Space Debris KL Lab Paperless by fanzhongqing

VIEWS: 31 PAGES: 112

									SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                            Space Debris Research




Contents
   Space Debris Research ..............................................................................................................................................1
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................................9
       Abbreviation Guide ...............................................................................................................................................9
1AC – Space Debris .................................................................................................................................................... 10
   Observation I: A Crisis of Inaction .......................................................................................................................... 11
       First, space debris policy is focused on mitigation not removal which cannot prevent the impending crisis. ..... 11
       Second, small debris is the critical threat – causes cascading and exponential threat increase – current
       preventative measures don’t work to prevent impact. ......................................................................................... 11
       Plan: The United States federal government should deploy ground-based lasers to remove orbital space debris.
       ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
   Observation II: Space debris will lead to multiple scenarios for extinction ............................................................ 12
       Vulnerability to space debris is high and threatens to devastate critical infrastructure necessary for military and
       domestic uses unless we act now!........................................................................................................................ 12
       Space Debris threat at critical point – will devastate US military capability and global economy ...................... 12
       Cascade effect will be unstoppable and make space unusable if it is allowed to begin ....................................... 13
   Scenario I: Economic Collapse ................................................................................................................................ 14
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

       Global dependence on satellites makes them critical to the global market .......................................................... 14
       Globalization cannot continue without satellites – cascade effect would devastate this critical global
       infrastructure. ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
       Economic collapse would engulf the war into small regional wars and nuclear conflicts ................................... 15
   Scenario II: Environment ......................................................................................................................................... 16
       Satellites have played, and will continue to play a critical part in the fight against global warming. ................. 16
       Satellite systems are key to global risk assessment ............................................................................................. 16
       Warming leads to extinction – Now is the key time to act. ................................................................................. 16
   Scenario III: US Hegemony..................................................................................................................................... 19
       Post gulf war, US military is completely dependent on satellite technology for operational capability. ............. 19
       Collapse of hegemony causes nuclear war in Kashmir and Korea ...................................................................... 19
   Scenario IV: Miscalculation .................................................................................................................................... 20
       Space Debris will cause a Russian miscalculation leading to crises escalation and nuclear war......................... 20
       Aggressive Russian rhetoric has re-ignited tensions between US and Russia ..................................................... 21
       US Russian nuclear war will lead to extinction ................................................................................................... 22
   Observation III - Solvency....................................................................................................................................... 23
       Small debris is an exponentially growing critical threat to infrastructure and prevention is not enough. GBLs
       provide the best mechanism for removing debris from Low earth orbit. ............................................................. 23
       GBLs are an effective and inexpensive means of eliminating space debris ........................................................ 23
       US has greatest risk of loss and best infrastructure to solve making it the key actor. ......................................... 24
Space Debris Threat..................................................................................................................................................... 25
       Space Debris increasingly risky to space exploration and development in the Earth’s mesosphere. .................. 25
       Increased use of mesosphere for satellites assures increased risk of disaster ...................................................... 25
       Space Debris is a growing threat – now is key time to act. ................................................................................. 25
       Space Debris threat is growing ............................................................................................................................ 25
       Despite exponentially increasing threat – the US nor any other country has the resources to track debris ......... 26
       Space debris growing – recent threats have demonstrated probability for catastrophe ....................................... 26
Inherency – Current Policy is Insufficient ................................................................................................................... 28
       Current debris policy is insufficient – international consensus is that we need additional debris removal policies
       ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
INH: Space Governance Issue ..................................................................................................................................... 29
       Space Treaty assures that no government has authority over Space creating issues with policy ......................... 29
Inh: Current Policy of Reg/Mitigation Insufficient ..................................................................................................... 30
       Current policy of mitigation will not solve – must destroy space debris to prevent catastrophe ......................... 30
Inh: No Policy to Reduce Debris ................................................................................................................................. 31
       No policies to remove or mitigate space debris currently exist. .......................................................................... 31
INH – Shielding Tech d/n Work and is cost prohibitive.............................................................................................. 32
       Shield technology doesn’t solve for existing satellites, doesn’t stop 2-10 cm small debris, and is cost
       prohibitive. ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
Inh: Focus on Mitigation Not Removal ....................................................................................................................... 33
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Inherency ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34
       We are not removing space debris ....................................................................................................................... 34
       Satellites vulnerable to space junk ....................................................................................................................... 34
Cascading Extension.................................................................................................................................................... 35
   Small Debris is Key to the Problem......................................................................................................................... 36
       Small Debris is more devastating than large debris – it can’t be tracked, it cannot be destroyed, and is growing
       exponentially. ...................................................................................................................................................... 36
       Small debris is the most devastating – it cannot be tracked and can cause significant damage to satellites and
       vehicles ................................................................................................................................................................ 36
       Large Debris removal only slows growth – doesn’t prevent it – small debris is key! ......................................... 36
   Cascading – Impact – Makes Spaceflight Impossible ............................................................................................. 37
       Spaceflight will be impossible – Debris will fill the skies ................................................................................... 37
   Small Debris Cascading ........................................................................................................................................... 38
       Debris the size of 1 to 10 are lethal – they’re hard to track and can disable satellites ................................ 38
       Small Debris cascading creates exponentially more debris – must be checked to solve problem. ...................... 38
       Now is key time to act. Though risk of collision low now – cascade effect makes risks exponentially greater
       over coming years. ............................................................................................................................................... 38
   Cascading Probability .............................................................................................................................................. 40
       Space debris is increasing - New Private Space industry fliers ........................................................................... 40
       All these technologies however create space debris ............................................................................................ 40
       Cascading will and is increasing at exponential rates .......................................................................................... 40
   Cascading – Brink ................................................................................................................................................. 41
       Now is key – doubling of orbital hazard could occur by 2035 ............................................................................ 41
       Action is key now – cascading has already begun ........................................................................................... 41
       Now is key – space debris is vulnerable to a cascading effect called the Kessler effect that can destroy all
       satellites .............................................................................................................................................................. 42
       Policy is needed now – we’re at the tipping point and near misses are increasing ...................................... 42
       Plan is key now – space debris is increasing at an exponential rate, this will lead to cascading destruction
       ............................................................................................................................................................................. 42
       Now is key – even without future launches the current environment is unstable and positive feedback
       loops risk cascading destruction ....................................................................................................................... 43
       Now is key – there’s a critical threshold of debris is high enough for self sustaining destruction, risking
       destruction of all satellites and great power wars ................................................................................................ 43
   Cascading Policy is Key Now – Implementation .................................................................................................... 44
       Policy is key now – time is needed to perfect debris removal and regulations as cascading increases ............... 44
       Policy is key now – even if extinction doesn’t have a precise year, policy is key now for legal and policy
       frameworks to be implemented............................................................................................................................ 44
   Cascading – AT: LEGEND Study Timeframe ........................................................................................................ 45
       The LEGEND study fails - it assumes no future space flights ....................................................................... 45
   Cascading – Preserve Present Debris Solves ........................................................................................................... 46
       Simply preventing the formation of new debris solves – the environment will clean the rest .................... 46
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

SSN Is Necessary for Space Exploration ..................................................................................................................... 47
       Ground based SSN necessary for LEO debris tracking and notification ............................................................. 47
Solvency: Removal Key .............................................................................................................................................. 49
       Removal is key to avoid Kessler effect and assure increased space travel/use is not mitigated .......................... 49
       Must remove debris to solve – as little as 5 large pieces per year mitigates risks ............................................... 49
       Plan is key - active debris removal is key to stopping the cascade ................................................................ 49
Debris Policy Key Now – Key for Solvency ............................................................................................................... 50
       Policy is key now – as debris worsens our policy options get worse................................................................... 50
       Plan solves - Laser propulsion systems will be an order of magnitude larger than what is necessary to reverse
       the Kessler effect at a low cost ............................................................................................................................ 50
       Large particle removal won’t solve – small particle removal is also key ............................................................ 50
Economy Scenario ....................................................................................................................................................... 52
       Satellites Key to global economy and society – we are inextricably plugged in! ................................................ 52
       Satellites Provide Communication Systems for the People ................................................................................. 52
       Satellites provide much benefit to economy ........................................................................................................ 52
       The loss of satellites greatly impacts economy .................................................................................................... 52
       Satellites improve weather predictions ................................................................................................................ 53
       The economic disadvantages will be huge........................................................................................................... 53
       U.S. should emphasize efforts in space, as they are key to economy .................................................................. 53
       Satellites have assured an interconnected global economy and society............................................................... 54
       Satellites contribute billions of dollars to the global economy ............................................................................ 54
       Satellites connect remote areas and give consumers competition. ....................................................................... 54
Environment Scenario ................................................................................................................................................. 56
       Space debris is extremely dangerous and has already destroyed satellites. ......................................................... 56
       Satellites are crucial to effective management of emissions and play an indispensable role in halting warming 56
       Orbital Debris is posing a significant threat to our ability to launch and operate satellites for remote sensing... 56
       Satellites in use now are crucial for climate science including the prediction of natural disasters and monitoring
       global warming. ................................................................................................................................................... 57
       I do not know how to tag this card. Should I go for growing interest or climate and existence of life? ............. 57
       Space is key in looking at Earth’s environment, and developments going on now are key. ............................... 57
       Satellites are imperically proven to be critical in environmental advances such as global warming ................... 57
       Satellites are key to predicting the path of global warming. ................................................................................ 58
       As glaciers melt, satellites are critical to disaster relief ....................................................................................... 58
       Satellites are key to solving and predicting several catastrophic hazards ............................................................ 58
       Glacial recessions lead to multinational political, environmental, and economic instability. ............................. 59
       New data acquisition via satellites are critical to the scientific field of climate change ...................................... 59
       Perm: collaborating with other nations is key to solving global warming ........................................................... 59
       Global Warming leads to several scenarios of war and destruction .................................................................... 59
       Politics link? I don’t know it just seemed useful ................................................................................................. 60
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Military Power and Heg .............................................................................................................................................. 61
       Satellites used for military communication and heg ............................................................................................ 61
       Satellites key to recon and surveillance ............................................................................................................... 61
       GPS satellites key to missile guidance and disruption would kill heg ................................................................. 61
       New tech critical to heg ....................................................................................................................................... 61
       Tech helps heg ..................................................................................................................................................... 61
       Tech has always been used to maintain military power ....................................................................................... 62
       Satellites are critical to the military deployment ................................................................................................. 62
       GPS is needed for modern warfare ...................................................................................................................... 62
       The US military relies heavily on satellite systems ............................................................................................. 62
       There are no alternatives to satellites for military applications ........................................................................... 63
       The Defense Satellite Communications System is key to early warning ............................................................. 63
       Satellites key to heg ............................................................................................................................................. 63
   Korea Impact ........................................................................................................................................................... 64
   Heg good ................................................................................................................................................................. 66
       Heg secures America ........................................................................................................................................... 66
       Heg decline leads to global nuclear war .............................................................................................................. 66
Miscalculation Scenario .............................................................................................................................................. 67
   Miscommunication leads to miscalc ........................................................................................................................ 68
       Lack of communication leads to miscalculation. ................................................................................................. 68
   US – Russian Relations ........................................................................................................................................... 69
       Lybia has put US-Russian Relations at a critical brink ....................................................................................... 69
General Satellites Key ................................................................................................................................................. 70
       Satellites important in everyday life .................................................................................................................... 70
       Homeland security relies on satellites ................................................................................................................. 70
       Satellite communications save lives .................................................................................................................... 70
       The military NEEDS satellites! ........................................................................................................................... 71
       Satellites saves lives ............................................................................................................................................ 71
       Satellite communication needed .......................................................................................................................... 71
Asteroids Scenario ....................................................................................................................................................... 72
       Asteroids will destroy all life on earth - Lasers Key to and feasible for stopping NEOs .................................... 72
Solvency Extensions .................................................................................................................................................... 73
   Ground Based Lasers Solve ..................................................................................................................................... 74
       Ground based lasers are costly but provide a highly probable solution to debris elimination ............................. 74
       GBLs will eliminate space debris within three years and is the best chance to stop asteroid collisions .............. 74
       GBLs solve and would not militarize space ........................................................................................................ 74
       GBLs solve – studies demonstrate with empirical evidence ................................................................................ 75
       GBLs are proven to solve and infrastructure supports their use – despite costs. ................................................. 75
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

       Space debris removal using laser is the best option ............................................................................................. 75
       Debris destroying lasers will put an end to the destruction of satellites due to space debris. .............................. 76
       The Debris lasers are a very strong, technically viable, phyics-based, operationally possible system. ............... 76
       Space lasers are plausible and would completely destroy large space debris ...................................................... 76
       NASA has arrangements for the project .............................................................................................................. 77
       Debris cleaning lasers won't be powerful enough to damage satellites, meaning it won't start space
       militarization and can be completed in two years with 50 Million dollars. ......................................................... 77
       U.S. Air Force is on board with Debris Lasers, testing facilities are planned to be created. ............................... 77
       Ahuja 96 .............................................................................................................................................................. 77
       Space lasers can be developed to disorbit larger space debris. ............................................................................ 77
       Developments in lasers make them credible for debris removal ......................................................................... 78
       Erlanderson 09, (.................................................................................................................................................. 78
       New Laser technology improves functions for debris clearing. .......................................................................... 78
       Erlanderson 09, (.................................................................................................................................................. 78
       Price range for lasers is minimal, lasers are capable of rapid engagement and destruction of space debris. ....... 78
       The United States studies show that ground-based lasers will de-orbit if not destroy debri in space, and will be
       an unlikely weapon. ............................................................................................................................................. 78
   US Unilateral Action Key to Solve.......................................................................................................................... 80
       US unilateral action would give US a hand up in emerging space clean-up industry profiting US actors. ......... 80
       US Unilateral action critical to avoiding utter devastation .................................................................................. 80
       US Maintains key detection devices necessary for debris elimination ................................................................ 81
   Tracking exists for small debris ............................................................................................................................... 82
       Multiple mechanisms for tracking small debris exist to facilitate GBLs. ............................................................ 82
   SD Elimination K – US Lead .................................................................................................................................. 83
       US Must act to eliminate space debris – action necessary to maintain economic and military viability and US
       leadership is key! ................................................................................................................................................. 83
International Solvency FAILS ..................................................................................................................................... 84
       Unilateral action necessary – international cooperation assures increase cost and decreased efficacy. Unilateral
       action key. ............................................................................................................................................................ 84
AT: Space Militarization ............................................................................................................................................. 86
       Weaponizing space will not lead to an arms race ................................................................................................ 86
Inherency – Air Force Space Fence ............................................................................................................................. 87
       Current debris programs is limited to detection from the Air Force .................................................................... 87
       We need to act now – we can’t let the fact the threat hasn’t happened yet blind us to the need to prevent it ..... 87
       Must act now – interdependence on satellite technology makes catastrophe likely without a solution ............... 87
Solvency: Space Fence ................................................................................................................................................ 89
       Space Fence could be operational by 2015 – would provide necessary time and warning for debris ................. 89
Solvency – Tether ........................................................................................................................................................ 90
       Electrodynamic Tether Can Solve! ...................................................................................................................... 90
       Electrodynamic Thether Solves for the Larger Debris ........................................................................................ 90
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Tungsten Solvency ...................................................................................................................................................... 91
       Tungsten doesn’t solve – has the potential to worsen space junk problem. ......................................................... 91
       Tungsten solves small debris by creating drag and causing small debris to burn up ........................................... 91
       Tungsten solves – it will create burn off and requires no new technology .......................................................... 91
       Tungsten Dust not a risk – despite increased dust, it would neither coagulate nor cause interruptions in high
       altitude or space equipment ................................................................................................................................. 92
AT: Detection Only CP ............................................................................................................................................... 93
       Space debris removal is key – small particles are too random and removal is key to actually get rid of them ... 93
AT: Free Market CP .................................................................................................................................................... 94
       Free Market Won’t solve – clean space is a public good. Private actors will just invest in propulsion
       systems to avoid instead of reducing debris .................................................................................................... 94
       Free market will not solve – demand doesn’t exist and no incentives for elimination of debris. ........................ 94
AT: Consultation CP ................................................................................................................................................... 97
       Consultation fails because of lack of sharing, culture of secrecy and policy practice surrounding debris tracking
       and removal. ........................................................................................................................................................ 97
       There is no incentive to cooperate – US secrecy and national pride prevent sharing and/or private sector action
       ............................................................................................................................................................................. 97
AT: ICJ Counter Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 99
       ICJ wouldn’t work – time frame is too long and enforcement too weak ............................................................. 99
AT: Postmission Disposal CP .................................................................................................................................... 100
       Postmission regulation won’t solve – alternatives must be considered ............................................................. 100
AT: Treaty/Law CP – Perm ....................................................................................................................................... 101
       Perm solvess – only law with money and policy can reduce debris .................................................................. 101
AT: Space Weaponization ......................................................................................................................................... 102
       We don’t link – space photon pushing won’t be able to damage satellites and won’t be a weapon .................. 102
AT: Spending............................................................................................................................................................. 103
       Spending now on orbital debris saves money – stops the debris before it fragments ........................................ 103
Neg Solv: Removal & International Law .................................................................................................................. 104
       International law and cooperation makes debris removal cumbersome, costly, and problematic ..................... 104
       Because majority of debris is due to three nations – international solutions are doomed to failure. ................. 104
Neg: Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................... 105
       Multiple barriers to solvency – cost, relations and availability of resources prevent solvency. ........................ 105
       Debris removal doesn’t exist because it’s too costly – mitigation would cost billions! .................................... 106
Neg Cards .................................................................................................................................................................. 107
       Space debris don’t pose a serious threat now .................................................................................................... 107
       The tech isn’t there – panels of international experts have repeatedly failed to identify a feasible solution ..... 107
       Aff can’t solve – international cooperation is necessary ................................................................................... 107
       Space Debris risk low – even the scary ISS collision was 1 in 360 ................................................................... 107
       Russia intl CP .................................................................................................................................................... 108
       ESA CP .............................................................................................................................................................. 108
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

       Free market incentives CP ................................................................................................................................. 109
Consultation CP ......................................................................................................................................................... 111
       Solvency requires consultation with existing laws and actors to assure efficacy .............................................. 111
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                          Appendix
Abbreviation Guide

ABL            Airborne Laser
AEOS           Advanced Electro-Optical System
ASTRO          Autonomous Space Transfer and Robotic Orbiter
BBC            British Broadcasting Corporation
CDI            World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information
CFE            Commercial and Foreign Entities
DOD            Department of Defense
EOL            End of Life
COPUOS         Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (United Nations)
DARPA          Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DART           Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technology
FAA            Federal Aviation Administration
FCC            Federal Communications Commission
FREND          Front-End Robotic Enabling Near-Term Demonstrations
ESA            European Space Agency
GBL            Ground-Based Laser
GEO            Geostationary Earth Orbit
GISC           Global Innovation and Strategy Center
GPS            Global Positioning System
IADC           Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee
ITU            International Telecommunications Union
LADC           Large Area Debris Collector
LDEF           Long Duration Exposure Facility
LEO            Lower Earth Orbit
LEGEND         LEO-to-GEO Environment Debris model
LLNL           Lawrence Livermore National Lab
MASTER         Meteoroid and Space Debris Terrestrial Environment Reference
MEO            Middle Earth Orbit
MSX            Mid-Course Space Experiment
NASA           National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NOAA           National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
PMG            Plasma Motor/Generator
SBL            Space-Based Laser
SBSS           Space-Based Space Surveillance
SEDS           Small Expendable Deployment System
SIA            Satellite Industry Association
SSN            Space Surveillance Network
TiPS           Tether and Physics Survivability
USSTRATCOM     United States Strategic Command
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


               1AC – Space Debris
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                   Observation I: A Crisis of Inaction
First, space debris policy is focused on mitigation not removal which cannot prevent the impending crisis.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
There are two ways to reduce space debris: mitigation and removal. Mitigation refers to reducing the creation of new
debris, while removal refers to either natural removal by atmospheric drag or active removal by human-made
systems. Historically, the United States has been a leader in space debris mitigation; U.S. national space policy has included space debris
mitigation since 1988, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) developed the world’s first set of space debris mitigation
guidelines in 1995. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) serves as the leading international space debris forum; its
mitigation guidelines (IADC 2002) were adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and
the General Assembly in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
 Efforts to reduce space debris have focused on mitigation rather than removal. Although mitigation is important,
studies show it will be insufficient to stabilize the long-term space debris environment. In this century, increasing
collisions between space objects will create debris faster than it is removed naturally by atmospheric drag (Liou and
Johnson 2006). Yet, no active space debris removal systems currently exist and there have been no serious attempts to
develop them in the past. The limited number of historical impact events fails to give the situation a sense of
urgency outside the space debris community. Further, though mitigation techniques are relatively cheap and can be easily integrated
into current space activities, active removal will require developing new and potentially expensive systems. The remainder of this paper addresses
the current space debris debate and options to develop effective space debris removal systems .



Second, small debris is the critical threat – causes cascading and exponential threat increase – current
preventative measures don’t work to prevent impact.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Millions of tiny space debris particles orbit the earth today, some travelling ten times faster than a high-powered
rifle bullet.29 30 According to Dr. Nicholas Johnson, millimeter fragmentations are a greater threat than larger objects like
defunct satellites as they are too small to be tracked with current technology.31 The estimated 11,000 objects large
enough to be tracked are catalogued and monitored, enabling satellite operators to maneuver around them by
expending additional fuel.32
When small debris pieces collide with space assets, the result is not simply a matter of speed, but also of motion.
“Because the (low earth orbit) velocities are so high, the kinetic energy is very high. It’s the equivalent of exploding
several sticks of dynamite in your spacecraft,” noted a BBC report on the problem.33 Debris fragments as small as one-tenth of one
millimeter could potentially puncture the suit of an astronaut.34 The “Kessler effect”35 complicates matters further: as the volume
of satellites increases, so does the probability that they will collide with each other.36 Such a chain reaction is
“inevitable,” according to Dr. Johnson37 in an interview with The New York Times, “A significant piece of debris will run into an
old rocket body, and that will create more debris. It’s a bad situation.” In summary, while preventative measures
against debris creation are vital, they will not prevent further growth arising from existing debris.


Plan: The United States federal government should deploy ground-based lasers to remove orbital space
debris.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

      Observation II: Space debris will lead to multiple scenarios for
                               extinction
Vulnerability to space debris is high and threatens to devastate critical infrastructure necessary for military
and domestic uses unless we act now!
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
 “Many objects have been jettisoned into space: lens covers, auxiliary motors, launch vehicle fairings, separation bolts used to lock
fixtures in place…and objects merely dropped or discarded during manned missions.”2 That outer space exploration would create by-
products is not surprising; every human venture in history has carried inefficiencies. While outer space seemed limitless a
half-century ago, the Space Age has exemplified how quickly orbits around the Earth can be filled. Space debris has
evolved from an environmental nuisance to a serious hazard; the U.S. space shuttle flies backwards and upside down
to avoid the problem.3 With tens of millions of debris fragments flying at high velocity through lower earth orbit,
both human explorers and space hardware are vulnerable.
General Kevin P. Chilton, Commander of United States Strategic Command, recently wrote: “Military and civilian entities
are heavily reliant on services that satellites provide, and space operations are so pervasive that it is impossible to
imagine the U.S. functioning without them.”4 During Operation Desert Storm, commercial satellites provided 45% of all
communications between the theater and the continental United States.5 Today, according to General Chilton, “We rely on satellites to
verify treaty compliance, monitor threats and provide advance warning of missile attacks. It's important to remember
that every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman in Iraq and Afghanistan relies on space technology for crucial
advantages in the field.”6
Commercially, the economy of the United States is heavily dependent on space assets in virtually every industry.
Communications, Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, agriculture, weather monitoring, and shipment
tracking in the manufacturing sector are all indispensable to workings of the market.7, 8 With international
economies interwoven across borders and cultures, damage to a critical satellite might pose serious monetary
repercussions throughout multiple countries. For example, nearly a decade ago the failure of the Galaxy IV satellite rendered certain
communications useless for two days. “The failure of that one satellite left about 80 (to) 90 percent of the 45 million pager customers in the
United States without service…and 5400 of 7700 Chevron gas stations without pay-at-the-pump capability.”9
U.S. News and World Report recently reviewed an exercise simulating a day in the life of the U.S. military without
satellites; the Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space Programs was questioned about the results.
“Fundamentally, you go back to fighting a war like World War II where it’s huge attrition rates, huge logistics, and
huge expenses.”10 This example certainly speaks to the reliance on space assets. A lack of action to secure space
assets might prove even costlier. In a knowledge-based, information-driven economy, the ability to communicate
effectively and quickly is sacrosanct. The Economist recently painted the determination of the outcomes of future
conflicts as a matter of “Brains, Not Bullets.”11 If information superiority is today’s manifest destiny, the security of
space assets is not optional.

Space Debris threat at critical point – will devastate US military capability and global economy
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
There are currently hundreds of millions of space debris fragments orbiting the Earth at speeds of up to several
kilometers per second. Although the majority of these fragments result from the space activities of only three
countries—China, Russia, and the United States—the indiscriminate nature of orbital mechanics means that they
pose a continuous threat to all assets in Earth’s orbit. There are now roughly 300,000 pieces of space debris large
enough to completely destroy operating satellites upon impact (Wright 2007, 36; Johnson 2009a, 1). It is likely that space
debris will become a significant problem within the next several decades. Predictive studies show that if humans do
not take action to control the space debris population, an increasing number of unintentional collisions between
orbiting objects will lead to the runaway growth of space debris in Earth’s orbit (Liou and Johnson 2006). This
uncontrolled growth of space debris threatens the ability of satellites to deliver the services humanity has come to
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

rely on in its day-to-day activities. For example, Global Positioning System (GPS) precision timing and navigation
signals are a significant component of the modern global economy; a GPS failure could disrupt emergency response
services, cripple global banking systems, and interrupt electric power grids (Logsdon 2001).
Furthermore, satellite-enabled military capabilities such as GPS precision-guided munitions are critical enablers of
current U.S. military strategies and tactics. They allow the United States to not only remain a globally dominant
military power, but also wage war in accordance with its political and ethical values by enabling faster, less costly
warfighting with minimal collateral damage (Sheldon 2005; Dolman 2006, 163-165). Given the U.S. military’s increasing
reliance on satellite-enabled capabilities in recent conflicts, in particular Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, some have argued that losing access to space would seriously impede the ability of the United States to be
successful in future conflicts (Dolman 2006, 165).

Cascade effect will be unstoppable and make space unusable if it is allowed to begin
Imburgia ‘11
Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, Judge Advocate for the USAF
(Joseph, “Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to
Clean Up the Junk,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 44, Number 3, May)
Some experts believe that once space debris collisions begin, they will be impossible to stop.54 The fear is that these
cascading“collisions will eventually produce an impenetrable cloud of fragmentation debris that will encase Earth[,
making] space travel . . . ‘a thing of the past’ and . . . obstruct[ing] our dream of colonizing outer space.” 55 Experts
warn that if the cascade effect occurs, space will be unusable for centuries due to the time it will take for all of the
debris to eventually disintegrate in Earth’s atmosphere.56
If space debris is not immediately countered by preventative and removal measures, the cascade effect could occur
in little more than a decade.57 In February 2008, Dr. Geoffrey Forden, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist and space
programs expert, stated that the United States is “in danger of a runaway escalation of space debris.”58 He argued that the
danger of a cascade effect is a greater threat to U.S. space assets than the threat of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons.59
NASA scientists have warned about the threat of the cascade effect since the late 1970s.60 In the decades since, experts have worried that
collisions caused by the cascade effect “would expand for centuries, spreading chaos through the heavens”61 and multiplying space “debris to
levels threatening sustainable space access.”62 “Today, next year or next decade, some piece of whirling debris will start the cascade, experts
say.”63 According to Nicholas L. Johnson, NASA’s chief scientist for orbital debris, the cascade is now “inevitable” unless
something is done to remove the debris.64 Experts believe that if nothing is done to address the space debris
problem, the amount of orbiting space debris greater than ten centimeters in size will increase to over 50,000 objects
in the next fifty years.65 Considering that the number of objects in orbit has increased drastically since the
beginning of 2007, the problem is, unfortunately, only worsening.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                         Scenario I: Economic Collapse
Global dependence on satellites makes them critical to the global market
Scott Spence, Director, Raytheon Space Fence Program, Integrated Defense Systems., Saturday July 9, 2011
(http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/space-debris/)
Throughout the past ten years, space has become inextricably linked to all aspects of human life. Just try to imagine
one day without essentials like ATM machines, GPS devices, DirectTV and Weather.com. Both private activity and
global commerce largely depend on communication, remote sensing and navigation satellites from space. Just three
years ago, world government space program expenditures reached historical highs of more than $62 billion dollars .
Similarly, space has become vital to military operations. Investments in satellite communications programs have been climbing
rapidly, reaching $6.6 billion spent in 2008 for both non-classified defense and civil programs. But the increasing
importance of space to daily life, global commerce and national security has given rise to a major concern about the
vulnerability of American space systems to disruption in the event of international conflict .
Consequently, more than 128 satellites are planned for launch in the next decade driven largely by our nation’s defense sector.

Globalization cannot continue without satellites – cascade effect would devastate this critical global
infrastructure.
Post-Gazette. 09
(Mike Moore, research fellow with the Independent Institute, Space junk, Feb, 22, http://www.post-
gazette.com/pg/09053/950576-109.stm)
When satellites collide in space, should ordinary people be worried? Here's a scenario for global doom that should
have your hair standing on end.
News reports on Feb. 12 that two satellites had collided some 491 miles above the Earth were compelling. There
was a whiff of Cold War intrigue about them.
A defunct Russian communications relay satellite and an American commercial satellite had met abruptly in space
with a closing speed of more than 22,000 miles per hour . They were shattered into many hundreds of pieces, creating
an ever-expanding debris cloud. In turn, that cloud threatened the satellites of other countries in similar orbits .
And yet, no one was harmed. Space is a big place, isn't it? The reports noted that there were already thousands of pieces of space junk large
enough to be tracked and catalogued. Nonetheless, no one has ever been harmed by a bit of space garbage. At the moment, the amount of
debris in "low-Earth orbit" -- the region of space that extends a few hundred miles above the atmosphere -- is merely a nuisance. The
United States tracks objects in space and shares the data with the world. Satellite handlers based in many countries use the data to slightly alter
the course of their birds if a collision seems possible. End of story? Not quite. "Orbital space" is a natural resource, as surely as land,
air and water. It must be protected because it is home to nearly a thousand satellites put up by many countries --
communications, geo-observation, geopositioning, weather and other types. "Globalization" would not be possible
without commercial satellites.
Further, the United States' military-related birds permit the country to conduct "precision" war. For the first time in history, satellites provide the
data and the guidance necessary to enable bombs and missiles to actually hit the targets they are fired at. That's a moral plus. If a war must be
fought, it should be prosecuted in such a way that military targets are hit and civilians spared to the greatest extent possible. No other country can
fight a conventional war as cleanly and humanely as the United States. Satellites make the difference. Because of the importance of satellites to
the American way of war, the United States insists that it must achieve the capability to militarily dominate space in a time of conflict. It is the
only country that claims that right. Space, says international law, is the common heritage of humankind and must be devoted to "peaceful
purposes." America's truculent space-dominance language annoys many of its friends and allies. Meanwhile, some major powers -- particularly
China and Russia -- think it smells of imperialism. A country that could control space in a time of conflict might also exercise that control in a
time of peace. Since 1981, virtually every country save the United States and Israel has gone on record in the U.N. General Assembly as favoring
a treaty that would prevent an arms race in space. Every year, the United States -- under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill
Clinton and George W. Bush -- has used its veto power at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to prevent serious talks.
No one, including the United States, is likely to have actual weapons in space in the foreseeable future. Space control does not require such
weapons. Ground-based, sea-based and even air-based antisatellite weapons (ASATs) can do the trick. The United States has long been working
on a variety of highly sophisticated ASAT programs -- indeed, the infrastructure for missile defense is the sort of infrastructure needed for ASAT
systems. When a country builds ever greater military capabilities, potential rivals react. China, in particular, is wary of the coercive possibilities
of U.S. military power. The Middle Kingdom says it wants a space treaty, but in January 2007, it tested its own somewhat primitive ASAT -- a
kinetic-kill device that roughly replicated a test the United States carried out in 1985. Is a space-related arms race under way? Yes. But there is
still time to ratchet it down, and the Obama administration has signaled that it might do so. That will be difficult, though. The belief in America
as the exceptional nation is a major driver of U.S. foreign policy, and influential people and hard-line think tanks are comfortable with the idea
that full-spectrum dominance in all things military is America's right. A nightmare scenario: The United States continues to work on its
"defensive" ASAT systems. China and Russia do the same to counter U.S. capabilities. India and Japan put together their own systems. Ditto for
Pakistan, if it survives as a coherent country. Israel follows suit, as does Iran. In a time of high tension, someone preemptively smashes spy
satellites in low-Earth orbits, creating tens of thousands of metal chunks and shards. Debris-tracking systems are overwhelmed and low-Earth
orbits become so cluttered with metal that new satellites cannot be safely launched. Satellites already in orbit die of old age or are killed by debris
strikes. The global economy, which is greatly dependent on a variety of assets in space, collapses. The countries of
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

the world head back to a 1950s-style way of life, but there are billions more people on the planet than in the '50s.
That's a recipe for malnutrition, starvation and wars for resources. The United States, by far the world's most-advanced space
power, must take the lead in Geneva and engage in good-faith talks. If not, the space-is-ruined scenario could become reality.


Economic collapse would engulf the war into small regional wars and nuclear conflicts
Friedberg and Schoenfeld, ‘8
[Aaron, Prof. Politics. And IR @ Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon
Institute, and Gabriel, Senior Editor of Commentary and Wall Street Journal, “The Dangers of a Diminished
America”, 10-28, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html]
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now,
Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar , and the
stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to
pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile,
traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been
extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths , while Pakistan and Afghanistan are
progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give
cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of
our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply
lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to
a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose
up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to
become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of
the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The
dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance
hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth
depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and
perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity.
None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails
with external adventures.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                             Scenario II: Environment
Satellites have played, and will continue to play a critical part in the fight against global warming.
Moore 2008 (Lisa, August 20, Ph.D a scientist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.
Climate 411 http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/08/20/save_our_satellites/)
Here are just a few examples of the indispensible role satellites play in weather and climate science . Satellites have
provided a way to: Confirm that global warming is not caused by changes in the Earth's reflectivity or "albedo".
Monitor and verify changes in deforestation emissions (key to any plan to reduce deforestation in developing countries); Track
ice sheet melting and sea level rise; Predict and track storms and floods; Improve accuracy of climate models in
simulating atmospheric temperature trends; the effects of aerosol pollution; and more. But crucial information like
this may not be available in the future. Many planned satellite missions have been delayed, pared down, or cancelled due to budget cuts.
For example, sensors that would have measured important climate-related variables such as solar irradiance,
aerosols, and sea level have been removed from the upcoming National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System. Existing satellites don't last forever, so these cutbacks put long-term records at risk, precisely when we need
all the information we can get about climate change and its effects.




Satellite systems are key to global risk assessment
Blom 2005 (Ronald G. April Earth Science and Technology Directorate, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology)
The remote sensing is providing a systematic, synoptic framework for advancing scientific knowledge of the Earth as
a complex system of geophysical phenomena that, directly and through interacting processes, often lead to natural
hazards. Improved and integrated measurements along with numerical modeling are enabling a greater
understanding of where and when a particular hazard event is most likely to occur and result in significant
socioeconomic impact. Geospatial information products derived from this research increasingly are addressing the operational requirements
of decision support systems used by policy makers, emergency managers and responders from international and federal to regional, state and
local jurisdictions. This forms the basis for comprehensive risk assessments and better-informed mitigation planning,
disaster assessment and response prioritization. Space-based geodetic measurements of the solid Earth with the Global Positioning
System, for example, combined with ground-based seismological measurements, are yielding the principal data for modeling lithospheric
processes and for accurately estimating the distribution of potentially damaging strong ground motions which is critical for earthquake
engineering applications. Moreover, integrated with interferometric synthetic aperture radar, these measurements provide spatially continuous
observations of deformation with sub-centimeter accuracy. Seismic and in situ monitoring, geodetic measurements, high-resolution digital
elevation models (e.g. from InSAR, Lidar and digital photogrammetry) and imaging spectroscopy (e.g. using ASTER, MODIS and
Hyperion) are contributing significantly to volcanic hazard risk assessment, with the potential to aid land use planning
in developing countries where the impact of volcanic hazards to populations and lifelines is continually increasing.
Remotely sensed data play an integral role in reconstructing the recent history of the land surface and in predicting
hazards due to flood and landslide events. Satellite data are addressing diverse observational requirements that are
imposed by the need for surface, subsurface and hydrologic characterization, including the delineation of flood and
landslide zones for risk assessments. Short- and long-term sea-level change and the impact of ocean-atmosphere
processes on the coastal land environment, through flooding, erosion and storm surge for example, define further
requirements for hazard monitoring and mitigation planning. The continued development and application of a broad spectrum of
satellite remote sensing systems and attendant data management infrastructure will contribute needed baseline and time series data, as part of an
integrated global observation strategy that includes airborne and in situ measurements of the solid Earth. Multi-hazard modeling
capabilities, in turn, will result in more accurate forecasting and visualizations for improving the decision support
tools and systems used by the international disaster management community.


Warming leads to extinction – Now is the key time to act.
Archer et al, ‘8 – Archer lead the study and is a Professor of Geophysical Sciences @ U Chicago, Dozens of other
participants, including NASA scientists, professors of Biology, etc. “Anthropogenic Climate Destabilization: A
Worst-case Scenario,” Foundation for the Future, September,
http://www.futurefoundation.org/documents/HUM_ExecSum_ClimateDestabilization.pdf.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

This summary intends – rather than to duplicate the existing assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the Centre for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), or other worthy studies and reports – to look beyond the time
frames with which those efforts were, in general, concerned. Typically the Foundation, in its ongoing programs, attempts to consider the
thousand-year future of humanity. The worst case in climate destabilization for the long term will result from either a
“business as usual” mode of operation or from superficial mitigation efforts that do not radically address the problems. It encompasses
both a series of catastrophic impacts to humanity and Planet Earth, and runaway behavior in a dynamic system. Though the catastrophic
impacts occur in a number of specific arenas, they must be understood to interact with each other, often resulting in
acceleration of effects. Replicable climate models indicate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth atmosphere may
reach approximately 1,000 parts per million (ppm) by the end of the present century and remain above this level for thousands of
years. At present, 400 to 600 ppm is considered a “red zone” of danger, and current levels are already approaching 400
ppm; in fact, one participant proposed that adding in CO2 equivalents puts current levels already at 445 to 450 ppm. Scientists believe that
once the red zone has been entered, the planet will likely remain within or above the red zone range long enough that both the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets will melt completely. Unlike the popular literature that suggests that CO2 in the atmosphere is a century-timescale
issue, in fact, CO2 recovers on a timescale of 100,000 years. After an equilibration with the oceans, which itself requires a few centuries,
there is still a remaining percentage that is neutralized only in reaction with rocks in a process requiring hundreds of thousands of years.
Climate modeler Dr. Andrey Ganopolski said, “It should be borne in mind that present-day climate models do not tend to
overestimate or exaggerate the magnitude of climate changes in the past. Instead, there is reason to consider
climate model simulations as conservative.” Accordingly, it is doubtful that the model projection of 1,000 ppm should be
dismissed as unlikely or lacking credence, even though it is understood that past climate changes are not a direct analog for the future.
NASA risk assessment expert Dr. Feng Hsu pointed out that an implication of 1,000-ppm concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere, which is approximately two times or more over the tipping point, is clearly an unacceptable level
of catastrophic risk that will likely lead to the extinction of humanity. This catastrophic end would be the
consequence of either no global strategic adaptation measures for risk averting or ineffective mitigations in
today’s human activities that affect CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The direct consequence of the increase of CO2 concentration
in the atmosphere is rising temperatures on the globe. By the end of this century, global average temperatures will rise by
more than 5 degrees Celsius, with regional rises of more than 10 degrees Celsius, and will continue to rise for centuries. In
coming decades typical summer temperatures in Southern Europe and the United States can be expected to rise from 30 degrees to 40
degrees Celsius (105 degrees Fahrenheit). An early taste of this elevation of heat was the 40 degrees Celsius that was considered anomalous
in the 2003 heat wave in Europe, when 15,000 deaths in France alone were directly attributable to the heat. Some natural cooling that might
be expected from the natural progression of the Earth orbital cycles is not going to ameliorate the warming from fossil fuel CO2. Indirect
effects of the increasing heat are also already evident on the globe. A recent study found that the maximum
speed of the strongest hurricanes of the last 25 years increased by 5 meters per second per 1 degree of ocean
warming. Since the power and destructive potential of hurricanes are proportional to the cube of velocity, a 50 percent increase in speed
would imply a tripling increase of destructive potential. Presently a Category 3 hurricane has a maximum speed of 50 meters per second; a
50 percent increase to 75 meters per second raises the level to a Category 5 hurricane – the most severe category. It is likely that new
categories for measuring hurricanes must be introduced, as well as new language, since Category 5 is now considered “catastrophic.” Sea
levels will also be affected by rising temperatures as ice masses gradually disappear from the planet, melting into
ocean and other water bodies. Scientifically based estimates suggest that sea level could rise by up to two meters during the present
century, and increases will be measured in meters, not inches, over the next few centuries. Even a one-meter rise, which many
scientists anticipate by 2100, will affect at least 150 million people , most of them in Asia, though North America will also
experience significant flooding. If a large percentage of the population of Bangladesh is forced to move, where will those people go? A sea-
level rise of 10 meters in coming centuries will affect about 500 million people and submerge 5 million kilometers of land, including loss of
most of the Netherlands, to mention just one impacted region. When both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have melted completely, sea
levels will have increased by 70 meters. Even 3 degrees C of warming that persists for thousands of years will ultimately result in tens of
meters of sea-level change. As mentioned, effects will vary from region to region; in fact, it is possible that some regions will experience
rapid cooling at the same time as others record rapid heating. The Atlantic thermohaline circulation is a dangerous component of the climate
system because it is capable of rapid reorganization resulting in abrupt climate change, with temperature shifts either up or down by as much
as 10 degrees Celsius in a matter of decades. The melting of the ice sheets has an indirect impact on thermohaline circulation; however, it is
not possible to say from modeling what the probability of a meridional overturn in circulation is, either in this century or subsequently.
Water-related effects will also vary from region to region, with some areas experiencing extraordinary flooding while others see deep,
longlasting droughts. David Wasdell, who uses a systems dynamics approach based not on modeling but on tracking
complex feedback dynamics, said that climate stabilization is not about stopping catastrophic impacts but about
stopping runaway behavior in a dynamic system, and he believes that the early stages of runaway climate
changes have already commenced, with no naturally occurring negative feedback process able to contain the effect. Most of the
systems are already in net amplifying feedback, so “the hotter the Earth gets, the faster it gets hotter,” he said. In order to deal with the worst
case, humankind will have to generate a negative feedback intervention of sufficient power to overcome and reverse not just what has
already occurred, but what continues to occur. The participants were generally in agreement that in the global heating now under way, the
gap between energy received by the Earth from the Sun and energy radiated back out is running at approximately two watts per square meter,
and the amount is increasing by about 25 percent per decade, under “business as usual.” There was, however, some disagreement about
whether climate destabilization is already being accelerated by the feedbacks to a runaway status. However, three tipping points already
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

passed, apparently irreversibly, were identified: (1) the pine bark beetles in northern United States and Canada. The winters are no longer
cold enough to kill off the larvae of the beetle, which is killing vast areas of pine trees, adding yet more carbon to the atmosphere; (2) the
acidification of the oceans, leading to massive changes in the lower part of the ocean food chain, and (3) the disappearance of the coral reefs
in the Caribbean Sea due to increasing temperatures. Other indicators that climate change is already affecting ecosystems were also cited,
including changes in hardiness zones for plants. Climate change has begun to affect human health worldwide, with the
extent of impacts expected to increase with increasing climate change. Dr. Kristie Ebi, an independent consultant and a lead
author for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on human health, has conducted research on the impacts of climate change for more than a
dozen years. She stated: “I am more concerned about health impacts in the next few decades than later this century because the lack of
current preparedness suggests that impacts may be larger in the short term, until programs and activities are implemented to increase
resilience to extreme weather events and other changes projected to occur with climate change.” There are not enough people trained to cope
with current climate variability, and funding for training and capacity-building is inadequate. Changing temperatures and
precipitation patterns will alter ecosystems, as well as change the geographic range and intensity of transmission
of a range of infectious diseases. At present approximately 150,000 people die every year due to climate change
impacts; most of these deaths are in children under the age of five living in Africa and Asia. Worldwide, the major climate-sensitive health
outcomes of concern are malnutrition, diarrheal disease, and malaria. Other health impacts to expect are increasing illnesses and deaths due
to increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, flooding events, and other extreme weather events, increases in adverse health
outcomes due to air pollution, and increases in the geographic range and incidence of a wide range of food-, water-, and vectorborne
diseases. Sudden and severe declines in crop yields could lead to large numbers of refugees. In some areas, there is the possibility that
climate change could affect the national security. In his inaugural speech, Sir Crispin Tickell emphasized that the real
problems today are the speed of the change in climate and where the tipping points are, rather than the size of the
change itself, and the wider perspective of global catastrophic risks in which climate change is only one of the problems.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                            Scenario III: US Hegemony

Post gulf war, US military is completely dependent on satellite technology for operational capability.
Dolman Winter-Spring ’06 (Everett; SAIS Review “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”; Accessed 7/13/11)
That this transformation was well underway became evident in 1991, when U.S. forces defeated the world's fourth-largest military in just ten days
of ground combat. The Gulf War witnessed the public and operational debut of unfathomably complicated battle
equipment, sleek new aircraft employing stealth technology, and promising new missile interceptors. Arthur C.
Clarke went so far as to dub Operation Desert Storm the world's first space war, as none of the accomplishments of
America's new look military would have been possible without support from space.2 Twelve years later Operation Iraqi
Freedom proved that the central role of space power could no longer be denied. America's military had made the transition from a
space-supported to a fully space-enabled force, with astonishing results. [End Page 164] Indeed, the military
successfully exercised most of its current space power functions, including space lift, command and control, rapid
battle damage assessment, meteorological support, and timing and navigation techniques such as Blue Force tracking,
which significantly reduced incidences of fratricide. The tremendous growth in space reliance from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom is evident in
the raw numbers. The use of operational satellite communications increased four-fold, despite being used to support a much
smaller force (fewer than 200,000 personnel compared with more than 500,000). New operational concepts such as reach back (intelligence
analysts in the United States sending information directly to frontline units) and reach forward (rear-deployed commanders able to direct
battlefield operations in real time) reconfigured the tactical concept of war. The value of Predator and Global Hawk Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), completely reliant on satellite communications and navigation for their operation, was
confirmed. Satellite support also allowed Special Forces units to range across Iraq in extremely disruptive independent operations, practically
unfettered in their silent movements.



Collapse of hegemony causes nuclear war in Kashmir and Korea
Ferguson, ‘04 – Professor of History at New York University's Stern School of Business and Senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution [Niall, “A world without power,” Foreign Policy 143, p. 32-39, July-August]
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences
that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more
dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous--roughly 20 times more--so friction between the
world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on
freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now
possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities,
labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through
tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic
stagnation and even depression. As the U nited S tates sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or
Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business.
Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic
tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing
the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are
preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The
wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With
ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers , aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western
nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate
numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle
East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the
great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many
cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar
world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the U nited S tates retreats from global
hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that
they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish
for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far
more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                            Scenario IV: Miscalculation

Space Debris will cause a Russian miscalculation leading to crises escalation and nuclear war.
Lewis ‘04
(Jeffrey, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Study Program
Jeffrey, Worked In the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Center for Defense Information, What if
Space Were Weaponized? July, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf)
This is the second of two scenarios that consider how U.S. space weapons might create incentives for America’s opponents to behave in
dangerous ways. The previous scenario looked at the systemic risk of accidents that could arise from keeping nuclear weapons on high alert to
guard against a space weapons attack. This section focuses on the risk that a single accident in space, such as a piece of space
debris striking a Russian early-warning satellite, might be the catalyst for an accidental nuclear war. As we have noted in
an earlier section, the United States canceled its own ASAT program in the 1980s over concerns that the deployment of these weapons might be
deeply destabilizing. For all the talk about a “new relationship” between the United States and Russia, both sides retain thousands of nuclear
forces on alert and configured to fight a nuclear war. When briefed about the size and status of U.S. nuclear forces, President George W. Bush
reportedly asked “What do we need all these weapons for?”43             The answer, as it was during the Cold War, is that the forces remain on alert to
conduct a number of possible contingencies, including a nuclear strike against Russia. This fact, of course, is not lost on the Russian
leadership, which has been increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons to compensate for the country’s declining
military might. In the mid-1990s, Russia dropped its pledge to refrain from the “first use” of nuclear weapons and
conducted a series of exercises in which Russian nuclear forces prepared to use nuclear weapons to repel a NATO invasion. In October 2003,
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov reiter- ated that Moscow might use nuclear weapons “preemptively” in any number of
contingencies, including a NATO attack.44 So, it remains business as usual with U.S. and Russian nuclear forces. And business as usual
includes the occasional false alarm of a nuclear attack. There have been several of these incidents over the years. In September
1983, as a relatively new Soviet early-warning satellite moved into position to monitor U.S. missile fields in North Dakota, the sun lined up in
just such a way as to fool the Russian satellite into reporting that half a dozen U.S. missiles had been launched at the Soviet Union. Perhaps
mindful that a brand new satellite might malfunction, the officer in charge of the command center that monitored data from the early-warning
satellites refused to pass the alert to his superiors. He reportedly explained his caution by saying: “When people start a war, they don’t start it
with only five missiles. You can do little damage with just five missiles.”45 In January 1995, Norwegian scientists launched a sounding rocket on
a trajectory similar to one that a U.S. Trident missile might take if it were launched to blind Russian radars with a high26 What if Space Were
Weaponized? altitude nuclear detonation. The incident was apparently serious enough that, the next day, Russian President Boris Yeltsin stated
that he had activated his “nuclear football” a device that allows the Russian president to communicate with his military advisors and review his
options for launching his arsenal. In this case, the Russian early-warning satellites could clearly see that no attack was under way and the crisis
passed without incident.46 In both cases, Russian observers were confident that what appeared to be a “small” attack was not a fragmentary
picture of a much larger one. In the case of the Norwegian sounding rocket, space-based sensors played a crucial role in assuring the Russian
leadership that it was not under attack. The Russian command system, however, is no longer able to provide such reliable, early warning. The
dissolution of the Soviet Union cost Moscow several radar stations in newly independent states, creating “attack corridors” through which
Moscow could not see an attack launched by U.S. nuclear submarines.47 Further, Russia’s constellation of early-warning satellites
has been allowed to decline only one or two of the six satellites remain operational, leaving Russia with early
warning for only six hours a day. Russia is attempting to reconstitute its constellation of early-warning satellites, with several launches
planned in the next few years. But Russia will still have limited warning and will depend heavily on its space-based systems to
provide warning of an American attack.48 As the previous section explained, the Pentagon is contemplating military missions in space
that will improve U.S. ability to cripple Russian nuclear forces in a crisis before they can execute an attack on the United States. Anti-satellite
weapons, in this scenario, would blind Russian reconnaissance and warning satellites and knock out communications satellites. Such strikes
might be the prelude to a full-scale attack, or a limited effort, as attempted in a war game at Schriever Air Force Base, to conduct “early
deterrence strikes” to signal U.S. resolve and control escalation.49 By 2010, the United States may, in fact, have an arsenal of ASATs (perhaps
even on orbit 24/7) ready to conduct these kinds of missions – to coerce opponents and, if necessary, support preemptive attacks. Moscow would
certainly have to worry that these ASATs could be used in conjunction with other space-enabled systems – for example, long-range strike
systems that could attack targets in less than 90 minutes – to disable Russia’s nuclear deterrent before the Rus- sian leadership understood what
was going on. What would happen if a piece of space debris were to disable a Russian early-warning satellite under
these conditions? Could the Russian military distinguish between an accident in space and the first phase of a U.S.
attack? Most Russian early-warning satellites are in elliptical Molniya orbits (a few are in GEO) and thus difficult to attack from the
ground or air. At a minimum, Moscow would probably have some tactical warning of such a suspicious launch, but given the sorry state of
Russia’s warning, optical imaging and signals intelligence satellites there is reason to ask the question. Further, the advent of U.S. on-orbit
ASATs, as now envisioned could make both the more difficult orbital plane and any warning systems moot. The unpleasant truth is that
the Russians likely would have to make a judgment call. No state has the ability to definitively deter- mine the cause of the
satellite’s failure. Even the United States does not maintain (nor is it likely to have in place by 2010) a sophisticated space
surveillance system that would allow it to distinguish between a satellite malfunction, a debris strike or a deliberate
attack – and Russian space surveillance capabilities are much more limited by comparison. Even the risk assessments for
collision with debris are speculative, particularly for the unique orbits in which Russian early-warning satellites operate. During peacetime, it is
easy to imagine that the Russians would conclude that the loss of a satellite was either a malfunction or a debris strike. But how confident could
U.S. planners be that the Russians would be so calm if the accident in space occurred in tandem with a second false alarm, or occurred during the
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

middle of a crisis? What might happen if the debris strike occurred shortly after a false alarm showing a missile launch?
False alarms are appallingly common – according to information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the U.S.-Canadian North
American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) experienced 1,172 “moderately serious” false alarms between 1977 and 1983 – an average of
almost three false alarms per week. Comparable information is not available about the Russian system, but there is no reason to believe that it is
any more reliable.51 Assessing the likelihood of these sorts of co- incidences is difficult because Russia has never provided data about the
frequency or duration of false alarms; nor indicated how seriously early- warning data is taken by Russian leaders. More- over, there is no reliable
estimate of the debris risk for Russian satellites in highly elliptical orbits.52 The important point, however, is that such a coincidence would only
appear suspicious if the United States were in the business of disabling satellites – in other words, there is much less risk if Washington does not
develop ASATs. The loss of an early-warning satellite could look rather ominous if it occurred during a period of major tension in the
relationship. While NATO no longer sees Russia as much of a threat, the same cannot be said of the converse. Despite the warm talk, Russian
leaders remain wary of NATO expansion, particularly the effect expansion may have on the Baltic port of Kaliningrad. Although part of Russia,
Kaliningrad is separated from the rest of Russia by Lithuania and Poland. Russia has already complained about its decreasing lack of access to the
port, particularly the uncooperative attitude of the Lithuanian govern- ment.53 News reports suggest that an edgy Russia may have moved tactical
nuclear weapons into the enclave.54             If the Lithuanian government were to close access to Kaliningrad in a fit of pique, this would trigger
a major crisis between NATO and Russia. Under these circumstances, the loss of an early-warning satellite would be extremely suspicious. It is
any military’s nature during a crisis to interpret events in their worst-case light. For ex- ample, consider the coincidences that
occurred in early September 1956, during the extraordinarily tense period in international relations marked by the Suez Crisis and Hungarian
uprising.55             On one evening the White House received messages indicating: 1. the Turkish Air Force had gone on alert in response to
unidentified aircraft penetrating its airspace; 2. one hundred Soviet MiG-15s were flying over Syria; 3. a British Canberra bomber had been shot
down over Syria, most likely by a MiG; and 4. The Russian fleet was moving through the Dardanelles. Gen. Andrew Accidental Nuclear War
Scenarios 27 28         What if Space Were Weaponized? Goodpaster was reported to have worried that the confluence of events “might trigger
off ... the NATO operations plan” that called for a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. Yet, all of these reports were false. The “jets” over Turkey
were a flock of swans; the Soviet MiGs over Syria were a smaller, routine escort returning the president from a state visit to Moscow; the bomber
crashed due to mechanical difficulties; and the Soviet fleet was beginning long-scheduled exercises. In an important sense, these were not
“coincidences” but rather different manifestations of a common failure – human error resulting from extreme tension of an international crisis. As
one author noted, “The detection and misinterpretation of these events, against the context of world tensions from Hungary and Suez, was the
first major example of how the size and complexity of worldwide electronic warning systems could, at certain critical times,
create momentum of its own.” Perhaps most worrisome, the United States might be blithely unaware of the degree
to which the Russians were concerned about its actions and inadvertently escalate a crisis. During the early 1980s, the
Soviet Union suffered a major “war scare” during which time its leadership concluded that bilateral relations were rapidly declining. This war
scare was driven in part by the rhetoric of the Reagan administration, fortified by the selective reading of intelligence. During this period, NATO
conducted a major command post exercise, Able Archer, that caused some elements of the Soviet military to raise their alert status. American
officials were stunned to learn, after the fact, that the Kremlin had been acutely nervous about an American first strike during this period.56 All
of these incidents have a common theme – that confidence is often the difference between war and peace. In times of crisis, false alarms
can have a momentum of their own. As in the second scenario in this monograph, the lesson is that commanders rely on the steady flow
of reliable information. When that information flow is disrupted – whether by a deliberate attack or an accident –
confidence collapses and the result is panic and escalation. Introducing ASAT weapons into this mix is all the more dangerous,
because such weapons target the elements of the command system that keep leaders aware, informed and in control. As a result, the mere
presence of such weapons is corrosive to the confidence that allows national nuclear forces to operate safely.



Aggressive Russian rhetoric has re-ignited tensions between US and Russia
The Telegraph, 07
(July, 17, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557726/Retired-generals-predict-US-Russia-war.html)
Capitalising on the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Moscow, a group of influential retired generals yesterday said the United
States was preparing to invade Russia within a decade.
Interviewed by Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia's biggest circulation newspaper, the four senior generals - who now direct influential military
think tanks - said the United States had hatched a secret plan to seize the country's vast energy resources by force.
"The US is both laying the ground and preparing its military potential for a war with Russia," said Gen Leonid Ivashov, a
former joint chief of staff.
"Anti-Russian sentiment is being fostered in the public opinion. The US is desperate to implement its century-old
dream of world hegemony and the elimination of Russia as its principal obstacle to the full control of Eurasia."
The generals said the conflict would inevitably spark a third world war, but predicted it would be fought only with conventional
weapons or "low impact" nuclear missiles.
                                                                             nevertheless reflect a growing
Dismissed by some critics as the Cold War nostalgia of a handful of Soviet dinosaurs, such opinions
mood of nationalism both within the Kremlin and among many ordinary Russians wistful for lost superpower status.
Engaged in a bitter dispute with Washington over its plans to erect a missile defence shield in central Europe, Vladimir Putin has increasingly
used the kind of anti-American rhetoric many assumed had disappeared with the Cold War.
Once more casting the United States as Russia's main threat, the Russian president, a former KGB spy, has accused Washington of
"diktat" and "imperialism" - even going so far as to liken America to the Third Reich.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

US Russian nuclear war will lead to extinction
Bostrum ‘02
(Dr. Nick, Dept. Phil @ yale, “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards,”
www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out
nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been
persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information
available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently
destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future
confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals.
Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or
thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted.
Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will
encounter in the 21st century.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                            Observation III - Solvency
Small debris is an exponentially growing critical threat to infrastructure and prevention is not enough. GBLs
provide the best mechanism for removing debris from Low earth orbit.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Space debris threatens valuable space-based assets essential to communications, global commerce, and national
defense. Debris in lower earth orbit poses the greatest immediate threat to these assets and was the primary focus of
this project.
Policy is a critical consideration when introducing debris elimination technology into the space environment. Space-
faring countries and commercial interests must acknowledge the inevitability of more numerous collisions and
damage. If space debris continues to increase, the threat to space-based technology increases exponentially.
Approval of space debris mitigation guidelines is a positive contribution to debris mitigation and prevention. In the
short term, there is a need to clarify space terminology, define transfer-of-ownership guidelines, and create a
registration timeframe to enhance the current body of space law.
As is evident with the IADC, international science-focused workgroups bring together researchers from various
countries with varying interests to work on a common goal. Similar initiatives promise to improve debris
mitigation/elimination efforts and improve upon current elimination technologies. As the world’s dependence on
space-based technology grows, an evaluation of constructs for global pooling of funds earmarked for future debris
clean-up will be necessary.
Prevention is the most cost effective way to keep space clean. However, prevention alone will not be enough to
secure the future of space assets. The ability to remove space debris actively is imperative and there is no single
solution to remove all debris sizes. Current technologies are promising, but further development remains necessary,
and no debris elimination technology has yet to be fully demonstrated. Ground-based lasers were found to be the
most effective way to remove small debris from LEO. They are much more cost effective than adding shielding to
space assets and a demonstration could prove the ability of lasers to remove smaller debris from space. Orbital
rendezvous vehicles provide an example of a technology which could be used to remove large debris. The vehicles
could be used to move the debris itself or used in conjunction with a drag device such as an electrodynamic tether to
de-orbit debris or to place it in a graveyard orbit.

GBLs are an effective and inexpensive means of eliminating space debris
Campbell 2000
(Jonathan W. Campbell. Colonel, USAER, doctorate in astrophysics and space science, Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for Strategy and
Technology, Air War College, “Using Lasers in Space: Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf)
The reality is that there is no system in to protect against the approximately 150,000 objects that are in the range of
1-10 centimeters in size. Using the example of a ten n is ball that is approximately five centimeters; a hypervelocity collision
between a tennis hall and a satellite will probably reduce that satellite into orbital debris. And it may have a
cascading effect as many smaller objects produce orbital debris, which in turn increases the overall risk to objects in
orbit.
While the probability of a collision with an individual satellite is quite low, the probability of a collision occurring with in the,
entire population of space assets is not as remote. An analysis suggests that with the current level of orbital debris and the sizes of
satellites, the probability is that there will be one collision per year. And that loss could amount to billions of dollars.
This is a global problem and will involve an international effort that is coordinated by the United Nations. No one
project cannot redress this problem. Nor is it economically practical to shield each spacecraft and give it
maneuvering capabilities.
An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that
a single. Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and that operated near the equator could remove all orbital
debris up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically cost several hundred million and given the
half billion price tags on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small given the potential losses of
rockets. Furthermore, the development of this technology will stimulate other approaches, including laser power
beaming, deflecting asteroids, meteoroids, and comets, and propulsion for interstellar missions. In closing, this study
addressed a problem that the international community must resolve if we are to reduce the risk to spaceflight, and hence to economic progress,
that is caused by orbital debris.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL



US has greatest risk of loss and best infrastructure to solve making it the key actor.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
As previously discussed, a recent NASA study found that annually removing as little as five massive pieces of debris
in critical orbits could significantly stabilize the long-term space debris environment (Liou and Johnson 2007). This
suggests that it is feasible for one nation to unilaterally develop and deploy an effective debris removal system. As
the United States is responsible for creating much of the debris in Earth’s orbit, it is a candidate for taking a
leadership role in removing it, along with other heavy polluters of the space environment such as China and Russia.
 There are several reasons why the United States should take this leadership role, rather than China or Russia. First
and foremost, the United States would be hardest hit by the loss of satellites services. It owns about half of the
roughly 800 operating satellites in orbit and its military is significantly more dependent upon them than any other
entity (Moore 2008). For example, GPS precision-guided munitions are a key component of the “new American way of
war” (Dolman 2006, 163-165), which allows the United States to remain a globally dominant military power while also
waging war in accordance with its political and ethical values by enabling faster, less costly war fighting with
minimal collateral damage (Sheldon 2005). The U.S. Department of Defense recognized the need to protect U.S.
satellite systems over ten years ago when it stated in its 1999 Space Policy that, “the ability to access and utilize
space is a vital national interest because many of the activities conducted in the medium are critical to U.S. national
security and economic well-being” (U.S. Department of Defense 1999, 6). Clearly, the United States has a vested interest in
keeping the near-Earth space environment free from threats like space debris and thus assuring U.S. access to space.
Moreover, current U.S. National Space Policy asserts that the United States will take a “leadership role” in space
debris minimization. This could include the development, deployment, and demonstration of an effective space
debris removal system to remove U.S. debris as well as that of other nations, upon their request. There could also be
international political and economic advantages associated with being the first country to develop this revolutionary
technology. However, there is always the danger of other nations simply benefiting from U.S. investment of its resources in this area. Thus,
mechanisms should also be created to avoid a classic “free rider” situation. For example, techniques could be employed to ensure other countries
either join in the effort later on or pay appropriate fees to the United States for removal services
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                           Space Debris Threat
Space Debris increasingly risky to space exploration and development in the Earth’s mesosphere.
Scott Spence, Director, Raytheon Space Fence Program, Integrated Defense Systems., Saturday July 9, 2011
(http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/space-debris/)
Rocketing past the International Space Station at 29,000 miles per hour, a piece of space debris came only 1,100 feet
away from a collision, forcing crew members to take refuge in two space capsules reserved for an emergency
escape.
Since the launch of the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, in 1957, Earth’s low orbit has become increasingly filled
with man-made space debris—objects ranging from a single fleck of paint to larger explosion and collision
fragments to entire defunct satellites. Just two years ago, an Iridium satellite collided with an expired Russian
Cosmos spacecraft, significantly contributing to the amount of debris already orbiting the Earth.
A piece of debris as small as one centimeter traveling at incredibly high speeds can completely destroy an
operational satellite if the orbits of the two intersect. Leveraging existing technologies, more than 20,000 objects
have been catalogued by Space Command, but it is estimated that more than half a million pieces exist. Though
untracked, these pieces of “space junk” can be lethal to our space systems—from military space systems to
commercial systems to civil space systems—no one is invulnerable to the threat.


Increased use of mesosphere for satellites assures increased risk of disaster
Scott Spence, Director, Raytheon Space Fence Program, Integrated Defense Systems., Saturday July 9, 2011
(http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/space-debris/)
But this growing number of satellites in orbit around the Earth has made space a much more hazardous place in
recent years. Low orbits have now become so crowded that operators are regularly forced to make emergency
maneuvers by firing thrusters to avoid disasters.
This coupled with the rapid proliferation of space debris highlights the imperative for more precise space tracking
and surveillance improvements.


Space Debris is a growing threat – now is key time to act.
Clara Moskowitz, Space.com, Nov 6, 2009
There are about 800 satellites in orbit now, and more than 20,000 pieces of debris in total, including bits of dead
satellites and spent rockets, as well as more eccentric items like loose gloves and tools that slipped away from
astronauts on spacewalks. And it's only likely to get worse as more satellites are launched into the increasingly
crowded orbital corridors of space.
"Space situational awareness is no different than the situational awareness that we demand in any other domain," Chilton said. "And we do not
provide that in an adequate fashion to my component commander in charge of space operations for the United States of America."
Just today NASA announced that astronauts onboard the station may have to board their Russian Soyuz spacecraft lifeboats Friday evening as a
safety precaution in case they must evacuate because of a space junk impact. A small piece of debris appears poised to fly within 1,640 feet (500
meters) of the orbiting laboratory Friday night at 10:48 EST (0348 Saturday GMT).
Though an actual impact is unlikely, the agency says, astronauts must be prepared when any debris comes too close for comfort.
Crowded skies
Scientists agree. A recent study calculated that "close encounters" between satellites and debris in orbit will rise by
50 percent in the next 10 years, and by 250 percent by 2059, to more than 50,000 a week, according to Reuters.
"The time to act is now, before the situation gets too difficult to control," study leader Hugh Lewis of the University
of Southampton told Reuters. "The number of objects in orbit is going to go up, and there will be impacts from that."
The seriousness of the situation was made apparent earlier this year when two communications satellites
accidentally slammed into each other, creating two huge new clouds of shrapnel floating in orbit. China also created
a good chunk of debris in 2007 when it purposefully destroyed one of its orbiting satellites in an anti-satellite test.


Space Debris threat is growing
Zenko, 2011
(Micah Zenko is a fellow for conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, CNN World, July 5, 2011)
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Last week, six astronauts living on board the International Space Station (ISS), which orbits some 200 miles above
the earth’s surface, received notice that a piece of space debris travelling 29,000 miles per hour would pass
dangerously nearby. NASA officials calculated that the probability of the ISS being hit at around one in 360. (One
in 10,000 is NASA’s nominal threshold for which it will authorize a “collision avoidance maneuver.”)
Normally, the ISS receives ample notice so that it can maneuver out of the pathway of potential space debris.
However, with less than fifteen hours’ warning, the astronauts were forced to relocate to Soyuz space capsules for
only the second time in the ISS’s thirteen-year history.
While the debris missed the space station by 1,100 feet, orbital space debris is a growing threat to civil, military, and
commercial satellites in space.
Presently, there are some 22,000 items over ten centimeters across, or roughly the size of a softball, which can be
regularly tracked with existing resources and technology. These include the upper stages of launch vehicles, disabled
spacecraft, dead batteries, solid rocket motor waste, and refuse from human missions. In addition, there are
approximately 300,000 other fragments of space junk measuring between one and ten centimeters, and over
135,000,000 less than one centimeter, which could potentially damage operational spacecraft.



Despite exponentially increasing threat – the US nor any other country has the resources to track debris
Zenko, 2011
(Micah Zenko is a fellow for conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, CNN World, July 5, 2011)

Though it took forty years to produce the first 10,000 pieces of softball-sized space debris, it required less than a
decade for the next 12,000. This recent increase was due in part to two worrying incidents, which, according to NASA, combined to
increase the number of total space objects by over 60 percent. In January 2007, the Chinese military destroyed a defunct polar-orbiting weather
satellite with a mobile ballistic missile, and in February 2009 an active Iridium communication satellite and a defunct Russian satellite, which had
been predicted to pass each other 1,900 feet apart, unexpectedly collided.
The ability to detect, track, characterize, and predict objects in space and space-related events is known as space
situational awareness (SSA). The U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) provides this
function for the Pentagon by monitoring space debris (over ten centimeters) with a worldwide network of twenty-
nine ground-based radars and optical sensors.
In addition to supporting U.S. military and intelligence agencies, JSpOC provides e-mail notifications to commercial space operators when their
satellites are at risk from space debris. JSpOC provides twenty to thirty close-approach notifications per day, which last year resulted in satellite
owners maneuvering 126 times to avoid collision with other satellites or debris. According to U.S. officials, the United States even notifies the
Chinese government when their satellites are threatened by space debris created by the 2007 anti-satellite test. Despite JSpOC’s best
efforts, however, these same officials acknowledge that no country has the resources, technical expertise, or
geography to meet the growing demands for SSA.



Space debris growing – recent threats have demonstrated probability for catastrophe
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
There has been a steady growth of space debris since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, with jumps following two of the
largest debris creating events in history: the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) test and the 2009 Iridium-Cosmos
collision.
 The first of these events occurred on January 11, 2007, when China intentionally destroyed its Fengyun-1C satellite while testing
its newly developed ground-based ASAT system. It was the largest debris-creating event in history, producing at least 150,000
pieces of debris larger than one centimeter (NASA 2008, 3). The resulting debris has spread into nearpolar orbits ranging in altitude
from 200 to 4,000 kilometers. Roughly 80 percent of this debris is expected to stay in orbit for at least the next one hundred
years and threatens to impact operating satellites (CelesTrak 2009). The test illustrates how a single unilateral action in space can
create long-term implications for all space-faring nations and users of satellite services.
 The 2007 Chinese ASAT test prompted criticism from major space powers regarding the reckless creation of space debris and the
consequent threat to operational satellites (Clark and Singer 2007). It triggered debates over a range of issues, from banning space weapons to
questioning future cooperation with China in space. Although these debates have not produced international agreements on complex issues such
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

as the prohibition of space weaponization, they have highlighted the need for greater communication and transparency in
space activities as the number of space-faring nations and non-state actors in space continues to grow (Pace 2009). Uncertainties surrounding
the event have also raised larger political and security questions: the fact that the Chinese Foreign Ministry denied the test for several days after it
became public suggests that there was a lack of communication between the People’s Liberation Army, which ordered the test, and other parts of
the Chinese government. Thus, beyond revealing China’s military capabilities and ambitions, the test also raised questions as to whether China’s
stove piped bureaucracies make it an unreliable global partner in general (Bates and Kleiber 2007).
 The second major space-debris creating event was the accidental collision between an active Iridium satellite and a
defunct Russian military satellite on February 10, 2009. The collision created two debris clouds holding more than
200,000 pieces of debris larger than one centimeter at similar altitudes to those of the 2007 Chinese ASAT test (Johnson
2009b). It was the first time two intact satellites accidentally crashed in orbit, challenging the “Big Sky Theory,”
which asserts that the vastness of space makes the chances of a collision between two orbiting satellites negligible
(Newman et al. 2009).
 Iridium uses a constellation of sixty-six satellites to provide voice and data services to 300,000 subscribers globally. As the company keeps
several spare satellites in orbit, the collision caused only brief service interruptions directly after the event (Wolf 2009). Nevertheless, the event
was highly significant as it demonstrated that the current population of space objects is already sufficient to lead to
accidental collisions, which, in turn, can lead to the creation of more space debris and increased risks to operational
space systems. This type of progressive space debris growth is worrisome. The U.S. military, for example, relies on
commercial satellites like Iridium for over 80 percent of its wartime communications (Cavossa 2006, 5)
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL




            Inherency – Current Policy is Insufficient
Current debris policy is insufficient – international consensus is that we need additional debris removal
policies

Space Daily 10 (The space industry professional daily news from the frontier, with contract, bid, launch and on-
orbit satellite news, “Secure World Foundation Holds Space Debris Workshop”, written by staff writers, October 26,
lexis academic)

International participants from a dozen universities around the world , including the United States, United Kingdom, Spain,
Russia, and Japan, along with faculty and graduate students from across China, participated in the 2010 Beijing Space Debris
Mitigation Workshop, held on October 18-19 in Beijing, China.
Secure World Foundation, along with its partners at Beihang University in Beijing and International Space University in Strasbourg, France, held
the 2010 Beijing Space Debris Mitigation Workshop on October 18-19.
International participants from a dozen universities around the world, including the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, and Japan,
participated in the event in Beijing, along with faculty and graduate students from across China.
The threat posed by space debris to satellites and space services continues to be an urgent topic among scientists and
researchers. Although significant progress has been made on reducing the creation of space debris, there is an
emerging consensus that rapid, uncontrolled growth in the amount of space debris can only be prevented by actively
removing debris from orbit.
Challenges ahead
Over the last year, conferences have been held in the United States, France, and Russia to discuss the challenges ahead in dealing with orbital
debris.
Sessions held at the 2010 Beijing Space Debris Mitigation Workshop involved discussion on a variety of topics, such as:
+ Research into modeling and simulation of hypervelocity impacts and the potential threat posed by large numbers of small satellites in Sun-
synchronous orbits.
+ The need for actively removing space debris and proposed techniques for doing so.
+ The legal and policy issues involved with space debris and potential removal from Earth orbit.
More than just one solution
In the late 1970's, two influential NASA scientists, John Gabbard and Donald Kessler, laid the scientific groundwork for what became to be
known as the "Kessler syndrome."
They predicted that at some point in the future the population of human-generated space debris would hit a critical point
where it would pose a greater risk to spacecraft than the natural debris population of meteoroids.
This "collisional cascading" would increase the risks and costs of operating in space, and make certain types of missions no longer
cost effective or safe.
Research and modeling over the last decade has shown that even without any new space launches, the amount of debris in orbit
will continue to grow in the future as large pieces of debris - such as dead satellites and spent rocket bodies - would be
impacted by small pieces of debris.
This, in turn, would generate thousands of additional small debris, and increase the chances that other large objects would be vulnerable to
impacts.
In the 1990's, several of the world's space agencies formed the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee
to study this problem.
Their work resulted in a set of guidelines for reducing the amount of debris produced by space activities. In 2008
these voluntary guidelines were adopted by the United Nations, and currently many countries are in the process of
adopting the guidelines into national regulations.
"The debris mitigation guidelines are a major accomplishment , and an important step in preserving the long-term sustainability of
space," said Dr. Ray Williamson, Executive Director of Secure World Foundation. "But they are only an initial first step, and will not solve the
problem by themselves."
Research done by both NASA and the European Space Agency shows that a combination of debris mitigation, collision screening
and avoidance by operational satellites - as well as active debris removal - are needed to prevent collisional
cascading.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                             INH: Space Governance Issue
Space Treaty assures that no government has authority over Space creating issues with policy
Zenko, 2011
(Micah Zenko is a fellow for conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, CNN World, July 5, 2011)
The space debris problem is a classic global governance dilemma: though eleven states can launch satellites, and
over sixty countries or government consortia own or operate the approximately 1,100 active satellites, no one
country or group of countries has the sovereign authority or responsibility for regulating space. Under Article II of the
1967 Outer Space Treaty: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of
sovereignty.”
The solution to reducing the amount of new space debris, mitigating the threat it poses to satellites and spacecraft, and eventually removing on-
orbit debris from space, will require enhanced international cooperation. Last summer, the Obama administration released its National Space
Policy, which featured the objective of preserving the space environment via “the continued development and adoption of international and
industry standards and policies to minimize debris,” and “fostering the development of space collision warning measures.” Unfortunately,
progress toward constructing international agreed upon rules of the road for the responsible uses of space have been
slow going.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                Inh: Current Policy of Reg/Mitigation
                            Insufficient
Current policy of mitigation will not solve – must destroy space debris to prevent catastrophe
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
In light of these threats, certain measures have been taken to address the issue of space debris. In particular,
internationally adopted debris mitigation guidelines are reducing the introduction of new fragments into Earth’s
orbit. However, there is a growing consensus within the space debris community that mitigation is insufficient to
constrain the orbiting debris population, and that ensuring a safe future for space activities will require the
development and deployment of systems that actively remove debris from Earth’s orbit . The first-ever International
Conference on Orbital H Debris Removal, held in December 2009 and co-hosted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), illustrated this growing concern.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                           Inh: No Policy to Reduce Debris
No policies to remove or mitigate space debris currently exist.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
According to forecasts published by the BBC, space industry profits will exceed $250 billion by the year 2010.46 Technologies such as
telecommunications, global positioning systems, broadband, and remote sensing are being further developed for use in space . Of utmost
priority, however, is the need for heightened space situational awareness and space debris elimination measures.
Without space debris elimination measures, the possibility of a crescendo, known as the “Kessler Effect,” occurring
at current debris levels remains high. In this scenario, large and small debris continually collide and fragment until
the atmosphere at LEO becomes unusable. Space-faring nations would lose the ability for space exploration and
technology such as the International Space Station (ISS) and Hubble Space Telescope might be compromised. In fact, the NASA space shuttle
could also be rendered inoperable.
In July 2007, the United Nations voted to adopt orbital debris mitigation guidelines. Many space-faring countries
were already operating under similar guidelines established by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
Committee (IADC) in 2002. However, the IADC argued that UN adoption of orbital debris mitigation guidelines was
necessary. There has been little in the form of policy related to the use of space in regards to debris. The definitive
policy to date has been the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Article I of the treaty reads as follows:47 The exploration and use of outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their
degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


         INH – Shielding Tech d/n Work and is cost
                        prohibitive
Shield technology doesn’t solve for existing satellites, doesn’t stop 2-10 cm small debris, and is cost
prohibitive.
Campbell 2000
(Jonathan W. Campbell. Colonel, USAER, doctorate in astrophysics and space science, Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for Strategy and
Technology, Air War College, “Using Lasers in Space: Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf)
Fragmentation generally produces large numbers of objects that are too small to he tracked reliably. High-velocity
impact tests have shown that shields that are designed to protect satellites can he effective against objects that are
less than about 1-2 cm in diameter. Such shielding is part of the design for the International Space Stat ion.
Depending on environmental requirements, satellites and space vehicles may require shielding, or active protection
from impacts with small particles, notably orbital debris and micrometeoroids. For particles that are larger than 2
cm, the cost of shielding a space vehicle is prohibitive.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


         Inh: Focus on Mitigation Not Removal
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                                    Inherency


We are not removing space debris
Lovgren 1/19/06 (Stefan, National Geographic; “Space Junk Cleanup Needed, NASA Experts Warn”; Accessed 7/13/11)
Johnson, the program manager for orbital debris, says space-faring nations agree that the space junk problem needs to be
addressed. There is even a special organization called the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, made up of space agencies
from ten countries and the European Space Agency. So far, efforts have concentrated on preventing new debris. Johnson
believes it may be time to think about how to remove junk from space.

Satellites vulnerable to space junk
Economist 2-19-09 (“Flying Blind; Debris in space” accessed 7-12-11)
THE Earth’s orbit is getting crowded. The past few years have witnessed huge growth in the number of satellites. Unfortunately, wherever
civilisation ventures it leaves a trail of rubbish. Of the 18,000 tracked objects travelling around the Earth that are larger than 10cm (4 inches),
only about 900 are active satellites. The rest is debris—everything from fragments of paint to entire dead satellites and bits of old rockets.
Smashed bits of space equipment orbit along with items dropped by astronauts, including tools and the odd glove.
That is quite enough trash, without needlessly creating vastly more of the stuff by smashing up satellites. Yet the destruction of the Chinese
Fengyun-1C in an anti-satellite missile test in 2007 accounts for more than a quarter of all catalogued objects in low-Earth orbit. And the collision
of an American commercial satellite and a defunct Russian military one has just added thousands more pieces of debris. For the sake of the whole
planet, the space industry needs to clean up its act. Space junk is dangerous. Anything larger than a fleck of paint poses a
hazard to the useful working satellites that surround the Earth, and on which the world increasingly depends for
communications, broadcasting and surveillance. Space waste is not biodegradable. You cannot sweep it up. Instead, it will stay in
orbit for decades, or even centuries, before it eventually falls to earth and burns up.
As the pile of rubbish grows, so does the risk of collisions. In the 1970s one NASA scientist pointed out that debris from one
collision could go on to create a second, which would create still more debris and more collisions, and so on.
Eventually, an entire orbit would be rendered useless for generations.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


               Cascading Extension
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                             Small Debris is Key to the Problem
Small Debris is more devastating than large debris – it can’t be tracked, it cannot be destroyed, and is
growing exponentially.
Ganguli, G. et al, 2011
(Crabtree, C., Rudakov, L., & Chappie, S. (2011). A Concept For Elimination Of Small Orbital Debris. Physics, 13-
17. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401)
Space debris can be broadly classified into two categories: (i) large debris with dimension larger than 10 cm and (ii)
small debris with dimension smaller than 10 cm. The smaller debris are more numerous and are difficult to detect
and impossible to individually track. This makes them more dangerous than the fewer larger debris which can be
tracked and hence avoided. In addition, there are solutions for larger debris, for example, NRL’s FREND device
that can remove large objects from useful orbits and place them in graveyard orbits.
To the best of our knowledge there are no credible solutions for the small debris. Damage from even millimeter size
debris can be dangerous. Fig. 1 shows examples of damage by small debris collision. The source of small debris is
thought to be collision between large objects , such as spent satellites, which can lead to a collisional cascade
Perhaps a more ominous source of smaller debris is collision between large and small objects as we describe in the
following. Since such collisions will be more frequent our focus is to develop a concept for eliminating the small
orbital debris which cannot be individually tracked to evade collision.

Small debris is the most devastating – it cannot be tracked and can cause significant damage to satellites and
vehicles
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
Space debris is a specific type of space object that is human-made, no longer functional, and in Earth’s orbit. Space
debris ranges in mass from several grams to many tons, and in diameter from a few millimeters to tens of meters.
Fragments exist from roughly 100 to more than 36,000 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. In 2009, NASA alone
conducted nine in-orbit maneuvers to avoid potential collisions between its satellites and pieces of space debris
(NASA 2010, 2).
 The most dangerous pieces of space debris are those ranging in diameter from one to ten centimeters, of which there
are roughly 300,000 in orbit. These are large enough to cause serious damage, yet current sensor networks cannot
track them and there is no practical method for shielding spacecraft against them. Consequently, this class of orbital
debris poses an invisible threat to operating satellites (Wright 2007, 36). Debris larger than ten centimeters, of which
there are roughly 19,000 in orbit, can also incapacitate satellites but they are large enough to be tracked and thus
potentially avoided. Debris smaller than one centimeter, in contrast, cannot be tracked or avoided, but can be
protected against by using relatively simple shielding (Wright 2007, 36).


Large Debris removal only slows growth – doesn’t prevent it – small debris is key!
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
As humans continue to increase the density of space debris around the earth, particularly at LEO, there is risk for
higher collision rates. Hypervelocity collisions have similar effects to blowing up a satellite. There have been
several experiments and simulations showing this. It is unlikely that removing large debris will have an immediate
impact. However, simulations predict that debris created by collisions will be the dominate debris type in the future.
By removing large masses of intact debris like rocket bodies, this likely will prevent increased numbers of
collisions.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

              Cascading – Impact – Makes Spaceflight Impossible
Spaceflight will be impossible – Debris will fill the skies

Grossman 11 (Lisa, Wired.co.uk staff writer, “Nasa considers shooting space junk with lasers”, March 16,
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/16/space-junk-lasers?page=all)

The US military currently tracks about 20,000 pieces of junk in low-Earth orbit, most of which are discarded bits of
spacecraft or debris from collisions in orbit.
The atmosphere naturally drags a portion of this refuse down to Earth every year. But in 1978, Nasa astronomer Don
Kessler predicted a doomsday scenario: As collisions drive up the debris, we'll hit a point where the amount of trash
is growing faster than it can fall out of the sky. The Earth will end up with a permanent junk belt that could make
space too dangerous to fly in, a situation now called "Kessler syndrome".

Space will be closed to us – it’s a finite resource and debris will make the orbits uninhabitable

Sénéchal 07 (Thierry, MPA Harvard, M.Sc. London Business School, Dissertation submitted to the MIT Sloan
School of Management as part of the requirements for the fulfillment of an MBA, June,
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/Orbital%20Debris%20Convention%20Thierry%20Senechal%2011%20May%202007.p
df)

It is time to recognize that while space may be infinite, Earth orbital space is a finite natural resource that must be
managed properly. The outer space environment should be preserved to enable countries to explore outer space for
peaceful purposes, without any constraints. It has become obvious that space debris poses a danger to human life as
well as to the environment and the economic activities of all nations in space.
The problem we face is complex and serious; the danger posed by the human-made debris to operational spacecraft
(pilotless or piloted) is a growing concern. Because debris remains in orbit for long period of time, they tend to
accumulate, particularly in the low earth orbit. What is certain today is that the current debris population in the Low
Earth Orbit (LEO) region has reached the point where the environment is unstable and collisions will become the
most dominant debris-generating mechanism in the future. The tremendous increase in the probability of collision
exists in the near future (about 10 to 50 years). Some collisions will lead to breakups and will sow fragments all over
the geosynchronous area, making it simply uninhabitable and unreliable for scientific and commercial purposes
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                             Small Debris Cascading
Debris the size of 1 to 10 are lethal – they’re hard to track and can disable satellites

Crowther 03 (Richard, QinetiQ Space, Cody Technology Park, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 361, No. 1802, Science and Applications of the Space Environment: New Results
and Interdisciplinary Connections (Jan. 15, 2003), “Orbital Debris: A Growing Threat to Space Operations”, pp.
157-168, p. 158)

There are three distinct populations of objects in orbit about the Earth. There are objects larger than 10 cm in size,
which can be routinely detected and tracked, and are known as the catalogued population. Objects between 1 cm and
10 cm in size are referred to as the lethal population, as they cannot be tracked or catalogued and can cause
catastrophic damage when colliding with another satellite. Objects smaller than 1 cm could disable a satellite upon
impact but can be defeated by physical shields and are termed the risk population. The estimated relative proportions
of these objects are shown in table 1. The collective mass of man-made objects in orbit about the Earth is estimated
to exceed 2 x 106 kg.
Small Debris cascading creates exponentially more debris – must be checked to solve problem.
Ganguli, G. et al, 2011
(Crabtree, C., Rudakov, L., & Chappie, S. (2011). A Concept For Elimination Of Small Orbital Debris. Physics, 13-
17. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401)
Collision of small debris with large objects could also create secondary small debris. To understand fragmentation
in a low energy collision we make simple scaling arguments to the NASA high energy fragmentation model.
Consider a debris fragment, such as a piece of satellite structure (Al, size ~10 cm, 30-50 g), which collides with a
satellite weighing 500 kg and about a meter in characteristic size. Considering a relative velocity of 15 km/s the
debris kinetic energy is about 3-5 MJ, which is equivalent to the explosive power of about 1 kg TNT. The collision
is likely to puncture a hole in the satellite external structure (as in Fig. 1b), break apart the internal structures of the
satellite into smaller pieces, and increase the pressure inside the satellite. Since 3 MJ spread over 1m 3 is
equivalent to 30 atmospheres, the satellite structure would be subjected to 10-30 atmospheres from inside. Under
such a jump of pressure the satellite will break up and small fragments generated by the impact inside the satellite
would be expelled out as secondary small debris. Such break up of satellites may not be as catastrophic as the high
energy fragmentation and hence of fragments is expected to be much smaller than that which would result from a
high energy fragmentation. We can estimate of the expelled fragments by scaling to the well studied case of the
Chinese ASAT test. According to Johnson et al. (2008) the Fengyun-1C was destroyed by a ballistic kinetic kill
vehicle (KKV) which collided with the satellite with a relative velocity of approximately 9 km/s. Assuming the
mass of the KKV to be between 50 - 80 kg the kinetic energy is about 2000 MJ which is about 600 times larger than
the kinetic energy delivered by a typical small debris. The ΔVΔΔV of the fragments from Fengyun-1C can be
estimated to be around 300 m/s 8,9) . Since the kinetic energy is proportional to V we expect the debris fragments
from a collision with a typical small debris to have a velocity that is 2600 25Δ≈ times less; i.e., for a typical low
energy fragmentation . Clearly, the characteristic of the low energy fragmentation is quite different from the high
energy fragmentation 8) but it can generate secondary small debris. Therefore, removal of small orbital debris is
just as, if not more, important than the removal of larger objects because they are also a source for secondary small
debris and due to larger population their collision frequency is much higher.


Now is key time to act. Though risk of collision low now – cascade effect makes risks exponentially greater
over coming years.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
Although the probability of catastrophic collisions caused by space debris has increased over the years, it remains
relatively low and there have been only four known collisions between objects larger than ten centimeters (Wright 2009, 6). Nevertheless, the
real concern is the predicted runaway growth of space debris over the coming decades. Such uncontrolled growth
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

would prohibit the ability of satellites to provide their services, many of which are now widely used by the global
community. Indeed, in a testimony to Congress for a hearing on “Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and Commercial Uses,” the
Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, Dr. Scott Pace, stated that
           ,…space systems such as satellite communications, environmental monitoring,        and global navigation
         satellite systems are crucial to the productivity of many types of national and international infrastructures
         such as air, sea, and highway transportation, oil and gas pipelines, financial networks, and global
         communications (Pace 2009).
 As early as 1978, scientists postulated that the runaway growth of space debris owing to collisional cascading
would eventually prohibit the use of Earth’s orbit (Kessler and Cour-Palais 1978). Recent scientific studies have also
predicted uncontrolled debris growth in low-Earth’s orbit over the next century. One NASA study used predictive
models to show that even if all launches had been halted in 2004, the population of space objects greater than ten
centimeters would remain stable only until 2055 (Liou and Johnson 2006). Beyond that, increasing collisions would
create debris faster than debris is removed naturally, resulting in annual increases in the overall space object
population. The study concluded that, “only the removal of existing large objects from orbit can prevent future
problems for research in and commercialization of space” (Liou and Johnson 2006, 340). The European Space Agency (ESA) has
come to similar conclusions using its own predictive models (ESA 2009a).
 Consequently, there is growing international consensus in the space debris community that active removal will be
necessary to prevent “collisional cascading,” or the increasing number of collisions resulting from debris created
from previous collisions, in Earth’s orbit. The 5th European Conference on Space Debris concluded that, “active
space debris remediation measures will need to be implemented in order to provide this sustainability…there is no
alternative to protect space” (ESA 2009b). Similarly, Nicholas Johnson from NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office stated in a testimony
to Congress that, “in the future, such collisions are likely to be the principal source of new space debris. The most
effective means of limiting satellite collisions is to remove non-functional spacecraft and launch vehicle orbital
stages from orbit” (Johnson 2009a, 2)
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                  Cascading Probability
Space debris is increasing - New Private Space industry fliers

Sénéchal 07 (Thierry, MPA Harvard, M.Sc. London Business School, Dissertation submitted to the MIT Sloan
School of Management as part of the requirements for the fulfillment of an MBA, June,
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/Orbital%20Debris%20Convention%20Thierry%20Senechal%2011%20May%202007.p
df)
Many advances in the space industry have to be accounted for. First, due to the success of recent low cost launches, the projected
scope of space tourism and NASA’s new directive from President Bush to return to the Moon and then go to Mars, space transportation and
exploration is again regaining considerable attention in the private sector . With new needs emerging for
telecommunication (for instance GPS satellites at medium earth orbit, Sirius satellite radio at HEO, and commercial geostationary satellites)
and other space activities, it is therefore believed that new firms will enter the space market . Unless they adhere to strict
mitigation standards, these initiatives will continue to create more space debris and, at the same time, their business will be
vulnerable to such debris. For that reason, it is vital for the space private sector to understand that the business is at risk
if nothing is done to limit space debris. In the proposed international convention, the corporate view will be needed and the drafting of
the legal regime will need to include the views expressed by the space industry at large.

All these technologies however create space debris. Public data for launchers over all countries can be easily surveyed.39,40,41,42 It includes
51 rockets, most of which are currently available. The following table provides an overview of space systems used to send payload in orbit and
creating debris as they are launched and operated in space. The dashed line represents the dominant system design which has produced space
debris since the first launch of rockets into space in the late 1950s–early 1960s.



Cascading will and is increasing at exponential rates
Imburgia ‘11
Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army, Judge Advocate for the USAF
(Joseph, “Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to
Clean Up the Junk,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 44, Number 3, May)
The fundamental dilemma with “space debris” is that “[g]rowth in the debris population increases the probability of
inter-debris collision[s]” that have the potential to create even more debris.66 This problem is only exacerbated by
the increased demand for space use by both the public and private sectors. The decades to follow will only result in
increased use of space and, therefore, increased space debris.67 From 2004 to 2010, the annual growth rate of tracked debris
increased every year except 2008.68 At the beginning of 2010, Earth’s orbit held 2,347 more space debris objects
measuring more than ten centimeters in size than it held at the beginning of 2009, a 15.6 percent increase .69 The
greatest annual increase in space debris to date occurred in 2007.70 At the beginning of 2008, Earth’s orbit held 2,507 more space debris objects
measuring more than ten centimeters than it held at the start of 2007.71 This marked a 20.12 percent increase in the space debris population in
just one year.72 A large portion of this increase is attributable to China and Russia, as discussed in the following subparts. 64.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                       Cascading – Brink

Now is key – doubling of orbital hazard could occur by 2035

McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf )

The objective of this paper is to examine when the aerospace community should proceed to develop and deploy
active debris removal solutions. A two-prong approach is taken to examine both (1) operational hazard thresholds
and (2) economic triggers. Research in the paper reinforces work by previous investigators that show accurately
determining a hazard metric, and an appropriate threshold for that metric that triggers an imperative to implement
active debris removal options, is difficult to formulate. A new operational hazard threshold defined by the doubling
of the “lethal” debris environment coupled with the threshold that would affect insurance premiums is disclosed for
the first time. The doubling of the lethal hazard at 850km and the annual probability of collision in the 650-1000km
region may both occur as early as 2035.

Doubling of orbital hazard will most likely occur in 50-100 years

McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf )

A doubling of the hazard from cm-size debris was selected since nominally the annual risk to sun-synchronous
satellites of 8E-3 being doubled would surpass the 1.5% (i.e. 1.5E-2) threshold described earlier for space insurance
exposure after the first year of satellite operations. While only some LEO satellites are insured, this does provide a fairly reliable and relevant
threshold for analysis.

It is assumed that about 40,000 fragments larger than 1cm will be created from each “significant” collision of two large intact objects such as
payloads or rocket bodies (i.e. ~20,000 objects for each ~3,000kg object). [16] This analysis is very sensitive to the number of debris objects
produced from the catastrophic breakup of two large objects which in turn is dependent on collision encounter geometry and physical makeup of
each object. Most of the fragmentation data and modeling have focused on payloads and there is much less data available for the result of
hypervelocity collisions involving rocket bodies.

Clearly, there will be other sources of cm-size debris but there will also be some reduction in cm-size debris due to atmospheric drag effects.
These two factors are ignored here to provide a coarse examination of the population growth.

The examination of the hazard threshold provides a wide-variance result: 25-200 years with a 50-100 year range
being most likely. These numbers are sufficiently large and variable to likely not be sufficient to motivate
community action at this time on their own. As collisions become more common the statistics will provide a more reliable number
with smaller error bars but until then, there is a wide range of potential scenarios of how the orbital population will evolve. These results are
similar to other analyses. [1, 2, 7, 22, 23]
Action is key now – cascading has already begun

Mason et. al. 2011 (James, NASA Ames Research Center and Universities Space Research Association, Jan Stupl,
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, William Marshall, NASA Ames Research
Center and Universities Space Research Association, Creon Levit, NASA Ames Research Center, “Orbital Debris-
Debris Collision Avoidance”, June 29, Advances in Space Research, p.1)

The threat of catastrophic or debilitating collisions between active spacecraft and orbital debris is gaining increased attention as prescient
predictions of population evolution are confirmed. Early satellite environment distribution models showed the potential for   a
runaway Kessler syndrome" of cascading collisions, where the rate of debris creation through debris-debris
collisions would exceed the ambient decay rate and would lead to the formation of debris belts (Kessler & Cour-Palais,
1978). Recorded collisions events (including the January 2009 Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 collision) an d additional environmental
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

modeling have rearmed the instability in the LEO debris population. The latter has found that the Kessler syndrome is
probably already in effect in certain orbits, even when the models use the extremely conservative assumption of no
new launches (Liou & Johnson, 2008, 2009).

Now is key – space debris is vulnerable to a cascading effect called the Kessler effect that can destroy all
satellites
Su 2010 (Jinyuan, PhD Candidate at the Silk Road Institute of International and Comparative Law, School of Law,
Xi'an Jiaotong University, “Towards an effective and adequately verifiable PPWT”, Space Policy 26 (2010), 152-
162, p.154)

With regard to space weaponization, many more debates have taken place over inter-state strategic trade-offs than over the cooperative interest of
avoiding a disaster arising from orbital debris. Today around 21,000 orbiting debris larger than 10 cm in diameter are tracked;
and it is estimated there are over 100,000 pieces larger than a marble. Debris in orbits higher than about 800 km
above the Earth’s surface will be up there for decades, above 1000 km for centuries, and above 1500 km effectively forever. 32
Therefore, the amount of orbital debris is unlikely to decrease by natural degradation unless technology
development enables us to dispose of it. Space debris moves at an extremely high speed of 27,000 km per hour; even
tiny pieces can cause destruction to a satellite. 33 This danger will be exacerbated as the Earth orbits become
increasingly crowded. In addition, there is also a high risk of a chain reaction of destruction, the so-called “Kessler
Syndrome”, 34 in which, if a collision does occur, the resulting fragments become an additional collision risk.

Policy is needed now – we’re at the tipping point and near misses are increasing

Grossman 11 (Lisa, Wired.co.uk staff writer, “Nasa considers shooting space junk with lasers”, March 16,
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/16/space-junk-lasers?page=all)
Low-Earth orbit has already seen some scary smashes and near-misses, including the collision of two
communications satellites (YT: Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 Collision) in 2009. Fragments from that collision
nearly hit the International Space Station a few months later. Some models found that the runaway Kessler
syndrome is probably already underway at certain orbit elevations.
"There's not a lot of argument that this is going to screw us if we don't do something," said Nasa engineer Creon
Levit. "Right now it's at the tipping point... and it just keeps getting worse."

Plan is key now – space debris is increasing at an exponential rate, this will lead to cascading destruction

Weeden 10 (Brian, Secure World Foundation, Montreal, Canada, endowed, private operating foundation that
promotes cooperative solutions for space sustainability,” Overview of the legal and policy challenges of orbital
debris removal”, October 10, Space Policy 27 (2011) 38-43, p. 38)
Since the launch of the first satellite in 1957 humans have been placing an increasing number of objects in orbit
around the Earth. This trend has accelerated in recent years thanks to the increase in number of states which have the
capability to launch satellites and the recognition of the many socioeconomic and national security benefits that can
be derived from space. There are currently close to 1000 active satellites on orbit, operated by dozens of state and
international organizations [1]. More importantly, each satellite that is placed into orbit is accompanied by one or
more pieces of non-functional objects, known as space debris. More than 20,000 pieces of space debris larger than
10 cm are regularly tracked in Earth orbit [1], and scientific research shows that there are roughly 500,000 additional
pieces between 1 and 10 cm in size that are not regularly tracked [2]. Although the average amount of space debris
per cubic kilometer is small, it is concentrated in the regions of Earth orbit that are most heavily utilized, as shown
in (Fig. 1), and thus poses a significant hazard to operational spacecraft.
In the late 1970s, two influential NASA scientists, Burt Cour-Palais and Donald Kessler, laid the scientific
groundwork for what became to be known as the “Kessler syndrome” [4]. They predicted that at some point in the
future the population of artificial space debris would hit a critical point where it grew at a rate faster than the rate at
which debris is removed from orbit through natural decay into the Earth’s atmosphere. According to their models,
large pieces of space debris would get hit by smaller pieces of debris, creating hundreds or thousands of new pieces
of small debris which could then collide with other large pieces. This “collisional cascading” process would increase
the population of space debris at an exponential rate and significantly increase the risks and costs of operating in
space.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Now is key – even without future launches the current environment is unstable and positive feedback loops
risk cascading destruction

Liou and Johnson 06 (J.C. Engineering Science Contact Group at NASA Johnson Space Center, N.L., Orbital
Debris Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center, “Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris”, January 20,
Science, Volume 311)

The current debris population in the LEO region has reached the point where the environment is unstable and
collisions will become the most dominant debris-generating mechanism in the future. Even without new launches,
collisions will continue to occur in the LEO environment over the next 200 years, primarily driven by the high
collision activities in the region between 900- and 1000-km altitudes, and will force the debris population to
increase. In reality, the situation will undoubtedly be worse because spacecraft and their orbital stages will continue
to be launched.

Now is key – there’s a critical threshold of debris is high enough for self sustaining destruction, risking
destruction of all satellites and great power wars

Sénéchal 07 (Thierry, MPA Harvard, M.Sc. London Business School, Dissertation submitted to the MIT Sloan
School of Management as part of the requirements for the fulfillment of an MBA, June,
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/Orbital%20Debris%20Convention%20Thierry%20Senechal%2011%20May%202007.p
df)

The time is right for addressing the problem posed by orbital debris and realizing that, if we fail to do so, there will
be an increasing risk to continued reliable use of space-based services and operations as well as to the safety of
persons and property in space. We have reached a critical threshold at which the density of debris at certain
altitudes is high enough to guarantee collisions resulting in many more debris fragments. In a scenario in which
space launches are more frequent, it is likely that we will create a self-sustaining, semi-permanent cloud of orbital
“pollution” that threatens all future commercial and exploration activities within certain altitude ranges. Debris in
space are likely to exponentially increase hazards to satellites and other space missions, manned or unmanned. The
debris and the liability it may cause, may also poison relations between major powers.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                      Cascading Policy is Key Now – Implementation
Policy is key now – time is needed to perfect debris removal and regulations as cascading increases

McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference)
The practicality of the large object removal is tempered by the observation that one may have to remove ~10-50x
derelict objects to prevent a single collision. This fact forces the imperative that removal needs to start now due to
the delays that will be necessary not only to perfect/deploy approaches to debris removal and establish supporting
policies/regulations but also because of the time it takes for the actions to reap benefits.
Additionally, if the growth of the lethal hazard grows faster than anticipated it may be necessary to replace some
satellites, execute large object removal, and perform medium debris (i.e. lethal fragments) sweeping operations. The
sooner the community starts to remove large derelict objects, the more likely satellite damage will be minimized and
the less likely that medium debris sweeping will have to be implemented. While the research is focused on starting
debris removal, the ensemble of observations reinforces the need to continue to push for as close to 100%
compliance to debris mitigation guidelines as possible.

Policy is key now – even if extinction doesn’t have a precise year, policy is key now for legal and policy
frameworks to be implemented
McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and
systems engineering expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support
services to solve the nation's most challenging intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief
Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, “Pay Me Now or Pay Me More
Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference,
http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf )

The hazard threshold analysis has not provided a precise answer on when to start active debris removal; results vary
from 12-200 years until a relevant threshold will be crossed. However, it should be reinforced that these thresholds
should not be considered as states that trigger action but rather states that should be avoided by the
implementation of proactive measures.
While it seems logical that debris removal options ought to be developed before there is a decision to actually
execute these missions, it is imperative that industry and government have a reasonable expectation that their efforts
to develop debris removal solutions will be rewarded; otherwise, the investment of energy and resources will likely
not occur in earnest. In addition, legal, political, and regulatory personnel need to be energized to quickly evolve and
codify statutes and policies to support the deployment of active debris removal options and to ensure that lack of
policy framework does not delay the use of needed debris removal operations in the future
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                   Cascading – AT: LEGEND Study Timeframe
The LEGEND study fails - it assumes no future space flights

Liou and Johnson 06 (J.C. Engineering Science Contact Group at NASA Johnson Space Center, N.L., Orbital
Debris Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center, “Risks in Space from Orbiting Debris”, January 20,
Science, Volume 311)

LEGEND (LEO-to-GEO Environment Debris model), is a high fidelity three-dimensional physical model developed
by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that is capable of simulating the historical
environment, as well as the evolution of future debris populations (14, 15).
The LEGEND future projection adopts a Monte Carlo approach to simulate future on orbit explosions and collisions
(16). A total of 50 (17), 200-year future projection Monte Carlo simulations were executed and evaluated, under the
assumptions that no rocket bodies and spacecraft were launched after December 2004 and that no future disposal
maneuvers were allowed for existing spacecraft (few of which currently have such a capability) (18).
The simulated 10-cm and larger debris populations in LEO (defined as the region between altitudes of 200 and 2000
km) between 1957 and the end of a 200-year future projection period indicate that collision fragments replace other
decaying debris (due to atmospheric drag and solar radiation pressure) through 2055, keeping the total LEO
population approximately constant (see chart, above). Beyond 2055, however, the creation of new collision
fragments exceeds the number of decaying debris, forcing the total satellite population to increase. An average of
18.2 collisions (10.8 catastrophic, 7.4 noncatastrophic) would be expected in the next 200 years (19, 20).
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                         Cascading – Preserve Present Debris Solves
Simply preventing the formation of new debris solves – the environment will clean the rest
Grossman 11 (Lisa, Wired.co.uk staff writer, “Nasa considers shooting space junk with lasers”, March 16,
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/16/space-junk-lasers?page=all)
In a paper submitted to Advances in Space Research and posted to the preprint server arXiv.org, a team led by Nasa space scientist
James Mason suggests a novel way to cope: instead of dragging space junk down to Earth, just make sure the
collisions stop.
"If you stop that cascade, the beauty of that is that natural atmospheric drag can take its natural course and start
taking things down," said William Marshall, a space scientist at Nasa and co-author of the new study. "It gives the environment an
opportunity to clean itself up."
Simply keeping new fragments from forming can make a big difference for orbital safety , Levit said. Because objects
with more surface area feel more drag, the atmosphere pulls down the lightest, flattest fragments of space junk first.
When big pieces of debris break up into smaller ones, the pieces become harder and harder to remove.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


           SSN Is Necessary for Space Exploration
Ground based SSN necessary for LEO debris tracking and notification
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
Space object tracking is the process of predicting future locations of space objects and subsequently prescribing
avoidance maneuvers to sidestep potential collisions. Tracking differs from simple observation and requires more
complicated calculations and a network of strategically placed sensors around the globe. The U.S. military operates
the world’s largest collection of ground-based sensors for tracking space objects. Known as the Space Surveillance
Network (SSN), it consists of twenty-nine globally distributed telescopes managed by the Joint Space Operations
Center (JSpOC). Entities from Russia, China, and Europe currently have or are developing observation and tracking
capabilities similar to those of the United States, though they are generally less capable.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                       Solvency: Removal Key
Removal is key to avoid Kessler effect and assure increased space travel/use is not mitigated
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Dr. Johnson has projected the growth of debris over time if no mitigation action is taken. In addition, he has used the
data to forecast the impact of debris mitigation efforts beginning in the year 2020 assuming that 5, 10, and 20 pieces
of debris are eliminated yearly beginning in 2020. Based on this data, Figure 1 portrays the estimated numbers of anticipated
collisions by year based on varied levels of mitigation. The top, solid line (thickest) shows projected collision numbers if no mitigation effort is
made. Although the number does not seem too alarming at first, eventually expected collisions begin to rise
exponentially. However, if a significant effort is made to remove debris, even though space activity increases
dramatically, the risk of collision remains virtually the same as current levels .
Analysis
If the orbital debris population remained as it is today with no additional space operations, the level of fragmentation
in Earth’s orbit would continue to escalate exponentially. Dr. Nicholas Johnson, chief scientist for orbital debris for NASA at the
Johnson Space Center, has modeled future orbital debris scenarios based on non-mitigation over a 5, 10, and 20 year period compared to the
removal of one to five pieces of debris beginning in the year 2020. This paper, co-authored by J.-C. Liou and titled “A Sensitivity Study of the
Effectiveness of Active Debris Removal in LEO,” suggests that the orbital debris population can be effectively addressed by
simply removing five objects per year starting in the year 2020.


Must remove debris to solve – as little as 5 large pieces per year mitigates risks
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
A recent NASA study that simulated active debris removal over the next 200 years showed that certain pieces of
space debris are more dangerous than others, in that they are more likely to cause debris-creating collisions (Liou and
Johnson 2007). These more dangerous objects have masses of 1,000 to 1,500 kilograms and 2,500 to 3,000 kilograms;
orbital inclinations of 70 to 75, 80 to 85, and 95 to 100 degrees; and orbital altitudes of 800 to 850, 950 to 1,000, and
1,450 to 1,500 kilometers. The study found that annually removing as few as five of these objects will significantly
stabilize the future space debris environment (Liou and Johnson 2007, 3).
 These results suggest that the threat posed by space debris could be significantly reduced by annually removing
several large pieces from critical orbits. This would make effective space debris removal much more straightforward
and potentially manageable by one nation or a small group of nations. In other words, the countries responsible for
the majority of the current space debris population—China, Russia, and the United States—not only should take
responsibility, but also now can take responsibility. Efforts to develop removal systems should begin immediately.

Plan is key - active debris removal is key to stopping the cascade
Weeden 10 (Brian, Secure World Foundation, Montreal, Canada, endowed, private operating foundation that
promotes cooperative solutions for space sustainability,“Overview of the legal and policy challenges of orbital
debris removal”, October 10, Space Policy 27 (2011) 38-43, p. 38)
Although the exact tipping point at which this collisional cascading will occur is still a matter of debate, research and modeling done by
both NASA and the ESA show that the growth of the space debris population will accelerate , largely as a result of
debris-on-debris collisions [5]. The voluntary space debris mitigation guidelines developed by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
Committee (IADC) and endorsed by the United Nations will reduce some of this growth. But, ultimately, actively removing space
debris will be necessary to deal with the problem in the long term [6].
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                            Debris Policy Key Now – Key for Solvency

Policy is key now – as debris worsens our policy options get worse
McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and
systems engineering expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support
services to solve the nation's most challenging intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief
Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, “Pay Me Now or Pay Me More
Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference,
http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf )
As the debris population worsens some of the removal options may not be as viable as currently depicted . For example,
while the electrodynamic tether approach has some very positive supporting analytic calculations, the tethers do present a large collision cross-
section for the on-orbit debris population. If deployment of this option is delayed until the mm- and cm-size population is
significantly larger, mission success may be greatly reduced , resulting in much larger removal costs and potentially
making the solution less reliable and less effective.


Plan solves - Laser propulsion systems will be an order of magnitude larger than what is necessary to reverse
the Kessler effect at a low cost
Mason et. al. 2011 (James, NASA Ames Research Center and Universities Space Research Association, Jan Stupl,
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, William Marshall, NASA Ames Research
Center and Universities Space Research Association, Creon Levit, NASA Ames Research Center, “Orbital Debris-
Debris Collision Avoidance”, June 29, Advances in Space Research, p.11-2)
Of course one is not limited to shielding one object. We posit that it may be possible to use laser photon pressure as a substitute
for active debris removal, provided a sufficient number of high impact objects can be continually shielded to make the
two approaches statistically similar. With an effective all-on-all conjunction analysis system to prioritize engagements and considering that every
engagement reduces the target’s orbital covariance (thereby halting unnecessary engagement campaigns) it is plausible that far more
objects may be shielded than are required to make the two approaches equivalent (a LEGEND simulation may confirm this).
For a facility on the Antarctic plateau the laser would be tasked to an individual object for an average of 103 minutes per day. The laser can
only track one target at a time, but average pass times suggest that it is possible to optimize a facility to engage ∼10
objects per day. The Envisat conjunction analysis statistics suggest around 10 high risk (above 1:10,000) events per high
impact object, per year (Flohrer et al., 2009).
If improved accuracy catalogs or tracking data become available then it is feasible that the system could engage thousands of (non-
high impact) objects per year, or conversely that up to hundreds of high impact objects could be shielded by one facility
per year. This is an order of magnitude more objects than one needs to remove in order to stabilize the growth (Liou
& Johnson, 2009). Preventing collisions on such a large scale would therefore likely reduce the rate of debris generation
such that the rate of debris reentry dominates and the Kessler syndrome is reversed. Continued operation over a period similar to
the decay timescale from the orbital regions in question (typically decades) could thus reverse the problem. Additionally, scaling such
a system (eg. multiple facilities) on the ground would be low cost (relative to space missions) and can be done with currently
mature technology, making it a good near term solution . Further, if the current analysis proves optimistic, raising the
power to 10kW and having 3-4 such facilities would increase the number of conjunctions that it is possible to
mitigate by a further order of magnitude, and also would raise the maximum mass and reduce the minimum A/M threshold for the
system.

Large particle removal won’t solve – small particle removal is also key
McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference)
The efficacy of large object removal may be further increased by removing the objects with the largest collision threat and potential for debris
creation first. As stated previously, in GEO 15% of the objects (~150) pose 80% of the collision hazard. Similarly, in LEO, 10% of the objects
(~1,250) present 80% of the total collision cross-section. However, it is important to not overstate the benefits of this selective
debris removal. The largest object in the most densely populated region in space will not necessarily be the first
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

object involved in a collision even though it has greatest probability of collision. Therefore, it is important to get as many of
the most likely collision objects removed in order to actually reduce the number of future impact events.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                           Economy Scenario
Satellites Key to global economy and society – we are inextricably plugged in!
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Fifty years after their introduction, it is difficult to imagine a world without satellites. According to the Satellite
Industry Association (SIA),41 satellite industry revenue topped $106 billion dollars worldwide in 2006.
Noting “continued government and military demand and investment” and the “global appetite for more power, more
mobility, more convergence,” SIA predicts a future market with even faster growth.42 As Charles Cynamon43 points out: We are
living in a society with an insatiable appetite for technology….We are increasingly choosing to remotely transact
business, to connect our computers to the Internet, to have an 18” satellite dish in lieu of cable TV, and to have the ability to contact
anyone from anywhere with as small a phone as possible….The average person hardly realizes the extent they rely on
commercial space systems.44
Frank Klotz echoed a similar theme in a Council on Foreign Relations report: “While the public continues to identify space most
closely with scientific exploration and high adventure, space has also become a big business and represents a huge
investment in terms of capital assets and jobs.”45 Might satellite technology be history’s answer to Gutenberg’s
printing press? Never before has information – and commerce – traveled so quickly. Given the integrated state of
today’s global economy, any major fluctuation in satellite capabilities has the potential to reverberate throughout
multiple nations.

Satellites Provide Communication Systems for the People
Sig Mickelson, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Oct., 1969), pp. 67-79 Published by:Council on Foreign Relations,
(http://www.jstor.org/stable/20039423).
It is hardly necessary to belabor the benefits to mankind which will result from a sure, efficient, inexpensive and flexible
world wide communications system free of government restraints and capable of delivering sound, pictures, words and data
by telephone, telex, radio, television and through data transmissions, from computer to computer. The implications
may be especially for those sections of the world, which for reasons of profound topography or poverty have so far been
able to develop only the most rudimentary communications systems.


Satellites provide much benefit to economy
Sig Mickelson, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Oct., 1969), pp. 67-79 Published by: Council on Foreign Relations,
(http://www.jstor.org/stable/20039423).
It is the instantaneous transmission of news and such events as the moon walk, the investiture of the Prince of Wales and the
like that has so far constituted the most glamorous of the satellite's functions . By cable we have long been able to
move written messages, voice and, in recent years, still pictures; the capacity to transmit moving pictures over great distances
is new. But like the iceberg, the television coverage, which has attracted the most attention, this is only a small part of the
capability of the communications satellite system operated by the International Telecommunications Satellite consortium.
Only about 2 percent of the revenues of the United States' Communications Satellite Corporation derive from
television usage. The remainder comes largely from telephone traffic. In the future, how ever, there is every reason
to think that the satellite may become a device for relaying a great variety of information, including data, facsimile
reproductions, medical information and even business and personal letters.

The loss of satellites greatly impacts economy
Ziad I. Akir, 03, Director of Distance Learning, Space Security: Possible Issues & Potential Solutions, Washington
State Community College, (http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf)
Economic sectors such as telecommunication; energy and utilities; transportation; and banking and finance; rely on
satellite systems. Damage to satellite operations will cause huge and painful monitory losses to the operators of such
services. The more dependent countries become on the information and services provided by satellites, the more
significant the impact of failure are sure to be. For a country such as the United States, an attack on its commercial
satellite systems will create an “Information Pearl Harbor.” Such an attack can damage the U.S. economy via its
financial markets. Moreover, economic consequences can also be due to hijacking satellite links that provide telephony and television
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

broadcast. Space  communication, particularly satellite communication, is becoming an integral component of our
overall global telecommunication infrastructure. Satellites are being used for communication, navigation, remote
sensing, imaging, and weather forecasting. Satellites are also providing backup communication capabilities when terrestrial
communication is interrupted in cases such as earthquakes or other natural (or unnatural) disasters. The September 11th events in 2001
demonstrated the value of redundant satellite systems in supporting rescue efforts. Many governments around the
world, including the United States, rely on commercial satellite systems for communication, commerce, and defense .
Commercial satellite systems include ground- based components such as earth station antennas, data terminals, and mobile
terminals; and space-based components include satellites and other systems (e.g. space station and launching vehicles) that are now
essential to global function.

Satellites improve weather predictions
Jerome Schnee, 2000, Business Administration Department Rutgers, The Economics of U.S. Space Program
Meteorological satellites represent one of the most important technological advances in the history of weather
analysis and prediction (9). The launching of TIROS I (Television and Infrared Observation Satellite) on April 1, 1960 revolutionized
weather observation methods. TIROS I demonstrated the effectiveness of meteorological satellites in overcoming limitations of conventional
observation techniques. For example, radar, weather reconnaissance aircraft, weather ships, and weather balloons supplied information on less
than one-fifth of the Earth's surface; TIROS I encompassed almost the entire globe. NASA has served as the R&D organization with the National
Meteorological Satellite Program, exercising the responsibility for designing, building, launching, and testing satellites. When a meteorological
satellite becomes operational, the U.S. Weather Bureau then assumes responsibility for processing satellite data for operational purposes,
disseminating data and forecasts, and conducting research on the climatological uses of satellite data. The economic benefits of
improved weather forecasting can be substantial, because of the significant total value of annual weather-caused
losses in the United States. J.C. Thompson's 1972 survey of agricultural, industrial, and other activities suggests that the annual
cost of weather-caused losses approximated $12.7 billion. Roughly $5.3 billion of this total could have been avoided
with adequate warnings. However, all of such "protectable losses" cannot be avoided, because the costs of protection must be weighed into
the calculation as well. Perfect weather forecasts only can salvage about 15 percent of protectable losses, a relatively modest proportion of total
protectable losses, but a relatively large absolute savings‹ $739 million according to Thompson's estimate (10). Meteorological satellites
have greatly enhanced the accuracy of storm warnings and forecasts; the availability of satellite data produced economic savings over
the 1966-73 period of approximately $20 million. However, it appears unlikely that satellite data have as yet improved the accuracy
of daily weather forecasts. In fact, the true potential of satellites in weather forecasting will not be realized until satellite data are integrated into
numerical weather prediction models, which may occur during the 1980s. What type of economic impacts can be expected when an operational
weather satellite system is implemented and linked to numerical prediction systems? Despite substantial progress in numerical weather,
prediction, improvements in the accuracy of daily weather forecasts have ranged between 5 and 10 percent. Furthermore, Thompson contends
that only 56 percent of estimated economic gains could be achieved using more accurate forecasts. Therefore, if the use of satellite data
increased current levels of forecast accuracy by another 5 to 10 percent, annual economic savings would range
between $20-40 million ($739 x .56 x .05 or $739 x .56 x .10). It is important to recognize that these projected savings
represent a small fraction of the potential economic benefits. The contributions of weather satellites and numerical weather
prediction to weather forecasting will not be fully exploited until two major barriers are overcome.


The economic disadvantages will be huge.
Kraig and Roston 2002, “Nuclear-Tipped Foolishness”, Foreign Policy in Focus, 5-1
http://www.fpif.org/articles/nuclear-tipped_foolishness)
Most commercial communications satellites are in low earth orbit. In their role as conduits for rapid information
exchange, they form the backbone of the global economy, and their destruction would chaotically disrupt
international markets. Furthermore, the diplomatic consequences of destroying all other countries' LEO satellites in such a strike (including
those of our allies) would be almost unimaginable. And the effects would go well beyond economic and diplomatic. Weather
prediction and monitoring satellites would also be badly degraded, undermining everything from U.S. military
operations to worldwide shipping and transportation to disaster prevention. In addition, crucial military imaging
systems such as the Lacrosse, KH-11, and KH-12 photoreconnaissance satellites would eventually be disabled as well.

U.S. should emphasize efforts in space, as they are key to economy
J.P., 2011, Vice President for Space Systems – Aerospace Industries Association, “Maintain U.S. Global Leadership
in Space”, http://www.aia-aerospace.org/issues_policies/space/maintain/
U.S. space efforts — civil, commercial and national security — drive our nation’s competitiveness, economic growth and
innovation. To maintain U.S. preeminence in this sector and to allow space to act as a technological driver for current and future
industries, our leadership must recognize space as a national priority and robustly fund its programs. Space
technologies and applications are essential in our everyday lives. Banking transactions, business and personal
communications as well as emergency responders, airliners and automobiles depend on communications and GPS
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

satellites. Weather and remote sensing satellites provide lifesaving warnings and recurring global measurements of our
changing Earth. National security and military operations are deeply dependent upon space assets. The key to continuing
U.S. preeminence is a cohesive coordination body and a national space strategy. Absent this, the myriad government agencies overseeing these
critical systems may make decisions based upon narrow agency requirements. The U.S. space industrial base consists of unique workforce skills
and production techniques. The ability of industry to meet the needs of U.S. space programs depends on a healthy industrial base. U.S.
leadership in space cannot be taken for granted. Other nations are learning the value of space systems; the arena is
increasingly contested, congested and competitive. Strong government leadership at the highest level is critical to
maintaining our lead in space and must be supported by a healthy and innovative industrial sector.

Satellites have assured an interconnected global economy and society
Zachary Fenell, 2011, Bachelor of Arts in Communication, “The Advantages of Global Communication”,
http://www.ehow.com/list_6129825_advantages-global-communication.html

The rise of electronic communication, such as instant messaging and email, has led to an increase of global communication. This increase of
global communication has had a profound impact on society. In fact, society has become more global as electronic
communication has eliminated distance as a barrier to communication. The benefits of a global society include making
the world a smaller place, increasing business opportunities and improving cultural education . While a cliché idea, the
world being a small place has become more evident with the rise of global communication. Family members separated by distance can
stay connected with each other through electronic communication. Computer mediated communication, like social networking websites,
even allow for long-distance communication without having to dread receiving an expensive long-distance phone bill. Electronic
communication helps to make the world a smaller place by making news stories more accessible as well; by increasing the
amount of international news people have access to. For businesses, an increase in global communication means new
business opportunities. Effective international business communication requires an understanding of other cultures. For example, according
to Mind Tools, an online resource for learning business skills, in Eastern countries establishing relationships plays an important role in business
transactions. Therefore, by developing personal relationships with Eastern businesspeople using electronic
communication, you increase your chances of enjoying successful business transactions.


Satellites contribute billions of dollars to the global economy
Air Force 9/6/03 (US Air Force>Air University>Spaatz Center; “U.S. Satellite Communication Systems”; accessed
7/13/11)

Today, satellites permeate our every day lives and contribute over $90 billion to the global economy . Satellites
provide direct to home television and digital audio radio services to over 30 million satellite radio and direct-to-
home television subscribers throughout the United States.
Today, commercial satellites support daily activities such as truck fleet management, credit card validations, pay-at-the-pump
services, ATM withdrawals, high-speed Internet, traffic and weather reports, and almost all television and radio distribution.




Satellites connect remote areas and give consumers competition.
Air Force 9/6/03 (US Air Force>Air University>Spaatz Center; “U.S. Satellite Communication Systems”; accessed
7/13/11)

                  systems are often exploited for their unique ability to easily access remote locations . These
In addition, satellites
advantages make satellite technology not only a routine element of normal operations, but also an essential
component of the overall nationwide and global communications architecture for businesses and governments alike. In rural areas
where terrestrial based communications solutions do not reach all residents -- satellite broadband, satellite television, satellite radio, and a host of
other satellite services provide consumers and businesses with a wealth of voice, video, and data services and applications they otherwise would
not have access to from terrestrial providers. Furthermore, in areas where terrestrial services are available, satellite services give
consumers all the benefits of competition, including greater diversity of service offerings, incentives for improving
service quality, and downward pressure on pricing. Satellites can also interconnect terrestrial networks in the event
that those networks become unavailable or congested, allowing traffic to be re-routed and thereby increasing overall
end-to-end communication availability. Satellite systems are flexible and they can quickly and cost-effectively
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

provide surge capacity on demand to our businesses and consumers. Further, innovative integrated satellite-terrestrial systems
are planned to be deployed, which will provide fully interoperable, reliable communications services to all Americans.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL



                                        Environment Scenario
Space debris is extremely dangerous and has already destroyed satellites.
Science Daily 2011 (Staff writer, April 11th, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110406132020.htm)
Orbital space is like a busy highway, with countless satellites constantly circling Earth and occasional visits by stray asteroids, comets and
meteorites. The region is also strewn with debris from human space activities such as burnt-out rocket stages and fragments of
disintegrated spacecraft, which are transforming it into an orbiting junk yard . It is estimated that there are currently around 20,000
objects with a minimum diameter of ten centimeters in orbit around Earth, including 15,000 in the low Earth orbit at an altitude of between 200
and 2,000 kilometers. These objects travel at a speed of up to 28,000 kilometers per hour, which means even the smallest
particles measuring a centimeter or less in diameter are capable of causing serious damage to any satellite they
encounter, or even completely destroying it. Only two years ago, in February 2009, a retired satellite collided with
one of the Iridium communication satellites. The International Space Station ISS has to perform four to five evasive maneuvers each
year



Satellites are crucial to effective management of emissions and play an indispensable role in halting warming
Ladislaw et al. 10- Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program
(Sarah O., James Lewis, Denise Zheng, “Earth Observation for Climate Change,”
http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf, June)

Satellites provide globally consistent observations and the means to make simultaneous observations of diverse
measurements that are essential for climate studies. They supply high-accuracy global observations of the
atmosphere, ocean, and land surface that cannot be acquired by any other method . Satellite instruments supply accurate
measurements on a near-daily basis for long periods and across broad geographic regions. They can reveal global patterns that ground
or air sensors would be unable to detect—as in the case of data from NASA satellites that showed us the amount of
pollution arriving in North America from Asia as equal to 15 percent of local emissions of the United States and
Canada. This sort of data is crucial to effective management of emissions—the United States, for example, could put in
place regulations to decrease emissions and find them neutralized by pollution from other regions. 15 Satellites allow us to monitor the
pattern of ice-sheet thickening and thinning. While Arctic ice once increased a few centimeters every year, it now
melts at a rate of more than one meter annually. This knowledge would not exist without satellite laser altimetry
from NASA’s ICESat satellite. 16 Satellite observations serve an indispensable role—they have provided
unprecedented knowledge of inaccessible regions. Of the 44 essential climate variables (ECV) recognized as necessary to support
the needs of the parties to the UNFCCC for the purposes of the Convention, 26 depend on satellite observations. But deployments of new and
replacement satellites have not kept pace with the termination of older systems. Innovation and investment in Earth observation technology have
failed to keep pace with global needs for monitoring and verification. Much of our data comes from satellites put in orbit for other purposes, such
as weather prediction and monitoring. The sensors on these weather satellites provide valuable data, but they are not optimized for monitoring
climate change or for adequately assessing the effect of mitigation efforts. More precise and specialized data are needed to understand and predict
climate change, and getting these data will require new orbital sensors.




Orbital Debris is posing a significant threat to our ability to launch and operate satellites for remote sensing
Crowther 2003 (Richard, January 3th “Orbital debris: a growing threat to space operations” Philosophical
Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences)
The Earth encounters a flux of natural debris as it sweeps through interplanetary space. This sporadic flux of meteoroids totals more than 200 kg
of dust within 2000 km of the Earth's surface, travelling in excess of 20 km s-1 and is relatively evenly distributed in position and velocity (NSTC
1995). This population is periodically augmented by stream meteoroids, when the Earth passes through the remnants of comets such as Tempel-
Tuttle, to produce short-lived but significantly enhanced and directional fluxes such as the Leonids (Beech et al. 1997). Historically, this was the
background particulate environment against which artificial satellites were designed . Towards the end of the third decade of the
space age, it became apparent that another population of debris was having an impact on artificial satellites but,
unlike the naturally occurring meteoroids, it was man-made in origin. This orbital debris population was growing
rapidly, dominating the meteoroid environment in all but the micrometre size range. This new particulate
environment, posing a significantly increased collision hazard to the artificial satellites, was found to be the direct
consequence of launching and operating similar systems during the preceding 30 years. As we become more dependent
upon space-based systems for remote sensing, communications and navigation, it is important that we understand
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

the nature of the threat that orbital debris pose to operational satellites and take appropriate steps to ensure the
sustainable development of near-Earth space.



Satellites in use now are crucial for climate science including the prediction of natural disasters and
monitoring global warming.
Hunt & Coates 2003 (Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, January 15
Science and Applications of the Space Environment: New Results and Interdisciplinary Connections pp. 205-218
Vol. 361,No. 1802)
Active microwave radars on European satellites ERS1, ERS2, ENVISAT and the Canadian RADARSAT now enable
variations in the elevation of the features of the surface of the Earth, such as the levels of volcanic lava
(before and after eruption), lakes, ice sheets, sea level and even rivers, to be measured to an accuracy of 10
cm, an improvement of ca. 50 cm over the past 10 years. These data enable the dynamics of solid and fluid
geophysical phenomena, for example ocean currents, flows of very wide rivers, lake-level changes and
movement of ice sheets, to be computed. Thence, predictions are possible for seasonal forecasts and many
types of natural disasters. These measurements are also crucial for climate science and for improved long-term
climatic variations. However, it appears that these remarkable measurement systems are not known about and therefore not applied by
those with technical responsibilities for Earth movement (e.g. mud slides), hydrology and other branches of Earth science. Some
organizational aspects of this problem are discussed in 5.
There have been similar substantial improvements in remote measurements of surface temperature, using the along-
track scanning radiometer (ATSR) developed at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (UK) with an accuracy for surface tempera- ture of
?0.1 K. Since the error is only about one-third of the mean changes caused by global warming in the past 50 years (Houghton et al. 2001), this
instrument is accurate enough to monitor these changes over the next decade as global warming continues.


I do not know how to tag this card. Should I go for growing interest or climate and existence of life?
Hunt & Coates 2003 (Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, January 15
Science and Applications of the Space Environment: New Results and Interdisciplinary Connections pp. 205-218
Vol. 361,No. 1802)
Through the use of new satellites and improved instruments, it has been possible to examine in more detail the main
features of our planetary system and hence better understand them. We also now know that relatively small fluctuations
and random events can have an enormous effect on any part of the system, for example on the climate and existence
of life. As both of these aspects of the system have become more comprehensible, there has been growing public and political
interest in exploiting the new scientific and technological capability for predicting the vagaries of the solar/
planetary system and, in some situations, as we discuss in 4, reducing their dangers to planet Earth. The recent landing of an
instrument on an asteroid and the real possibility of affecting the trajectory of a near-Earth object are excellent examples of such interventions
(BNSC 2000) and of new developments in space science linking up with space engineering



Space is key in looking at Earth’s environment, and developments going on now are key.
Culhane & Coates 2002 (Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Jan13
Science and Applications of the Space Environment: New Results and Interdisciplinary Connections 15Vol. 361,
No. 1802, pp. 5-7l)
The space environment is currently of intense interest as the subject of multidisciplinary studies in science,
applications and engineering, including the remote observation of the Earth and planets, probing the Sun-Earth connection,
studying the Earth's environment from space, hazard warning and forecasting and exploring the underlying space
and spacecraft technologies. There are natural connections between these areas in terms of the scientific techniques
and the space technology required. Some of the connections are only now being discovered and exploited, and this conference, held at
The Royal Society on 16-18 October 2001, provided a timely focus for pursuing these further and identifying others.



Satellites are imperically proven to be critical in environmental advances such as global warming
Hunt & Coates 2003 (Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, January 15
Science and Applications of the Space Environment: New Results and Interdisciplinary Connections pp. 205-218
Vol. 361,No. 1802)
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Many of the key concepts about the Earth's climate, especially about its variability and likely future changes, have
emerged from space science and technology, notably studies of solar radiation (starting with Herschel in 1801),
observations of other planets (e.g. Houghton 1991) and, in the past 40 years, from satellite measurements of the Earth's upper-atmosphere
(Harries 2001; Taylor 2003). The first of the studies has been central to answering the questions about the changes of
climate as a result of the suggestion that a rise in solar radiation between 1850 and 1950 may be at least as effective as greenhouse effects in
raising the surface temperature on the Earth. In Haigh's (2003) review of the evidence, she supports this hypothesis and also the broad conclusion
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Houghton et al. 2001) that the average temperature between 1950 and 2000 was caused by
the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases.



Satellites are key to predicting the path of global warming.
Hunt & Coates 2003 (Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, January 15
Science and Applications of the Space Environment: New Results and Interdisciplinary Connections pp. 205-218
Vol. 361,No. 1802)
Satellite measurements have recently provided some of the most direct confirmation of the processes that together
make up the greenhouse effect for increasing global temperatures. Harries's (2001) study of the measurements of the
greenhouse-gas- emission spectra over the past 40 years show unmistakably how their concentrations are increasing
in the troposphere and stratosphere. He also reviewed the earlier measurements from a low-altitude polar-orbiting satellite, ERBE, which
had provided some evidence for the reduced outgoing radiation because of it being trapped near the Earth's surface by the greenhouse gases.
Since predictions of long-term climate trends require that this radiation monitoring be maintained, it is fortunate that
the Meteosat second-generation stationary satellite of the European Meteorological Satellite Organization will be
carrying the Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget instrument (designed and constructed in the UK). However, since this will only
cover about one-third of the globe, it would be highly desirable for an equivalent instrument to be provided by one of the other geostationary
satellites: another task for improved international coordination.



As glaciers melt, satellites are critical to disaster relief
Kargel 2007 (Jeffrey Phd., University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources "Remote Sensing
and GIS Technology in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) Project". Computers and
Geosciences 33:104—12)
Glacier and permafrost hazards increasingly threaten human lives, settlements and infrastructure in high mountain
regions (Xu and Feng, 1989). Related disasters may kill many people and cause damages or mitigation costs in the
order of several 100 million EURO as a longterm worldwide annual average. (Haeberli and Beniston, 1998; Kääb et
al., 2005).
Due to difficult site access and the need for fast data acquisition, satellite remote sensing is of crucial importance for high-
mountain hazard management. With dynamic cryospheric responses to changing climate, and with human settlements
and activities increasingly extending towards dangerous zones, the hazard situation posed by glaciers and permafrost
also is rapidly evolving beyond historical knowledge and disaster mapping (needed for instance to discern the particular nature
or cause of a disaster and to monitor secondary conditions that may develop in the aftermath). ASTER in particular 32 provided assistance for
hazard and disaster assessment in a number of cases, e.g., the 20 September 2002 rock/ice avalanche at Kolka-Karmadon, North Ossetian
Caucasus, Russia, and the spring 2002 glacier lake on Belvedere glacier, Italian Alps (Kääb et al., 2003b). Imaging opportunities by ASTER
are governed at one level by Terra’s 16-day nadir–track repeat period, but for emergency situations, the ASTER VNIR sensor can be pointed
cross-track, allowing for repeat imaging as frequently as every 2 days. Crosstrack pointing is of special value for monitoring
dangerous and rapidly developing situations, where ASTER can thus support disaster management (Kääb et al., 2003b


Satellites are key to solving and predicting several catastrophic hazards
Kargel 2007 (Jeffrey Phd., University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources "Remote Sensing
and GIS Technology in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) Project". Computers and
Geosciences 33:104—12)
Glaciers and their fluctuations may form lakes whose breakouts cause severe floods and debris flows. For instance, the
current massive glacier retreat, prevailing on a global scale, leads to enhanced formation and growth of moraine- and ice-dammed lakes (Ames,
1998; Chikita et al., 1999; Morales, 1969). As described above, ASTER contributes to the detection and monitoring of such
lakes (Huggel et al., 2002; Kääb et al., 2003b; Wessels et al., 2002), enables the modeling of related lake outbursts through the
combination of ASTER multispectral data with ASTER DEMs (e.g.; Kääb et al., 2003a), and contributes to the
monitoring of glaciers that can permit predictions on future formation of glacier lakes.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Ice break-off from steep glaciers may result in catastrophic ice avalanches, sometimes combined with snow and/or
rock avalanches (Morales 1969). ASTER multispectral data and DEMs support the management of such disasters (Kääb
et al., 2003b) or the detection and modeling of related hazard potentials (Salzmann et al., 2004). 33
Glacier surges may involve primary hazards through overrunning of infrastructure, subglacial water outbursts
connected to surges, or ice avalanches. We note, for instance, that the Alyeska Pipeline and Richardson Highway in
Alaska are built on wasted surge deposits and within about a hundred meters of ice-cored moraine from recent
glacier surges and advances. Secondary hazards accompanying glacier surges may be, for instance, damming of rivers and lakes, and
consequent lake flooding and then down-stream flooding if a glacier dam is breached. Surge-type glaciers and their associated potential hazards
may be detected from single scenes by indicators such as looped moraines (Clarke et al., 1986; Copland et al., 2002).
With repeat ASTER imagery, glacier surface displacements and surface velocity fields can be measured, areas of
disrupted surface debris patterns revealed, and possible hazards can be observed (Kääb et al., 2003b). Debutressing and
uncovering of steep valley flanks by retreating glaciers significantly affects the stress regime of the slopes, potentially destabilizing them (Kääb,
2002).



Glacial recessions lead to multinational political, environmental, and economic instability.
Kargel 2007 (Jeffrey Phd., University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources "Remote Sensing
and GIS Technology in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) Project". Computers and
Geosciences 33:104—12)
Accelerating climate changes expected throughout this century will have dramatic implications for glaciers and for
the people and ecosystems dependent on them or surviving in spite of them. The effects will be heterogeneous and
not always in accord with simple expectations or recent past behavior. Arid regions dependent on glacierized
mountains for freshwater, for instance western China, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Pakistan, may be
particularly prone to environmental, economic, and political upheavals due to glacier recession (Fukushima et al., 1991;
Froebrich and Kayumov, 2004; Hewitt, 1961; Micklin, 2004; Romanovsky, 2002; Shiyin et al., 2003; Yang and Hu, 1992). Other areas may
benefit in the short-term if meltwater resources increase as glaciers melt. The glaciology community carries an obligation to
improve our predictions of these changes and to assist society in building defenses against these changes or in taking
cooperative advantage of them.


New data acquisition via satellites are critical to the scientific field of climate change
Kargel 2007 (Jeffrey Phd., University of Arizona Department of Hydrology and Water Resources "Remote Sensing
and GIS Technology in the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) Project". Computers and
Geosciences 33:104—12)
These observations add further details regarding impacts of recent rapid climate changes— some of the most rapid
rates of climate change recorded anywhere— to the Antarctic Peninsula's cryosphere. Spaceborne sensors such as ASTER
and new data acquisition and distribution strategies have led to a better coverage of the polar regions with satellite
data in space and time, thus providing the required tools to accomplish a functional monitoring program relevant to
the field of climate change


Perm: collaborating with other nations is key to solving global warming
Cummins 2010 (Ronnie February 14th, founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Climate
Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)
From an ethical, legal, and survival perspective, North America, E.U. and Japan must lead the way. To avoid a
disastrous rise in global temperature (a literal climate holocaust), the wealthy, highly industrialized nations must
acknowledge the seriousness of the crisis, cut their emissions, and stop playing blame and denial games with China,
India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and other developing nations. Major cuts by the developed nations need to start
now, and they need to be deep, not 7% as President Obama proposed in Copenhagen, nor the 20% that the E.U.
offered.

Global Warming leads to several scenarios of war and destruction
Cummins 2010 (Ronnie February 14th, founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Climate
Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century” 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
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

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.

Politics link? I don’t know it just seemed useful
Cummins 2010 (Ronnie February 14th, founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Climate
Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century” http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)
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."
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL




                                       Military Power and Heg
Satellites used for military communication and heg
Martin 11/23/07 (Donald: “History of US military satellite communication systems”; accessed 7/13/11)
Satellite communication has been a vital part of the United States military throughout the space age, beginning in 1946, when
the Army achieved radar contact with the moon. In 1954, the Navy began communications experiments using the moon as a reflector, and by
1959, it had established an operational communication link between Hawaii and Washington, D.C. As the U.S. space program grew in the 1960s,
the Department of Defense (DOD) began developing satellite communication systems that would address the special
requirements of military operations. In addition to protection against jamming, these needs included the flexibility to rapidly extend
service to new regions of the globe and to reallocate system capacity as needed. The goal of these systems has been to provide
communications between, and to supply information to, military units in situations where terrestrial means of
communication are impossible, unreliable, or unavailable. This goal was partly realized with the earliest DOD communication
satellites, and as satellite and communications technology has improved, the goal has been realized to a much greater extent.


Satellites key to recon and surveillance
Ghosh 11/5/10 (Anurag “Military Satellites; Meaning and purpose”; Accessed on 7/13/11)
Military satellites are state-of-the art, artificial satellites. Between 1957 and 1999 around 4000 satellites were launched without fail. Of the 4000
satellites, about 50 percent have been used specifically for military purposes. The major functions of military satellites include
reconnaissance and surveillance, positioning and navigation, analyzing and recording information about the surface
of the earth (remote sensing), geodesy, research and analyzing weather and weather conditions (meteorology). Here it would
be important to note that a satellite is rarely military nor civil exclusively. The payload it carries determines whether it is of civilian or military
character. Although military communication satellites differ from commercial satellites, there are some civil commercial satellites used for
several military tasks, including command assistance and military logistics support. A satellite with purely military uses, having certain
capabilities and multiple systems that differ from commercial ones, is what would be considered a true military satellite.


GPS satellites key to missile guidance and disruption would kill heg
Defense Industry Daily 3/17/11 (“The USA’s GPS-III Satellites”; accessed 7/13/11)
Disruption or decay of the critical capabilities provided by the USA’s Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites would
cripple both the US military, and many aspects of the global economy. GPS has become part of civilian life in ways that go go far beyond
those handy driving maps, including timing services for stock trades, and a key role in credit card processing. At the same time, military class
(M-code) GPS guidance can now be found in everything from cruise missiles and various precision-guided bombs, to
battlefield rockets and even artillery shells. Combat search and rescue radios rely on this line of communication, and
so does a broadening array of individual soldier equipment.

New tech critical to heg
Chase-Dunn, Reifer 6/26/02 (Chrsitopher, Thomas, University of California; “US Hegemony and Biotechnology”; Accessed 7/13/11 <
http://www.irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows9/irows9.htm>)
New lead technologies have long been important causes of the rise and decline of hegemonic core powers in the modern
world-system. Political and military power is sustained and facilitated by competitive advantages in the production of
highly profitable goods. Rising hegemons (or “world leaders” in the terminology of Modelski and Thompson 1996) manage to innovate
new profitable modes of trade and production that allow them to finance political and military advantages over other states. Thus the sequence
of new lead technologies and their distribution across potentially competing core states is an important subject of
study for understanding both the past and the future of hegemonic rise and fall.

Tech helps heg
Martel 11/13/01 (William, Tufts University; “Technology and Military power”; accessed 7/13/11)
In the long term, U.S. military capabilities depend on maintaining technologies
that are without equal to the breadth and depth of technologies being
developed by other states. To evaluate the foundations of U.S. technological power
and its implications for American security and international security in the
twenty-first century, this article examines the critical defense technologies in which
the United States has invested for decades. Given these investments in technology,
the United States has achieved a level of military power that can be maintained for
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                acquire the technological
as long as it continues the investments. As policymakers
tools that are commensurate with great military power, they are discovering that
many technologies—notably directed energy, new weapons for targeting, and
advanced computer and information technologies—are changing the nature of
war, security, and diplomacy.2 Indeed, these are the technologies that are most
likely to affect U.S. military power and, hence, political power in this century.

Tech has always been used to maintain military power
Martel 11/13/01 (William, Tufts University; “Technology and Military power”; accessed 7/13/11)
Throughout American history, the technological foundation of U.S. military
power essentially reflected the desire to use the nation’s economic power to
                                                                   II, the
invest in technology in order to save American lives. During World War
United States harnessed only 30 percent of its immense technological , economic,
and industrial power, yet by the end of the war was able to produce more
weapons than Germany or Japan could destroy. At the height of aircraft production
in World War II, the United States was producing more aircraft each year
than the German or Japanese air forces could shoot down.
For generations, U.S. military strategy rested on developing military forces
that were technologically superior to that of the adversary. This national style for
military preparation was in full play during the Cold War, when the U.S. military
deliberately produced smaller numbers of more technologically advanced
weapons than the Soviet Union. To succeed, the United States invested trillions
of dollars in defense, thus vastly outspending the economically inefficient Soviet
defense complex.

Satellites are critical to the military deployment
Dolman Winter-Spring ’06 (Everett; SAIS Review “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”; Accessed 7/13/11)
No nation relies on space more than the United States—none is even close—and its reliance grows daily. A widespread loss of space
capabilities would prove disastrous for American military security and civilian welfare. America's economy would collapse,
bringing the rest of the world down with it. Its military would be obliged to hunker down in a defensive crouch while it
prepared to withdraw from dozens of then-untenable foreign deployments. To prevent such disasters from occurring, the
United States military—in particular the United States Air Force—is charged with protecting space capabilities from harm and ensuring reliable
space operations for the foreseeable future. As a martial organization, the Air Force naturally looks to military means to achieve these desired
ends. And so it should.

GPS is needed for modern warfare
Dolman Winter-Spring ’06 (Everett; SAIS Review “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”; Accessed 7/13/11)
But the paramount effect of space-enabled warfare was in the area of combat efficiency. Space assets allowed all-weather, day-night
precision munitions to provide the bulk of America's striking power. Attacks from standoff platforms, including Vietnam-era B-
52s, allowed maximum target devastation with extraordinarily low casualty rates and collateral damage. In Desert Storm, only 8 percent
of munitions used were precision-guided, none of which were GPS-capable. By Iraqi Freedom, nearly 70 percent
were precision-guided, more than half from GPS satellites.3 In Desert Storm, fewer than 5 percent of aircraft were
GPS-equipped. By Iraqi Freedom, all were. During Desert Storm, GPS proved so valuable to the army that it procured
and rushed into theater more than 4,500 commercial receivers to augment the meager 800 military-band ones it could
deploy from stockpiles, an average of one per company (about 200 personnel). By Iraqi Freedom, each army squad (6–10 soldiers) had at least
one military GPS receiver.

The US military relies heavily on satellite systems
Willson 01/01/11 (David, Air Force Law Review; “An army view of neutrality in space: Legal options for space negation.(armed conflict and
privately owned satellites)”; accessed 7/13/11
Satellites and the support they provide are now an integral part of the United States military arsenal, and a vital link for
support to commanders and troops on the battlefield. For example, communications, navigation, and remote sensing
provide vital support and are now the eyes, ears, and communication links for commanders. Because satellite support
is so critical to the United States, one of the U.S. military goals is to attain complete control and dominance of space. [7] In order to attain
this goal the United States will not only have to consider the negation and protection of military satellites, but commercial satellites as well. As
commercial space systems provide global information and nations tap into this source for military purposes , protecting
(as well as negating) these non-military space systems will become more difficult. Due to the importance of commerce, and its effects on national
security, the United States may evolve into the guardian of space commerce--similar to the historical example of navies protecting sea commerce.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


There are no alternatives to satellites for military applications
Air Force 9/6/03 (US Air Force>Air University>Spaatz Center; “U.S. Satellite Communication Systems”; accessed 7/13/11)
Satellite systems have significantly improved the reliability and the accuracy of aviation and maritime
communications, moving those functions out of the high frequency (HF) portion of the radio spectrum. The advantages of satellite
communications are extensive. Although submarine cables, fiber optics and microwave radio can effectively compete with satellites for
geographically fixed wide-band service, the satellite is unchallenged in the provision of wide-band transmissions to mobile
terminals. The inherent flexibility that a satellite communications system provides is essential to the conduct of
military operations both nationally and globally. There no viable alternatives to satellite communications for
military applications.

The Defense Satellite Communications System is key to early warning
Air Force 9/6/03 (US Air Force>Air University>Spaatz Center; “U.S. Satellite Communication Systems”; accessed 7/13/11)
The DSCS is a general-purpose satellite communications system operating in the Super-high Frequency (SHF) spectrum. The system is
comprised of geosynchronous satellites, a variety of ground terminals and a control segment. It provides secure voice, teletype,
                                                                                                        also
television, facsimile and digital data services for the Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The system
pro-vides communications links for management, command and control, intelligence and early warning functions.
The primary users of the DSCS are GCCS, Defense Information Systems Net-work (DISN), Defense Switched Network (DSN), Defense
Message System (DMS), Diplomatic Telecommunications Service (DTS), Ground Mobile Forces (GMF) and the White House Communications
Agency (WHCA). DSCS also supports allied nations.

Satellites key to heg
Akir 12/18/03(Ziad, “Space security: Possible issues and potential solutions” <http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf> accessed:
7/13/11)
Commercial space systems are vital in support of military and other governmental
operations and activities. Military forces can often operate in environments with little or
no existing communication infrastructure. Collecting information in the form of mapping
and real-time movements of enemy forces is of crucial importance. Commercial satellite
imagery systems are used by governments to achieve their national security interests.15
During the U.S. showdown with Iraq earlier this year, t he U.S. government used satellites
to track the movement of the Iraqi military as well as keeping track on the where-abouts of the
Iraqi weapons.16 Failure in commercial satellite operation may have devastating
consequences on the outcome of a military or political conflict.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                          Korea Impact


Korean conflict triggers multiple impacts
Hayes & Hamel-Green, 10 [Peter & Michael, Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and
Sustainable Development, a member of the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Western partner of the
Council on Foreign Relations; and the US Committee of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific
“The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia” Nautilus,
Special Report, 10-001: January 5th, 2010, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf]
The international community is increasingly aware that cooperative diplomacy is the most productive way to tackle the multiple,
interconnected global challenges facing humanity, not least of which is the increasing proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass
destruction. Korea and Northeast Asia are instances where risks of nuclear proliferation and actual nuclear use arguably
have increased in recent years. This negative trend is a product of continued US nuclear threat projection against the
DPRK as part of a general program of coercive diplomacy in this region, North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, the
breakdown in the Chinese-hosted Six Party Talks towards the end of the Bush Administration, regional concerns over
China’s increasing military power, and concerns within some quarters in regional states (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan)
about whether US extended deterrence (“nuclear umbrella”) afforded under bilateral security treaties can be relied upon for
protection. The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related
political and economic issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international community.
At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack1 , whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident, leading
to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range
missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2
million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would
result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New
research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our global climate far more quickly
than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving
approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the
range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the
soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-
8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature
than at any time during the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average.
A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow …The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater
decrease in grain production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from
hunger…To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s
protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem
and downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of
refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological
and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers,
especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to
nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many
unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence,
including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-
reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a
global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community. North Korea is currently believed to have sufficient
plutonium stocks to produce up to 12 nuclear weapons.6 If and when it is successful in implementing a uranium enrichment program -
having announced publicly that it is experimenting with enrichment technology on September 4, 20097 in a communication with the UN
Security Council - it would likely acquire the capacity to produce over 100 such weapons. Although some may dismiss Korean
Peninsula proliferation risks on the assumption that the North Korean regime will implode as a result of its own
economic problems, food problems, and treatment of its own populace, there is little to suggest that this is imminent. If this
were to happen, there would be the risk of nuclear weapons falling into hands of non-state actors in the disorder and
chaos that would ensue. Even without the outbreak of nuclear hostilities on the Korean Peninsula in either the near or longer
term, North Korea has every financial incentive under current economic sanctions and the needs of its military command economy
to export its nuclear and missile technologies to other states. Indeed, it has already been doing this for some time. The
Proliferation Security Initiative may conceivably prove effective in intercepting ship-borne nuclear exports, but it is by no means clear how
air-transported materials could similarly be intercepted.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                                 Heg good
Heg secures America
Thayer ’06 (Bradley; “In Defense of Primacy”; accessed 7/13/11)
In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment
will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America
chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue
states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home",
thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others
will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In
the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same
is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States,
then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies
must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil.
Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to
plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore
balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global
commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its
borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies . As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United
States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. (2) This is
not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly.

Heg decline leads to global nuclear war
Thayer ’06 (Bradley; “American Empire: A Debate – Reply to Christopher Lane: The Strength of American Empire” accessed 7/13/11)
If the United States adopted offshore balancing, many of those allies would terminate their relationship with the United States.
They would be forced to increase their own armaments, acquire nuclear weapons, and perhaps ally against the United
States, even aiming their nuclear weapons at the United States. In those circumstances, the United States would be
far less secure and much worse of than it is now. That might be the future if the United States changed its grand strategy. To be sure,
at present the United States is a great ally. It is rich and powerful, with many allies all over the world. It wields enormous influence in
international institutions as well. When a global problem arises, countries turn to the United States to solve it.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


               Miscalculation Scenario
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                  Miscommunication leads to miscalc

Lack of communication leads to miscalculation.
Michael S. Gerson, 2010, research analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), in Alexandria, Virginia. No
First Use The Next Step for U.S. Nuclear Policy.
Second, in the midst of an intense crisis, an adversary’s trepidations about a U.S. first strike could create incentives
for signaling and brinksmanship that increase the chances of miscommunication and nuclear escalation. For example,
in a crisis an adversary’s concerns about a U.S. disarming nuclear strike could prompt it to take measures to decrease the
vulnerability of its forces, such as mating warheads to delivery vehicles, fueling missiles, dispersing forces, raising alert levels, or erecting
mobile ballistic missile launchers. While the opponent might intend these measures to signal resolve and to deter a U.S. counterforce first strike
by increasing the survivability of its forces, U.S. political and military leaders might misperceive these actions as a sign of
the opponent’s impending nuclear attack and decide to preempt.100 In this situation, an opponent’s fear of a U.S.
arst strike encourages actions that, through miscommunication and miscalculation, might inadvertently trigger a U.S.
preemptive attack. If the opponent has any remaining weapons after a U.S. strike, at least some of them might be used in retaliation against
the United States or its allies. This dynamic may be especially pernicious in a future crisis if U.S. leaders believe that the opponent is willing to
take substantial risks, because then decision makers may be more inclined to interpret the adversary’s actions as preparations for a nuclear attack
rather than as defensive signals intended for deterrence.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                 US – Russian Relations

Lybia has put US-Russian Relations at a critical brink
Melamedov, 11
(Grigory, RIANOVOSI, 3/22, Libya war derails U.S.-Russia "reset",
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20110322/163145765.html)
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in Russia ostensibly to talk missile defense and regional security, but there is
little doubt this agenda will be overshadowed by the latest developments in Libya. Gates' reputation as a Russia-friendly
politician will hardly make the talks any less controversial. Nor will the Pentagon head's planned resignation later this year be much of a help.
It would be an overstatement to say that U.S.-Russian relations have now reached a critical point. But, clearly, there
is a sense of building tension over Washington's initiative to launch airstrikes against sites of Muammar Gaddafi's
government.
Not everyone in Russia's military and political staff believed that under Barack Obama the U.S. would be able to kick its habit of bombing
foreign territories. The newly launched military campaign against Libya has proved those skeptics right.
This is not to say that the two sides have particularly high expectations of each other over the Libya issue . Russia
stopped short of vetoing the UN Security Council's resolution on the use of military force against Gaddafi. Going as far as approving the U.S.-led
intervention would be too much for it to stomach, and the Americans have no illusions on that count. Nor does Moscow cherish the illusory hope
of Washington curtailing its Libyan operation any time soon.
Mr. Gates has echoed President Obama's point that the United States has no intention of being the driving force behind this
military campaign, but Russia remains unconvinced.
Even more awkwardly, although Mr. Gates did not back intervention in Libya he will now have to prove to Moscow that it was the right thing to
do.
The Russian side, taking issue with the Americans over Libya, may, for its part, have a hard time explaining to Washington just what it finds so
disconcerting about the UN-sponsored military intervention.



US Russians relations at critical brink over Lybia
Melamedov, 11
(Grigory, RIANOVOSI, 3/22, Libya war derails U.S.-Russia "reset",
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20110322/163145765.html)
What makes the current Libyan operation so controversial is not so much the figure of Gaddafi as the divide
between those who accept the U.S. bid for global hegemony and those who oppose it.
Despite the fact that the first airstrikes in this campaign against Libya were carried out by France, not the United States, and that the French
president's remarks concerning Gaddafi have been much more belligerent than Obama's, Russian reporters covering the operation
present it as largely U.S.-led.
Small wonder, then, that the Libyan campaign should cause resentment here, in Russia. The U.S. army's striking
technological supremacy makes its attacks on this North African country resemble a slaughter of non-combatants. It is like sending in a modern
tank unit in to do battle with tribes-people armed solely with spears.
Equally unsavory is the fact that Allied jets are sent in to bomb Libyan territory under cover of darkness, and that the option of a ground
operation has been ruled out altogether as too dangerous.
All this means that Mr. Gates' mission to Moscow to change its mind over the operation in Libya is an unenviable one,
to say the least. Obama will no longer be viewed in Russia as a new kind of president, who has broken away from
the militaristic legacy of his predecessors in the White House. The sides can still reach consensus on some
individual issues of mutual concern. But the bitterness over Washington's decision to go to war with Libya makes
any fundamental changes in U.S.-Russian relations highly unlikely for the time being.
For a real reset, we will probably have to wait for the next generation to take over - a generation free from the war legacy of
Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. Provided, of course, that the U.S. launches no new military campaign in the meantime. And that is hard to believe.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                        General Satellites Key
Satellites important in everyday life
Cavossa 6/21/06 (David, Executive Director Satellite Industry Association; “Hearing on Space and National Power”; accessed 7/13/11)
Whether broadcasting the FIFA World Cup to fans throughout the world; providing
operability to first responders in the Gulf region when all other terrestrial-based
communications were unavailable, or enabling the US military to conduct large and
small-scale operations across large distances, satellites are there.
Today, the commercial satellite industry offers a wide variety of services and applications
to its customers, which among others include: broadcast and cable telecommunications
companies, television networks, financial institutions, major retailers, utilities, emergency
personnel, first responders, schools, hospitals, Internet service providers (ISPs),
consumers, and Federal, state, and local government agencies.
Some of the basic uses of satellite communications are as follows:
• Voice: consists of fixed and mobile satellite phones and trunking for telephone
service providers;
• Data: consists of mobile services such as messaging, paging, and cargo tracking,
and fixed high-speed broadband applications such as high-speed Internet access,
distance learning, video teleconferencing, government and corporate data
networks;
• Video: consists of broadcast of television programming (including news and
weather) to subscribers, as well as distribution of video content to cable service
providers and network affiliates; and,
           Radio: consists of broadcast of radio programming to the public, and distribution
of programming to network affiliates as well as satellite radio direct to consumers.

Homeland security relies on satellites
Cavossa 6/21/06 (David, Executive Director Satellite Industry Association; “Hearing on Space and National Power”; accessed 7/13/11)
The national and homeland security communities also rely on commercial satellites for
critical activities, such as direct or backup communications, emergency response
services, continuity of operations (COOP) and continuity of government during
emergencies, military support, and intelligence gathering. Incorporating satellite technology into overall information network
architectures for primary or backup communications provides for transmission media diversity, system
redundancy, and increased communications resiliency. Here are a few examples of US Government             agencies using commercial
satellite communications for either their primary or their backup communications solution.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) relies heavily on Fixed
Satellite Services (FSS) and Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) for daily use and
during emergencies. • The Department of State (DOS) relies heavily on commercial satellites to transmit
voice, data, and video communications.
• White House Communications Agency (WHCA) uses commercial SATCOM
systems extensively to support the President and Vice President.
• Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and their Federal Air Marshals use
satellite communications while in-flight to communicate with staff on the
ground.2
• United States Coast Guard (USCG) uses commercial SATCOM for ship-to-ship
and ship-to-shore communications and for container security and tracking.
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC uses SATCOM for monitoring of the
status of the nuclear assets and voice communications for field personnel.
• The Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) is a heavy user of fixed and
mobile satellite services. Specifically, the HHS command center uses satellites to
back up its data networks.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains satellite phones in every
field office;

Satellite communications save lives
Cavossa 6/21/06 (David, Executive Director Satellite Industry Association; “Hearing on Space and National Power”; accessed 7/13/11)
As we all know, satellite communications have also played a critical role during the
response to each of the natural and man-made disasters in recent years.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, when New York City’s terrestrial
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                                             communications
communications networks were damaged and overloaded, satellite
services easily maintained connectivity and satellite equipment was quickly deployed to
meet urgent needs. In 2005, satellite communications provided a lifeline for aid workers and victims in the
remote islands of the Indian Ocean following the Asian Tsunami and in the earthquake desolated
towns and villages of Pakistan. And most recently during last year’s hurricane
season, satellite communications once again proved their essential value when all other
forms of communication were wiped out in the nation’s Gulf region following the
devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. In many of the affected areas, satellites provided the ONLY
source of communications in the hours, days, and weeks following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Organizations using satellite communications ranged from first responders at the federal,
state and local government agencies to individuals, schools, churches and local relief
groups. Small businesses such as retail gas stations and convenience stores, and larger
businesses such as insurance companies, financial institutions, and news teams also used
satellites to communicate when all other means of communications failed.

The military NEEDS satellites!
Cavossa 6/21/06 (David, Executive Director Satellite Industry Association; “Hearing on Space and National Power”; accessed 7/13/11)
Military forces are perhaps the most dependent upon space-based communications
systems to access essential information services to support land, sea, air, and space
operations. The DoD currently uses military satellite communications (MILSATCOM)
and commercial satellite communications to meet its global deployed
telecommunications requirements.

Satellites saves lives
Cavossa 6/21/06 (David, Executive Director Satellite Industry Association; “Hearing on Space and National Power”; accessed 7/13/11)
The Army's Blue Force Tracking program uses low-cost satellite links to provide
battlefield situational awareness directly to soldiers and commanders, improving the
effectiveness of distributed teams and greatly reducing the potential for friendly-fire
incidents. The Armed Forces Radio and Television Service provides news and morale
programming to our troops around the globe via satellite. Telemedicine puts the resources
of world-class trauma specialists and surgeons at the disposal of medical teams battling
minutes to save lives in the field.

Satellite communication needed
Air Force 9/6/03 (US Air Force>Air University>Spaatz Center; “U.S. Satellite Communication Systems”; accessed 7/13/11)
The FLTSATCOM system provides near global operational communications for naval aircraft, ships, submarines and
ground stations. It also provides communications between the National Command Authority (NCA) and the strategic
nuclear forces as well as between other high-priority users. High priority users include the White House
Communications Agency, reconnaissance aircraft, Air Intelligence Agency and ground forces (e.g., Special
Operations Forces).
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                             Asteroids Scenario

Asteroids will destroy all life on earth - Lasers Key to and feasible for stopping NEOs
Campbell 2000
(Jonathan W. Campbell. Colonel, USAER, doctorate in astrophysics and space science, Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for Strategy and
Technology, Air War College, “Using Lasers in Space: Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf)
Astronomical telescopes and deep space radar systems have observed the existence of at least 2000 Near Earth
Objects (NEO), such as asteroids and comets, which potentially could destroy most life on Earth. An asteroid with a
diameter of 0.2 km would strike the Earth with a power rivaling the strength of a multiple warhead attack with the
most powerful hydrogen bombs. This strike would throw’ up a cloud of dust rivaling the most powerful volcanic
explosion, which would seriously affect climate on the scale of two to three years. A strike by a larger asteroid, say
1 km, (especially in the ocean) would create a gigantic tsunami that would flood and obliterate coastal regions. More
significantly it would eject a massive dust cloud that would alter cur biosphere to the point that life as we know it
would cease to exist with no chance of recovery within the near term.
The consensus in the astronomical and astrophysics community was that most of the known NEOs do not pose a
near term threat, and therefore that these objects do not present any dancer to the Earth and its biosphere in the foreseeable future .
However, the recent collision of a comet Iauki with Jupiter and the discovery of an uncatalogued asteroid, that passed
near Earth without any advanced warning, have increased concerns.
Several schemes have since been discussed for dealing with NEO on collision courses with the earth. •These include
blowing them up with nuclear weapons or landing on them and using small, shaped nuclear detonations to steer the asteroid into a passing
orbit. However, fragmentation may not be a solution because the center of mass of the resulting cloud of debris would
continue on the original collision trajectory. Also, we presently do not have the lift capability to land and place nuclear devices on
asteroids without extremely long lead times. The research and development of a nuclear deflection system would cost billions and would still
require sufficient warning of an impact to be implemented.
A better system would he one that is on station and could he used routinely to shape asteroid orbits over long periods
of time so that they do not pose a potential threat. Phased Array Laser Systems (PALS) could he developed and orbited. Space-
based laser constellations (SBL) are presently under development and will he flow-n during the next decade.
Coupling PALS with powerful telescopes, such as those being developed under the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) project,
would provide long-term warning for implementation of an overall NEO avoidance system. The feasibility of this system
is discussed below.
The lasers that would he used in Project Orion have demonstrated sufficient capability for orbital debris removal for
objects in the size range from 1-10 cm diameter. Ground based experimental data, using a 20 kW pulsed laser, show that the impulse
imparted to aluminum targets due to the ejected plasma cloud gives an average surface pressure p = 6.5 x 10-4 N/cm2, or equivalently, an
acceleration, a = l.25x 10-6 m/s2 With present technology, a laser phased array can be aimed at the asteroid with sufficient
power to ablate its surface. Assuming that a laser array can be scaled up to operate on a 1 km diameter iron asteroid, this would require a
200 GW power grid. Several alternate potential power sources are available, including nuclear or electric generation and solar power arrays.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


               Solvency Extensions
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                             Ground Based Lasers Solve

Ground based lasers are costly but provide a highly probable solution to debris elimination
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Electrodynamic tethers and ground-based lasers were the two highest scoring technologies, receiving ratings of 8.5
and 8.0, respectively. The strengths of electrodynamic tethers include affordability of operation, affordability of construction and
practicality. This is because the tether is a relatively simple device compared to a satellite. Specifically, the tether does not require a fuel supply
that needs to be provided initially or replenished, nor does it rely on moving mechanical parts that are subject to breakdown and may have to be
replaced. Tethers are also conceptually simple devices that have been shown to work. However, electrodynamic tethers had a fairly low
scalability rating due to the risk of a tether being severed by debris.
Ground-based laser strengths include affordability of operation and of implementation. The ground-based laser is
considered affordable to operate because O&M cost are minimal compared to the initial investment. It is considered
affordable to implement because it is assumed that the laser would be constructed at sites already possessing the
required optics and infrastructure. Weaknesses are affordability of development and of construction. More development is needed
because not all of the ground-based laser individual components have been thoroughly tested. Considerable funding would also be required for
the construction.


GBLs will eliminate space debris within three years and is the best chance to stop asteroid collisions
Campbell 2000
(Jonathan W. Campbell. Colonel, USAER, doctorate in astrophysics and space science, Occasional Paper No. 20, Center for Strategy and
Technology, Air War College, “Using Lasers in Space: Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf)
Orbital debris in tow-Earth orbit ranging in size from 1 to 10 centimeters (cm) in diameter, poses a significant
problem for space vehicles.1 While this debris can he detected, it cannot he tracked with sufficient reliability to permit spacecraft to avoid
these objects. Such debris can cause catastrophic damage even to a shielded spacecraft. Given the technological
advances associated with adaptive optics, a ground-based pulsed laser could ablate or vaporize the surface of orbital
debris, thereby producing enough cumulative thrust to cause debris to reenter the atmosphere. One laser facility
could remove all of the one-ten centimeter debris in three years or less. This study proposes that the United States develop a
technology demonstration of this laser space propulsion in order to implement a system for removing debris from earth orbit. The cost of this
proposed demonstration is favorable in comparison with the typical costs [or spacecraft operations.
Orbital debris is not the only form of space junk that is deleterious to the Earth.2 Since collisions with asteroids have caused major
havoc to the Earth’s biosphere on several occasions in the geological past, the reality is that the Earth will probably
experience another impact in the future. For this reason, this study also considers the possibilities of scaling up a
system for removing orbital debris to a system that could prevent these catastrophic collisions if we have sufficient
warning.


GBLs solve and would not militarize space
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Ground-based lasers (GBL) have been proposed as a solution to remove small debris (1-10 cm) in LEO. There are two main
components to any laser removal system: a targeting system and the actual directed-energy device. With radar based tracking or high-
sensitivity optics, debris of 1 cm diameter or greater can be detected and targeted . Once the debris has been located and
targeted, it is hit with short pulses from a laser. The pulses vaporize or ablate a micro-thin layer of the object, causing
plasma blow-off. The result is a dramatic change in the object’s orbit, lowering its perigee, reducing its orbital
lifespan and allowing it to burn up in the earth’s atmosphere .
Opponents of a GBL system may argue that it could be used as an anti-satellite weapon. A GBL system is designed
for small debris and only ablates a few layers of molecules from the surface of the object. It would take months of
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

dedicated operation to de-orbit even a medium-sized satellite. This approach does, however, have the potential to blind certain
sensors on a satellite, but this effect can be avoided with proper operating procedures at the device location.



GBLs solve – studies demonstrate with empirical evidence
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
The Orion study suggested that a near term system could remove small debris at altitudes of up to 800 km. This
capability would be sufficient to protect the International Space Station from debris 1-10 cm in diameter. At present,
this debris cannot be tracked and the ISS lacks shielding against it in any case. Many remote sensing satellites are also found within this altitude
and would benefit from removal of space debris up to this height. A longer term solution would entail a GBL system capable of
removing debris up to 1500 km.178 See Appendix H – Orion Study Laser Removal Options for further details.
A more recent examination of the Orion laser concept found that recent advances in picosecond (one trillionth of a second)
laser systems make the Orion concept more feasible in that shorter pulses allow a laser with the same energy to exert
more power on an object. The ability to use a lower energy laser also allows components to cool much faster and the laser can be fired
much more frequently than a laser of similar power with longer pulses.



GBLs are proven to solve and infrastructure supports their use – despite costs.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
The Orion study concluded that removing debris 1-10 cm in diameter from LEO is technically feasible in the near
term. The study showed that debris removal with the Orion laser concept is less expensive than increasing the
shielding of the ISS from 1 cm to 2 cm. There are some disagreements as to the abilities of adaptive optics to illuminate debris, so
further analysis or a demonstration is needed. A physical demonstration within Orion parameters would provide proof of concept. There
should also be serious consideration given to including more recent laser technology advances such as the Mercury Laser
as possible removal mechanisms. Ongoing work such as the IAA study and the IAP/Quantron/IPIE workgroup on debris removal techniques
should provide updated cost numbers and give a better indication of the technical feasibility of a ground-based laser system. Ground-based
lasers were given an 8.0 rating in our analysis based on relatively low operating costs and ability to remove a large
number of small debris in a short amount of time.
At present, there is not enough damage caused to satellites in orbit due to debris to justify the costs of building a full-scale debris removal system.
However, if debris models are determined to be overly optimistic with respect to natural de-orbiting of debris or
debris-causing events such as the Chinese ASAT test continue to occur, a GBL is a feasible way to eliminate debris. A GBL is far less
expensive to implement than including enhanced shielding on space objects. Although the Orion laser can be tested with
government-furnished equipment, international cooperation should be strongly encouraged in developing a full-scale debris removal system. For
example, the Russians have made significant progress in Orion-type technologies and “are eager to apply these to an international project.”184



Space debris removal using laser is the best option
Jack V. Walker and Edward E. Montgomery IV 1994
Economists, Masters in Economists and Doctoral Dergees, Princeton Grad.
The feasibility and practicality of using a ground-based laser (GBL) to remove artificial space debris is examined.
Physical constraints indicate that a reactor-pumped laser (RPL) may be best suited for this mission, because of its
capabilities for multimegawatt output, long run- times, and near-diffraction-limited initial beams. Simulations of a laser-
powered debris removal system indicate that a 5-MW RPL with a 10-meter-diameter beam director and adaptive optics capabilities can deorbit 1-
kg debris from space station altitudes. Larger debris can be deorbited or transferred to safer orbits after multiple laser
engagements. A ground- based laser system may be the only realistic way to access and remove some 10,000
separate objects, having velocities in the neighborhood of 7 km/sec, and being spatially distributed over some 1010
km3 of space.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Debris destroying lasers will put an end to the destruction of satellites due to space debris.
Tuttle 09 (Space technology, Aviation week & Space Technology, March 30 2009
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)
The idea of using ground-based lasers to get rid of orbital debris appears to be gaining traction with officials of
the Space Protection Program (SPP), a joint effort of U.S. Air Force Space Command and the National
Reconnaissance Office. The SPP, set up a year ago to preserve national security space assets, has seen many of its
suggestions implemented, including one to install improved devices on satellites to warn of impending collision
with debris. Using lasers to deal with space debris has not yet risen to the level of a formal SPP recommendation to
higher authority, but it appears to be headed that way. It is the result of an SPP process of winnowing down a
number of concepts to deal with debris of the kind created by the Feb. 10 collision of a defunct Russian military
communications satellite and an operational U.S. Iridium communications satellite. The collision created a huge
cloud of debris that could endanger manned and unmanned spacecraft for years. China’s 2007 test of a direct-ascent
anti-satellite weapon against one of its own satellites also produced a big debris cloud.



The Debris lasers are a very strong, technically viable, phyics-based, operationally possible system.
 Tuttle 09 (Space technology, Aviation week & Space Technology, March 30 2009
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)
Andrew W. Palowitch, SPP director, says lasers may be the answer. The idea is to use a pulsed ground-based laser to
ablate material from debris. This material would then slow down and harmlessly re-enter the atmosphere far sooner
than it would otherwise. You’re basically allowing the particles to deorbit in an accelerated fashion,» Palowitch says.
The idea will be presented Apr. 8 to the SPP senior advisory board. It is just one of many concepts being evaluated
for a number of missions, most of which are aimed at maintaining the top three U.S.space capabilities—assured
command and control of nuclear arms, integrated missile warning, and position, navigation and timing for armed
forces. Each idea, Palowitch says, «is so new, so revolutionary,» that to make the transition to actual use, «we have
to come up with a very, very strong, technically viable, physics-based, operationally possible system
approach.»Each proposal is closely scrutinized by the Intelligence Community, the Defense and State departments
and the White House. Palowitch acknowledges that while the laser idea is attractive, it is also «particularly difficult»
because its ability to take debris from low Earth orbit could be misconstrued by other nations, an oblique reference
to perception of the approach as an anti-satellite weapon.

Space lasers are plausible and would completely destroy large space debris
Ahuja 96
National Aeronautics & Space Administration, The Times, Star wars lasers take aim at the space junk, October
28,http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/

Shooting lasers into the skies to pick off space junk sounds like something out of Star Wars . But this is exactly what the
brightest brains at America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) have come up with in a desperate
attempt to tackle a menace which threatens the satellites and spacecraft circling the globe. A new scheme plans to
rid space of its dangerous debris. Report by Anjana Ahuja Project Orion is an ambitious effort to rid the
crowded space around the Earth of a particularly dangerous class of orbital junk. These are the millions of pieces of debris,
some between one and ten centimetres long, others ranging in size from a bullet to a cricket ball. Smaller dust-like particles can be
warded off by protective shielding.The sizes we are aiming at are tough to detect and impossible to protect against," says project head Dr
Jonathan Campbell, from the Advanced Concepts Group at Nasa's Marshall Space Flight Centre in Huntsville, Alabama. Their average
velocity is a frightening 10 km a second. The scheme, planned jointly by Nasa and the US Air
Force Space Command, would use radar to detect a suitable piece of orbital debris.A ground-based laser would
immediately target it and, using short sharp pulses, burn off a portion of the underside. The evaporating stream of
material would then act as a thruster, nudging the particle from its circular orbit around the Earth into a more
elliptical one. Eventually, the particle's orbit would take it into the atmosphere, where it would burn up safely. But the
scheme faces two enormous hurdles. First, the narrow laser beam would diverge as it journeyed towards its target. By the time the beam
arrived, its energy would be spread so thinly it would be useless. Second, the laser beam had to pass through the atmosphere en route to
its rendezvous in space. Atmospheric turbulence could would deflect the laser beam, degrading its quality and knocking it off-
course. Scientists have called upon state of the art adaptive optics for assistance.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

NASA has arrangements for the project
Ahuja 96 (National Aeronautics & Space Administration, The Times, Star wars lasers take aim at the space junk,
October 28,http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)

The optical arrangement used in Orion comprises lenses and mirrors to deform and focus different parts of the
beam. These optics are linked to equip ment that can measure the characteristics of the atmosphere between the ground and the target, and
compensate for them. By sending the laser to the target by this equipment, the laser remains safely locked onto its target, and the
spread can be contained to a one metre diameter.


Debris cleaning lasers won't be powerful enough to damage satellites, meaning it won't start space
militarization and can be completed in two years with 50 Million dollars.
Ahuja 96 (National Aeronautics & Space Administration, The Times, Star wars lasers take aim at the space junk,
October 28,http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)

                                                   concept is all about developing a way of destroying items
Orion also posed security implications. After all, the
in space using lasers on the ground. Could it be used to sabotage undesirable satellites? The way round that
quandary is likely to be the use of fairly weak lasers. Dr Campbell thinks that the project may find favour because it can be
adapted to destroy hazardous meteorites.Low power lasers also have the advantage of minimising unintentional damage to
satellites,and other flying phenomena. "There is some potential for damage but it's extremely small," Dr Campbell stresses. "In the
unlikely event that we bump a satellite, most would be able to correct their orbit. As for birds, they probably wouldn't notice. And we
would make planes fly around the airspace."In two years, Orion has blossomed from a "Buck Rogers" concept into a potential weapon
against the band of flotsam on the planet's doorstep. Dr Campbell says: "I was sceptical when I first started. But not only is it feasible in
theory, but we already have equip ment that would allow us to clear all the debris of that size range below an altitude of 800 kilometres."
This 800km "safe zone" would protect many valuable space assets, including the planned Iridium and Teledesic fleets of satellites, which
together constitute almost 1,000 spacecraft. At 500km, the manned space stations also fall within this zone, according to Dr Richard
Crowther.It would take two years and between $ 50 million and $ 100 million to perform such a clearing operation,
the cost of shielding one space shuttle from particles between one and two centimetres long. Orion scientists have
also proposed a more expensive three- year strategy to clear all debris beneath an altitude of 1,500 km.


U.S. Air Force is on board with Debris Lasers, testing facilities are planned to be created.
Ahuja 96 (National Aeronautics & Space Administration, The Times, Star wars lasers take aim at the space junk, October
28,http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)
The US Air Force Space Command are seeking a site in a desert to set up this facility. Scientists are now looking for
a low cost way of trying the idea out. One suggestion is to get an astronaut aboard the space shuttle to push a piece
of mock debris overboard. The debris would be wired so that it could be monitored on the ground, and used for
target practice. Should the project be given final approval it will probably be brought under the auspices of the
United Nations. Dr Campbell says: "After all, space debris has no respect for international borders. Every
spacefaring nation is under threat."


Space lasers can be developed to disorbit larger space debris.
Bekey 97 (John Bekey, U.S. Airforce, Aerospace America, May
1997, http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ )
Among the strategies analyzed for irradiating debris, causing immediate reentry of random debris objects by irradiating continuously
during a single pass over. A laser was selected as the simplest operationally: Colocate the sensor and laser, point the
sensor at a given angle above the horizon, then fire at any debris that enters the sensor's field of view. Firing would, of
course, be inhibited when known satellites appear, as per current doctrine.The study determined that the optimum strategy is to
engage the debris from about 30 deg. above the horizon on an ascending pass, and to stop the firing when the object
nears its zenith. This will rotate the object's velocity vector and reduce its perigee to 200 km, enough to cause
essentially immediate reentry. This strategy also avoids having to track the debris and predict its ephemeris for reengagement on a
different pass, a very difficult task because of the uncertain ballistic coefficient of most debris objects.The statistical characteristics of
the debris population show peaks in their altitude distribution at about 800 and 1,500 km. Thus it was decided that a near-term system
should be able to remove debris up to an altitude of 800 km (this would protect the ISS as well as systems such as Teledesic and Iridium);
a longer term system should be effective up to 1,500-km altitude. A single laser site at sufficiently low latitude would
eventually be able to target essentially all such orbital debris.The velocity change to be imparted to the debris was
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

then calculated to be about 150 m/secfor 800-km-altitude objects and 300 m/sec for 1,500-km-altitude objects, if their
orbits are circular. The requirements are closer to 150-200 m/sec for the elliptical orbits typical of most debris. Such a velocity
change to its orbit is enough to cause an object's perigee to drop to about 200 km, at which time its orbital lifetime is only a few
orbits; it can then be considered to have been deorbited essentially right away.

Developments in lasers make them credible for debris removal
Erlanderson 09, (Ried Erlanderson, A.E., Lawrence Livmore National Labratory High energy lasers for space debris
removal,https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/381096.pdf)

The National  Ignition Facility (NIF) and Photon Science Directorate at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has substantial relevant experience in the construction of high energy
lasers, and more recently in the development of advanced high average powersolid state lasers.1-3 We are currently
developing new concepts for advanced solid state laserdrivers for the Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE)
application, 4 and other high average powerlaser applications that could become central technologies for use in
space debris removal.


New Laser technology improves functions for debris clearing.
Erlanderson 09, (Ried Erlanderson, A.E.,Lawrence Livmore National Labratory High energy lasers for space debris
removal,https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/381096.pdf)
Our concepts for the laser system architecture are an extension of what was developed for
the National Ignition Facility (NIF) , combined wi th high r epe t i t ion r a t e l a s e r t e chnology developed for Inertial Fusion Energy
(IFE), and heat capacity laser technology developed for military applications. The “front-end” seed
pulse generator would be fiber-optics based, and would generate a temporally, and spectrally tailored pulse
designed for high transmission through the atmosphere, as well as efficient ablative coupling to the
target. The main amplifier would use either diode-pumped or flashlamp-pumped solid state gain media, depending on budget constraints of
the project. A continuously operating system would use the gas-cooledamplifier technology developed for Mercury,



Price range for lasers is minimal, lasers are capable of rapid engagement and destruction of space debris.
Erlanderson 09,
(Ried Erlanderson, A.E., Lawrence Livmore National Labratory High energy lasers for space debris
removal,https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/381096.pdf)
The ground-based system that we propose is capable of rapid engagement of targets
whose orbits cross over the site, with potential for kill on a single pass. Very little target mass is
ablated per pulse so the potential to create additional hazardous orbiting debris is minimal. Our
cost estimates range from $2500 to $5000 per J depending on choices for laser gain medium,
amplifier pump source, and thermal management methodwould suffice to demonstrate the efficacy of this approach
as a prototype system. A diodepumped, gas-cooled laser would have higher costs but could be operated
continuously, and might be desirable for more demanding mission needs. Maneuverability can be incorporated in
the system design if the additional cost is deemed acceptable. The laser system would be coupled with a target
pointing and tracking telescope with guide-star-like wavefront correction capability

The United States studies show that ground-based lasers will de-orbit if not destroy debri in space, and will
be an unlikely weapon.
Cartwright 11,
 (Jon Carwright, Physics, Nature News, Lasers Could budge space debris, March 11,
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110315/full/news.2011.161.html)
Scientists in the United States have devised a new way to avoid collisions among space debris, and possibly even
reduce the amount of debris in orbit. The method uses a medium-powered, ground-based laser to nudge the debris
off course — but some are concerned that the laser could be used as a weapon. Debris orbiting Earth is a mounting
problem. Two years ago, a satellite owned by the communications provider Iridium, based in McLean, Virginia,
smashed into a defunct Russian satellite at ten times the speed of a rifle bullet, putting an end to the 'big sky' theory that assumed space was
too vast for chance collisions. That incident alone created more than 1,700 pieces of debris, raising the total amount by nearly 20%. Space
analysts are particularly concerned about the possible onset of Kessler syndrome, when enough debris is present to make collisions so likely there
would be an avalanche effect that would leave the Earth's orbit uninhabitable for satellites. Scientists at NASA have considered using a
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

ground-based laser to mitigate debris collisions before. However, in their 'laser broom' concept, a powerful,
megawatt-class laser would vaporize the surface of a piece of debris that is heading for another, causing the debris to
recoil out of harm's way. But critics argued that the laser could be used as a weapon, as it could easily damage an enemy's
active satellites. Indeed, both the United States and China have in the past 15 years been accused of testing the ability of ground-based lasers to
'dazzle' satellites and render them inoperable. Now, James Mason, a NASA contractor at the Universities Space Research
Association in Moffett Field, California, and his colleagues have come up with a variation on the laser broom
concept that they claim is unlikely to be useful as a weapon.In a paper uploaded to the arXiv preprint server1, Mason
and colleagues suggest using a medium-powered laser of 5–10 kilowatts to illuminate debris with light a few times
more intense than sunlight, imparting just enough momentum to nudge the debris off course. "We think this scheme is
potentially one of the least-threatening ways to solve a problem that has to be addressed," says Mason. In the researchers' proposal, a piece of
debris that has a high risk of collision would be tracked by another laser and a telescope. As the debris comes over
the horizon, technicians would switch on the main laser and illuminate the debris until it reaches its highest point. If
the debris isn't nudged far enough to avoid a collision the first time, the technicians would repeat the procedure for
several days until the collision risk becomes negligible.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                              US Unilateral Action Key to Solve
US unilateral action would give US a hand up in emerging space clean-up industry profiting US actors.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
Going forward, the U.S. government should engage the commercial sector in space debris removal. Government
contracts with several commercial firms would create a competitive environment, encouraging innovation and cost
minimization. Having several companies working on the problem at the same time would also accelerate
remediation as several critical orbits could be addressed at once. Furthermore, early investments in a domestic space
debris removal industry would give the United States a head start in what may become a critical industry over the
coming decades.

US Unilateral action critical to avoiding utter devastation
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
If the United States and other powerful governments do not take steps now to avert the potentially devastating
effects of space debris, the issue risks becoming stalemated in a manner similar to climate change. Given the past
hesitation of international forums in addressing the space debris issue, unilateral action is the most appropriate
means of instigating space debris removal within the needed timeframe. The United States is well poised for a
leadership role in space debris removal. Going forward, the U.S. government should work closely with the
commercial sector in this endeavor, focusing on removing pieces of U.S. debris with the greatest potential to
contribute to future collisions. It should also keep its space debris removal system as open and transparent as
possible to allow for future international cooperation in this field.
 Although leadership in space debris removal will entail certain risks, investing early in preserving the near-Earth space
environment is necessary to protect the satellite technology that is so vital to the U.S. military and day-to-day
operations of the global economy. By instituting global space debris removal measures, a critical opportunity exists
to mitigate and minimize the potential damage of space debris and ensure the sustainable development of the near-
Earth space environment.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

US Maintains key detection devices necessary for debris elimination
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Space debris detection and tracking are integral to space debris elimination. Every elimination technology requires a
supporting detection system in order to determine debris position, velocity and heading . Tracking systems are designed to
keep records of information gathered from the detection systems, and computers are used to generate real time space environment models.
Currently, these models provide information that is used for space mission operations.
The largest detection, tracking and cataloging system in the world is currently the Space Surveillance Network (SSN).
The SSN is comprised of U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force ground-based radars and optical sensors at 25 sites
worldwide.148 The SSN currently tracks over 8,000 space objects of which approximately 93% represents space debris.149 The SSN is limited
to tracking space debris that is greater than or equal to 10 cm in diameter.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                       Tracking exists for small debris

Multiple mechanisms for tracking small debris exist to facilitate GBLs.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
With respect to debris sensing capabilities, the Orion study suggests that a radar system similar to Haystack or an optical
system similar to the one located at the Starfire Optical Range would be able to meet its requirements.181 The study also suggests
that bi-static radars may be able to detect the debris, but further research is necessary. In each of the solutions involving lasers,
tracking is not required since they involve only simple detection and target handoff to the laser.
Microwave radars such as Haystack, developed and operated by MIT Lincoln Laboratories, are     proven technologies that have
the potential to support a ground-based laser. A microwave radar solution also provides the ability to determine how
the particle was affected after engagement. While Haystack does not have an ideal location for a laser as it is located in an urbanized
area, a remote handoff capability would alleviate this problem. With remote handoff, the radar would be able to send information in near real time
to the laser for engagement. This capability could be used to integrate data from any radar-based system.
Passive optics uses light from the sun to illuminate the debris and high-sensitivity, high-resolution passive sensors to locate it. Utilizing an
existing passive optical system is much less expensive than building new radar systems. Unfortunately, a passive optical system is only able to
operate in clear weather conditions at appropriate angles of the sun, which amounts to about four hours per day. Orbital assessments are very
difficult to conduct with passive optical systems and the shortened hours of operation would extend debris removal time considerably. Since there
are some objects which can be detected in visible light that cannot be seen with radar and vice versa, a passive optical system could be used as a
complement to a radar system.182
Bistatic Detection is based on the idea that orbital debris is constantly being illuminated by communications
between the ground and objects in LEO and GEO. As the commercial space industry grows and space
communication increases, more space debris will be illuminated. A bistatic detection system could thus benefit from
a large number of potential illuminators which are free of cost to the GBL.183 The targeting acquisition conclusions of the
Orion study are shown in Figure 9.
Using the laser system itself to perform both acquisition/targeting and debris removal is another option. The Orion
study determined that laser radar is feasible, but adds a great deal of complexity to the laser system. Unfortunately, this technology is
not as mature as microwave radar or passive optics, so any such laser radar system would require a substantial investment in research and
development.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

                                        SD Elimination K – US Lead
US Must act to eliminate space debris – action necessary to maintain economic and military viability and US
leadership is key!
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
Space debris increasingly threatens the provision of satellite services that have become integrated into the operations
of the global economy and U.S. military, such as GPS precision timing and navigation. While studies suggest that annually removing as
few as five massive pieces of debris in critical orbits could significantly stabilize the space debris environment, countries have hesitated to
develop space debris removal systems due to high costs and classic free rider problems. This paper argues that the
United States should take the lead in immediately developing systems to remove space debris with the greatest
potential to contribute to future collisions. Although leading by example will entail certain costs and risks, U.S.
leadership in preserving the near-Earth space environment will result in not only long-term benefits for the United
States, but also the fulfillment of U.S. national space policy and broader U.S.
foreign policy objectives.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                      International Solvency FAILS
Unilateral action necessary – international cooperation assures increase cost and decreased efficacy.
Unilateral action key.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
International cooperation in space has rarely resulted in cost-effective or expedient solutions, especially in
politically-charged areas of uncertain technological feasibility. The International Space Station, because of both
political and technical setbacks, has taken over two decades to deploy and cost many billions of dollars—far more
time and money than was originally intended. Space debris mitigation has also encountered aversion in international
forums. The topic was brought up in COPUOS as early as 1980, yet a policy failed to develop despite a steady flow
of documents on the increasing danger of space debris (Perek 1991). In fact, COPUOS did not adopt debris
mitigation guidelines until 2007 and, even then, they were legally non-binding. Space debris removal systems could
take decades to develop and deploy through international partnerships due to the many interdisciplinary challenges
they face. Given the need to start actively removing space debris sooner rather than later to ensure the continued
benefits of satellite services, international cooperation may not be the most appropriate mechanism for instigating
the first space debris removal system. Instead. one country should take a leadership role by establishing a national
space debris removal program. This would accelerate technology development and demonstration, which would, in
turn, build-up trust and hasten international participation in space debris removal.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL




                                   AT: Space Militarization
Weaponizing space will not lead to an arms race
Dolman Winter-Spring ’06 (Everett; SAIS Review “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”; Accessed 7/13/11)
And America would respond … finally. But would another state? If America were to
weaponize space today, it is unlikely that any other state or group of states would find it
rational to counter in kind. The entry cost to provide the infrastructure necessary is too
high; hundreds of billions of dollars, at minimum. The years of investment it would take
to achieve a minimal counter-force capability—essentially from scratch—would provide
more than ample time for the US to entrench itself in space, and readily counter
preliminary efforts to displace it. The tremendous effort in time and resources would be
worse than wasted. Most states, if not all, would opt not to counter US deployments in
kind. They might oppose US interests with asymmetric balancing, depending on how
aggressively America uses its new power, but the likelihood of a hemorrhaging arms race
in space should the US deploy weapons there—at least for the next few years—is
extremely remote.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                     Inherency – Air Force Space Fence
Current debris programs is limited to detection from the Air Force

Spence 11 (Scott, Director of Raytheon Space Fence Program, Integrated Defense Systems, “The Space Debris
Threat And How To Handle It”, July 9, http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/space-debris/)

As various organizations and individuals focus on developing the next disruptive technology to combat the space
debris crisis, the U.S. Air Force is simultaneously working to improve its space surveillance capability. First it wants
to replace its current Space Surveillance System, or VHF Fence, which has been in service since 1961. The
replacement program, dubbed Space Fence, will be designed to provide enhanced space surveillance capabilities to
detect, track and measure these smaller pieces of debris as well as commercial and military satellites. For example,
Space Fence will be able to detect a piece of debris the size of a softball traveling at 17,000 miles per hour from
more than 1,800 miles away. This enhanced capability will allow precise cataloging of up to 10 times the number of
low earth orbiting objects than the current systems in place.

Most importantly, Space Fence’s enhanced situational awareness capabilities will provide more accurate positioning
data, providing satellites and spacecraft with much longer lead times to assess potential collision dangers and make
more timely and strategic maneuvering decisions. For example, had this technology been operational during last
week’s close call for the International Space Station, Space Fence would have provided highly accurate tracking
data long before the threatening piece of space debris even approached. Instead of having only 15 hours of lead time,
NASA could have had much more time and information necessary to make an informed decision to maneuver—or
not—eliminating the need to consider an emergency crew evacuation.

Space Fence will be designed to create a larger field of vision using sensors in both hemispheres to provide a more
complete picture of orbiting objects. Delivery of the first radar system is expected by 2015.
We need to act now – we can’t let the fact the threat hasn’t happened yet blind us to the need to prevent it

McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference)

Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan [18], describes the difficulty of dealing with highly improbable and highly
unpredictable events that have severe repercussions. He accentuates the plight for those who try to prevent “Black
Swans” because they are never appreciated if they are successful, since preventing something that was highly
unlikely to begin with does not bring acclaim. Often, it is quite to the contrary; they actually get ridiculed for their
attempts to prevent events that others have difficulty even imagining.

I hope that we do not have such a situation with active debris removal actions. While the calculus of delaying action
is much clearer, it will still require some vision from policymakers and technologists to act now to start real
programs for active debris removal.


Must act now – interdependence on satellite technology makes catastrophe likely without a solution
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Communications, global commerce and national defense are today highly dependent on satellite constellations. This
report details how space debris threatens valuable space-based technology essential to these critical areas. Traveling
at speeds of over 7 kilometers per second,1 a millimeter-sized particle could cause serious damage to equipment or
death to a space explorer. Objects in lower earth orbit (LEO) pose the greatest immediate threat to space-based
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

assets. This paper focuses on all sizes of debris found in LEO. What follows is a comprehensive analysis of the problem of space debris,
specifically targeting policies that facilitate debris elimination.
Within LEO’s 2,000 kilometer altitude from earth’s surface, tens of millions of pieces of space debris exist. While
many larger pieces can be tracked and avoided, millions of smaller pieces cannot. This “unseen threat” exemplifies
the need for improvements in both space situational awareness and debris cataloguing.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                        Solvency: Space Fence
Space Fence could be operational by 2015 – would provide necessary time and warning for debris
Scott Spence, Director, Raytheon Space Fence Program, Integrated Defense Systems., Saturday July 9, 2011
(http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/space-debris/)
In the near future, enhanced “space situational awareness” capabilities will be paramount to detecting and reporting on
the proliferation of space debris and ever-increasing numbers of space objects in Earth’s lower orbits.
As various organizations and individuals focus on developing the next disruptive technology to combat the space debris crisis, the U.S. Air Force
is simultaneously working to improve its space surveillance capability. First it wants to replace its current Space Surveillance System, or VHF
Fence, which has been in service since 1961. The replacement program, dubbed Space Fence, will be designed to provide enhanced space
surveillance capabilities to detect, track and measure these smaller pieces of debris as well as commercial and military satellites. For example,
Space Fence will be able to detect a piece of debris the size of a softball traveling at 17,000 miles per hour from
more than 1,800 miles away. This enhanced capability will allow precise cataloging of up to 10 times the number of
low earth orbiting objects than the current systems in place.
Most importantly, Space Fence’s enhanced situational awareness capabilities will provide more accurate positioning
data, providing satellites and spacecraft with much longer lead times to assess potential collision dangers and make
more timely and strategic maneuvering decisions. For example, had this technology been operational during last week’s close call for
the International Space Station, Space Fence would have provided highly accurate tracking data long before the threatening piece of space debris
even approached. Instead of having only 15 hours of lead time, NASA could have had much more time and information necessary to make an
informed decision to maneuver—or not—eliminating the need to consider an emergency crew evacuation.
Space Fence will be designed to create a larger field of vision using sensors in both hemispheres to provide a more complete picture of orbiting
objects. Delivery of the first radar system is expected by 2015.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                            Solvency – Tether
Electrodynamic Tether Can Solve!
Frank Morring, Jr. 2011
Technological Editor of Space Technology Editor of Aviation Week & Space and Reseacher.

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) will be working with a venerable Japanese fishnet manufacturer on an orbital net to clean the
spaceways of debris. Nitto Seimo Co., a century-old firm in Fukuyama, is working with JAXA engineers on a concept that
would launch a metal net several kilometers long into orbit, unfurl it and then use an electrodynamic tether to haul it
back into the atmosphere along with a load of space junk. According to the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, the net company
believes it has a workable approach using a mesh of aluminum and steel fibers that can withstand the impact of fast-
moving orbital debris. The space net builds on strong, compactly storable knotless nets first developed by Nitto Seimo in 1925, according to
the newspaper.




Electrodynamic Thether Solves for the Larger Debris
Foust 2009
He has a bachelor's degree in geophysics & Ph.D in planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology

Carroll’s solution for removing some of the large objects in low Earth orbits is through electrodynamic tethers. “An
electrodynamic tether is simply a wire in a magnetic field in a plasma,” he explained. “If you flow a current through it, you get
a force that’s at right angles to the wire and at right angles to the magnetic field .” A vehicle concept he described, using a thin tether
ten kilometers long and with two kilowatts of electrical power, would generate enough force to change its orbit by
hundreds of kilometers per day.

Carroll envisions using such tethers to deorbit those large objects, pushing them down to low orbits that will decay
in a matter of weeks or months, then raising itself and moving on to another object. A single tether system, itself
weighing only about 100 kilograms, could deorbit objects in low Earth orbit at the rate of about one per week. That
low mass, he added, means the tethers could easily be launched as secondary payloads on other vehicles. “Twelve of them could clear out
the problem… in about five years,” he said. “It’s not reduce the rate of growth [of debris], it’s get rid of most of the
big stuff.”
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                              Tungsten Solvency
Tungsten doesn’t solve – has the potential to worsen space junk problem.
Alasdair Wilkens, 2011
(http://io9.com/5791767/why-a-tungsten-dust-cloud-could-help-solve-the-space-junk-crisis)

Space debris is generally characterized as either large enough to be tracked or too small to be seen, with the cutoff
placed at around 10 centimeters across. There's estimated to be just under 20,000 pieces of large junk, 500,000
pieces between 1 and 10 centimeters, and tens of millions that are smaller than a centimeter across. Even these very
small pieces can pose a serious risk to functioning spacecraft because they all travel at such high speeds, which
makes the fact that we can't actually track them even more problematic.

That's where Gurudas Ganguli and his colleagues at the US Naval Research Laboratory enter the picture. His idea is
to send up many tons of the metal tungsten up into space. This tungsten, which would be in dust form, would then be
spread throughout the upper atmosphere so that it eventually formed a thin cloud around the entire planet. The
tungsten would then start sticking to the tiny space junk, and because tungsten is so heavy it would push the junk to
fall back towards Earth, where both would burn up in reentry.

Here's the big problem with the idea - there's no guarantee that the tungsten would make us any better off. If the
tungsten dust started coalescing into balls of metal, they would remain up in orbit and become still more space junk
for us to contend with. In fact, they might even form a minor ring system around Earth much like those found
around the gas giants. Admittedly, that's actually kinda cool, but it would still only add to the dangers of continued
space exploration.

Tungsten solves small debris by creating drag and causing small debris to burn up
Ganguli, G. et al, 2011
(Crabtree, C., Rudakov, L., & Chappie, S. (2011). A Concept For Elimination Of Small Orbital Debris. Physics, 13-
17. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401)
In this article we only consider the case where debris has uniformly spread around the earth, i.e., fragmentation has occurred long before the
remediating dust is applied. The altitude of small debris can be reduced to below 900 km by artificially increasing the
drag on the debris. Higher drag can be achieved by injecting dust grains in a similar but oppositely directed orbit
with respect to the targeted debris. Due to orbit perturbations caused by the Earth’s irregular gravitational field, the orbital debris and
dust orbits will precess. However, injection in nearly polar orbits will minimize dust precession. Dust would spread over
latitude due to spread in the injection velocity and finally form a narrow shell slowly spreading in azimuth with dust
meridianal velocity in both directions. As the debris population enters this shell during the course of their
precession they experience enhanced drag. At any point in time half of the debris population will be counter rotating with respect to
the dust. The drag on the debris orbit is determined by the momentum balance equation, ⎛ ⎞= − × × −⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
where M, A, V, are debris mass, area (exposed to drag), and velocity, while md, vd, and nd, are the mass, velocity, and density of dust. The
factor κ = + + (1 1 ) f in Eq. (1) accounts for the type of dust/debris collision. If f = 1 then it implies the dust is stuck on the debris on impact
i.e., inelastic collision, f = 0 implies elastic collision, and implies loss of debris mass as eject a due to melting or evaporation resulting from
hypervelocity impacts. f > 0Maximum drag is achieved when the relative velocity between dust and the debris, where km/s is the orbital speed.
This implies hypervelocity dust-debris collision at about 15 km/s which will result in debris melting or evaporation
and effectively increase the drag force by a factor v 2 V − = dV V ≈ 7.5κ , where dfm is the debris mass that evaporates at hypervelocity
impact with dust grain. For a specific example assume the debris to be aluminum with heat of vaporization of 11 KJ/g. The specific kinetic
energy of 30 μm diameter tungsten dust grains at 15 km/s is 110 kJ/g. Due to the shock generated at hypervelocity impact all dust
kinetic energy will be used to vaporize debris 10) and debris mass of about 10mdwill evaporate per impact. This
corresponds to f = 10 and hence κ = 4.3 . This value of is conservative because the heat of vaporization of aluminum used corresponds to
normal atmospheric pressure of 1 bar. Hypervelocity impact is likely to generate higher pressure locally which will lower
the heat of vaporization 10) leading to larger debris matter vaporization. This will result in larger κκ which implies lower dust
mass as indicated in the estimate of dust mass given in Eq. (2) below.

Tungsten solves – it will create burn off and requires no new technology
Ganguli, G. et al, 2011
(Crabtree, C., Rudakov, L., & Chappie, S. (2011). A Concept For Elimination Of Small Orbital Debris. Physics, 13-
17. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401)
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Based on the physics discussed above we envision releasing dust in quasi-circular orbits between 900 and 1100 km.
The mass of dust required for remediation is a function of the ballistic coefficient of the orbital debris, the desired
altitude reduction of the debris, and the desired altitude reduction rate. The dimension and material density of the
dust grains will be optimized so that it can sustain the ‘snow plow’ effect. The dust dimension should also be small
enough to be harmless to active satellite components and their orbits. The period of induced drag on targeted small
debris is purposely designed to be long (years) so that the requirement for total dust mass carried to orbit is lower. In
a series of releases in quasicircular polar orbit, the dust cloud will spread and form a thin shell slowly spreading in
azimuth with large meridianal velocity in both directions. At any given point in this shell, half of the dust mass will
be in orbit oppositely directed to the targeted debris population. The interaction of dust with debris in this shell will
lower the debris altitude. The dust layer itself will descend in altitude over time and in the process lower the altitude
of all targeted debris from 1100 to 900 km below which the orbital lifetime of the small debris is naturally 25 years
or less. Along with the debris, the injected dust will ultimately burn up in the earth’s atmosphere at lower altitudes.
The technique described essentially just requires the transportation of “dumb mass” (micron-sized tungsten dust) to
polar orbit, No new technology development is necessary. The dust may be delivered as a secondary payload
utilizing the excess capacity available in many launches going to sun synchronous orbit or as a separate dedicated
dust dispensing satellite.

Tungsten Dust not a risk – despite increased dust, it would neither coagulate nor cause interruptions in high
altitude or space equipment
Ganguli, G. et al, 2011
(Crabtree, C., Rudakov, L., & Chappie, S. (2011). A Concept For Elimination Of Small Orbital Debris. Physics, 13-
17. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401)
Spacecraft are already designed to operate in the existing cosmic dust and orbital debris environment. The orbital
debris remediation technique using tungsten dust described herein would involve higher flux than the current
background, but mitigations are available. Certain aspects of spacecraft design are already dust impact tolerant by
design. Dust grains of the size proposed by NRL will certainly not penetrate thermal blankets, spacecraft structure,
or sensor baffles. Normally, earth observation satellites would point the sensors earthward and scientific satellites
away from earth both nearly orthogonal to the satellite motion. Hence, the risk to satellite sensors associated with
our small debris removal technique is minimal as the tungsten dust would approach in the local horizontal plane
only. Solar arrays could also be degraded by dust impacts, but that effect can be mitigated by thicker cover glass.
Recent laboratory tests indicate that solar cells remain unaffected by hypervelocity impact of a 100 μ m glass sphere
11) . The NRL concept involves deploying a tungsten dust layer of a limited thickness, perhaps 30 to 50 km. If
necessary active spacecraft could be maneuvered above or below this band using onboard propulsion and avoid the
artificial dust flux altogether. Finally, tungsten dust is no longer an issue to operational spacecraft below an altitude
of about 600 km because once at that altitude, the tungsten dust orbital lifetime would be brief and any interaction
time with operational spacecraft below 600 km would be minimal.
8. Environmental Impact
Micro meteorites introduce hundreds of tons of dust in the earth’s immediate environment daily 12). Hence,
injection of tens of tons of dust as required in the NRL small debris removal technique is a small perturbation to the
natural dust flux into the earth’s environment. Satellites are designed to perform in the natural dusty environment
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                      AT: Detection Only CP
Space debris removal is key – small particles are too random and removal is key to actually get rid of them

McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference)

Better space surveillance: Much of the analysis in this paper is based on the fact that the hazard from the “lethal
risk” (i.e. cm-size debris) is the eventual concern that may trigger the need to remove orbital debris. If this regime of
the debris population could be seen reliably and avoided by operational, maneuverable satellites then the entire
situation might change.

This, however, is only possible with new hardware and software. In addition, this may not be as much of a solution
as one might expect. Just seeing an object is not sufficient to being able to avoid it. There must be good orbital
element set information for the debris to produce data to create small covariance matrices that would permit accurate
probability of collision values to be determined. This requires regular observations of smaller debris. However,
smaller objects are generally more affected by atmospheric drag in LEO so it will be more difficult to maintain
precise orbital elements on them (or at least it will require more frequent observations).
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                           AT: Free Market CP
Free Market Won’t solve – clean space is a public good. Private actors will just invest in propulsion systems
to avoid instead of reducing debris

Mason et. al. 2011 (James, NASA Ames Research Center and Universities Space Research Association, Jan Stupl,
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, William Marshall, NASA Ames Research
Center and Universities Space Research Association, Creon Levit, NASA Ames Research Center, “Orbital Debris-
Debris Collision Avoidance”, June 29, Advances in Space Research, p.1-2)

In addition to the UN COPUOS's debris mitigation guidelines, collision avoidance (COLA) and active debris removal (ADR) have been
presented as necessary steps to curb the runaway growth of debris in the most congested orbital regimes such as low-Earth sun synchronous orbit
(Liou & Johnson, 2009). While active spacecraft COLA does provide some reduction in the growth of debris, alone it is insufficient to o set the
debris-debris collisions growth component (Liou, 2011). Liou & Johnson (2009) have suggested that stabilizing the LEO environment at current
levels would require the ongoing removal of at least 5 large debris objects per year going forward in addition to a 90% implementation of the post
mission disposal guidelines). Mission concepts for the removal of large objects such as rocket bodies traditionally involve rendezvous, capture
and de-orbit. These missions are inherently complex and to de-orbit debris typically requires Δv impulses of order 100 m/sec, making them
expensive to develop and y. Additionally, a purely market-based program to solve this problem seems unlikely to be
forthcoming; many satellite owner/operators are primarily concerned with the near term risk to their own spacecraft
and not with long term trends that might endanger their operating environment, making this a classic \tragedy of the
commons" (Hardin, 1968). The cost/benefit trade-off for active removal missions makes them unlikely to be pursued by
commercial space operators until the collision risk drives insurance premiums sufficiently high to warrant the investment.
To quantify this risk one can look to an example: ESA routinely performs detailed conjunction analysis on their ERS-2 and Envisat remote
sensing satellites (Klinkrad et al., 2005). Although the number of conjunctions predicted annually for Envisat by ESA's daily bulletins is in the
hundreds, only four events had very high collision probabilities (above 1 in 1,000). None of these conjunctions required avoidance maneuvers
after follow-up tracking campaigns reduced orbital covariances, or uncertainties (Klinkrad, 2009). While several maneuvers have been required
since then, the operational risk is still insufficient to provide incentive for large scale debris remediation effort and this
highlights the need for low-cost, technologically mature, solutions to mitigate the growth of the debris population
and specially to mitigate debris-debris collisions which owner/operators cannot influence with collision avoidance .
Governments remain the key actors needed to prevent this tragedy of the commons that threatens the use of space by
all actors.


Free market will not solve – demand doesn’t exist and no incentives for elimination of debris.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Despite the claim that orbital slots will one day be owned, traded and sold in an efficient market,48 the foreseeable
future remains one of universal access. The 2006 space policy of the United States “rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over
outer space or celestial bodies…and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from
space.”49 This precept echoes the declarations of the United Nations nearly four decades ago: “Outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance
with international law.”50
This “Global Common”51 of outer space offers vast opportunities for a host of government and commercial
applications, while featuring a unique legal aspect, the lack of property rights . According to research on an establishment of
such rights, this missing legal provision affects the orbital environment directly:
            By assigning property rights, a market is established in which the rights to orbital slots may be bought and sold. Selfish maximization
            of the profit from property rights will lead to a socially efficient outcome. The negative externalities will be eliminated.52
Even assuming the assignment of property rights that enable free markets to function efficiently,53 a
commercialized, profit-based market for space debris elimination requires a level of active demand for mitigation
that has yet to emerge. Given the current debris population, market forces have little influence over prevention or
remediation outside of insurance and space policy domains. Technologies for removal are untested and launch
capabilities limited and expensive.
Also absent from space law is a salvage taxonomy. While orbits are free from ownership, every piece of debris from
millimeter-sized paint flakes to frozen chunks of fuel remains the property of its original state or commercial
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

owner.54 According to space lawyer Arthur M. Dula, this factor adds to the complexity of debris removal as problems might
result if one country eliminated another country’s debris, even inadvertently.55
The current space policies of the United States and other space-faring nations do not portend movement toward a space property auction market
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, decision-making will continue to be based on policy guidance, rather than economics. In this light, how can
existing policies be improved to move debris elimination processes forward? What new policy tools might bring the problem of debris
remediation to the global government agenda?
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                            AT: Consultation CP
Consultation fails because of lack of sharing, culture of secrecy and policy practice surrounding debris
tracking and removal.
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
Sharing space data is vital to current and future Space Situational Awareness. There are disputes as to which types
of information should be shared, but it is generally agreed that all entities, whether foreign governments or
commercial ventures with space assets, can benefit from orbital element information. There are many different reasons for
building space surveillance systems, and these directly affect the information sharing environment. Programs such as the U.S. Air Force
Commercial and Foreign Entities (CFE) Pilot Program are currently providing orbital data and examining how other types of information sharing
can occur.
The World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information (CDI) held a 2006 conference on approaches to shared situational
awareness. In the conference summary, CDI lists a series of information sharing process-related challenges:
•The current email-based process for requesting data from the SSN is inconvenient, requires too much advanced notice, and does not
provide for direct contact in the case of complex matters.
•U.S. military SSN chain of command changes complicate interactions among stakeholders.
•Orbital data reporting formats and predictive models differ and are inefficient for broader community use.
•There is a lack of agreed upon reporting standards and interfaces for translating between formats and predictive models.
•Classification of orbital data and the “culture of secrecy” in military intelligence communities hinder the useful sharing
of information. This is especially true when referencing intergovernmental communications.
•All satellite operators do not comply consistently with informal routines for reporting orbital data and maneuver
information.
•Not all government operators participate in voluntary data reporting (i.e., China, Russia, and Indi a).
•There are uncertainties with liability in regard to sharing orbital data for collision avoidance .158
While there is much debate as to whether the aforementioned challenges are actually problems, there are nonetheless continual calls for
standardization of processes and increased sharing of information. A common information sharing system might alleviate some of the process-
related challenges listed above and has the capability to adapt as information needs among governments, commercial interests, and even the
casual space observer change as sensing and debris modeling technology changes.

There is no incentive to cooperate – US secrecy and national pride prevent sharing and/or private sector
action
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
There is little incentive for a commercial entity to build its own space surveillance network. With information
currently provided at zero cost, there is no profit potential to reward commercial entrepreneurship. Instead, commercial
entities are strongly encouraging governments such as that of the United States to continue publishing orbital element sets. In a statement to
Congress, Iridium Satellite, the operator of the largest commercial satellite installation in the world, stated, “We encourage continued funding of
the Commercial and Foreign Entities (CFE) pilot program to provide space surveillance data to commercial operators to help promote safe
operations in space.”162 Some space operators within the commercial sector believe that the TLEs provided through the CFE program are not
good enough. David McGlade, the CEO of Intelsat, has stated, “Although CFE has been advantageous for governments and industry, the
accuracy of the data currently provided is not sufficient for precise collision detection/assessments, support of launch operations, end of life/re-
entry analyses, nor anomaly resolution.”163
Foreign entities may decide to build separate space surveillance systems for many reasons. Space surveillance
technologies can be seen as a source of national pride and relying on the United States could be interpreted as a
source of weakness. It is commonly known that the element sets distributed through www.space-track.org do not
include sensitive U.S. Satellites. This information, combined with the knowledge that website data is less accurate
than available internal data, could lead to distrust of U.S. data. Users may also worry that the United States could
purposefully modify the data for political reasons. A clause of the space-track.org User Agreement states, “The U.S. Government
reserves the right, without notice and in its sole discretion, to terminate the user's access to this website, and to block or prevent future access to
and use of the website.”164 The potential that the CFE program could be abruptly terminated or discontinue publishing
element sets to certain individuals is another reason that a foreign entity would build its own system.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

              a desire for higher accuracy data than currently provided may drive a foreign entity to create its own
As noted above,
space surveillance system. Debris modeling is only as accurate as its source information, and beginning with low-
accuracy data prevents high-accuracy modeling. A country may also use space surveillance as a bargaining tool in
order to remove its sensitive satellite data from published element sets. France is a good example of this. The United States
regularly publishes the element sets from French military and communication satellites. France claims to have used its Graves radar to track
objects which are nonexistent in the SSN catalogue. According to these established agreements, the French would like to get additional
information on the 20-30 objects which they are tracking and possibly use them as leverage to convince the United States that it should stop
publishing data on the sensitive space assets of France.165
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                         AT: ICJ Counter Plan
ICJ wouldn’t work – time frame is too long and enforcement too weak
Johnson and Hudson, et al, 2008
(Lt. Kevin Johnson USAF, John G. Hudson II Ph.D Global Innovation Strategy Center, GISC, Eliminating Space
Debris:Applied Technology and Policy Prescriptions, Fall 2008,
http://www.slideshare.net/stephaniclark/giscinternpaperspacedebriselimination)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the official judicial arm of the United Nations. The Court hears legal disputes upon the request of a
member state or member states in accordance with international law with an advisory opinion to follow. The ICJ also assists in answering legal
questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and other specialized agencies.75 The benefit of utilizing the official arm
of the United Nations to resolve international outer space issues is clear when one considers the historic role played
by the UN in establishing outer space principles such as those set forth in 1967 Outer Space Treaty .
Some argue that maritime law should inform international state conflicts in outer space. In fact, the ICJ is the international judicial body that upon
request hears maritime disputes and renders an advisory opinion. Some examples of disputes recently under the jurisdiction of the ICJ are as
follows:
•Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua).76
•Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine).77
•Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore).78
The ICJ does not take a “request for hearing” from individuals. The Court is dedicated to UN member nations with the caveat that once judgment
is delivered, it is binding. According to Article 94 of the United Nations Charter, “Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with
the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”79.
The drawback to an ICJ hearing is that a case can take anywhere from two to ten years (or more) from the year the
case was originally filed up to final judgment. The issue of timeliness is significant when one considers that
commercial applications of space-based technology are time sensitive due to emerging technologies. To date, the
ICJ has not been asked to hear a space law conflict. Some argue that the ICJ is not a realistic option for space
dispute resolution because it lacks the ability to enforce a judgment.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                        AT: Postmission Disposal CP
Postmission regulation won’t solve – alternatives must be considered

Liou and Johnson 09 (J.C. Engineering Science Contact Group at NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L.,
Orbital Debris Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center, “ A sensitivity study of the effectiveness of active
debris removal in LEO”, Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 236 – 243, p.236)

Recent numerical simulations on the evolution of orbital debris population in low-Earth orbit (LEO, 200–2000 km
altitude) indicate that the population has reached a point where the environment is unstable and population growth is
inevitable [1,2]. The main conclusion from the two studies is that even if no further space launches were conducted,
the Earth satellite population would remain relatively constant for only the next 50 years or so. Beyond that, the
debris population would begin to increase noticeably due to the production of collisional debris. In reality, the
satellite population growth in LEO will undoubtedly be worse than the studies indicate, since spacecraft and their
orbital stages will continue to be launched into space and unexpected major breakups may continue to occur.
Postmission disposal of vehicles, such as limiting postmission orbital lifetimes to less than 25 years, can certainly
slow down the population growth [3–5]. However, this mitigation measure will be insufficient to prevent further
growth of the Earth satellite population. To better preserve the near-Earth environment for future space activities,
other alternatives must be considered
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL




                          AT: Treaty/Law CP – Perm
Perm solvess – only law with money and policy can reduce debris

Von Der Dunk 01 (Frans, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Space and Telecommunications Law Program Faculty
Publications, “Space Debris and the Law”, Published in: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Space
Debris, 19 – 21, March, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelaw/4/)

Thus, in the last resort it is not law that will solve the problem of space debris, or at least solve it on its own. Once
money andlor political will are there, law will be able to offer a number of interesting mechanisms for trying to
ensure that such money would be well spent and such political will would be translated into useful practical results.
But as long as the solutions that exist are seen as costing too much money or as resulting in unacceptable checks on
national sovereignty, with perhaps a few interesting exceptions legal solutions would remain merely sleeping
solutions. Would the waiting not perhaps be for a crucial triggering event, waking everyone up to the danger?
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                            AT: Space Weaponization
We don’t link – space photon pushing won’t be able to damage satellites and won’t be a weapon

Mason et. al. 2011 (James, NASA Ames Research Center and Universities Space Research Association, Jan Stupl,
Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, William Marshall, NASA Ames Research
Center and Universities Space Research Association, Creon Levit, NASA Ames Research Center, “Orbital Debris-
Debris Collision Avoidance”, June 29, Advances in Space Research, p.1-2)

In this paper we propose a laser system using only photon momentum transfer for debris-debris collision avoidance.
Using photon pressure as propulsion goes back to the first detailed technical study of the solar sail concept (Garwin,
1958). The use of lasers to do photon pressure propulsion was first proposed by Forward (1962). For the application
of this to collision avoidance, a ∆v of 1cm/s, applied in the anti-velocity direction results in a displacement of
2.5km/day for a debris object in LEO. This along track velocity is far larger than the typical error growth of the
known orbits of debris objects. Such small impulses can feasibly be imparted only through photon momentum
transfer, greatly reducing the required power and complexity of a ground based laser system. Additionally, this
reduces the potential for the laser system to accidentally damage active satellites or to be perceived as a weapon.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                                   AT: Spending
Spending now on orbital debris saves money – stops the debris before it fragments

McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference)

A simple static (i.e. no temporal dimension) economic threshold is derived that provides the clearest indicator that
active debris removal solutions development and deployment should start immediately. This straightforward
observation is based on the fact that it will always be at least an order of magnitude less expensive, quicker to
execute, and operationally beneficial to remove mass from orbit as one large (several thousand kilograms) object
rather than as the result of tens of thousands of fragments that would be produced from a catastrophic collision.
Additionally, the ratio of lethal fragments to trackable objects is only ~1,000x yet there is a need for the collection
efficiency to be ~10,000x so “sweeping” of lethal fragments is not viable.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


           Neg Solv: Removal & International Law
International law and cooperation makes debris removal cumbersome, costly, and problematic
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
At the same time, implementing active debris removal systems poses not only difficult technical challenges, but also
many political ones. The global nature of space activities implies that these systems should entail some form of
international cooperation. However, international cooperation in space has rarely resulted in cost-effective or
expedient solutions, especially in areas of uncertain technological feasibility. Further, it will be difficult to quickly
deploy these systems before the space environment destabilizes. Problems will also arise in dividing the anticipated
high costs, as a small number of countries are responsible for the large majority of the space debris population, yet
all nations will benefit from its removal.

Because majority of debris is due to three nations – international solutions are doomed to failure.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
There are many sources of space debris, including satellites that are no longer functional; mission related objects,
such as tools lost by astronauts during extravehicular activities; and fragmentation events, which can be either
accidental or intentional (Jehn 2008, 7). Fragmentation debris is the largest source of space debris. Three countries
in particular are responsible for roughly 95 percent of the fragmentation debris currently in Earth’s orbit: China (42
percent), the United States (27.5 percent), and Russia (25.5 percent) (NASA 2008, 3). Although this distribution
of responsibility suggests that these countries should contribute more to cleaning up the near-Earth space
environment than others, the fact that many nations will benefit from remediation results in a classic free rider
problem that complicates the situation. Similar to the political challenges associated with an effective multilateral
response to climate change, this uneven distribution of historic esponsibility threatens to prevent or stall much-
needed action.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                                     Neg: Solvency
Multiple barriers to solvency – cost, relations and availability of resources prevent solvency.
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
There are substantial technical, economic, political, and legal barriers to developing, deploying, and operating active
debris removal systems. Many current concepts rely on unproven technology, which means they will require
substantial time and money to develop and deploy. The quantity of time and money required will vary with each concept, and
detailed estimations are not publicly available because of the nascent state of the field. However, as a rough point of reference, it costs around
$10,000 per kilogram to launch anything into orbit, making the cost of merely launching many of the aforementioned systems
on the order of millions of dollars. Moreover, flagship missions at NASA, depending on their size, take five to ten
years to plan, develop, and launch. There is also a lack of clear policy on both national and international levels.
Space-faring countries and the United Nations have only adopted mitigation guidelines and have not cited the
development of active debris removal systems as part of their space policies. Moreover, there has been a lack of discussion
about what entity is responsible for financing and operating these systems. This is a complicated issue as some nations have created more debris
than others, yet all space-faring nations and users of satellites services would benefit from space debris clean up.
 Provisions in the five United Nations outer space treaties must also be considered. For instance, Article VIII of the 1967
Outer Space Treaty states that nations retain jurisdiction and control over their space objects and that “ownership of objects launched into outer
space…and of their component parts…is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to Earth.” This
provision becomes significant when combined with the 1972 Liability Convention, which states that nations are internationally liable for damages
caused by their space objects both in space and on Earth. Accordingly, before any debris is removed from orbit, consent from the
appropriate country will need to be obtained. Using commercial companies to operate debris removal systems would
not get around this problem of liability, as Article VI of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty makes countries responsible for the outer space
activities of both their governmental and non-governmental entities.
 Another major concern is the similarities between space debris removal systems and space weapons. Indeed, any
system that can remove a useless object from orbit can also remove a useful one . There is an extensive and ongoing debate
over space weapons, and in particular how to define them (Moltz 2008, 42-43). As the decades-long debate has failed to even produce a clear
definition of the term, it will be nearly impossible to actively remove space debris without the use of devices that could
be classified in some way as potential space weapons. Thus, openness and transparency will be an important element
in the development, deployment, and operation of any space debris removal system so that it is not seen as a covert
ASAT weapon.
The biggest challenge, however, will be simply starting the process of active debris removal. Despite growing consensus
within the space debris community that active removal will be needed over the next several decades, the fact that space activities continue today
without significant interference causes the larger global community to not see space debris as an issue. Moreover, space suffers from the
“tragedy of the commons,” a phenomenon that refers to the overexploitation of a shared resource when there is no
clear ownership over it. This, in addition to the abovementioned challenges facing debris removal systems, means
that the natural tendency of those in power will likely be to do nothing until they absolutely must . This is reminiscent
of responses to climate change, where the failure of governments to take responsibility for their past actions and act preemptively is
compromising the larger global good. Policy makers must therefore take necessary actions, as recommended in next section of this
paper, to
prevent what is now happening on Earth from also occurring in space.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

Debris removal doesn’t exist because it’s too costly – mitigation would cost billions!
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
There is currently no man-made space debris removal system in operation, nor have there been any serious attempts
to develop one. However, common concepts include electrodynamic tethers, solar sails, drag augmentation devices,
orbital transfer vehicles, nd space-based lasers. All of these have their own benefits and drawbacks, making it
difficult to find a single system that fulfills all of the above requirements. For example, twelve electrodynamic
tethers weighing only one hundred kilograms each could be launched as secondary payloads to stabilize the space
debris population in low-Earth’s orbit within five years (Foust 2009). However, tethers only work on objects greater
than ten centimeters and attaching them to debris using conventional robotics would “incur excessive costs for the
benefit gained” (Liou and Johnson 2006, 340-341). In contrast, a constellation of space-based lasers using
photoablation to guide debris out of critical orbits could reach further than low-Earth’s orbit, but would only work
on debris smaller than ten centimeters. Moreover, the required laser technology is currently unavailable and
launching a satellite constellation costs up to billions of dollars, making the development and deployment of such a
system extremely expensive
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                                         Neg Cards
Space debris don’t pose a serious threat now
McKnight 2010 (Dr. Darren, Integrity Applications Inc., provider of specialized, high-demand acquisition and systems engineering
expertise, project management, software applications, systems integration and analytic support services to solve the nation's most challenging
intelligence, security, operational and defense needs, Chief Scientist at Agilex Technologies, Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy,
“Pay Me Now or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”, September, Proceedings of the Advanced
Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference, http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf )

In summary, there is no “clear and present danger” from orbital debris but the cascading effect of hypervelocity
collisions between large trackable objects in LEO will eventually push the population toward a state where there is an adverse operational impact
on functioning satellites by creating many more objects in the “lethal” yet
nontrackable range (5mm to 10cm). A specific calculation for this risk will now be provided.

The tech isn’t there – panels of international experts have repeatedly failed to identify a feasible solution

Liou and Johnson 09 (J.C. Engineering Science Contact Group at NASA Johnson Space Center, Nicholas L.,
Orbital Debris Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center, “ A sensitivity study of the effectiveness of active
debris removal in LEO”, Acta Astronautica 64 (2009) 236 – 243, p.236)

Concepts for removing large debris from LEO have been proposed for more than 25 years. Early ideas for using the
U.S. Space Shuttle, either directly or in conjunction with an orbital transfer vehicle, were found unattractive due to
safety, availability, cost, and policy issues. Numerous independent robotic concepts, ranging from classical space-
based garbage scows to momentum and electrodynamic tethers, drag augmentation devices, solar and magnetic sails,
and other exotic techniques, have also been considered. However, reviews by panels of international experts have
repeatedly failed to identify a single plan which is both technically feasible in the near-term and economically
viable.

Aff can’t solve – international cooperation is necessary

Zenko 11 (Micah, Fellow for Conflict Prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, “The Danger of Space
Debris”, July 5, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2011/07/05/the-danger-of-space-debris/)

The space debris problem is a classic global governance dilemma: though eleven states can launch satellites, and
over sixty countries or government consortia own or operate the approximately 1,100 active satellites, no one
country or group of countries has the sovereign authority or responsibility for regulating space. Under Article II of
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty.”

The solution to reducing the amount of new space debris, mitigating the threat it poses to satellites and spacecraft,
and eventually removing on-orbit debris from space, will require enhanced international cooperation. Last summer,
the Obama administration released its National Space Policy, which featured the objective of preserving the space
environment via “the continued development and adoption of international and industry standards and policies to
minimize debris,” and “fostering the development of space collision warning measures.” Unfortunately, progress
toward constructing international agreed upon rules of the road for the responsible uses of space have been slow
going.

Space Debris risk low – even the scary ISS collision was 1 in 360

Zenko 11 (Micah, Fellow for Conflict Prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, “The Danger of Space
Debris”, July 5, http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2011/07/05/the-danger-of-space-debris/)

Last week, six astronauts living on board the International Space Station (ISS), which orbits some 200 miles above
the earth’s surface, received notice that a piece of space debris travelling 29,000 miles per hour would pass
dangerously nearby. NASA officials calculated that the probability of the ISS being hit at around one in 360. (One
in 10,000 is NASA’s nominal threshold for which it will authorize a “collision avoidance maneuver.”) Normally, the
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

ISS receives ample notice so that it can maneuver out of the pathway of potential space debris. However, with less
than fifteen hours’ warning, the astronauts were forced to relocate to Soyuz space capsules for only the second time
in the ISS’s thirteen-year history.

Russia intl CP

Sénéchal 07 (Thierry, MPA Harvard, M.Sc. London Business School, Dissertation submitted to the MIT Sloan
School of Management as part of the requirements for the fulfillment of an MBA, June,
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/Orbital%20Debris%20Convention%20Thierry%20Senechal%2011%20May%202007.p
df)

The Federal Space Agency of Russia is active in the field of space debris problems. The Agency is mostly
concerned with the safety of spacecraft and International Space Station (ISS). The activity on debris mitigation is
presently being carried out within the framework of Russian National Legislation, taking into account the dynamics
of similar measures and practices of other space-faring nations. Since 2000 designers and operators of spacecraft and
orbital stages have been asked to follow the requirements of Federal Space Agency’s standard entitled “Space
Technology Items, General Requirements for Mitigation of Space Debris Population”. According to the Federal
Space Agency of Russia, no major accident has occurred in past years. In 2006, the agency reported that 194 events
were detected with approaches of cataloged GEO objects to Russian operational spacecrafts up to distance less than
50 km. Furthermore, 10 events were detected with approaches up to distances less than 10 km that is comparable
with errors
of orbital parameters calculations.31
The Russian Federation is now working on a set of mitigation measures. A national standard called “General
Requirements to Spacecraft and Orbital Stages on Space Debris Mitigation” is being developed and shall provide
general space debris mitigation requirements to design and operation of spacecrafts and orbital stages. At this stage,
the implementation of requirements would remain voluntary. In terms of international cooperation, and similar to the
US position, the Russian Federation is convinced that development of space debris mitigation guidelines of the
Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is the essential
input in developing an internationally approved set of measures to protect near-Earth space environment. For the
disposal of satellite at geosynchronous altitude, Russia also proposes to base the standard on IADC Space Debris
Mitigation Guidelines.

ESA CP

Sénéchal 07 (Thierry, MPA Harvard, M.Sc. London Business School, Dissertation submitted to the MIT Sloan
School of Management as part of the requirements for the fulfillment of an MBA, June,
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/Orbital%20Debris%20Convention%20Thierry%20Senechal%2011%20May%202007.p
df)

ESA has a long history in tracking space debris.32 In 1986, the Director General of ESA created a Space Debris
Working Group with the mandate to assess the various issues of space debris. The findings and conclusions are
contained in ESA's Report on Space Debris, issued in 1988. In 1989, the ESA Council passed a resolution on space
debris where the Agency’s objectives were formulated as follows: 1) Minimize the creation of space debris; 2)
reduce the risk for manned space flight, 3) reduce the risk on ground due to reentry of space objects, 4) reduce the
risk for geostationary satellites. ESA’s Launcher Directorate at ESA Headquarters in Paris also coordinates the
implementation of debris mitigation measures for the Arianespace launcher.

Over the last few years, ESA developed debris warning systems and mitigation guidelines. Following the
publication of NASA mitigation guidelines for orbital debris in 1995, ESA published a Space Debris Mitigation
Handbook, issued in 1999, in order to provide technical support to projects in the following areas: Description of the
current space, debris and meteoroid environment, risk assessment due to debris and meteoroid impacts, future
evolution of the space debris population, hyper-velocity impacts and shielding, cost-efficient debris mitigation
measures. The Handbook has been updated.33

Space debris research is done at the European Space Research and Technology Centre
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

(ESTEC) mainly focusing on the space segment. Activities include:
1. Development and deployment of impact detectors
2. Development of impact risk assessment tools
3. Development and testing of shielding designs
4. Support for shielding design verification
5. Impact analysis of retrieved hardware
6. Assessment of impact damage

In many cases, ESA actively proposed plans to shield its satellites, or at least critical areas such as using pressurized
tanks to minimize the impact of a collision with debris. The Agency also advocates that this is a requirement for
human space missions, including the ISS and all other critical areas used for human space flight.

Free market incentives CP

Sénéchal 07 (Thierry, MPA Harvard, M.Sc. London Business School, Dissertation submitted to the MIT Sloan
School of Management as part of the requirements for the fulfillment of an MBA, June,
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/Orbital%20Debris%20Convention%20Thierry%20Senechal%2011%20May%202007.p
df)

When addressing the problem posed by space debris, it is thus time to include the space industry in the international
effort to tackle this pressing issue. The space industry does not bear the responsibility for leveling the playing field
and ensuring that space free of pollution. However, government and the private sector must construct a new
understanding of the balance of public and private responsibility and develop new governance for activity in space
and thus creating social value.38

Many advances in the space industry have to be accounted for. First, due to the success of recent low cost launches,
the projected scope of space tourism and NASA’s new directive from President Bush to return to the Moon and then
go to Mars, space transportation and exploration is again regaining considerable attention in the private sector. With
new needs emerging for telecommunication (for instance GPS satellites at medium earth orbit, Sirius satellite radio
at HEO, and commercial geostationary satellites) and other space activities, it is therefore believed that new firms
will enter the space market. Unless they adhere to strict mitigation standards, these initiatives will continue to create
more space debris and, at the same time, their business will be vulnerable to such debris. For that reason, it is vital
for the space private sector to understand that the business is at risk if nothing is done to limit space debris. In the
proposed international convention, the corporate view will be needed and the drafting of the legal regime will need
to include the views expressed by the space industry at large.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL


                                               Consultation CP
Solvency requires consultation with existing laws and actors to assure efficacy
Ansdell, 2010
(Megan, graduate student in the Master in International Science and Technology Program at the George Washington
University’s Elliot School of International Affairs, “Active Space Debris Removal: Needs, Implications, and
Recommendations for Today’s Geopolitical Environment”, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-
Debris-Removal.pdf)
The ideal debris removal system should fulfill certain technical, economic, political, and legal requirements.
Technical requirements include quick development and deployment, maximum use of proven technologies, and
minimum introduction of new mass into orbit. Economic requirements involve a reasonable cost-to-benefit ratio, such that the
inputted effort produces a noticeable improvement in the space debris environment.
Political requirements include transparent development, deployment, and operations, such that other space-faring
nations trust that the system will not be used to intentionally remove their active satellites from orbit. Finally, legal
requirements should ensure compliance with existing international laws and standards, in particular the five United
Nations treaties on outer space. These requirements are discussed in more detail in the remaining sections of this paper.
SDI 11
SPACE DEBRIS
KL

								
To top