancements in space. Many researchers might have been satisfied with the status quo,
      if new unexpected ideas hadn't become available from the Space Program. The electronics industry would have been
      satisfied with their vacuum tubes.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                  8
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                              1ac – Heg
Contention __: Heg
1. US-China war:
China’s space program to go to the Moon threaten US leadership
Garibaldi December 06
(Gabriele Garibaldi, Association of Asian Research, The Chinese Threat to American Leadership in Space (Part II),
http://asianresearch.org/articles/2979.html )
      Concerning their geostrategic plans, China has significant reason to enter into conflict with the United States. In order of
      increasing importance, these areas of dispute include their increasing influence in Central Asia, their interference in Korean
      affairs, the Spratly islands and Taiwan. The strategical significance of the Spratly Islands has caused controversy between
      the two Super Powers. Situated in the southern China Sea, they fall on the most important trading route in the world - one
      through which 25% of the world's oil products pass, coming from the Middle East and directed towards Japan and the USA
      - and are surrounded by potential oil-fields. But it is with regard to Taiwan that the friction with the USA is strongest,
      particularly in regard to the political arrogance of the current US ainistration: the invitation proffered by the US to the
      Taiwanese Defense Minister, Tang Yian-ming, and his consequent meeting with the American vice-Minister of Defense,
      Paul Wolfowitz, has greatly irritated Beijing. The Taiwanese issue is the fulcrum of the American strategy (which,
      according to Chinese analysts, even foresees the destabilization of the whole area of influence of China in order to stop its
      rise) and one that will necessitate a battle of wills between China and the USA in the twenty-first century, a trial of strength
      for which China is being well prepared. The U.S. experts believe the Shenzhou 5 mission will provide previously unknown
      information to the Chinese military, commonly known as the People‘s Liberation Army (PLA), in relation to a potential
      conflict with the United States over Taiwan. Thus, it won‘t be a purely science-related exercise. It could hardly be
      otherwise, as the distinction between civil and military Chinese space programs is non-existent. Consequently, the
      Shenzhou program is also under the supervision of the ―PLA‘s General Armament Department‖. Indeed, the Shenzhou 5 -
      as was aitted by Chinese officials - ―will have a CCD camera attached to the exterior with a ground resolution of 1.6 m,
      which could be used for military reconnaissance purposes‖. For the already cited Colonel Stokes, the fact that China has
      sent a man into Space is not worrisome in itself, but rather indicates the technological level now achieved by China in the
      field of space carriers, as Beijing - worrying over the possibility of losing definitive control over Taiwan - ―is developing
      space-based capabilities that could be used in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait‖, aware that ―Space assets will
      play a major role in any future use of force against Taiwan and in preventing foreign intervention in a Taiwan scenario‖.
      The technical progress derived from initiating the Shenzhou 5 operation and subsequent ―manned missions‖ could be used
      to develop not only ballistic missiles, but also anti-satellite weapons and mini-satellites for espionage. According to USA
      experts, Beijing will be able to launch small recognition satellites within the next three to five years to control China's
      periphery and the eastern Pacific Ocean. With regard to the space program's success - one that has been supported by a
      strong political will as the presupposition of its geostrategic vision - China, therefore, has the potential to challenge the US
      supremacy in Space, especially now that it is supported by significantly increasing funds. In March 2002 the Chinese
      Financial Minister, Xiang Huaicheng, announced an increase in military expenditure for 2002 of 17.5%, ―…bringing the
      publicly reported total to $20 billion‖ (NASA currently receives $15.5 billion a year, while "Unclassified U.S. military
      space programs command a further $8.5 billion a year in federal spending.‖). Consequently, this makes China the second
      greatest military spender in the world and the first in Asia. Moreover, the rate of Chinese economic growth has suggested to
      American analysts that ―annual defense spending could increase in real terms three to four fold between now and 2020‖.
      The Chinese lunar plans and American anxieties This information has led the USA to seriously examine the Chinese space
      challenge, and despite the American advantage, they remain nervous about China's next goal on the agenda: the Moon.
      According to Robert Walker, former president of the Commission on the future of the American aerospace industry, China
      is engaged in an aggressive space program focused on a Moon landing, followed by establishing a permanent base within a
      decade (according to Japanese experts, China will be able to reach the Moon within three to four years) and eventually
      aiming for Mars. It will be sufficient for it to spend 1% of its GDP over the next few years in order to provide the financing
      for a significantly competitive space program. The USA, on the other hand, at least according to Walker, is no longer able
      to repeat the Moon mission of thirty-five years ago. This inability to compete in a new Moon race is more than an issue of
      national pride: it also raises serious strategical questions over China's rising potential as a lunar power. China, if it
      succeeded in its goal, would acquire enormous international prestige. However, most significantly, by establishing
      permanent bases on the Moon, China would gain the ability to exploit lunar resources and therefore gain important
      technological advantages over other nations (including nuclear fusion, using the helium 3 isotope), with concrete
      consequences on Earth's activities. Walker's conclusion is that the Chinese space program has yet to be taken seriously by
      American politicians. Nevertheless, it represents a serious challenge to the US leadership in Space. The US must answer
      such a challenge by developing new technologies (for instance, the nuclear plasma propulsion system) in [continues]


Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         9
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                              1ac – Heg
       order to reach the Moon and Mars faster than currently possible, and to travel more frequently and thriftily into Earth's low
      orbit. George W. Bush had heard Walker's warning, and in the President's 14 January 2004 speech, he relaunched the US
      space programs with increased fervour. It is impossible not to link the US's renewed enthusiasm to the current race against
      China's rapid rise in Space strategy. Three months after the success of the Shenzhou 5, China announced that it would
      launch the next manned mission in 2005, when the new Shenzhou 6 will transport more than just a single astronaut, and
      will remain in Space for a longer period of time. In the meantime, in 2004 China will launch ten new satellites into orbit.
      Asked by Western journalists about the Chinese perception of US space programs - there were already rumours some
      weeks prior to Bush‘s speech that the US intended to establish a permanent base on the Moon - the Chinese Foreign
      Minister responded by diplomatic note, congratulating the USA on the success of its Martian rover Spirit, but neglecting to
      mention the rumoured US aim of establishing a permanent base on the Moon as a starting point for manned missions
      towards Mars. But on 14 January, Bush removed all doubt, revealing his ―vision for moon and beyond‖. It was a speech
      aimed at formenting the enthusiasm and patriotic pride of the man in the street (who will have to pay US$1 billion -
      according to the first estimate - to finance the program), by using Star Trek-esque lingo: ―Much remains for us to explore
      and to learn‖. After stating that ―the desire to explore and understand is part of our character‖, Bush disclosed the ambitious
      plan that will once again take the USA to the Moon by 2020, where they will establish a launch base for manned missions
      towards Mars and beyond (Bush didn‘t announce when the astronauts will come down to Mars, but, according to White
      House authorities, this in due by 2030). ―Deny Space to others‖: the last chance to stop China As the situation currently
      stands, it is clear that the expression ―to assure our continued access to space and deny the space to others if necessary‖ -
      recurrent, with little variations, in the US military plans - is specifically directed towards China. The Pentagon believesthat
      China has the same intention towards the ousting the United States from Space, and considers its polemic declarations
      about the ―rumoured‖ US plans of space weaponization - expressed in front of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
      Outer Space - as the weapon to diplomatically damage and slow down the action of the USA, while actively working in
      secret towards the same objective. According to Larry Wortzel, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage
      Foundation, the introduction by the Chinese of a draft treaty devised to act against the US's intent to develop space weapons
      is misleading (―…because they‘re developing their own space-based weapons...‖), having no other purpose than to
      diplomatically damage the USA and thus delay their Theater Missile Defense plan, while China continues with its own
      plans. According to Richard Fisher of The Jamestown Foundation, the People's Liberation Army is aware that the ―control
      of space‖ concept - as theorized by the US military - is an objective that China must achieve: ―China needs to be able to
      deny to the United States access and use of space, as they themselves exploit space to support their own forces‖. Several
      factors, therefore, let one foresee that the impact of the Space challenge between the USA and China will exceed previous
      expectations about the strategical-military use of Space (spy satellites) and the race to install weapons, both offensively and
      defensively (concepts that are difficult to distinguish from each other, particularly in regard to the US military ultimate
      objective to ―deny Space to others, if necessary‖, suggesting that the offensive dimension will prevail against the defensive
      one). While we may not know much about the character of Chinese space policy (with the exception of the declarations of
      condemnation of any space weaponization plan -but the real intentions of China can be deduced from its will to expel the
      USA from its own area of infuence), we do know more about China's progress in Space. Meanwhile, it can be asserted
      definitively that the US is determined to maintain by all means possible (including denying the rest of the world access to
      Space) their own space leadership, the key to the ―Full Spectrum Dominance‖ and the fundamental presupposition of the
      unipolar-imperialistic ―New American Century‖. The relation between the space dimension and the imperialistic dimension
      (with ―Manifest Destiny‖ echos) of the USA, is sealed by the conclusions of a book written in 1996 by arms experts George
      and Meredith Friean: ―Just as by the year 1500 it was apparent that the European experience of power would be its
      domination of the global seas, it does not take much to see that the American experience of power will rest on the
      domination of space. Just as Europe expanded war and its power to the global oceans, the United States is expanding war
      and its power into space and to the planets. Just as Europe shaped the world for a half a millennium [by dominating the
      oceans by its fleets] so too the United States will shape the world for at least that length of time‖ - by dominating Space..




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        10
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                  DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                    1
                                                           1ac – Heg
B. Space leadership United States space power decreasing – Russia and China takeover
CSIS 2010 (Center for Strategic and International Studies public policy research institution dedicated to analysis and policy impact,
a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated
scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; ―National Security and the Commercial Space Sector Initial Analysis and
Evaluation of Options for Improving Commercial Access to Space A Report of the
CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group,‖ April 23, 2010, http://csis.org/files/publication/100430_berteau_commercial_space.pdf)
     The current global space industrial landscape includes rapidly emerging foreign space capabilities, and the United States
     does not control their proliferation. Moreover, there is a significant ongoing international cooperation in space that is
     occurring without the United States, and often without any Western involvement. As a result, U.S. preeminence in space is
     being challenged in many technology and industry areas. The current U.S. export control policy has not prevented the rise
     of foreign space capabilities, and in certain cases may have helped other countries to develop such capabilities.The United
     States was once dominant among very few space-faring nations, but today the number of nations active in space is much
     larger, and continues to grow. Since 1999, the numberof countries with indigenous positioning/navigation/timing systems
     has tripled and the number ofcountries with indigenous reconnaissance/earth observation satellites has doubled. A dozen
     countries are able to launch their own satellites, a number that continues to increase; and 38 countries have operational
     control over their own communication satellites. The following tablepresents the growth in global space capabilities.The
     increasing quality of foreign space assets is as important as their rising number. Forexample, Russia, France, Israel, South
     Korea, and India all possess commercial imagingsatellites capable of one meter resolution or better. Canada, the European
     Space Agency (ESA),Italy, Germany, and Japan possess civil radar imaging satellites, and India and Argentina
     arepositioned to join this group. China has launched two military radar imaging satellites, and Israel has launched one.
     Though the United States is clearly ahead of the rest of the world in terms of military space capabilities, other nations,
     including U.S. allies, are developing similar capabilities. SeveralEuropean countries, including France, Germany, and Italy,
     have developed dedicated militarysatellites for communications and earth observation based largely on their civilian
     spaceprograms. The European Union, ESA, and other partners are developing the Galileo satellitenavigation system to
     compete with the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS). In the global commercial communications satellite market, where
     the United States had a technical and qualitative lead over the international competition in the 1990s, global competitors
     have closed the gap in the last decade. Since 1998, European and Asian manufacturers ofsatellites have gone from
     delivering satellites that were smaller, had fewer transponders, and hadless payload power and shorter lives to
     manufacturing satellites of equal weight, number oftransponders, payload power, and lifespan.In addition, international
     collaboration to improve space capabilities that excludes U.S. participation continues despite U.S. policy. Sino-Russian
     cooperation, Russian-European cooperation, Russian-Indian discussions, and the China-led Asia Pacific Space Cooperation
     Organization are examples of international cooperation in space that do not involve the United States as a partner.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                  11
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                   DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                            1ac – Heg
Space leadership on the brink – need focus on space
McDougal 10 (Paul McDougal, researcher for Information Week, April 16, 2010, ―Obama Mars Plan Too Far Out?‖
http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/224400495)
      Reaction to President Obama's plan to kill the space shuttle, scrap moon missions in favor of deep-space travel, and
      outsource launches to private contractors is falling mostly along partisan lines—but even some Democrats said the
      proposals could hurt U.S. space interests in the short term.Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fl) said the President's
      refusal to extend the life of the shuttlecould be a job killer in her state, home to the Kennedy Space Center, and a blow to
      the U.S. aerospace leadership."Without working towards a specific vehicle and without having American access to the
      International Space Station, we risk losing our supremacy in space," Kosmas said in a statement Thursday, following an
      address by Obama at Kennedy during which he outlined his strategic vision for NASA.Kosmas has introduced legislation
      that would extend the life of the shuttle program, slated to end this year, and fund development of a new vehicle that could
      be used for flights to the ISS.IT managers must perform a detailed ROI analysis before transitioning to the cloud.Discover
      how to cost out the cloud.Colorado Republican Congressman Mike Coffman said he was "deeply troubled" by the
      President's decision to cancel the Constellation program, which called for the construction of the Ares rocket and Orion
      crew capsule for future moon shots.Obama, however, reversed course on Orion and now believes the capsule could be used
      as an emergency escape vehicle for the space station. "Today's news is a welcome reversal of that strategic error," Coffman
      said in a statement.Another Florida Democrat, Senate Science and Space Subcommittee chairman Bill Nelson, also praised
      Obama's decision to salvage Orion. The President "is moving in the right direction," Nelson's office said. Nelson, however,
      warned that Congress wouldn't "rubber stamp" the President's proposals for NASA.Republican Congressman John
      Culberson, of Texas, said saving Orion, but not Ares, isn't enough. "The President's plan scraps six years and $9 billion of
      time and taxpayer money that have been invested in the Constellation program," Culberson said in a statement."It carelessly
      casts aside the proven technology developed through the program and literally sends us back to the drawing board,"
      Culberson said.In his speech at Kennedy, Obama said NASA should focus on conquering new frontiers instead of revisiting
      places, like the lunar surface, where astronauts have already tread."By 2025 we expect new spacecraft designed for long
      journeys to allow us to begin the first ever missions beyond the moon into deep space," Obama said. Such journeys, the
      President argued, would pave the way for manned missions to Mars.Obama's plan also calls for the construction of an
      advanced space telescope to replace the aging Hubble, a $3 billion investment in new, heavy-lift rockets, and research into
      green technologies.Obama insisted his plan would put the U.S. in the forefront of space exploration in the long term. He
      also claimed the program would add 2,500 new jobs along the Space Coast over the next two years and 10,000 new jobs
      nationwide.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     12
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                             1ac – Heg
US must colonize the moon first – heg and space leadership
Wolchover 11 (Natalie Wolchover, cites former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, ―Nix NASA Completely, Apollo Astronaut Says,‖
May 25, 2011, http://www.space.com/11789-nasa-replacing-apollo-astronaut-jfk-moon.html)
    NASA should be scrapped in favor of a new agency, one with the sole objective of furthering America's exploration of deep
    space. So says Harrison Schmitt, the last man to set foot on the moon, in a proposal published online today (May
    25).Schmitt, a member of Apollo 17 in 1972 and later a one-term U.S. senator, proposed that the new space agency be
    called the National Space Exploration Administration. Fifty years after John F. Kennedy's famous speech that set America
    on its glorious path to the moon, Schmitt, 75, said NASA has lost its focus. The Apollo program helped win the Cold War,
    strengthened national unity and set up the United States to take control of lunar resources, but NASA has withered under
    later presidencies, including Barack Obama's, Schmitt said."I don't blame NASA as much as I blame various
    administrations for not recognizing the geopolitical importance of space," he told SPACE.com. [Video: President
    Kennedy's Moonshot Moment]Schmitt's call for overhauling the space program is partly a response to Obama's 2012
    budget, which critics say increased the funding for space technology research at NASA but did not provide adequate
    funding for deep-space exploration.Other Apollo astronauts have lamented the lack of focus on exploration.In a May 24 op-
    ed in USA Today, Apollo mission commanders Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan wrote, "After a half-century
    of remarkable progress, a coherent plan for maintaining America's leadership in space exploration is no longer
    apparent."Apollo 17 crewmates Cernan and Schmitt were the world's last moonwalkers.If formed in 2013, the proposed
    NSEA could send Americans back to the moon by 2020, Schmitt says, and establish lunar settlements and Mars exploration
    and settlements in the decades after that. It also would develop the ability to deflect Earth-bound asteroids. All of NASA's
    current scientific endeavors would be within the purview of the National Science Foundation and other government-funded
    science organizations.The significance of space Schmitt believes refocusing on space exploration is crucial for the United
    States to maintain its status as a superpower. [Photos: John F. Kennedy's NASA Legacy]"This is not just a competition
    between nations; it's a competition between freedom and tyranny," Schmitt said. "The United States is the only power on
    Earth today that has in its DNA a protection of liberty, and if we decide to back off from space or any other major human
    endeavor, then we put that liberty in jeopardy."The Obama administration has basically said that they won't pursue an
    exceptional space program for the United States and that they're just as happy to have China move forward into deep space,
    and be dependent on Russia for transport to the International Space Station."Schmitt, who was elected to the Senate in 1976
    as a Republican from New Mexico, says China's domination of deep space and Russia's domination of near-Earth space
    would lower America's international standing of the U.S. in the same way the Soviet Union winning the space race would
    have changed the outcome of the Cold War.On top of the perceptions and politics, Schmitt argues that deep-space
    exploration is necessary for controlling space resources ?in particular, a fusion fuel called helium-3 that comes from the sun
    and is preserved in lunar soils. "Under certain financial constraints, helium-3 can be economically viable as a fuel for fusion
    power reactors here on Earth, and to have that dominated by another power such as China I think would be very dangerous
    for us. That's just another aspect of the geopolitical significance of exploration," Schmitt said.National identityIn the 1960s,
    pride in the Apollo 7program strengthened national unity and rejuvenated science and math education in schools. Schmitt
    believes the same things could happen — and need to happen — again. Funding the NSEA (as well as increasing the
    funding of the other programs that would take over NASA's science departments) would cost $2 billion to $3 billion more
    than NASA currently costs taxpayers, Schmitt estimated. He believes taxpayers would be willing to foot the bill.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       13
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                       DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
                                                              1ac – Heg
Lunar colonization key to heg – soft power and space asset protection
Spudis 2010 (Dr. Paul D Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, Ph. D. in Geology,
February 9, 2010, ―The New Space Race,‖ http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376)
     In one of his early speeches defending the Apollo program, President John F. Kennedy laid out the reasons that America
     had to go the Moon. Among the many ideas that he articulated, one stood out. He said, "whatever men shall undertake, free
     men must fully share." This was a classic expression of American exceptionalism, that idea that we must explore new
     frontiers not to establish an empire, but to ensure that our political and economic system prevails, a system that has created
     the most freedom and the largest amount of new wealth in the hands of the greatest number of people in the history of the
     world.This is a statement of both soft and hard power projection; by leading the world into space, we guarantee that space
     does not become the private domain of powers who view humanity as cogs in their ideological machine, rather than as
     individuals to be valued and protected. The Vision was created to extend human reach beyond its current limit of low Earth
     orbit. It made the Moon the first destination because it has the material and energy resources needed to create a true space
     faring system. Recent data from the Moon show that it is even richer in resource potential than we had thought; both
     abundant water and near-permanent sunlight is available at selected areas near the poles. We go to the Moon to learn how
     to extract and use those resources to create a space transportation system that can routinely access all of cislunar space with
     both machines and people. Such a system is the logical next step in both space security and commerce. This goal for NASA
     makes the agency relevant to important national interests. A return to the Moon for resource utilization contributes to
     national security and economic interests as well as scientific ones. There is indeed a new space race. It is just as important
     and vital to our country's future as the original one, if not as widely perceived and appreciated. It consists of a struggle with
     both hard and soft power. The hard power aspect is to confront the ability of other nations to deny us access to our vital
     satellite assets of cislunar space. The soft power aspect is a question: how shall society be organized in space? Both issues
     are equally important and both are addressed by lunar return. Will space be a sanctuary for science and PR stunts or will it
     be a true frontier with scientists and pilots, but also miners, technicians, entrepreneurs and settlers? The decisions made
     now will decide the fate of space for generations. The choice is clear; we cannot afford to relinquish our foothold in space
     and abandon the Vision for Space Exploration.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         14
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                               DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                 1
                                                        1ac – Energy
Contention __: Energy
A. Energy crunch coming now – LSP key to solve.
Criswell 05 LUNAR SOLAR POWER SYSTEM FOR ENERGY PROSPERITY WITHIN THE 21ST CENTURY Dr. David R.
Criswell , director of the University of Houston‘s Institute for Space Systems Operations in Houston, Texas, Institute for Space
Systems Operations, University of Houston
     5. Conclusions Enormous attention is directed to discovering and promoting "sustainable" sources of energy and seeking
     more efficient means of utilizing conventional commercial and renewable energy. However, there are clear limits to the
     conventional options. Over 4 billion of Earth's nearly 6 billion people are poor in both wealth and energy. Their existence
     depends primarily on new net energy taken from the biosphere. This energy is harvested as wood, grass, grain, live stock
     from the land, fish from the seas, and in many other direct and indirect products. The biosphere incorporates each year
     approximately 100,000 GWt-Y of solar energy in the form of new net plant mass (algae, trees, grass, etc.). It is estimated
     that humanity now directly extracts ~ 5% of that new energy and disturbs a much greater fraction of the natural cycles of
     power through the biosphere. People divert almost 50% of the new solar photosynthetic energy from its natural cycles
     through the biosphere [21. 22]. Humankind now collects and uses approximately 50% of all the rain water that falls on
     accessible regions of the continents. Given the continuing growth of human population, most of the fresh water used by
     humans will be obtained through desalination. Human energy needs can be accommodated by approximately 6 kWt/person
     or in the next century by approximately 2 kWe/person [4, 23, 24, 25]. For a population of 10 billion people this corresponds
     to a minimum of 2,000,000 GWe-Y, or 2,000 TWe-Y, of electric energy per century. Much more energy might be
     desirable. It is widely recognized that the lack of affordable and environmentally benign commercial energy limits the
     wealth available to the majority of the human population [20]. However, there is almost no discussion of how to provide the
     enormous quantities of quality commercial energy needed for an "energy-rich" world population. The dashed curve of Fig.
     6 depicts the cumulative depletion of terrestrial fossil thermal energy by a prosperous human population in tera-Watt-Y (=
     1,000 GW-Y) of thermal energy. There is approximately 4,000 to 6,000 TWt-Y of economically accessible fossil fuels.
     Thus, the "Fossil" energy use stops changing between 2050 and 2100 when the prosperous world consumes the fossil fuels.
     There are other severe fundamental problems with global prosperity based on fossil fuels. For example, burning the fossil
     carbon will increase atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 15 or more. Economically available uranium and thorium can provide
     only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate
     fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of
     10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and
     granite at a much higher cost of process energy. Consideration of the LSP System is recommended by technical [27],
     national [28], and international panels [29, 30] and scientists active in lunar research [30, 31, 32]. An LSP System scaled to
     enable global energy prosperity by 2050 can, between 2050 and 2070, stop the depletion of terrestrial resources and bring
     net new non-polluting energy into the biosphere. Humanity can stop extracting resources from the biosphere, become
     independent of the biosphere for material needs, and have excess energy to nurture the biosphere. The boundaries of routine
     human activities will be extended beyond the Earth to the Moon and a two-planet economy will be established.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                              15
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                           1ac – Energy
LSP can replace fossil fuel power plants, tech is ready
Science Daily 02 ―Getting Power From The Moon‖ ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2002)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020416073334.htm
      If a physicist in Houston has his way you‘ll be able to say good-bye to pollution-causing energy production from fossil
      fuels. In the April/May issue of The Industrial Physicist Dr. David Criswell suggests that the Earth could be getting all of
      the electricity it needs using solar cells – on the moon. In the article Criswell proposes a Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System,
      using arrays of solar cells on the lunar surface to beam energy back to Earth. Criswell estimates that the 10 billion people
      living on Earth in 2050 will require 20 Terrawatts (TW) of power. The Moon receives 13,000 TW of power from the sun.
      Criswell suggests that harnessing just 1% of the solar power and directing it toward Earth could replace fossil fuel power
      plants on Earth. "The lunar operations are primarily industrial engineering," says Criswell. He and Dr, Robert Waldron first
      described LSP in 1984 at a NASA symposium on Lunar Bases and Space Activities in the 21st Century. "Adequate
      knowledge of the moon and practical technologies have been available since the late 1970‘s to collect this power and beam
      it to Earth. The system can be built on the moon from lunar materials and operated on the moon and on Earth using existing
      technologies," reducing the expenses associated with transporting materials to the moon. He adds that LSP would be even
      cheaper if parts of the production machinery are designed to be made of lunar materials.
      The LSP system consists of 20-40 lunar power bases, situated on the eastern and western edges of the moon, as seen from
      Earth. Each power base has a series of solar cells to collect energy from the sun, which is sent over buried electric wires to
      microwave generators that convert the solar electricity to microwaves. The generators then send the energy to screens that
      reflect the microwave beams toward Earth, where they are received by arrays of special antennas strategically placed about
      the globe. "Each antenna converts the microwave power to electricity that is fed into the local power grid," says Criswell.
      "LSP is probably the only option for powering a prosperous world within the 21st century," says Criswell. "However, it
      does require a return to the moon." The system depends on some human occupation of the moon to build and run the lunar
      bases, but Criswell also sees this as an opportunity. "Once we are back and operating at large scale then going down the
      various learning curves will make traveling to the moon and working there ‗routine."

B. Helium 3 solves energy
Harrison Schmitt is an American geologist, a former NASA astronaut, University Professor and a U.S. Senator for one term,
December 7th 2004, Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056)
      The second-generation approach to controlled fusion power involves combining deuterium and helium-3. This reaction
      produces a high-energy proton (positively charged hydrogen ion) and a helium-4 ion (alpha particle). The most important
      potential advantage of this fusion reaction for power production as well as other applications lies in its compatibility with
      the use of electrostatic fields to control fuel ions and the fusion protons. Protons, as positively charged particles, can be
      converted directly into electricity, through use of solid-state conversion materials as well as other techniques. Potential
      conversion efficiencies of 70 percent may be possible, as there is no need to convert proton energy to heat in order to drive
      turbine-powered generators. Fusion power plants operating on deuterium and helium-3 would offer lower capital and
      operating costs than their competitors due to less technical complexity, higher conversion efficiency, smaller size, the
      absence of radioactive fuel, no air or water pollution, and only low-level radioactive waste disposal requirements. Recent
      estimates suggest that about $6 billion in investment capital will be required to develop and construct the first helium-3
      fusion power plant. Financial breakeven at today's wholesale electricity prices (5 cents per kilowatt-hour) would occur after
      five 1000-megawatt plants were on line, replacing old conventional plants or meeting new demand.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       16
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                      DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                           1ac – Energy
Helium 3 feasible – plenty on moon
Associated Press is an American news agency, Jan 20 2004, (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/192)
      MADISON — Two University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists believe moon rocks contain all the energy the United
      States needs for the next millennium.
      The moon‘s surface is full of the energy source helium-3, said Gerald Kulcinski, a nuclear engineering professor and
      director of the Fusion Technology Institute at UW.
      ―If we could land the space shuttle on the moon, fill the cargo with canisters of helium-3 mined from the surface and bring
      the shuttle back to Earth, that cargo would supply the entire electrical power needs of the United States for an entire year,‖
      he said.
      President Bush‘s plan to create a permanent lunar base brings Kulcinski and others at the institute hope for their idea.
      Kulcinski said he does not know of any other institution that is working on helium-3 fusion.
      John Santarius, a professor at the Fusion Technology Institute, said helium-3 provides one million times more energy per
      pound than a ton of coal.
      Fusion of helium-3 does not produce greenhouse emissions, and mining it would do little environmental harm, Kulcinski
      said.
      ―The moon doesn‘t have air or water. So, there won‘t be any of that kind of pollution,‖ he said.
      Helium-3 is found in the top few feet of lunar soil. To access it, miners would shovel up the surface, bake it and isolate the
      gas, Santarius said.
      Since 1985, Kulcinski, Santarius and others at UW have thought about the possibility of harnessing the energy of helium-3
      through fusion, which combines atoms to create energy. Fission, which is the process used in nuclear reactors, splits atoms.
      ―We came at it from an energy standpoint,‖ Kulcinski said. ―We were looking for a long-term economical and safe form of
      energy.‖
      The researchers still are working on building a helium-3 reactor that would produce more energy than it takes in.
      The team estimates the moon probably holds more than 1 million metric tons of helium-3 on its surface, more than enough
      energy to provide the nation with more than 1,000 years of electricity.

Helium 3 fusion is feasible – cheaper, simpler, more efficient, no waste disposal
Schmitt 04 Harrison Schmitt is an American geologist, a former NASA astronaut, University Professor and a U.S. Senator for one
term, December 7th 2004, Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056)
     The second-generation approach to controlled fusion power involves combining deuterium and helium-3. This reaction
     produces a high-energy proton (positively charged hydrogen ion) and a helium-4 ion (alpha particle). The most important
     potential advantage of this fusion reaction for power production as well as other applications lies in its compatibility with
     the use of electrostatic fields to control fuel ions and the fusion protons. Protons, as positively charged particles, can be
     converted directly into electricity, through use of solid-state conversion materials as well as other techniques. Potential
     conversion efficiencies of 70 percent may be possible, as there is no need to convert proton energy to heat in order to drive
     turbine-powered generators. Fusion power plants operating on deuterium and helium-3 would offer lower capital and
     operating costs than their competitors due to less technical complexity, higher conversion efficiency, smaller size, the
     absence of radioactive fuel, no air or water pollution, and only low-level radioactive waste disposal requirements. Recent
     estimates suggest that about $6 billion in investment capital will be required to develop and construct the first helium-3
     fusion power plant. Financial breakeven at today's wholesale electricity prices (5 cents per kilowatt-hour) would occur after
     five 1000-megawatt plants were on line, replacing old conventional plants or meeting new demand.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       17
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
                                                          1ac – Energy
Solves warming
Zervos & Coequyt 2007
Arthouros Zervos, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) John Coequyt, Climate & Energy Unit, Greenpeace USA Increasing
Renewable         Energy         in       U.S.        Can         Solve       Global        Warming          January         24,     2007
<http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/increasing-renewable-energy-in-u-s-can-solve-global-warming-
47208>//DoeS
     Landmark analysis released by Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and other climate and
     energy advocates shows that the United States can indeed address global warming without relying on nuclear power or so-
     called "clean coal" -- as some in the ongoing energy debate claim. The new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for
     Solving Global Warming" details a worldwide energy scenario where nearly 80% of U.S. electricity can be produced by
     renewable energy sources; where carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced 50% globally and 72% in the U.S. without
     resorting to an increase in dangerous nuclear power or new coal technologies; and where America's oil use can be cut by
     more than 50% by 2050 by using much more efficient cars and trucks (potentially plug-in hybrids), increased use of
     biofuels and a greater reliance on electricity for transportation. The 92-page report, commissioned by the German
     Aerospace Center, used input on all technologies of the renewable energy industry, including wind turbines, solar
     photovoltaic panels, biomass power plants, solar thermal collectors, and biofuels, all of which "are rapidly becoming
     mainstream." "The world cannot afford to stick to the conventional energy development path, relying on fossil fuels,
     nuclear, and other outdated technologies. Energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy must play leading roles in
     the world's energy future." -- Arthouros Zervos of the European Renewable Energy Council and John Coequyt of
     Greenpeace USA Introduction from the Report The good news first. Renewable energy, combined with energy
     efficiency, can meet half of the world's energy needs by 2050. This new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for
     Solving Global Warming," shows that it is not only economically feasible, but also economically desirable, to cut U.S. CO2
     emissions by almost 75% within the next 43 years. These reductions can be achieved without nuclear power, and while
     virtually ending U.S. dependence on coal. Contrary to popular opinion, a massive uptake of renewable energy and
     efficiency improvements alone can solve our global warming problem. All that is missing is the right policy support
     from the President and Congress. The bad news is that time is running out. The overwhelming consensus of scientific
     opinion is that the global climate is changing and that this change is caused in large part by human activities; if left
     unchecked, it will have disastrous consequences for Earth's ecosystems and societies. Furthermore, there is solid scientific
     evidence that we must act now. This is reflected in the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
     (IPCC), a collaborative effort involving more than 1,000 scientists. Its next report, due for release early this year, is
     expected to make the case for urgent action even stronger. In the United States there is a groundswell of activity at the local
     and state levels. Many mayors, governors, and public and business leaders are doing their part to address climate change.
     But they can only do so much; action is needed at the federal level. Now is the time for a national, science-based cap on
     greenhouse gas emissions.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    18
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                          DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                            1
                                                             1ac – Energy
2 Impacts:
1. Resource Wars:
A. Impending energy crisis leads to resource wars
Daniel Moran and Jason Russell, Associate Professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate
School, Senior Lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School and Co-Director of the Center for Contemporary Conflict, 2008 ―The
Militarization of Energy Security,‖ Strategic Insights, (http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2008/Feb/moranFeb08.asp)

      This book does not seek to challenge the prevailing consensus that large-scale conflict among developed states has become
      unlikely. Its aim is rather to reflect upon conditions in the one area of international life where serious observers still regard
      it as possible: energy security. It is in the energy sector that strategic planners now find it easiest to imagine major states
      reconsidering their reluctance to use force against each other. ―Energy security‖ is now deemed so central to ―national
      security‖ that threats to the former are liable to be reflexively interpreted as threats to the latter. In a world in which
      territorial disputes, ideological competition, ethnic irredentism, and even nuclear proliferation all seem capable of being
      normalized in ways that constrain the actual use of military force, a crisis in global energy supply stands out as the last all-
      weather casus belli when the moment comes to hypothesize worst-case scenarios. This is not a reason to assume that wars
      over energy are more likely now than in the past. Precisely because such conflicts have been limited and rare up to now,[3]
      there is good reason to be cautious about estimating their likelihood in the future. The probabilities are further muddled by
      the fact that over-emphasis on the possibilities for great-power conflict favors important, and generally conservative,
      institutional interests within the defense establishments of developed states, particularly the United States. In a security
      environment that presents increasingly strong incentives to shift force structure and doctrine toward irregular warfare,
      counter-terrorism, constabulary operations, and so on, the possibility of war to seize or defend energy resources provides a
      much-needed rationale for preserving the heavy conventional forces that still consume the lion‘s share of defense spending
      around the world. This is especially true of naval building programs, whose ostensible purpose is always presumed to
      include securing the sea lines of communication that connect the producers and consumers of oil.[4] The prominence of
      energy security for military planning and budgeting may be exaggerated compared to its real salience internationally. Yet
      the anxiety that this issue is capable of inspiring is itself a measure of its significance, irrespective of one‘s estimate of the
      probabilities. There were only two world wars in the entire twentieth century, after all, yet that is scarcely a reason to
      discount their importance. The possibility that access to energy resources may become an object of large-scale armed
      struggle is almost incontestably the single most alarming prospect facing the international system today. The political
      stability of advanced societies, and the continued prospects for economic and social improvement in developing countries,
      are both irreducibly dependent on avoiding such a conflict.
B. Conflicts over resources will cause extinction
Garan, 10 (3/30/10, Ron, Astronaut, ―The Importance of Returning to the Moon,‖ from the article by Nancy Atkinson "Astronaut
Explains Why We Should Return to the Moon" http://www.universetoday.com/61256/astronaut-explains-why-we-should-return-to-
the-moon/, JMP)
     Resources and Other Benefits: Since we live in a world of finite resources and the global population continues to grow, at
     some point the human race must utilize resources from space in order to survive. We are already constrained by our limited
     resources, and the decisions we make today will have a profound affect on the future of humanity.
     Using resources and energy from space will enable continued growth and the spread of prosperity to the developing world
     without destroying our planet. Our minimal investment in space exploration (less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget) reaps
     tremendous intangible benefits in almost every aspect of society, from technology development to high-tech jobs. When we
     reach the point of sustainable space operations we will be able to transform the world from a place where nations quarrel
     over scarce resources to one where the basic needs of all people are met and we unite in the common adventure of
     exploration. The first step is a sustainable permanent human lunar settlement.




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           19
b00de735-a7f6-4723-9eaa-5110066e3c59.doc                                                                                     DDW 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
                                                          1ac – Energy
2. Warming causes extinction
Cummins and Allen ‘10 (Ronnie, Int‘l. Dir. – Organic Consumers Association, and Will, Policy Advisor – Organic Consumers
Association, ―Climate Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century‖, 2-14, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)
    The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the
    world needs to reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate
    chaos, crop failures, endless wars, melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically
    reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390
    parts per million and rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution,
    or else survival for the present and future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual
    and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in
    2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario, billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war,
    and starvation. If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is
    the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
    Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the EPA to crack down
    on GHG polluters (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no"
    Congressmen-both Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry,
    and the fossil fuel lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."




Last printed 2/6/2012 3:56:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      20

								
To top