Docstoc

DDI11 KM Debris Aff.doc

Document Sample
DDI11 KM Debris Aff.doc Powered By Docstoc
					Space Trash                          DDI 2011
                                           1




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                           1
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                               Contention One: Inherency:
Current programs not enough to solve collisions.
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss

     General Kevin P. Chilton says his U.S. Strategic Command tracks 21,500 catalog objects, involving about 800 active
     satellites, calculates potential collisions, and issues warnings to satellite operators. Each day it produces 800 conjunction
     analyses, about one for every active satellite. Many satellites can maneuver out of the way of debris when a near approach
     is predicted. However, STRATCOM does not have resources to predict every potential conjunction and issued no warning
     on the Iridium satellite last year.

Some LEO altitudes have already reached critical density.
Andrew Brearley, April 2005, Astropolitics, Volume 3, Issue 1, “Faster than a speeding bullert: Orbital debris”

      The population of debris in LEO is rising towards a critical situation known as the ‘Kessler Syndrome’. At this point, there
     are so many objects in orbit that even without additional satellites deployments, the population will rise due to cascading,
     resulting from random collisions causing larger objects to fragment. The total mass would remain constant, but it would be
     redistributed in favour of smaller objects.73
     Fragmentations can be divided into three categories: accidental failures of propulsion systems, deliberate actions and
     unknown causes.74 Deliberately destroyed satellites are usually military, either those that have come to the end of their life
     time which their owners do not want to be inspected by others,75 or those tested as part of space weaponry systems.76
     Fragmentation is considered a serious threat; therefore, when satellites are placed in orbit the remaining fuel is vented from
     spent rocket stages to reduce the possibility of accidental explosions.77 The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
     Committee (IADC) guidelines for debris, as presented to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
     Space (UNCOPUOS), further state that batteries on board spacecraft should be designed such that they will not result in
     fragmentations when the craft becomes defunct.78 This process of pacification is important, as non-pacified upper rocket
     stages have been involved in a third of all known fragmentations in orbit.79 The requirement for mitigation measures is
     illustrated by the fragmentations that have been observed; eight separate occasions have individually produced over 240
     pieces of debris.80
     Should the Kessler Syndrome occur; the Earth would be surrounded by a permanent ‘debris belt’, just as Saturn has a ring
     around it. Although such chain reactions remain theoretical at present, expert opinion holds that two altitudes in LEO may
     have already reached ‘critical density’, 900–1,000 km and 1,500 km.81 The possibility of chain reactions is the most
     dangerous aspect of debris production;82 demonstrated by the fact that 85 per cent of all debris greater than 5 cm in
     diameter may be the product of fragmentation of upper rocket stages or spacecraft.83

Active Removal necessary to prevent collision cascade.
David Wright, codirector and senior scientist with the global security program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, October 20 07,
Physics Today, p. 37-38, “Space Debris”

If the debris density becomes large enough at some altitudes, those regions of space can become "supercritical," meaning that
collisions between objects are frequent enough that they produce additional debris faster than atmospheric drag removes debris from
the region. The additional particles further increase the collision probability in the region, which leads to a slow-motion chain reaction
or cascade as the large objects in orbit are ground into smaller fragments. That situation is sometimes called the Kessler syndrome
after Donald Kessler, who studied the possibility."A study released by NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office in 2006, before the
Chinese test, showed that parts of space have already reached supercritical debris densities.11 In particular, the study shows that in the
heavily used altitude band from 900 to 1000 km, the number of debris fragments larger than 10 cm is expected to more than triple over
the next 200 years, even assuming no additional objects arc launched into the band. The study estimates that the total population of
large debris in LEO will increase by nearly 40% during that time, still under the assumption of no additional launches. The debris
from the Chinese test will make matters worse. An important implication of the study is that while mitigation efforts are important for
slowing the increases, only debris-remediation measures such as removing large, massive objects already in orbit can hope to prevent



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       2
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
their consequences. Remediation efforts such as robotic missions to remove defunct satellites and rocket stages arc very expensive, but
are being studied.

Now is key to remove debris.
Senechal, 2007 (Thierry, Policy Manager with the International Chamber of Commerce. Over the years, he has served as an expert
advisor in a broad range of international litigation and arbitration cases, Papers on International Environmental Negotiation, Volume
16 Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Treaty-making System, Editors Susskind and Moomaw, PON Books, Program on Negotiation
at Harvard Law School, www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdf ) hss

     Other factors make it necessary to consider a convention now. First, from a commercial perspective, space activities are on
     an upward trajectory and new space powers are entering the commercial launching and space exploration market. As a
     result, most experts agree that space debris will continue to grow in the coming years. It should also be noted that space
     debris39 will increase exponentially as compared to payloads (See Figure 4-4 below).

Debris harmful to satellites and blocks space access
Stuart Clark, PhD in astrophysics, 9/11/10, New Scientist, “Who you gonna call? Junk busters!”, Lexis BB

     EARTH'S rings have never looked so beautiful, you think as you look up at the pallid sliver of light arcing through the
     night sky. Yet unlike Saturn's magnificent bands of dust and rubble, Earth's halo is one of our own making. It is nothing but
     space junk, smashed-up debris from thousands of satellites that once monitored our climate, beamed down TV programmes
     and helped us find our way around. This scenario is every space engineer's nightmare. It is known as the Kessler syndrome
     after Donald Kessler, formerly at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Back in 1978, he and colleague Burton
     Cour-Palais proposed that as the number of satellites rose, so would the risk of accidental collisions. Such disasters would
     create large clouds of shrapnel, making further collisions with other satellites more likely and sparking a chain reaction that
     would swiftly surround the Earth with belts of debris. Orbits would become so clogged as to be unusable and eventually our
     access to space would be completely blocked. On 10 February 2009 it started to happen. In the first collision between two
     intact satellites, the defunct Russian craft Kosmos-2251 struck communications satellite Iridium 33 at a speed of 42,100
     kilometres per hour. The impact shattered one of Iridium 33's solar panels and sent the satellite into a helpless tumble.
     Kosmos-2251 was utterly destroyed. The two orbits are now home to clouds of debris that, according to the US military's
     Space Surveillance Network (SSN), contain more than 2000 fragments larger than 10 centimetres. The collision may also
     have produced hundreds of thousands of smaller fragments, which cannot currently be tracked from Earth. Such debris is a
     serious worry. With satellites travelling at tens of thousands of kilometres per hour, any encounter with debris could be
     lethal. "Being hit by a 1-centimetre object at orbital velocity is the equivalent of exploding a hand grenade next to a
     satellite," says Heiner Klinkrad, head of the space debris office at the European Space Agency in Darmstadt, Germany.
     "Iridium and Kosmos was an early indication of the Kessler syndrome." Space junk isn't just made up of dead satellites. It
     also includes spent upper-stage rockets, used to loft the satellites into orbit, and items that have escaped the grasp of
     butterfingered astronauts, such as the glove Ed White dropped in 1965 as he became the first American to walk in space,
     and the tool kit that slipped from Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper's hand during a 2008 space walk. Protective covers and the
     explosive bolts used to separate them from uncrewed spacecraft have also been left to float away, along with a few lens
     caps for good measure. Some of these objects re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, but most are still up there. The SSN has
     catalogued 12,000 objects in Earth orbit that are at least 10 centimetres in size, about three-quarters of which are space
     junk. For objects bigger than 1 centimetre, the estimates are frightening: there are anything from hundreds of thousands to
     millions of them, mostly in unknown orbits and each capable of smashing a satellite to smithereens. Every rocket launch
     creates yet more space debris, edging us ever closer to the Kessler syndrome becoming a reality.

Advantage One: Economy

The risk of collision deters private sector telecommunications investment in space
Senechal, 2007 (Thierry, Policy Manager with the International Chamber of Commerce. Over the years, he has served as an expert
advisor in a broad range of international litigation and arbitration cases, Papers on International Environmental Negotiation, Volume
16 Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Treaty-making System, Editors Susskind and Moomaw, PON Books, Program on Negotiation
at Harvard Law School, www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdf ) hss

     The market for commercial space launchers has witnessed rapid growth over the past several years. If more space debris



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       3
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
     accumulates, the business is at risk. Today, more and more activities rely on well functioning communication equipment in
     space. Any disruption can have major consequential losses. World geopolitics has dramatically changed since the 1960s
     race to the moon. At the time, the U.S. and the Soviet Union competed with one another, both on Earth and in space.
     Today, the space market is again on the upward trend. By the end of last century, the world satellite market generated
     revenues of about $11 billion. In terms of satellite launches, the year 2002 has shown the highest number of launches with
     289. Today, the worldwide revenues for the market are around the $16 billion. The health of the global telecommunications
     market determines to a great extent the sustainability, and therefore the continuity, of space industry. For instance, of the
     155 satellites successfully launched by Ariane-4, the French space launcher, in the course of its operation, 139 are
     telecommunications satellites. Of the 39 satellites launched by Ariane-5 by mid-2005, 26 are telecommunication satellites.
     It is estimated that 90% of the value of satellite payloads launched by Ariane-5 will be telecommunications-related.12
     Several trends are positively impacting on the commercial satellite market. First, new needs have appeared. Networks of
     Little LEOs, Big LEOs, LEO broadband systems, MEOs and GEOs are scheduled for launch within the next seven years.
     With improvements in satellite components, technologies and production processes, satellite systems are improving in
     function, as well as in production and operational costs. 1994, a Space Plan for 1995-2006 was drawn and a U.S.$700
     million budget allocated, for the launch of science and telecommunication satellites. South Korea, India, China and Japan
     all have strong space programs capable of integrating and launching satellites. As pointed by Frost and Sullivan, the “space
     systems market is encouraged by a new space race among Asian rocket and satellite buidlers vying for commercial
     customers on the global market.” At this pace, incidents are likely to occur. As a result, in case of damage and
     consequential business interruption for the commercial operators, there must be a compensation instrument put in place for
     recovering the cost of the loss. Typically, in the space industry, there are about 10-15 large insurers (called underwriters).
     There are about 13 international insurance underwriters that provide about 75% or so of the total annual capacity. However,
     none of them provides coverage for space debris damages. Because damages and losses caused by space debris are difficult
     to cover from a traditional insurance perspective, it is important to draft an international convention that would define the
     extent of national jurisdiction in outer space. In the following pages, I discuss how a liability and compensation mechanism
     can be implemented.

Telecommunications key to the economy.
Ernest C.A. Ndukwe, Chief Executive Nigerian Communications Commission, April 20 02, “Practical applications of
telecommunications”, Media Encounter Seminar,

     The most dramatic impact of telecommunications have undoubtedly been economic. It is now accepted that the productivity
     and competitiveness of all economic sectors and their capacity to innovate in terms of products, services and processes
     increasingly depend on communications networks. Telecommunications networks are making it possible for developing
     countries to participate in the world economy in ways that simply were not possible in the past – by enabling them to take
     advantage of their intellectual and cultural resources. Computer networking has taken over localised computing all over the
     world to allow for resources and information sharing. The interconnection of computers has brought about greater
     efficiency and better information management. Clearly, technology is driving the new global economy. People, businesses
     and whole communities without ready access to information technologies are left behind in the fast paced world.
     International investors demand efficient and reliable access 4 to information, and new businesses will not locate in places
     where telecom access is readily and speedily available.

Destroyed satellites cost millions of dollars to replace
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, Judge Advocate for the United States Air Force, May 20 11, Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law, Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up
the Junk, Lexis. KH

     Because so much of the United States' security depends on satellites, these integral space-based capabilities would,
     therefore, be costly to lose. That loss would be felt in more than just the security arena. Due to the steep price tags attached
     to some of the national space security platforms, the economic loss of a satellite due to space debris would also be
     significant. For example, a pair of new Global Positioning Satellites (GPS), which provides valuable targeting and battle
     space awareness to military commanders, costs $ 1.5 billion. n166 Accordingly, if a piece of space debris destroys one of
     these satellites, $ 750 million could be lost instantly. Additionally, NASA invests billions of dollars annually in space
     assets. Congress provided NASA with $ 18.3 billion to spend on space utilization and exploration for fiscal year 2010, and
     it provided $ 17.7 billion for fiscal year 2011. n167 Air Force General (retired) Ronald E. Keys, former Commander of Air
     Combat Command, summed it up best, stating that a great deal "rides on space-borne satellites." n168 Because these space



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        4
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
     capabilities are so costly yet so vital to the United States' national security and economic well-being, the preservation of
     these space capabilities should also be vital.

Failure to stop spending will result in economic collapse
ROE 5 – 18 – 11 member of the Education and Workforce Committee. Representative from Tennessee [Phil Roe Cut, cap and
balance: A fight toward fiscal responsibility http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-
eye/2010/05/navy_plebes_scale_herndon_monu.html]

     On Monday, the United States reached the legal limit of its borrowing authority – further evidence that out-of-control
     spending is a matter of national security. Serious reforms and government spending cuts need to be made to avoid severe
     economic disruptions – both in the short and long-term. The national debt and deficits are rising at an unconscionable rate.
     The national debt now exceeds $14 trillion, and the government is still piling up debt at the rate of $200 million an hour,
     $30 billion a week, $120 billion a month and $1.6 trillion a year. It’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem – we have a
     spending problem. Raising the debt ceiling without these serious reforms will only burden our future generations with
     outrageous debt. Worse, the president and Senate Democrats are saying they want a “clean” debt ceiling increase, which
     means that they want to continue spending and borrowing more money with no strings attached. My view is we must not
     raise the debt ceiling by $1 without simultaneously making deep cuts in spending and taking real steps towards a balanced
     budget. It is imperative to the future of the country that we fight for an immediate shift toward fiscal responsibility. That is
     why I, along with my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee (RSC), wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner
     asking him to “Cut, Cap and Balance.” Specifically, we advocated for discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that
     would cut the deficit in half next year; enacting statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to 18
     percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (BBA) with strong
     protections against federal tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA). This proposal will put us
     on a path to prosperity, and I will work to see provisions like this are included in any final agreement. I believe it is prudent
     to limit the extension of borrowing authority as much as possible, in order to demand accountability from Senate
     Democrats and the Obama Administration. Every day, we see more and more evidence of the need to confront the problem
     now. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) report released in April adds urgency to the need for meaningful actions —
     both short and long-term — to confront the nation's debt head-on. Additionally, Moody's Analytics released a report several
     weeks ago forecasting a downgrade in our country’s bond rating. It’s clear that if we fail to stop the spending spree, our
     nation will face economic collapse in the long-term.

Economic collapse causes great power wars
Michael J Green and Steven P Schrage, Green: Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University and Schrage: CSIS Scholl Chair in International Business and a
former senior official with the US Trade Representative's Office, State Department and Ways & Means Committee, 4-26-2009, Asia
Times, It’s not just the economy, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/asian_economy/kc26dk01.html

     Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence
     Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next
     year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression
     taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence
     that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s,
     economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that
     engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations
     with economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad.
     Today's challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper
     depression and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20)
     meeting.

Advantage Two: Hard Power

US military dependent on satellites
Bryan Eberhardt, Major in the US Air Force, J Kenneth Kemmerly, Major in the US Army, Paul Konyha III, Major in the US
Air Force, No Date Given, “Satellite Communications”, http://space.au.af.mil/au-18-2009/au-18_chap14.pdf BB



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         5
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                           1

     On 19 December 1958, a recorded Christmas message from Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower was broadcast worldwide via
     shortwave radio frequency from the Army’s Signal Communications by Orbiting Relay Equipment (SCORE), which lasted
     for only 13 days until the battery failed. This led to the realization of British scientist Arthur C. Clarke’s vision, in 1945, for
     global communications via artificial satellites in 24-hour orbits stationed above the earth.1 Through countless developments
     since the SCORE broadcast, the US military has become increasingly dependent on satellite communications (SATCOM)
     for military operations. This chapter purposely minimizes technical jargon as much as possible and provides the war fighter
     and his or her staff with a basic understanding of the capabilities of primarily military, but also some commercial,
     SATCOM systems. Military dependency on SATCOM for bandwidth grew 30 times within the 13 years from Operation
     Desert Storm to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).2 Furthermore, over 80 percent of SATCOM bandwidth used by the
     military to conduct OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) has been commercial SATCOM. United States Strategic
     Command (USSTRATCOM), who forwards bandwidth requirements to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA),
     determines commercial SATCOM requirements. As the Department of Defense (DOD) designated contracting authority,
     DISA obtains commercial services via an existing contract vehicle or generates a new contract as necessary.3 Military
     SATCOM (MILSATCOM) provides minimum essential war-fighting connectivity, including systems designed to provide
     antijam and survivable nuclear command and control. It is unlikely (and unaffordable) that future MILSATCOM systems
     will fully meet rapidly expanding capacity requirements. Therefore, commercial SATCOM (COMSATCOM) will be
     needed to fill the gap. The dependency on radio repeaters in space (i.e., satellites) will only increase in the future because
     satellites are a key method of connecting the isolated war fighter to the US military’s Global Information Grid (GIG) and
     ultimately enabling network-centric warfare. The GIG is defined as the globally interconnected end-to-end set of
     information capabilities, associated processes, and personnel for collecting, processing, storing, disseminating, and
     managing information on demand to war fighters, policy makers, and support personnel.4 All encompassing, the GIG
     includes all owned and leased communications, computing systems and services, software applications, system data,
     security, and other associated services necessary to achieve information superiority. Eventually, the GIG will connect all
     soldiers, weapons platforms, sensors, and command and control nodes. At its basic level, the GIG is “networks which
     provide voice, data, video, and facilitate more than just the passing of targeting information through sensorto-shooter loops;
     such a grid also provides, for example, real-time collaboration and dynamic planning.”5

Satellite damage hinders military effectiveness in future conflicts
Megan Ansdell, second year graduate student in the Master of International Science and Technology Policy Program at the George
Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs focusing on space policy, 20 10, Princeton, “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 BB

     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.

Military power is critical to maintain HEG
Hartman, 08
(Thomas Hartman, Department of Political Science at University of California, 2008,
http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/research/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=1
3&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=fa567ae4f20db2ce78dafbe0bca882c8)

     Literature today suggests there is an existing relationship between the military prestige of a state and its impact on attracting
     foreign government elites.25 Realists have noted that a hegemonic power can utilize its military and economic resources to
     coerce, provide financial support, or exchange cultural values for the purpose of building for itself a positive image.26
     Similarly, with military power a state can alter the ideals and interests of policymakers in other countries. As they note,
     instruments traditionally used for coercive purposes can ―generate shared beliefs in the acceptability or legitimacy of a
     particular international order.‖27 It is therefore no surprise that the military organization has played an integral part of
     shaping, promoting, and protecting American national security interests. Most importantly, through the exchange of


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           6
Space Trash                                                                                                                                           DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                                              1
     military training, technology, and alliance activities, trust in American normative beliefs among foreign military leaders,
     politicians, and their populations is formed, leading to an increased understanding of legitimacy in American foreign
     affairs.

U.S. HEG key to prevent all out nuclear war
Khalilzad 95
(Zalmay, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War”, Spring
Washington Quarterly)

            U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to
     Finally,
     avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership
     would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Continues To
     sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its
     success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced
     fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did
     not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth
     and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions,
     its relative position will necessarily worsen.

Advantage Three: ISS

Debris endangers the International Space Station
Kenneth Chang, science reporter, 6/29/11, The New York Times, “Debris Gives Space Station Crew Members a 29,000-M.P.H.
Close Call”, Lexis BB

     One of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of space-age litter orbiting Earth zipped uncomfortably close to the
     International Space Station on Tuesday. The six crew members of the space station took refuge in their ''lifeboats'' -- two
     Soyuz space capsules they would use to escape a crippled station -- as the unidentified object hurtled past them at a speed
     of 29,000 miles per hour, missing the space station by only 1,100 feet. The episode took place at 8:08 a.m. Eastern time.
     ''We believe the probability that it would the hit the station was about 1 in 360,'' said Lark Howorth, who leads the team at
     NASA that tracks the space station's trajectory. NASA rules call for precautions when the risk of impact is greater than 1 in
     10,000. In the section of the station run by the United States, astronauts closed the hatches in case the debris -- commonly
     known as space junk -- crashed through, to limit the danger of explosive decompression. To prepare for a rapid departure,
     the clamps holding the Soyuz capsules to the station were released. ''They would be one command away from releasing the
     hooks and undocking,'' said Edward Van Cise, NASA's lead flight director. Mission controllers gave the all-clear signal
     four minutes later, and the crew members returned to work. There was no sign of damage or impact to the station.
     It was only the second time in the 10-year history of people living on the space station that the crew needed to take such
     precautions; on March 12, 2009, a piece of an old satellite motor went zipping by. If the station had been hit, the crew could
     have quickly undocked and returned to Earth. The risk of space junk hitting a Soyuz capsule is much slimmer. Usually,
     when NASA gets a warning, several days in advance, that something that might come too close to the station, it moves the
     station by firing thrusters. Or, if a space shuttle happened to be visiting at the time, the shuttle would nudge the station out
     of danger. That has happened 12 times. This time, however, the warning came Monday evening, less than 15 hours in
     advance, too little time to plan a maneuver. Since the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, was launched was in 1957, the
     space neighborhood has become cluttered with human-made detritus -- more than half a million pieces, by recent estimates,
     from the size of a marble on up. If the orbits of two intersect, the result can be a destructive collision. ''It's getting kind of
     dangerous,'' said Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has
     become an expert on space debris. ''Most active satellites now have a regular process of maneuvering to avoid debris.''
     NASA estimates that for each six-month period, there is a 1-in-100 chance that some or all of the space station crew might
     need to evacuate, and most of that risk comes from the possibility of impact from debris or natural micrometeroids. Over 10
     years, the current planned lifetime of the station, the cumulative risk is nearly one in five. ''It's at the level where it probably
     won't happen in the lifetime of the station, but it could easily,'' Dr. McDowell said. The debris includes spent rocket stages,
     and sometimes over time residual fuel combines and explodes. ''You now no longer have a rocket stage,'' Dr. McDowell
     said. ''You have 500 pieces of shrapnel.'' Also still in orbit are broken satellites or almost incidental litter. In the past, lens
     covers on satellite cameras and sensors were simply popped off and left to float away. Now satellite makers put the lens cap
     on a hinge. Military antisatellite tests also make a big mess, notably when the Chinese blew up one of their satellites in



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                              7
Space Trash                                                                                                                     DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
     2007.

ISS ADUM research key to medical care in space and remote areas on Earth
NASA, 12/18/09, “Ultrasound from a Distance”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/adum.html BB
     The ADUM experiments demonstrated that ultrasound is an accurate diagnostic technique for numerous clinical conditions
     which may occur in space, and importantly, back on the Earth. The experiments developed techniques which allow a non-
     expert user to rapidly train and acquire ultrasound images in many areas of the body which can be used to guide care:
     establishing ultrasound as a key tool for clinical medicine on future vehicles, the moon, and eventually Mars. There is not
     room for full medical capabilities aboard the ISS, nor is it feasible for a crewmember to return to Earth for diagnostic
     studies. This experiment demonstrated that crew performed ultrasound can lead to efficient diagnosing of medical problems
     with minimal use of on-board resource to in timely treatment as well as avert unnecessary evacuation. Crew members on
     exploration class spaceflight to the Moon or Mars could be evaluated by doctors on Earth using a modification of this
     technology. This type of capability is essential for long-term space exploration. The success of ADUM has led to additional
     applications of ultrasound on Earth. The training methods developed by ADUM have been incorporated by the American
     College of Surgeons Committee on Education into a computer based program to teach ultrasound to surgeons and have
     been used by the United States Olympic Committee to provide care during the Olympic Games. The remote expert
     guidance paradigm has been adapted on Earth for remote on Mt. Everest and the High Arctic and can be used for patients in
     rural/remote areas, disaster relief, and the military. Using existing communication systems, a person (e.g., nurse, physician's
     assistant, military medic) who is minimally trained in ultrasound can perform an ultrasound exam on a patient with
     guidance from an expert at a medical facility hundreds or thousands of miles away. This would expand the tools for the
     rural medical community, provide the ability to triage a mass casualty, and help in the decisions to conduct medical
     transport of patients.

Disease outweighs war
Brower and Chalk 03
Jennifer Brower and Peter Chalk, RAND, 3/03, The Global Threat of New and Reemerging Infectious Disease,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1602/index.html, p. 7
      The argument that the transnational spread of disease poses a threat to human security rests on the simple proposition that it
      seriously threatens both the individual and the quality of life that a person is able to attain within a given society, polity or
      state. Specifically, this occurs in at least six ways. First and most fundamental, disease kills—far surpassing war as a threat
      to human life. AIDS alone is expected to have killed over 80 million people by the year 2011, while tuberculosis (TB), one
      of the virus’s main opportunistic diseases, accounts for three million deaths every year, including 100,000 children.21 In
      general, a staggering 1,500 people die each hour from infectious ailments, the vast bulk of which are caused by just six
      groups of disease: HIV/AIDS, malaria, measles, pneumonia, TB, and dysentery and other gastrointestinal disorders.22

ISS key to better crop production
NASA, 12/18/09, “Air Purification”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/advasc.html BB
     Understanding the effects of gravity on plant life is essential in preparation for future interplanetary exploration. The ability
     to produce high energy, low mass food sources during space flight will enable the maintenance of crew health during long
     duration missions while having a reduced impact on resources necessary for long distance travel. The Advanced
     AstrocultureTM (ADVASC) investigation, led by Dr. Weijia Zhou of the Wisconsin Center for Space Automation and
     Robotics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, explored the benefits of using microgravity to create custom crops that can
     withstand the inhospitable climates of space flight, resist pestilence, and need less volume to grow. ADVASC was
     performed in three phases over several ISS expeditions. The first phase of the investigation occurred on ISS Expedition 2
     and involved growing Arabidopsis thaliana (rapidly growing, flowering plant in the mustard family that has been grown on
     many space missions) from seed to seed in space. The second phase of the investigation used new Arabidopsis thaliana
     seed, as well as seeds harvested from the first phase to create a second generation of Arabidopsis thaliana plants. The third
     and final phase of the investigation grew soybean plants, from seed to seed, all using the ADVASC payload, an
     autonomously operated plant growth unit. Soybeans are a widely used food crop on Earth and a potential food crop for
     future long duration space missions. The ADVASC investigators looked for genetic and structural differences, such as
     improved phytochemical production, between Earth grown and space grown soybeans that could be exploited to create
     better products.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          8
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
Decrease in food crops leads to mass starvation
Steven Starr, Senior Scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at
the University of Missouri, no date given, The Nuclear Files, Deadly Climate Change from Nuclear War: A threat to human
existence, http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/effects/PDFs/starr_climate_change.pdf

     Such rapid and drastic climate change would have major impacts on global grain reserves, which already are at 50 year
     lows. 9 Grain exports would likely cease for several years from large exporting nations like Canada.10 The 700 million
     people now living on the edge of starvation, along with those populations heavily dependent upon grain imports, would
     face mass starvation as grain reserves disappeared, prices skyrocketed and hoarding occurred. Global nuclear famine is the
     predicted result of this scenario. As many as one billion people could die during the years subsequent to the deadly climate
     change created by this level of nuclear conflict.11

Thus the plan - The United States federal government should develop and deploy the ElectroDynamic
Debris Eliminator to remove space debris from orbit beyond the mesosphere.

Contention Two: Solvency

EDDE could effectively remove lots of space debris.
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss

     EDDE is a new kind of space vehicle. It is not a conventional rocket that accelerates a payload by throwing propellant mass
     in the opposite direction. EDDE is a propellantless electric motor/generator in space that accelerates by reacting against the
     Earth’s magnetic field. This means that it is not limited by the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and can produce cumulative
     velocity changes of hundreds of km/sec during its operational lifetime. An EDDE vehicle equipped with solar panels for
     power and expendable capture nets could safely remove debris from orbit 300 times its own mass per year.

US action in space will usher in international cooperation –solving all space debris
Ty S Twibell, lawyer and member of the ABA Air and Space Law Forum and author of Space Law: Restraints on
Commercialization and Development of Outer Space, 19 98, ISLA Journal of International and Comparative Law, pg 259,
Circumnavigating International Space Law, Lexis. KH

     Unlike Congress and state legislatures, the United Nations does not have an analogous lobbying structure to implement
     legislative change. People are not salaried solely for the purpose of wining and dining United Nations ambassadors to have
     their views affect United Nations decision making. United Nations lobbyists are the states themselves (although they may
     be acting on behalf of internal or domestic lobbying interests). The United States could be a lobbyist for the space and
     property right cause by promoting its own space industry and preparing to do so. Such maneuvers of the world's largest
     economic and technological giant would not go unnoticed, rather, it would send a message of an impending need for a new
     international space regime. Other nations would observe the United States preparing for massive space ventures that could
     question the 1967 Space Treaty's no-sovereignty provision. They would then be extremely motivated to act upon their
     concerns and address property right issues before the United States foreseeably quashes their opportunities - perceptively to
     them anyway. Further, other nations would necessarily and inevitably work in conjunction with the United States in its
     space endeavors, paving the path further or international legal change.

EDDE is extremely efficient and effective.
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      9
Space Trash                                                                                                                DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                    1

     The enormous advantage that the propellantless EDDE vehicle has over conventional rockets is shown in Table 1, which
     compares different propulsion systems in performing the task of removing the 2,561 objects in LEO weighing over 2 kg.
     The performance of a rocket is commonly measured in specific impulse Isp, which in English units of pound-seconds of
     thrust per pound of propellant expelled is measured in seconds. In SI units, this has the dimensions of velocity—the rocket
     exhaust velocity. A typical bipropellant chemical rocket might have Isp of 300 seconds, and the table shows that this task
     would require 900 vehicles weighing 800 tons. Higher-Isp systems include arcjets, ion rockets, and the recently-tested
     ‘variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR) championed by former NASA astronaut Franklin R. Chang-
     Diaz of Ad Astra Rocket Company. But even that would require 25 tons in orbit to remove all the debris, more than 20
     times the one-ton mass of 12 EDDEs. Twelve EDDEs could remove all 2,561 objects—2,155 tons—in fewer than seven
     years.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                   10
Space Trash                                                                                                                 DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                            Inherency
Current technology not solving all collisions
Ireland 2010. [Susan Ireland, Master’s thesis candidate, US Army College, B.S., Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,
“Dodging Bullets: The Threat of Space Debris to U.S. National Security”, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=133142&coll=limited] hss

     The current space debris environment is described using the three recent events that have significantly altered the debate on
     debris mitigation compliance. Starting in 2007, three incidents occurred in three consecutive years. The first incident was
     the decision by China to test an anti-satellite weapon on a defunct satellite orbiting in a heavily populated area of space.
     Second was the benchmark approach taken by the United States in 2008 to limit debris creation when an unresponsive
     satellite was destroyed because the uncontrolled reentry could release dangerous levels of hazardous fuel into Earth’s
     atmosphere. The third event occurred in 2009 when a defunct Russian 16 satellite collided with an operational American
     satellite without warning. The collision was an unprecedented event that took the space faring community by surprise.

Not enough is being done to solve collisions now
Ireland 2010. [Susan Ireland, Master’s thesis candidate, US Army College, B.S., Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,
“Dodging Bullets: The Threat of Space Debris to U.S. National Security”, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=133142&coll=limited] hss
                                                                                                                    20
     Mr. Johnson further stated that, “never before have two intact satellites crashed into one another by accident.” The
     convergence of the two satellites was a paradigm event for assessing the threat of space debris created by non-intentional
     satellite collisions. The fact that the two satellites collided without any prior warning indicates there are gaps in the
     detection and tracking system that leave U.S. national security interests vulnerable to disruption by space debris.

Current surveillance programs are failing now
Ireland 2010. [Susan Ireland, Master’s thesis candidate, US Army College, B.S., Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,
“Dodging Bullets: The Threat of Space Debris to U.S. National Security”, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=133142&coll=limited] hss
                                                           66
     The U.S. Space Surveillance Network uses 30 sensors worldwide to monitor over 19,000 space objects, mostly debris, in
     areas where manned spacecraft orbits. Even so, the space station and space shuttle are damaged regularly by micro-
     particles. According to Wired Science, a search of Johnson’s Space Center Hypervelocity Impact Database “revealed that in
     the 54 missions from STS-50 [June 1992] through STS-114 [July 2005], space junk and meteoroids hit [the space] shuttle
     windows 1,634 times necessitating 92 window replacements.”




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     11
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                              AT: We can maneuver debris
Satellites are in danger of debris damage. Maneuvering not a solution
Molly Macauley, Senior Fellow for Resources for the Future and Co-organizer and contributor to the symposium "Explorations in
Space Policy", No Date Given, Resources for the Future, “Space as the Canonical “Global Commons””,
http://www.rff.org/Publications/Resources/Pages/Macauley-Space-as-Global-Commons.aspx BB

     Space debris includes defunct spacecraft, metal shards, nuts and bolts, and a host of other discards from space activities.
     Debris is dangerous because it orbits at extremely high velocity; for example, mere flecks of paint have struck quarter-inch
     deep gouges in windows on the space shuttle. (To protect astronauts, the space shuttle has six layers of windshields.)
     Communications satellites, the space station, and other spacecraft have extra layers of “shielding” but still remain
     vulnerable to damage. And there are no easy ways to avoid it. If a piece of debris is larger than a softball, ground-based
     radar can detect debris and engineers can send commands to a spacecraft to maneuver it out of the way. (But this solution
     comes at a cost—it draws on an already limited spacecraft fuel supply.) Smaller debris is also lethal and undetectable.
     Debris often “begets” debris when it collides with itself to produce even more and even smaller (hence harder to detect)
     pieces.


Mitigation fails – NASA wont even use it to protect their experiments.
Ireland 2010. [Susan Ireland, Master’s thesis candidate, US Army College, B.S., Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University,
“Dodging Bullets: The Threat of Space Debris to U.S. National Security”, http://www.hsdl.org/?view&doc=133142&coll=limited] hss

     To determine if U.S. assets are protected against space debris, a search of literature indicates that although shielding is
     available, the amount of shielding is a ‘risk and weight versus benefit’ decision space system developers. The 1997 General
     Accounting Office (GAO) report on space surveillance states that portions of the space station, a space asset of U.S.
     national security interest, has shielding that provides protection against objects smaller than one centimeter; however,
     NASA concluded that shielding against larger objects would be too costly. . . . The National Research Council report
     mentioned that debris from about 0.5 to 20 centimeters in diameter was of most concern to the space station because, within
                                                                                                              35
     this range, the debris may be too large to shield against and too small to (currently) track and avoid. NASA relies on the
     Department of Defense (DOD) tracking system to determine when the potential risk of collisions with debris has exceeded
     safety parameters. During times of high risk, NASA will decide to move the shuttle or use the shuttle to move the space
     station out of danger from space debris. However, there are occasions when greater risk is accepted and the shuttle has not
     been maneuvered to avoid a possible collision with debris “because of concern for interference with the primary mission
     objective . . . [such as] microgravity experiments.”36


Kessler Syndrome will be triggered - mitigation alone can’t solve.
Richards, G., 3/27/2010, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 5 Issue 5, p36-36, 1p, 4, An orbital graveyard, Ebsco

     These are signs of things to come, experts warn. As more and more satellites are launched, orbits are becoming congested,
     raising the probability of further collisions. These will in turn produce further debris and may trigger ‘collisional cascading’
     – now dubbed the Kessler Syndrome after its co-originator Donald Kessler – where secondary collisions would act like a
     chain reaction to create a dense belt of debris around the Earth. At the moment, concern is focused principally on the low-
     Earth orbit (LEO) domain (see box on p38), where the Iridium-Cosmos collision and Envisat near-miss occurred. It’s
     already so congested that some experts are predicting that even if launches were halted immediately, the Kessler Syndrome
     could still be triggered within a few decades. And, as more satellites are launched, to all orbital altitudes, the medium-Earth
     orbit (MEO) and geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) could also be affected.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        12
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                         **Solvency**
                                                        EDDE Solvency
EDDE saves money -- can be launched with another satellite creates no launch costs
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss

     A further advantage of the propellantless spacecraft is that it folds compactly into a box 60 cm square and 30 cm deep. This
     allows it to be launched in one of the secondary payload slots of the Boeing Delta 4 or Lockheed Atlas 5 ESPA ring (Figure
     4). It can also be launched as a secondary payload on the Orbital Sciences Pegasus airlaunched vehicle and the new SpaceX
     Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. If there is payload margin for the launch vehicle, then there is no additional cost to launch EDDE
     vehicles piggyback. One or two vehicles can fit into each secondary payload slot, leaving room for several nanosatellites
     that EDDE can carry to custom orbits after the primary payload is released.

EDDE can clean debris in low earth orbit
Clay Dillow, Contributor at Popular Science Researcher at Popular Science Magazine Staff Writer at Newser, 8/16/10, Popular
Science, “DARPA's Giant Space Junk Net Could Remove Almost All Orbiting Debris”,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/darpas-space-junk-remover-will-net-orbiting-debris-leo

     DARPA has a thing for butterfly tech. Last week it was sensors based on butterfly wings. This week, it's a space junk
     capturing vehicle armed with 200 nets that gathers space garbage, much as a lepidopterist would net butterflies for a
     specimen collection. The technology was presented on Friday at the annual Space Elevator conference. The Electrodynamic
     Debris Eliminator, or EDDE, is the brainchild of engineers at Star Inc. and ostensibly the DARPA backers that are funding
     its development. In practice, EDDE would zip around low earth orbit snaring bits of space garbage in its many nets where
     they cannot be a menace to other orbiting spacecraft. Star's CEO estimates that over seven years, 12 EDDE craft could
     clean up all 2,465 objects over 4.5 pounds that are currently being tracked through LEO. Once EDDE has a piece of space
     junk cornered, it can either hurl it into the South Pacific where it has little chance of doing any harm, or put it on a
     trajectory to burn up during re-entry. Or, Star insists, the pieces of junk could be recycled right there in space to create raw
     materials for the construction of future orbiting space stations or satellites. It sounds pretty out there, but Star has already
     begun testing the tech and should conduct a test flight in 2013. If that succeeds, EDDEs could begin a full cleanup
     operation in LEO by 2017.

EDDE can safely remove a substantial amount of debris
Jerome Pearson, President of Star Technology and Research Inc, 2/11/10, Star Technology, “The ElectroDynamic Debris
Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”, http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf

     EDDE is a new kind of space vehicle. It is not a conventional rocket that accelerates a payload by throwing propellant mass
     in the opposite direction. EDDE is a propellantless electric motor/generator in space that accelerates by reacting against the
     Earth’s magnetic field. This means that it is not limited by the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation and can produce cumulative
     velocity changes of hundreds of km/sec during its operational lifetime. An EDDE vehicle equipped with solar panels for
     power and expendable capture nets could safely remove debris from orbit 300 times its own mass per year.

Even if damaged EDDE would still function effectively
Jerome Pearson, President of Star Technology and Research Inc, 2/11/10, Star Technology, “The ElectroDynamic Debris
Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”, http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf

     Because there are many units of each element in the electrical circuit, if EDDE were cut by untracked debris, each end
     could still function as an independent debris-removal satellite, albeit at a slower rate. For debris removal, each end body is
     equipped with a net manager that carries about 100 housesized Spectra nets of 50g each. To catch a debris object, a net is
     extended by the rotational force as the EDDE end approaches the target at a few meters per second. The net snares the



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        13
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                            1
     target, and EDDE actively damps out the dynamics, even if the object is spinning or tumbling up to one revolution per
     minute. Most debris objects are rotating much slower than this because of the eddy-current damping from their aluminum
     structure.

EDDE can be launched into space with ease
Jerome Pearson, President of Star Technology and Research Inc, 2/11/10, Star Technology, “The ElectroDynamic Debris
Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”, http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf

     A further advantage of the propellantless spacecraft is that it folds compactly into a box 60 cm square and 30 cm deep. This
     allows it to be launched in one of the secondary payload slots of the Boeing Delta 4 or Lockheed Atlas 5 ESPA ring (Figure
     4). It can also be launched as a secondary payload on the Orbital Sciences Pegasus airlaunched vehicle and the new SpaceX
     Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. If here is payload margin for the launch vehicle, then there is no additional cost to launch EDDE
     vehicles piggyback. One or two vehicles can fit into each secondary payload slot, leaving room for several nanosatellites
     that EDDE can carry to custom orbits after the primary payload is released.

EDDE will continue to be useful even after debris cleanup
Jerome Pearson, President of Star Technology and Research Inc, 2/11/10, Star Technology, “The ElectroDynamic Debris
Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”, http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf

     EDDE is a new kind of space vehicle that can perform other useful tasks in space. After the EDDE fleet removes the large,
     dangerous debris objects, it could enter regular space service to remove all new upper stages and failed satellites in order
     to maintain a safe LEO environment. Vehicles like EDDE could also be used as an upper stage delivery service to deliver
     small satellites and secondary payloads to custom orbits. Such LEO mobility vehicles could transport grappling devices to
     satellites needing servicing, allowing aging satellites to receive fuel and updated electronics—such as the Hubble Space
     Telescope received from shuttle astronauts. Perhaps more importantly, EDDE could be used in cooperation with astronauts
     on the International Space Station to repair and refurbish aged or failed satellites. EDDE could capture them with a gentle
     latching mechanism, avoiding damage to their solar arrays, and bring them to the ISS for test and evaluation. After they
     were fixed, perhaps with new components brought to the ISS from Earth, EDDE could return them to their original (or
     new) orbits for continued operation. There have been billion-dollar satellites that failed soon after launch, and such on-orbit
     repair operations could be a valuable part of fullscale ISS operations.

EDDE solution to cleaning orbiting debris
Paul Marks, writer and senior technological correspondent at New Scientist, 2/12/11, New Scientist, “Clearing the Heavens, One
Piece at a Time”, Lexis

     More debris is on its way. Hugh Lewis, a space scientist at the University of Southampton in the UK, has calculated that the
     debris population in low Earth orbit will increase by at least 33 per cent over the next two centuries. Even if space agencies
     never launched another rocket, the cloud of debris will continue to grow as pieces of space junk crash into one another.
     There are a number of ideas about how best to go about clearing up this mess. At Star Technology and Research (STR) in
     Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, Jerome Pearson proposes a scheme in which a spacecraft comprising a conducting-cable
     tether would orbit Earth, grabbing debris and casting it into lower orbits (see diagram, far right). Studded with solar arrays
     that generate electric current in the cable, STR's Electro Dynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE) slowly rotates and uses the
     current's interaction with Earth's magnetic field to change its orbit. EDDE is manoeuvred until it matches orbits with the
     target, and rotates so it either robotically grabs the junk or ensnares it in a net. The debris can then be slung into a lower, re-
     entry orbit or EDDE can descend and then release it.

EDDE can remove all debris in 7 years
Alok Jha, science and environment correspondent at the Guardian, specialising in green technologies, 8/22/10, The Guardian,
“Litterbugs of space face the final frontier: Scientists are concerned about the increasing space junk that orbits Earth, but clean-up
plans are under way, says Alok Jha”, Lexis

     Plans for something called the Electrodynamic Debris Eliminator (Edde) have just been revealed by a company called Star
     Inc, with funding from the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency. This is a 100kg spacecraft with 200 nets
     attached, which can scoop up dead satellites or other stray junk. The craft can then guide the junk into a safe orbit around



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           14
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
     the Earth or else direct it to glide safely into the middle of the ocean. According to its designers, a dozen of these craft will
     take only seven years to remove all 2,465 identified objects over 2kg floating in low-earth orbit. The US military is
     interested, and Star Inc expects a test flight in 2013. Scientists have also considered using ground-based lasers to zap junk
     so that it re-enters the atmosphere, and robot missions that could dock with dead satellites to kick them into "graveyard"
     orbits.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         15
Space Trash                                                                                                                 DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                        EDDE solves resource scarcity issues
EDDE collects materials allows them to be re-used – saves money.
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss

     Instead of dropping debris objects to burn in the atmosphere, the EDDE mobility vehicle could capture them and take them
     to a “space junkyard” in LEO, providing tons of aluminum and other valuable materials for recycling and for space
     construction. This would support the installation of a commercial recycling facility in orbit. This facility could recover
     material that cost $20,000 per kg to place in orbit and make further use of it, rather than launching new material. Recycling
     material in space would also lessen the risk to the ground from large objects re-entering the atmosphere.

EDDE can collect recyclable debris
Nancy Gohring, U.S. correspondent for IDG News Service, 8/16/10, Tech World, “DARPA invests in giant space nets to catch
trash”, http://news.techworld.com/sme/3235495/darpa-invests-in-giant-space-nets-to-catch-trash/

     Once it captures the object, the EDDE can do several things with it. EDDE can fling the garbage such that it lands in the
     South Pacific, where it has little chance of dangerously landing on anything important. Or, the EDDE can deliver the object
     closer to Earth where it will orbit out of harm's way and eventually decay. Better yet, it can be reused in space to build a
     variety of useful structures, Pearson said. "So you'd be mining aluminium in orbit mainly," he said. Four EDDEs could
     collect enough metal and other material to build a structure the size of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, which
     could be used to host crews or store equipment, he said.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     16
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
                                             Ground Based Lasers solvency
Laser propulsion is the only way to solve for all types of debris.
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     Laser Propulsion of Uncooperative Debris. Laser propulsion is one technique for using radiant energy rather than fuel on
     space vehicles for the purpose of propulsion. In the case of removing orbital debris, the surface material of the debris
     becomes the propellant. In essence, the intensity of the laser must he sufficiently great to cause the material on the surface
     of the object to form a vapor, which as this hot vapor expands imparts a force or thrust to the object. For a given material
     and duration of a laser pulse there is an optimum intensity above which the ability to couple laser energy onto the material
     decreases.2 This is because the resulting ionization of the vapor from the material effectively absorbs the energy of the
     laser: This means that a series of short pulses is the most effective way to generate propulsion for orbit debris.3 Since
     orbital debris consists of many materials, a debris removal system must be designed with this in mind. The Orion study
     considered laboratory experiments that were conducted with representative materials and found useful models for the
     coupling of metals and nonmetals, as shown in Figure 1. The optimum intensity is higher for metals than for nonmetals,
     since energy tends to he conducted to the interior of the metal. At higher intensities, however, the coupling is higher for
     metals than for nonmetals because the onset of plasma formation above the optimum intensity for nonmetals occurs at
     lower intensities.4 This system would he effective against both metallic and nonmetallic targets in space, and could be
     effective against materials that arc at higher orbital altitudes.

Laser propulsion is the best and only method for debris removal.
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     With the technological state of the art in orbital debris protection, satellites can he effectively shielded against
     hypervelocity objects that are less than 1 cm in size. This shielding, however, is extremely expensive. For example, the cost
     of increasing the protection for critical modules on the Space Station from 1 cm to 2 cm has been calculated to be on the
     order of 100 million dollars for launch costs alone, not including research and development and manufacturing costs. For
     objects that are greater than 10-30 cm in size, the Space Station will rely on the Space Command tracking network to
     provide early warning. If an object will come too close to the station, it will maneuver to avoid it. But the total costs of this
     maneuvering system are substantive, and we should note that it will not provide absolute protection, principally because the
     Space Command could have difficulties in continuously tracking objects that are less than 30 cm in size. In the event of a
     solar flare, the tracking system may lose objects for days at a time.

Ground based lasers can solve for the space debris problem and prevent the Kessler Syndrome from
occurring
Cartwright 3-15-11 (Jon, “Lasers could nudge space debris aside,” accessed 5-10-11,
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.
     Sweeping up the mess Scientists at NASA have considered using a ground-based laser to mitigate debris collisions before.



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         17
Space Trash                                                                                                                       DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                             1
     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 server 1, 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. Risk reduction With
     just one laser facility, Mason's group says, the number of debris collisions could be almost halved. What's more, by
     mitigating the number of collisions, the amount of debris would lessen as it slowly burns up in Earth's atmosphere. And that
     would avoid the onset of Kessler syndrome, the researchers say.

Lasers are necessary and effective in reducing space debris – spills over to new tech that also solves
Campbell 2k – Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, scientist and advanced projects manager in the Advanced Projects
Office of NASA (Jonathan, “Using Lasers in Space”. December 2000. http://www.nss.org/resources/library/planetarydefense/2000-
LaserOrbitalDebrisRemovalAndAsteroidDeflection-Campbell.pdf)

     The use of space is vital for future economic and political power for many reasons. Since an impact from a meteorite,
     asteroid, or comet would he an unimaginable catastrophe, we have little choice but to deal with this threat. On a lesser
     scale, the threat of orbital debris to spacecraft raises important economic questions. While there are many risks with
     spaceflight, we must decide at what threshold the risks are too high and action is necessary. That threshold must balance the
     possible impact to the mission, resources available to accomplish that mission, and the technical arid cost feasibility of
     reducing that risk. In addition, that threshold must balance all of the risks that are associated with a mission. In other words,
     if there is a practical way to reduce risk, then it is probably prudent to do so. The purpose of this study is to describe one
     solution for reducing the risk posed by orbital debris. Presently, there are significant quantities of orbit debris in all sizes,
     altitudes, and inclinations. However, the debris ranges in size from the microscopic to several meters, including worn out
     satellites arid upper stages of rockets, and fortunately there are many more small objects than large ones. The typical
     closing velocities for a collision with orbital debris are on the order of 20,000 mph, which means that a collision with a
     satellite would likely end its useful service life at costs that exceed one billion dollars. With the technological state of the
     art in orbital debris protection, satellites can he effectively shielded against hypervelocity objects that are less than 1 cm in
     size. This shielding, however, is extremely expensive. For example, the cost of increasing the protection for critical modules
     on the Space Station from 1 cm to 2 cm has been calculated to be on the order of 100 million dollars for launch costs alone,
     not including research and development and manufacturing costs. For objects that are greater than 10-30 cm in size, the
     Space Station will rely on the Space Command tracking network to provide early warning. If an object will come too close
     to the station, it will maneuver to avoid it. But the total costs of this maneuvering system are substantive, and we should
     note that it will not provide absolute protection, principally because the Space Command could have difficulties in
     continuously tracking objects that are less than 30 cm in size. In the event of a solar flare, the tracking system may lose
     objects for days at a time. 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


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                            18
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                            1
     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.

Ground based lasers can solve the space debris threat and reverse the Kessler Syndrome
Boyle 3-14-11 (Rebecca, “Polar-Mounted Laser Could Zap Space Junk, Protecting Satellites and the Space Station,” accessed 5-
10-11, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/polar-based-laser-could-zap-space-junk-harmless-orbits-protecting-
satellites-and-space-station)

     Space debris could be nudged out of the way using a moderately sized Earth-based laser, a team of NASA researchers
     suggests in a new paper. The laser wouldn’t blast the debris to smithereens, but combined with a ground-based telescope, it
     could be used to move space junk into a different orbit so it would not collide with other debris or important spacecraft.
     Space debris has already threatened the International Space Station, and satellites are in harm’s way all the time. But most
     of the time, the station or satellite in question can be moved out of the way, letting the space junk continue on its orbital
     path. It’s easier to fire a couple thrusters than to throw out a giant space net, tether or solar sail. The laser system would take
     the opposite tack, nudging space junk and letting satellites stay put. It would ideally be based near one of the Earth’s poles,
     and would use photon pressure to disturb an object’s orbit, according to James Mason and colleagues at NASA’s Ames
     Research Center. Photons would target the debris every time it passed over the laser, and with enough pressure, it could
     nudge an object out of orbit enough to avoid a future collision. It could even be used to de-orbit the space junk entirely,
     perhaps by moving it low enough that atmospheric drag causes it to re-enter the atmosphere — so long as it's small enough
     to burn up, so there would be no laser-propelled garbage raining down on Earth. Previous space junk removal concepts
     have proposed blowing up or incinerating the debris, but a laser powerful enough to blow up some orbiting garbage would
     also be powerful enough to blow up some strategic assets, too. It’s a non-starter for political reasons. This laser is pretty
     weak, however, at just 5 kilowatts. Mason and colleagues say it could nudge up to 10 objects a day. They say it could
     reverse the “Kessler syndrome,” a phenomenon wherein new debris formation outstrips the pace at which it falls out of
     orbit and burns up. As Technology Review's arXiv blog explains, it’s named for NASA scientist Donald Kessler, who
     described the problem in the 1970s. He said colliding space junk could trigger a cascade of collisions that would create ever
     more space debris in ever more unpredictable orbits. This may already be happening, as evidenced by the collision between
     the Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 satellites in January 2009, as well as China’s destruction of its Fengyun 1C satellite in
     2007. Both incidents created ongoing problems. Mason and colleagues say much more research is needed, but the laser
     system could be a feasible, fiscally prudent alternative to space debris removal — nothing would be launched into space
     except photons, so there would be nothing else to add to the junk.

Using ground based lasers to eliminate space debris is technically feasible now
Michaels 2009, Wall Street Journal Science Writer, 3-11-09 (Daniel, “A Cosmic Question: How to Get Rid Of
All That Orbiting Space Junk?,” Wall Street Journal, accessed 5-5-11,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672891900989069.html)

     Still, limiting the amount of new debris isn't enough. Vast quantities of junk are already parked in space for centuries to
     come, and many engineers are working on how to get rid of it. Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, a
     leading space research center, recently conducted feasibility studies into junk-zapping lasers and garbage-collecting rockets.
     Dr. Klinkrad at ESA is now leading an international space commission that is assessing debris-removal possibilities. He is
     also organizing two global conferences that will discuss ideas later this month. Experts are also taking a fresh look at the
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 1996 Project Orion, a "space broom" concept to fry space trash with
     ground-based lasers. When Jonathan W. Campbell started leading the effort, he thought the approach would entail futuristic
     and impossibly costly technologies. "I thought it would be a Buck Rogers thing," the astrophysicist recalls. Instead, his
     team concluded that for the price of one space-shuttle launch -- roughly $500 million -- the laser could nudge thousands of
     bits of garbage toward incineration in the atmosphere within five years. Compared to the cost of losing a satellite or a
     shuttle to space debris impact, "this looks like a bargain," says Dr. Campbell, who works at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
     Center in Huntsville, Ala.

Ground based lasers wouldn’t cost much
WSJ 2009. (March 11, 2009. “A Cosmic Question: How to Get Rid Of All That Orbiting Space Junk?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672891900989069.html) hss



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           19
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1

     Experts are also taking a fresh look at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 1996 Project Orion, a "space
     broom" concept to fry space trash with ground-based lasers. When Jonathan W. Campbell started leading the effort, he
     thought the approach would entail futuristic and impossibly costly technologies. "I thought it would be a Buck Rogers
     thing," the astrophysicist recalls. Instead, his team concluded that for the price of one space-shuttle launch -- roughly $500
     million -- the laser could nudge thousands of bits of garbage toward incineration in the atmosphere within five years.
     Compared to the cost of losing a satellite or a shuttle to space debris impact, "this looks like a bargain," says Dr. Campbell,
     who works at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       20
Space Trash                                                                                                                 DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                            Ground Based-Lasers possible
The technology is available now
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     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.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     21
Space Trash                                                                                                               DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                    1
                                        Maneuver vehicles best mechanism
Space maneuver vehicles best option for removal.
Dinerman 2009. (Taylor Dinerman is a staff writer for The Space Review. “Unilateral orbital cleanup”. May 4, 2009.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1365/1) hss

     This raises the question of what would actually work? High-powered lasers, like those developed for the Airborne Laser
     (ABL) missile defense system recently cut back by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, might be useful dealing with a limited
     amount of debris in very low Earth orbit. It would certainly be worthwhile testing this idea instead of dismissing it out of
     hand. The big problem, however, is well beyond the range of any existing laser. What is required is a new type of space
     maneuver vehicle, one that can rendezvous with, catch, and store a bit of debris, and then proceed to the next one. Such a
     vehicle would not need to move very fast: the process would be a leisurely one, and thus would allow for the use of a
     highly efficient space propulsion system such as a pulse plasma thruster or ion engine. Each move could be as carefully
     planned as the moves of the Mars rovers are. The operations could be carried out according to a plan that would deal with
     the most dangerous pieces of debris first. Designing and building these spacecraft would involve a virtuous technology
     cycle: a steady process of marginal improvements, somewhat akin to what we have seen with the GPS satellites. Each
     advance in the subsystems would be integrated into a new block of satellites The design and manufacturing teams involved
     will constantly be sharpening their skills. Again, as with GPS, the companies building these spacecraft will have to compete
     for the contracts and will thus have to pay careful attention to the quality and cost of their work.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                22
Space Trash                                                                                                              DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                   1
                                 Maneuver vehicles key to solar power satellites.
Maneuver Vehicles key stepping stone to solar power satellites.
Dinerman 2009. (Taylor Dinerman is a staff writer for The Space Review. “Unilateral orbital cleanup”. May 4, 2009.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1365/1) hss

     Of course the expertise the US would develop while performing this task would have many useful military applications,
     and as such would be objected to by those who are always on the look out for anything that looks like a US “space
     weapon”. Such spacecraft, though, would move far too slowly to themselves be used in an effective anti-satellite mode. The
     skills involve would in fact be far more useful in the robotic building of large structures in space, including solar power
     satellites




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                               23
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                               **Satellite Advantage**
                                                    Generic links
                                     Debris is becoming increasingly dangerous
Stuart Clark, PhD in astrophysics 9/11/10, New Scientist, “Who you gonna call? Junk busters!”, Lexis BB

     Such ducking and dodging used to be rare. Not any longer. A few years ago, operators were receiving one or two warnings
     of space debris a month; now it can be two or three times a week. Every time a new warning comes in, they must begin a
     72-hour tracking campaign using ground-based radar to refine the orbit of the object and establish whether to take evasive
     action or not. As if accidents weren't bad enough, in 2007 China launched a missile that destroyed their Feng Yun 1C
     weather satellite. It was an ostentatious display of military capability, perhaps intended as a warning to anyone thinking of
     putting weapons into space, but it also sent shock waves through space operations centres around the world. That incident,
     in combination with the Iridium smash in 2009, created so much debris that the number of fragments in low Earth orbit
     large enough to be tracked from the ground almost doubled. Some craft are more vulnerable to debris than others, says
     Lewis, who has developed software to model how space junk spreads and evolves over time. Take the A-train –; four
     satellites that orbit Earth one behind the other, monitoring the atmosphere as they go. The closest pair are just 15 seconds
     apart, and this proximity makes the A-train especially vulnerable. Should one of the A-train's units be smashed by an
     incoming piece of debris, the chances are we could lose all four. As things stand, remediation –; as space engineers call it –;
     is a necessity. In other words, someone will have to go up there and bring the stuff down. But which bits? Who will do it?
     How will they do it? And who is going to pay?

Debris costs satellite profits
Stuart Clark, PhD in astrophysics 9/11/10, New Scientist, “Who you gonna call? Junk busters!”, Lexis BB

     All of this is costing money –; big money. "These satellites are profit centres making millions of dollars a month," says
     James Dunstan of Mobius Legal Group in Washington DC. Every dodge to avoid a collision eats around $10 million into a
     satellite's profits. That's because collision avoidance manoeuvres waste precious fuel that would otherwise be used to
     combat the tendency for satellites to drift off into orbital graveyards. Although companies do not divulge how much fuel
     they use in collision avoidance manoeuvres, Dunstan estimates that each one must shorten a satellite's lifespan by between
     four and 12 months. He says dealing with Galaxy 15 could easily cost the telecomms industry $100 million.

Space systems are at risk of debris damage
Megan Ansdell, second year graduate student in the Master of International Science and Technology Policy Program at the George
Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs focusing on space policy, 20 10, Princeton, “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 BB

     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).

Debris collisions lead to an un-ending cycle of future worse collisions.
The Telegraph, 2/1/11, “Space so full of junk that a satellite collision could destroy communications on Earth”,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8295546/Space-so-full-of-junk-that-a-satellite-collision-could-destroy-communications-on-
Earth.html BB



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       24
Space Trash                                                                                                                 DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                       1

     The volume of abandoned rockets, shattered satellites and missile shrapnel in the Earth’s orbit is reaching a “tipping point”
     and is now threatening the $250 billion (£174bn) space services industry, scientists said. A single collision between two
     satellites or large pieces of “space junk” could send thousands of pieces of debris spinning into orbit, each capable of
     destroying further satellites. Global positioning systems, international phone connections, television signals and weather
     forecasts are among the services which are at risk of crashing to a halt. This “chain reaction” could leave some orbits so
     cluttered with debris that they become unusable for commercial or military satellites, the US Defense Department's interim
     Space Posture Review warned last year. There are also fears that large pieces of debris could threaten the lives of astronauts
     in space shuttles or at the International Space Station.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      25
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                    ISS Key to medicines
ISS research key to evaluating medical problems
NASA, 12/18/09, “Ultrasound from a Distance”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/adum.html BB
     Since there is not room for a fully functioning hospital and staff of doctors aboard the ISS, nor is it feasible for a
     crewmember to return to Earth for a quick medical checkup, other methods must be used for diagnosing internal injuries
     and illness. The Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity (ADUM), led by Dr. Scott Dulchavsky of the Henry
     Ford Hospital in Detroit, tests the accuracy of ultrasound in expanded clinical conditions which may be seen during space
     flight. These investigations include assessing health problems in most organ systems including the eyes, sinus, lungs, heart,
     abdomen and bones. The ADUM experiments also tests the ability of routine, in-flight ultrasound to monitor bone density
     during long-duration space flights. Another objective of the experiment is to determine how well non-medical
     crewmembers can perform complex ultrasound examinations with minimal computer based training remote guidance from
     Earth. The intent of the ADUM investigation is to develop methods to allow a minimally trained operator to use an
     ultrasound machine to evaluate a vast array of medical problems.

ISS research produces cancer treatment advances
NASA, 1/13/10, “Cancer Treatment Delivery”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/pfms.html BB
     As a result of this ISS research, the results from the MEPS-II experiments have provided new insight into the best
     formulations and conditions required to produce microcapsules of different drugs, particularly special capsules containing
     diagnostic imaging materials and triggered release particles. Co-encapsulation of multiple drugs and Photodynamic
     Therapy (PDT) drugs has enabled new engineering strategies for production of microcapsules on Earth designed for direct
     delivery into cancer tissues. Other microcapsules have now been made for treatment of deep tissue infections, clotting
     disorders, and to provide delivery of genetic engineered materials for potential gene therapy strategies (Morrison et al.
     2003). Microcapsules that were made on ISS and that are targeted at inhibiting growth of human prostate tumors have been
     successfully dem¬onstrated in laboratory settings (Le Pivert et al. 2004, LePivert et al 2009).

ISS key for advanced drug treatment
NASA, 1/13/10, “Vaccine Development”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlpv2.html BB
     This space-based research provides evidence that the International Space Station as a National Laboratory is a valuable
     resource that can be utilized for the benefit of Earth. Discovery of therapeutic targets for MRSA and Salmonella infections
     are examples of efforts to use the novel microgravity environment to develop new pharmaceutical agents, and as ISS nears
     its completion, there will be an increase in such opportunities to utilize the ISS National Laboratory as a platform for drug
     discovery. Overall, these results represent just a fraction of the possibilities of future microgravity discoveries.

ISS research key to medical advancements
Kelly Humphries, Senior Public Affairs Specialist - Public Affairs Office Information and Media Support Branch Johnson Space
Center, Katherine Trinidad, Public Affairs Specialist at NASA Washington D.C. Metro Area | Public Relations and
Communications, 2/5/10, NASA, “Space Station Primed for New Era of Scientific Discoveries”,
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_10-036_ISS.html BB

     The continued use of the station will open the window for more studies that can only be done in the unique environment of
     space. Specifically, scientists can discover how cells reproduce and differentiate in microgravity with applications to areas
     such as tissue generation and wound repair. Also, there are opportunities for more human physiology research to learn
     about systems such as heart, muscle and bone, which can benefit space explorers and ill or injured patients. Studies of fluid
     physics that benefit from lack of buoyancy in microgravity will provide new understanding of soft matter, supercritical
     fluids and two phase flow. Technology tests will advance areas such as robotics, life support and spacecraft servicing.
     Station construction began in Dec. 1998 and will be completed during 2010. Once complete, the station will transition to a
     new "full usage" phase, where continuous scientific research will be conducted aboard the multinational orbiting laboratory.
     During the past decade, scientific research accomplishments made aboard the station included advances in the fight against
     food poisoning and new methods for delivering medicine to cancer cells. Studies of salmonella bacteria identified the



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     26
Space Trash                                                                                                               DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                 1
     controlling gene responsible for its increased virulence in microgravity, and a commercial company has used changes in
     virulence of microbes to screen for candidate vaccines. Results of an early station experiment led to improvements in a
     method for delivering drugs to targets in the human body. The research led the way for better methods of micro-
     encapsulation, a process of forming miniature, liquid-filled balloons the size of blood cells that can deliver treatment
     directly to cancer cells.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                27
Space Trash                                                                                                                DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
                                               ISS key to Earth Resources
ISS key to developing durable materials
NASA, 1/16/10, “Durability of Materials”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/misse.html BB
     Understanding the effects of the extreme environment of space on different materials and devices is important for
     determining their durability for space missions. The Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) program
     investigates these effects through externally-mounted experiments on ISS. MISSE is led by Dr. Robert Walters of the U.S.
     Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and Dr. William Kinard, formerly of NASA Langley Research Center, and is a
     collaborative effort with many participating organizations, with significant contributions to the program by Boeing, the Air
     Force Research laboratory (AFRL), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) and various NASA Centers.
     MISSE is a series of external exchangeable test beds, called passive experiment containers (PECs), positioned on the
     outside of ISS, for studying the durability of materials and devices such as spacecraft polymers, coatings, structural
     materials, optics, solar cells, sensors, electronics and communications devices. To date, seven different MISSE PECs,
     containing thousands of materials samples, have been attached to the outside of the ISS, retrieved and evaluated for the
     effects of atomic oxygen (AO), vacuum, solar particle radiation, micrometeoroid and debris impacts, and extremes of heat
     and cold. Results demonstrate the durability of various materials when they are exposed to such an extreme environment.
     Many of the materials may have applications in the design of future spacecraft. The latest of the series (MISSE-7) was
     launched on Space Shuttle mission STS-129. MISSE 7A & &B were attached outside the ISS on the EXPRESS Logistics
     Carrier 2 on the S3 truss, and then opened and exposed to space during a spacewalk on November, 23, 2009.




ISS MISSE experiments will benefit spacecraft and Earth applications
NASA, 1/16/10, “Durability of Materials”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/misse.html BB
     Because true space environmental conditions are difficult to replicate on Earth, MISSE provides a valuable test platform
     that enables methods for correlating and extrapolating ground results. MISSE results have been used to understand and
     calibrate how materials that are already in use on spacecraft degrade in the space environment (e.g., polymers used for
     insulation, solar array materials) and predict the durability of new materials (e.g., thermal control coatings, solar cell
     materials) [1, 2, 3]. The NRL’s Forward Technology Solar Cell Experiment (FTSCE) used MISSE to rapidly place current
     and future generation space solar cells on orbit and provide validation data for these technologies [4]. With data from the
     ISS materials test bed, the development time for some Department of Defense satellite hardware components has been
     significantly reduced, and estimates of the return on investment for MISSE projects exceed 200 percent [5]. MISSE
     samples that are currently being tested on the ISS also include materials that are part of the design of the new Orion Crew
     Exploration Vehicle (CEV) [5]. MISSE investigators have obtained long-duration flight data and devised methods for
     predicting AO erosion yields that will provide important references for designers, developers, and builders of future
     spacecraft and instruments [1, 3, 4, 6]. The MISSE series results may provide data to further benefit Earth-based
     applications, such as art restoration and biomedical applications, which utilized AO techniques.

ISS crop creation advances food quality and makes space travel more feasible
NASA, 12/18/09, “Air Purification”, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/advasc.html BB
     The potential benefits of using microgravity to create crops to withstand disease and grow in limited volume can be realized
     in both space flight and here on Earth. Furthermore, ADVASC is a precursor for growing plants during extended space
     expeditions to the Moon and Mars, for both food and as components of regenerative life support systems. ADVASC has
     also contributed to National Security, cancer-fighting pharmaceuticals and educational tools for students. ADVASC’s novel
     air scrubber was designed to remove ethylene from the chamber atmosphere, thus allowing longevity of the produce. The
     success of this technology on ISS led to the development of an air purifier that is beneficial on Earth by killing 98% of
     airborne pathogens that pass through it, including Bacillus anthraci (anthrax), dust mites, molds, and harmful viruses and
     bacteria such as Influenza A (flu), Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureas, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Mycoplasma
     pneumonia. This technology is now in widespread use for food preservation, in doctors’ offices, and for everyday living
     environments including homes, hotels and offices. In addition, the light, used to simulate photosynthesis in the growth
     chambers, can heal wounds and increases the effectiveness of cancer-fighting drugs in vitro.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    28
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                **Econ Advantage **
                                           Space debris removal key to econ
Space debris removal would save money in the long term
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     Based on the number of objects in low-earth orbit, and using the Iridium satellite system as an example, if we assume that
     the replacement cost of one of the 66 satellites in the $3.450 billion system is roughly $50 million, then the total cost to
     LEO satellites from orbital debris is estimated to be roughly $40 million per year. Debris-related expenses that are on the
     order of tens of millions of dollars per year should he compared with estimates from the Orion study for debris removal. It
     estimated that eliminating debris in orbits tip to 800 km in altitude within 3 years of operation would not exceed $200
     million. It was for this reason that the study team has proposed a technology demonstration project as a next step, which is
     estimated to cost roughly $13-28 million.

Debris removal would save millions of dollars per year.
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     Technology Demonstration. The serious international concern over the orbital debris problem, when coupled with the
     evident feasibility and cost-effectiveness of debris removal by ground-based pulsed laser propulsion, has led to planning for
     the next step toward debris removal. The Orion report contained a suggestion for a technology demonstration in which a
     120-J pulsed laser would he joined with a 3.5 m aperture telescope with tracking capability, such as the USAF Advanced
     Electro-Optical System (AEOS) under construction in Hawaii or the Starfire Optical Range (SOR) in New Mexico.
     Specially constructed targets, which would he deployed from the space shuttle, would have corner-cube reflectors or a UPS
     unit to return a strong signal for calibration tests. This demonstration would have a number of goals. Cost estimates for the
     technology demonstration are in the range of $13-28 million, which is comparable with the cost of a single flight of the
     least expensive orbital launch vehicle (Pegasus). The potential benefits, if the demonstration leads to an operational system,
     are saving tens of millions of dollars per year in expenses (increased shielding, damage control systems, and satellite
     replacements) related to orbital debris, and the accelerated development of other applications of laser space propulsion and
     laser power beaming.

Debris removal is key to economy.
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     The use of space is vital for future economic and political power for many reasons. Since an impact from a meteorite,
     asteroid, or comet would he an unimaginable catastrophe, we have little choice but to deal with this threat. On a lesser
     scale, the threat of orbital debris to spacecraft raises important economic questions. While there are many risks with
     spaceflight, we must decide at what threshold the risks are too high and action is necessary. That threshold must balance the
     possible impact to the mission, resources available to accomplish that mission, and the technical arid cost feasibility of
     reducing that risk. In addition, that threshold must balance all of the risks that are associated with a mission. In other words,
     if there is a practical way to reduce risk, then it is probably prudent to do so. The purpose of this study is to describe one
     solution for reducing the risk posed by orbital debris. Presently, there are significant quantities of orbit debris in all sizes,
     altitudes, and inclinations. However, the debris ranges in size from the microscopic to several meters, including worn out
     satellites arid upper stages of rockets, and fortunately there are many more small objects than large ones. The typical


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     29
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
     closing velocities for a collision with orbital debris are on the order of 20,000 mph, which means that a collision with a
     satellite would likely end its useful service life at costs that exceed one billion dollars.

Satellites key to the global economy.
Deblois, Bruce M. Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, Summer 2003, "The Advent of Space Weapons."
Astropolitics. Vol. 1, No. 1

     Hundreds of billions of dollars in resources are invested in globally exposed assets orbiting the earth that directly support
     national economies and militaries, and in general, the twenty-first century civilized way of life. The total economic impact
     resulting from the destruction of space-based resources would be far greater than the loss of revenues from these assets, as
     many other sectors rely critically on satellite-related services. As such, any exposed and valuable asset is a target for
     adversaries - a target warranting protection.* The threat includes well-funded terrorists or the possibility of space collateral
     damage from rogue actors perceiving a military threat from an adversary in space, and responding against it (i.e., die impact
     to commercial and civil activities Is simply a byproduct of an assault on military activities). The emergence of
     microsatellites and possibilities for space mines must not be overlooked. While space-based weapons might not be the most
     obvious means of defending on-orbit assets, concepts of on-orbit weapons co-located with at-risk assets, with automated
     kinetic or directed energy intercept capability, must be considered. In a future of thousands of critically important and
     valuable national and international space assets some will, if left unchecked, inevitably support self-defense mechanisms
     that by any definition would constitute weapons in space.

Space infrastructure key to the global economy.
Cowan-Sharp, Jessy, et al., Jessy Cowan-Sharp is a collaborative web technology developer at the NASA Ames Research
Center, Simon Collard-Wexler,. Foreign Affairs Canada, Sarah Estabrooks of Peace Magazine. Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr. is
President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, Robert A. Lawson, Ph.D., Professor of Economics and George H. Moor Chair
Capital University, Dr. William Marshall. Research Fellow NASA Ames, June 2005, Space Security Index 2004

     Under the Outer Space Treaty, space is open to everyone and belonging to no one. Space is also a global commons that
     borders every community on Earth and secure access to and use of space has been critical to its development as a new
     center of strategic social, economic, and military power. Space has also become a critical part of our national and
     international infrastructure; it supports our medical systems, our public services, our communications systems, our financial
     institutions, and our militaries. Indeed, today it is difficult to imagine our societies and economies functioning without the
     support of space-based assets. However, the dynamics of space security remain poorly understood. Space is uniquely fragile
     as an environment and the resources of Earth’s orbital space are limited. It is not clear how we can best balance today’s
     competing civil, commercial, and military interests against the need for sustainable uses of space that will ensure its utility
     for future generations.

Commercial satellites essential to global function
Ziad Akir, Ohio Univ. Doctoral Student, 2003, “Space Security: Possible Issues and Potential Solutions”,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf

     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.1 Many governments around the world,
     including the United States, rely on commercial satellite systems for communication, commerce, and defense. Commercial
     satellite systems include groundbased 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) now essential to
     global function. Commercial sectors and governments around the globe have huge investments in space ranging from GEO
     and LEO satellites to the currently being constructed International Space Station (ISS). These assets are being used to
     support essential operations such as banking, telecommunication, imaging, manufacturing, and research as well as defense.
     Moreover, satellites provide services which contemporary human life and well being have come to depends on such as
     predicting natural disasters, guiding ships and aircrafts, providing distance education, and telemedicine.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    30
Space Trash                                                                                                               DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                     1

Destruction of commercial satellites ruins global economy
Michael Kraig, Professor, National Security Studies at Air Command and Staff College, Air University, Michael Roston, Home
Page Producer at The New York Times, 5/1/02, Foreign Policy in Focus, Nuclear-tipped Foolishness,
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 photo-reconnaissance satellites would eventually be disabled as well.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    31
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                   Removal saves money
Preempting collisions will save billions of dollars in the future.
McKnight 2010. (Dr. Darren McKnight Technical Director at Integrity Applications Incorporated Past Chief Scientist at Agilex
Technologies Director of Science and Technology Strategy at SAIC VP, Emerging Technologies at Titan Corporation. “Pay Me Now
or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”.
http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf) hss

     In general, it has been found that risk management actions earlier in the sequence are more cost-effective to control the
     hazard. However, these marginal costs early in the life cycle of a threat are not always embraced by those who must incur
     them because the potential severity of the risk from the threat is not easily represented or understood. (See Endnote 24 on
     similarity to terrorism response.) Current perceived and actual risks are below the threshold for immediate action. However,
     delaying action may cause us to go through a period of satellite failures due to collisions with debris. Eventually, the
     spacefaring community will expend more resources “recovering” from multiple collisions rather than proactively starting to
     remove large objects. This delay will cost the community 100’s of millions of dollars to billions of dollars in debris cleanup
     and satellite replacement costs plus difficult-to-calculate impact due to termination of services supported by on-orbit assets.


Debris harms major economic sectors
Megan Ansdell, second year graduate student in the Master of International Science and Technology Policy Program at the George
Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs focusing on space policy, 20 10, Princeton, “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 BB

     Although the probability of catastrophic collisions caused by space debris has increased over the years, it remains relatively
     low and there have been only four known collisions between objects larger than ten centimeters (Wright 2009, 6).
     Nevertheless, the real concern is the predicted runaway growth of space debris over the coming decades. Such uncontrolled
     growth would prohibit the ability of satellites to provide their services, many of which are now widely used by the global
     community. Indeed, in a testimony to Congress for a hearing on “Keeping the Space Environment Safe for Civil and
     Commercial Uses,” the Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, Dr. Scott Pace, stated that,
     …space systems such as satellite communications, environmental monitoring, and global navigation satellite systems are
     crucial to the productivity of many types of national and international infrastructures such as air, sea, and highway
     transportation, oil and gas pipelines, financial networks, and global communications (Pace 2009).




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       32
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                  **Military Advantage**
                                                      Generic Links
Debris poses major threat to economy and military operations
Clay Dillow, science reporter, 5/27/10, Popsci, “Pentagon: A Space Junk Collision Could Set Off Catastrophic Chain Reaction,
Disable Earth Communications”, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/dod-space-junk-tipping-point-collision-could-
set-catastrophic-chain-reaction BB

     The fear is that with so much junk already up there, a collision is numerically probable at some point. Two large pieces of
     junk colliding could theoretically send thousands more potential satellite killers into orbit, and those could in turn collide
     with other pieces of junk or with satellites, unleashing another swarm of debris. You get the idea. To give an idea of how
     quickly a chain reaction could get out hand consider this: in February of last year a defunct Russian satellite collided with a
     communications satellite, turning 2 orbiting craft into 1,500 pieces of junk. The Chinese missile test that obliterated a
     satellite in 2007 spawned 100 times more than that, scattering 150,000 pieces of debris. If a chain reaction got out of
     control up there, it could very quickly sever our communications, our GPS system (upon which the U.S. military heavily
     relies), and cripple the global economy (not to mention destroy the $250 billion space services industry), and whole orbits
     could be rendered unusable, potentially making some places on Earth technological dead zones.


Satellites crucial to military and protection of satellites
Scott King, U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. 40th Air Expeditionary Group Public Affairs, 5/1/06, “Satellite Provides Vital Information to
Military”, http://www.defense.gov/transformation/articles/2006-05/ta050106a.html BB

     Computers then measure these streaks and use the data to figure the current position of a satellite in its orbit. Star images,
     which remain fixed, are used as a reference or calibration points for each of the three telescopes. They are focused on
     performing their role for the safety and security of the United States. “Space is the ultimate high ground giving us the
     ability to communicate over long distances and determining exact locations through the global positioning satellite system,”
     said Maj. Jay Fulmer, Det. 2 GEODSS commander. “Many of our servicemen and women serving on the front lines use
     technology that is greatly enhanced through the use of space. Det. 2, which is a part of a global space surveillance network,
     ensures the U.S. and our allies the ability to operate unencumbered in the medium of space, allowing our troops direct
     access to space derived force enhancements,” he said. Thinking “big” is what these guys do. “As mankind continues to
     explore and exploit the realm of space there needs to be some accounting and understanding of the medium,” Bookout said.
     “Space is a new realm to the human experience.” We’ve learned much during the last 50 years, but we still have much more
     to learn,” he noted. “Space surveillance provides critical information on the location of every man-made object in space
     ensuring our space base assets are protected from potential on-orbit collisions or from adversaries who might try to take
     away our abilities to operate in space – this guarantees the war fighter access to space derived tools they need to execute
     their mission.




Satellites are indispensable to the military
William Matthews, Congress Homeland Security Reporter, 3/20/11, Defense News,
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3999596&c=AIR&s=TOP BB

     Satellites are critical to the United States for such essential services as banking, telecommunications, utilities,
     transportation, homeland security, even agriculture, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. James Armor told the House Armed
     Services strategic forces subcommittee March 18. For the military, satellites have become indispensable for activities
     ranging from intelligence-gathering to communications and navigation, he said.




Military heavily dependent on satellites
Loren B. Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute Chief Executive Officer of Source Associates



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       33
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
former Deputy Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University holds doctoral and masters degrees in government
from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University, 4/14/ 10, Lexington
Institute, “Lack Of Protected Satellite Communications Could Mean Defeat For Joint Force In Future War”,
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/lack-of-protected-satellite-communications-could-mean-defeat-for-joint-force-in-future-
war?a=1&c=1171 BB

In the years since the Cold War ended, the U.S. military has become heavily dependent upon satellite communications to maintain its
global connectivity. Without such links, it would be difficult for the military to operate in a coordinated fashion or exchange
information critical to situational awareness. Defense experts have repeatedly warned that the availability of space-based
communications could be compromised in future conflicts by the fact that 80-90% of all military traffic is transmitted on vulnerable
commercial satcom channels. However, there is a related problem that far fewer military observers have noticed: only about 1% of
defense communications today are protected against even the most modest jamming threats.

Satellites used to aid military operations

Barry D. Watts, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), 5/11/11,
“Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
The Implications of China’s Military and Civil Space Programs”,
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/11_05_11_wrt/11_05_11_watts_testimony.pdf

     From a U.S. perspective, therefore, the military use of space has changed fundamentally since the early 1960s. During
     most of the Cold War space systems were used mainly by the United States and USSR for strategic reconnaissance
     inside the other’s sovereign territory prior to the outbreak of general nuclear war. Starting with Desert Storm, however,
     U.S. space systems have been used increasingly for near-real-time surveillance and targeting of enemy forces during
     ongoing conventional operations. An added wrinkle is that GPS, which first demonstrated its military value in 1991,
     subsequently evolved into a universal source of precision location and timing data for individuals, financial institutions,
     commercial firms, numerous other organizations, and militaries around the globe. Though funded through the U.S. Air
     Force’s budget, GPS is now a service that the U.S. government provides to everyone else on the planet free of charge.

Military weapon usage dependent on satellites

Barry D. Watts, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), 5/11/11,
“Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
The Implications of China’s Military and Civil Space Programs”,
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011hearings/written_testimonies/11_05_11_wrt/11_05_11_watts_testimony.pdf

     The other ramification of the vital role that satellites have increasingly played in U.S. military operations is that the Chinese
     cannot help but appreciate just how dependent American precision warfare is on the use of space. Precision munitions are
     only useful if they can be supplied with precision targeting information such as the GPS coordinates of an aim point. To get
     that information to shooters in time to deal with time-sensitive targets, the United States has invested heavily in
     developing global battle networks as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems such as EO and
     radar satellites as well as unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) like the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-1Predator. An advantage
     of UAVs over LEO satellites is that they can dwell over a target area and provide staring surveillance rather than periodic
     looks. The UAVs, however, are critically dependent communications satellites (COMSATs). Currently, a single Predator
     orbit requires data rates of up to 6.4 million bits/second (Mbps);and the electro­optical, infrared and synthetic aperture
     radar feeds from a single Global Hawk can potentially consume as much as 274 Mbps. These bandwidth requirements have
     been met by military and commercial COMSATs in geostationary orbits. In addition, the UAVs themselves depend on GPS
     for precise geo­location of whatever their sensors are “seeing.” Thus, the targeting and battle­management networks
     integral to current U.S. strike operations contain vulnerabilities to attacks ranging from jamming C2 links to the covert
     insertion of false data into U.S. networks. During the major combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in
     March-April 2003, the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) in Saudi Arabia used 31 military and 27 commercial
     COMSAT terminals with a capacity of nearly 210 Mbps.11 Overall, the total information flow in and out of theater during
     OIF’s major combat phase is estimated to have peaked around three billion bits per second while some 84 percent of all
     military communications in and out of the theater went through commercial COMSATs. 12 As for the dependence of
     precision strike operations on space, nearly 44 percent of the guided munitions expended in the OIF air campaign used


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     34
Space Trash                                                                                                                DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
     inertial/GPS-aided guidance to hone in on their aim points.

Space full of military assets

MSNBC, 10/11/10, “World's military projects dominate space”,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39616225/ns/technology_and_science-space/

     Cold War paranoia may have eased up on the Space Race decades ago, but a new report finds that military projects still take
     up nearly half of all spending worldwide on space assets. The United States is by far the biggest spender on defense-related
     space programs, yet its technical savvy also makes it the country most dependent on such systems, according to a report,
     “Space Security 2010,” released in September. American efforts to project military power across the globe have helped
     drive such dependence on space power, said military and security analyst John Pike, who runs GlobalSecurity.org. “If we
     want to blow somebody up, we have to go to the other side of the planet, and need lots of space support to do so,” said Pike,
     who was not involved in compiling the report.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                 35
Space Trash                                                                                                                                DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                                      1
                                           **Critical Environment Advantage**
                                                       Generic Links
Little consideration is given to the space environment, yet it is fragile and must be protected.
Mark Williamson, Space Technology Consultant, Space Policy, Volume 19, Issue 1, February 2003, Pages 47-52, “Space ethics
and protection of the space environment”, ScienceDirect MB

     For the most part, the history of space exploration and development is regarded as a triumph of mankind over the space
     environment, first in providing access to it and second in surviving its extremes of temperature, radiation and other
     characteristics. Relatively little consideration has been accorded to the space environment itself in terms of the detrimental
     effects of space exploration and development, and relatively few practitioners consider the subject worthy of consideration.
     Gradually, however, protection of the space environment is beginning to appear on the space community's agenda, as increasing numbers
     of space professionals begin to consider mankind's collective attitude towards the space environment. 2. The value question By
     analogy with the early days of terrestrial environmentalism, we appear to be in the very early stages of realisation that the space
     environment has a value, and can be detrimentally affected by our activities. Indeed, in some ways, the space environment is more
     fragile than the Earth's. Whereas the terrestrial environment has proved itself remarkably resilient, and able to regenerate
     once a destructive mechanism has been removed, parts of the space environment do not possess that advantage. For example,
     an orbit made inaccessible by a chain reaction of debris collisions could , depending on its altitude, remain inaccessible for
     millennia. Likewise, a planetary body such as the Earth's Moon, which has no appreciable atmosphere, no weather and negligible
     tectonic activity, has no facility for environmental renewal. Unless we actively disturb them, the hardware left by the Apollo astronauts,
     and their footprints, will remain intact for millennia. However, to most people outside the space community—including otherwise
     intelligent and professional individuals—space is a limitless, alien void populated by huge and indestructible stars, a handful of
     barren planets and swarms of potentially dangerous comets and meteors . The space environment is hardly in need of protection,
     they might say; if anything, we on Earth are the ones in need of protection! Although those in the space community may have a more
     informed view than those outside, the majority is likely to need some persuading that the space environment is worth protecting for
     its own sake—for example, because parts of it may harbour simple forms of alien life, because they contain unique physical
     formations, or simply because they are beautiful. The question is one of perceived value…and the answer lies in pragmatism. In
     pragmatic terms, the space environment is valuable because it has a use for commercial applications. So if, for example, geostationary
     orbit became unusable because of a build up of debris, there would be a significant financial impact on satellite operators. Of course, the
     space environment is also valuable from a scientific perspective and scientists have a vested interest in maintaining its relative purity (at
     least for the course of their study). Planetary scientists, for instance, are concerned about potential contamination of planetary bodies by
     visiting spacecraft, while ground-based astronomers are concerned at the potential disruption to observations at both optical and radio
     wavelengths from orbiting spacecraft. The issue for industrialists and scientists alike is that current attitudes could prejudice future
     activities. The potential of the debris-clogged orbit or the contaminated canyon are simply different manifestations of the
     same lack of understanding and appreciation; both eventualities call for protection of the respective resource. In addition to
     the pragmatic and aesthetic viewpoints, there is a philosophical consideration to the value question. It can be argued that the space
     environment is valuable because it represents freedom, by providing an almost unlimited expanse for mankind to explore,
     understand and, if he so wishes, to conquer. So if, for some reason, a part of that expanse—such as a planetary surface—became
     inaccessible, a part of that freedom would be lost. Placing a value on footprints and historic sites of exploration is difficult, but if it
     can be done for the Earth, it can be done for the Moon. Whether one's stance is pragmatic or philosophical, the logic is clear: if
     the space environment is valuable, it is worthy of protection. The question is, of course, ‘to what extent should we protect the
     space environment?’ Should we regulate its use to protect it for future generations, or should we simply continue the laissez faire attitude
     of previous generations?


Taking practical action is vital to create a policy of space ethics.
Mark Williamson, Space Technology Consultant, Space Policy, Volume 19, Issue 1, February 2003, Pages 47-52, “Space ethics
and protection of the space environment”, ScienceDirect MB

     It is apparent that the difficulties associated with achieving a balance between exploitation and protection are significant. How do we
     balance the rights of a developer to mine the Martian surface and those of a scientist to examine a pristine alien environment? Perhaps the
     compromise of allowing archaeologists a limited period of excavation prior to laying a building's foundations offers a suitable model.
     This reference to examples, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial, highlights an important point in deriving an ethical policy. There is a
     danger in the discussion of ethics—perhaps because of its nature as a non-science subject—that consideration is confined to the
     philosophical aspects, thus excusing those involved from providing practical solutions to the problems that emerge. The fact that
     mankind has already affected, and arguably damaged, the space environment transports the discussion beyond the
     philosophical realm, as illustrated by the following list of examples of our impact on the space environment. • project West Ford/Midas
     6, 1963: cloud of 18 mm copper dipoles at 3600 km; • debris from spacecraft and upper stage explosions in LEO; • debris from launch



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                     36
Space Trash                                                                                                                              DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                                    1
     vehicle separation devices in LEO and GTO; • micro-debris in LEO (e.g. spacecraft paint and thermal insulation, and metallic particles
     from solid propellant motors); • growing population of defunct satellites in GEO-graveyard orbits; • impact debris of spacecraft on Moon
     (e.g. Luna, Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, Apollo, Lunar Prospector); • materials (including trash) ejected from Apollo lunar modules before lift-
     off; • impact debris of Saturn SIVB rocket stages on Moon; • similar debris (e.g. jettisoned covers) on surfaces of Venus and Mars. So, in
     the same way that medical ethics concerns ‘real world issues’, such as organ donation, assisted conception and cloning, a
     policy of space ethics must evolve by addressing actual issues. Any attempt to derive a code of ethics from a philosophy is missing
     the point: the code must be an operational tool, not simply a list of postulates. Moreover, time is of the essence. The construction of
     the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit and the formulation of plans to search for life on Mars—one day by
     means of manned missions—indicate that humanity is intent on making the space environment part of its domain. Publicity
     surrounding space tourism, in-space ‘burials’ and the sale of lunar ‘real estate’ suggests that, some time in the 21st century,
     the space environment will become an extraterrestrial extension of our current business and domestic environment. The fact
     that an automated rover, controlled by earthbound theme-park patrons, could be trekking across the lunar surface within the decade
     makes consideration of any restrictions on its exploration relatively urgent. Even if the first such rover were to travel nowhere near the
     Apollo 11 landing site, for example, what degree of protection could be offered to those historic first footprints from subsequent rovers
     and, eventually, actual tourists? 5. Space ethics by example As the previous section implies, an understanding of the need for and
     breadth of an ethical code should be based on the consideration of practical examples, in effect ‘what we should and shouldn’t do’. A few
     example questions, in no particular order of importance, indicate the potential breadth of the discussion: • Should we allow adventure
     tourism in low-Earth orbit, or will this eventually lead to an increase in orbital debris (e.g. from launch vehicle upper stages, abandoned
     accommodation modules and carelessly ejected trash containers)? • Should we allow tourists to visit the Moon, or will this lead to the
     pollution of a pristine environment and damage to historic lunar landing sites? • Should we allow the construction of orbiting
     advertisements visible from Earth, which would hamper astronomical observations? • Should we allow scientists to land, and sometimes
     crash, their spacecraft on the surfaces of planetary bodies without initiating a regulated spacecraft decontamination programme (e.g. the
     intentional impact of Lunar Prospector onto the Moon's south pole in 1999)? • Should we allow the terraforming of Mars without first
     assuring that no indigenous, even dormant, life forms exist? Having asked these and other questions, it seems obvious that they deserve
     answers. But who is asking these questions and who is answering them? At the moment, consideration is confined to a small body
     of concerned space professionals who consider it their duty to do so. However, despite its best intentions, any such group risks
     preaching to the converted.

Treating space as a wilderness worthy of protection avoids replication of terrestrial problems.
Linda Billings, SETI Institute, Space Policy, Volume 22, Issue 4, November 20 06, Pages 249-255“How shall we live in space?
Culture, law and ethics in spacefaring society”, ScienceDirect MB

     One logical extension of the idea of preserving the space environment is the idea of outer space as a wilderness. Thinking
     about space as a wilderness provides a means of envisioning exploration in a less invasive way than current frontier rhetoric
     does. Historian Neil Maher has argued that, while the now-iconic ‘Earthrise’ photograph of our planet, taken from space by
     an Apollo 8 astronaut in 1968, “helped extend America's Manifest Destiny into the ultimate wilderness—outer space”, the
     equally iconic “Whole Earth” photograph, taken by an Apollo 17 astronaut in 1972, subsequently “debunk[ed] the frontier
     narrative suggested in Earthrise”, by reconfiguring public perception of the home planet as “an environmentally threatened
     home” [31]. The wilderness metaphor is at the core of the concept of ‘astro-environmentalism’, the idea of applying the
     values of environmental protection and preservation to space exploration. It has been argued that treating the Solar System
     like a wilderness to protect rather than a frontier to exploit could help to keep nuclear technology, human-made debris, and
     other environmental hazards out of space and prohibit private and sovereign property claims. The point would be to “avoid
     making the same mistakes in space as we have on earth”


Recognizing the inherent value of space environments is key to understanding the consequences of our
actions.
Saara Reiman, Department of Social and Moral Philosophy, University of Helsinki, May 2009, Space Policy, Volume 25, Issue 2,
Pages 81-87, “Is space an environment?”ScienceDirect MB

     Philosophically it may be beneficial to employ the tools of environmental ethics in discussions about space ethics. If we act
     in space, the ethical questions we encounter often have as much in common with environmental ethics as with the
     philosophy of science or sociology. There already exist ethical questions that have a distinctly environmental ethical
     undertone (for example: if we discover life, how should we treat it?). This strongly suggests that we should consider space
     as an environment for practical reasons. Studying space as an environment allows us to have another perspective besides
     that of human interests. While it is true that studying the ethical questions of space exploration from the perspective of



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                   37
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
     human interests can answer many ethical questions (for instance, cluttering an important orbit with debris is unwise mainly
     because doing so is against our own best interests in the long term, and this provides a good reason to avoid it4), other
     questions benefit from combining different perspectives. Questions such as whether or not it is ethically acceptable to mine
     the rings of Saturn until they are destroyed or to blow the moons of Mars out of existence as part of a nuclear weapons test
     programme, are questions where applying only a human perspective seems insufficient. An account of ethics that does not
     grant these places some inherent value seems to be lacking something important - the perspective of the object of human
     actions. If we choose to ignore that perspective, we may fail to realize the full consequences of our actions. When making
     moral decisions humans have a tendency to count only certain features of the objects of their actions as significant. For
     example, when discussing the ethics of animal testing, laboratory animals are often portrayed as ‘models’ or biological
     machines with no subjecthood or interests of their own. In the same way, some space explorers might see the objects of
     their interest – like the rings of Saturn – only as mineral deposits. Adopting the attitude that the rings of Saturn are an
     environment in the sense that they can be considered things that have inherent value beyond their value to humans is a way
     to avoid this kind of blindness. According to Rolston, it is very human but also quite short-sighted to value a system only
     for its production of life. As he puts it, while life is special in many ways, it is a mistake to believe that this means that
     lifeless places, ‘mere things’, are beyond appropriate and inappropriate consideration [8].


We must protect the space environment – any part of it we influence will affect us.
Saara Reiman, Department of Social and Moral Philosophy, University of Helsinki, May 2009, Space Policy, Volume 25, Issue 2,
Pages 81-87, “Is space an environment?”ScienceDirect MB

     While it is true that the universe is so huge a closed system that for all purposes it could as well be open, it can be argued
     that we ought to expand environmental ethics to concern space because the human sphere of influence is limited. It does not
     matter how far we travel, how many small outposts we build - we cannot escape from ourselves. As long as these remote
     outposts interact with the rest of the human population, there remains a possibility that actions out there will affect more
     people than seems likely at first. It does not matter whether Earth is a closed system or whether we find ourselves living in
     a limited system. Nothing can remove us from the centre of our own sphere of influence. Therefore we can conclude that,
     although the link between human well-being and the well-being of the space environment in which we act is different and
     perhaps weaker than the link between human well-being and the well-being of Earth, it does exist. We can discuss space as
     environment in the sense that our actions in those parts of space that lie in our sphere of influence can affect our own well-
     being, also in ways that are not easily foreseeable.


Protection of the space environment checks social injustice.
Saara Reiman, Department of Social and Moral Philosophy, University of Helsinki, May 20 09, Space Policy, Volume 25, Issue 2,
Pages 81-87, “Is space an environment?”ScienceDirect MB

     One of the reasons for exploring space is that Earth is not enough for us. We need more living room and resources than our
     home planet can offer. But who is this ‘we?’ Is spreading out into space a good thing if the human presence there consists
     of large commercial enterprises, scientists and members of a rich elite? Should we not mark from early on another interest:
     that of equal freedom. Equal freedom means that the goal of space exploration is to make space accessible to ordinary
     people who are not particularly rich or influential or particularly professionally involved in it. Satellite services are a good
     example of how the exploitation of space has also improved the lives of ordinary people. If space is explored in part for the
     purpose of making human life better, it should mean the life of the ordinary human. Otherwise there is a risk that the gap
     between the privileged and the poor will expand into something never seen before, with equally unpredictable
     consequences. The space environment is like the Earth's environment in the sense that we have diverse interests towards it
     but physical and social realities set certain limits on the manner and the extent to which we may pursue these interests.
     Treating space as an environment highlights the need to discern and evaluate our various interests, as well as the need to
     ask, who ‘we’ includes in a given situation.

Valuing lifeless environments is key to higher ethics.
Saara Reiman, Department of Social and Moral Philosophy, University of Helsinki, May 20 09, Space Policy, Volume 25, Issue 2,
Pages 81-87, “Is space an environment?”ScienceDirect MB

     It was suggested above that, in order to obtain useful answers to the ethical questions of space exploration, it would be wise


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        38
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
     sometimes to grant space the status of a moral subject (environment). Can we make this case stronger and say that, at least
     sometimes, moral subjecthood is more than a philosophical tool? Can we assert that objects in space really have inherent
     value? According to Rolston, we can. He points out that asking what alien worlds are good for prevents us asking whether
     those worlds are good in a deeper sense. In his opinion the class of habitable places is only a subset of the class of valuable
     places and a failure to be functional for Earth-based life is a different thing from failing on form, beauty or eventfulness.
     Therefore, just as there is (in)appropriate behaviour in places on Earth, regardless of how hospitable they are to human life,
     so it is also meaningful to speak of (in)appropriate behaviour in space environments [8]. Williamson agrees with this when
     he says that, whereas life forms and ecology are considered sacrosanct, the inherent beauty of geology and geomorphology
     is not always accorded the recognition it deserves [1]. Recognizing that space environments have inherent value is a simple
     way of keeping in mind that, even when lifeless, space environments can have many valuable qualities that deserve to be
     protected and cherished. Space is not just a new area for the application of environmental ethics but can also teach an ethics
     lesson of its own: that environmental ethics at its best is more than an ethics of life. If lifeless environments can be valuable
     and unique in many ways, what does this tell us about our moral responsibilities towards all environments?




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                         39
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                               Impact
Developing space without considering environmental consequences would cause disaster.
EGJ (Electronic Green Journal), UCLA, peer reviewed, 20 01, Vol. 1, Issue 15. Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space
Exploration as an Environmental Issue, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2d37b8cx MB

     In Beyond Space Ship Earth: Environmental Ethics and the Solar System, probably the most thorough coverage of the
     subject, Hargrove (1986) writes that the only reason there are no people on the Moon or Mars is due to reduced NASA
     spending levels. "The attempts to apply environmental concepts to the Solar System represent a significant challenge for
     environmental ethics, since so far as we know at present the Solar System, except for Earth, is a collection of nonliving
     natural objects, the kind of entity that offers the greatest conceptual difficulties for environmental ethics." Hargrove warns,
     "If serious planning begins without adequate ethical and environmental input, then future NASA and associated
     industrial/commercial projects in the Solar System may simply produce a new environmental crisis that dwarfs our current
     one" (pp. x-xi). Hargrove argues that if we do nothing, the dark visions of science fiction could become true.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       40
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                            Spill-Over
Astroenvironmentalism allows us to better protect the environment on Earth.
EGJ (Electronic Green Journal), UCLA, peer reviewed, 20 01, Vol. 1, Issue 15. Astroenvironmentalism: The Case for Space
Exploration as an Environmental Issue, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2d37b8cx MB

     The most important related efforts are those involved in trying to stop the militarization of space and the use of nuclear
     power in space. Karl Grossman, author of The Wrong Stuff (1997), and William E. Burrows, in This New Ocean (1998),
     point out that space is likely to become our next war zone. Space will become the new high ground from which battles are
     fought. We have ignored the Moon so that we can focus more on the immediate high ground in the satellite belt.
     Thankfully, we are focusing on international cooperation for the new space station, but Grossman and Burrows emphasize
     the need for a greater worldwide participation. Over the years there have been many people who have been concerned with
     this issue, but they would not necessarily call themselves astroenvironmentalists. I put forth astronenvironmentalism as an
     argument that space should be considered an environmental issue and the term can function as an umbrella term for the
     related concerns. Astroenvironmentalism seems to fill a void, because there are no widely known organizations that focus
     on this issue. There is no widely known Mars First or Venus First organization arguing against terraforming. There is no
     Greenspace or Spacepeace. Most environmental groups are focused on more immediate issues and are more concerned with
     immediate and down-toEarth issues. Leopold's Land Ethic, which focused on protecting life, is not easily applicable to the
     barren territories of space. But the argument of protecting space from exploitation is not solely about protecting rocks; it is
     also about making a statement about human behavior. If one succeeds in making the argument about protecting celestial
     bodies, we are also making the argument about protecting habitats here on earth.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       41
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                      **Add-ons**
                                                Space Exploration Add-On
Debris problems prevent the commercialization of space – tourism, exploration, and mining are all
prevented.
Senechal, 2007 (Thierry, Policy Manager with the International Chamber of Commerce. Over the years, he has served as an expert
advisor in a broad range of international litigation and arbitration cases, Papers on International Environmental Negotiation, Volume
16 Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Treaty-making System, Editors Susskind and Moomaw, PON Books, Program on Negotiation
at Harvard Law School, www.pon.org/downloads/ien16.2.Senechal.pdf ) hss

     It is important to look over the horizon and head off problems before they occur rather than waiting for the problems to find
     us unprepared. It is obvious that many development issues deserve great attention on Earth. However, this is not a reason to
     forget that our space environment needs protection in much the same way that our oceans, rivers, and forests have to be
     preserved for future generations. Recent activities in space have produced a considerable increase of knowledge about the
     debris population in the orbital environment. This should help motivate the design and implementation of a space debris
     convention. Even though the current space debris population may not represent an immediate danger, the risk of collision
     with debris is growing. The severity of damage and its consequences are also increasing as we rely heavily on equipment
     placed in orbit. More than ever, the space debris problem is hindering space commerce, space tourism, the scientific
     exploration of space, the use of raw materials from space (including materials from the Moon), and even plans for the
     future settlement of space. A new space debris convention is thus warranted now.

High levels of debris will prevent future launches
Lynda Williams, M.S. in Physics and a physics faculty member at Santa Rose Junior College, Spring 20 10, Peace Review: A
Journal of Social Justice, “Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization” BB

     Since the space race began 50 years ago with the launch of Sputnik, the space environment around Earth has become
     overcrowded with satellites and space debris, so much so, that circumterrestrial space has become a dangerous place with
     an increasing risk of collision and destruction. Thousands of pieces of space junk created from launches orbit the Earth in
     the same orbit as satellites, putting them at risk of collision. Every time a rocket is launched, debris from the rocket stages
     are put into orbital space. In 2009 there was a disastrous collision between an Iridium satellite and a piece of space junk that
     destroyed the satellite. In 2007 China blew up one of its defunct satellites to demonstrate its antiballistic missile
     capabilities, increasing the debris field by 15%. There are no international laws prohibiting anti-satellite actions. Every
     year, since the mid 1980s, a treaty has been introduced into the UN for a Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
     (PAROS), with all parties including Russia and China voting for it except for the US. How can we hope to pursue a
     peaceful and environmentally sound route of space exploration without international laws in place that protect space and
     Earth environments and guarantee that the space race to the moon and beyond does not foster a war over space resources?
     Indeed, if the space debris problem continues to grow unfettered or if there is war in space, space will become too trashed
     for launches to take place without risk of destruction.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     42
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                        Relations Add-On
The Outer Space Treaty dictates that the party nations must take responsibility for clean up
J Wheeler, lawyer, December 2007, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, p 911, The current legal framework
associated with space debris mitigation, citing the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States
in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 1967, 610 UNTS 205, ProQuest KH

     Article IX provides that State Parties to the Outer Space Treaty:
     ‘shall conduct all their activities in outer space. . . with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties
     to the Treaty’.
     This provision can be interpreted generally to oblige State Parties to avoid the creation of and to attempt to reduce, and
     even remove, space debris so as to allow all states to participate in the exploration and use of outer space with minimal risk
     from debris.

Despite calls for the bolstering of the Outer Space Treaty, the US has been unenthusiastic
N. Jasentuliyana, Director of Outer Space Affairs Division at the United Nations, 1989, Journal of Space Law, Article I of the
Outer Space Treaty Revisted, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jrlsl17&div=16&g_sent=1&collection=journals#

     These discussions reveal dissatisfaction among many developing countries with the status of international co-operation
     under Article I of the Outer Space Treaty. Therefore, it is not surprising that some developing countries are hoping to
     legally "cement" the requirement for international space co-operation and not to let Article I of the Outer Space Treaty
     stand, in their view, merely as an artifact or a moral appeal to the space-faring countries. Therefore, these countries have
     called for a legal regime which would define the nature of such international space co-operation and stipulate the degree to
     which the "benefits" derived from space activities should be shared. A judicial system of enforcement might be a final
     goal. Not surprisingly, such calls have not elicited the sympathy of the space-faring countries such as France and the United
     States.

The UN has called for member states to abide by international mitigation standards
UN News Centre, 2-13-2009, Following collision of satellites, UN space office calls for preventive steps,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29908&Cr=outer+space&Cr1

     13 February 2009 – The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) today called all Member States and
     international organizations to fully implement measures to curb space debris following the collision of an inactive Russian
     satellite with an operational one from the United States.
     “The prompt implementation of appropriate space debris mitigation measures is in humanity’s common interest,
     particularly if we are to preserve the outer space environment for future generations,” said the Director of UNOOSA,
     Mazlan Othman.
     UN space debris mitigation guidelines call, among other things, for limiting the long-term presence of spacecraft and
     launch vehicles in low-Earth orbit (LEO), up to some 1,600 kilometres (1,000 miles) above Earth’s surface, after the end of
     their mission. Such craft should be removed from orbit in a controlled fashion. If this is not possible, they should be
     disposed of in orbits that avoid their long-term presence in the LEO region.

Cleaning space debris with sustainable development eases international conflicts and bolsters
international standards
Robert C Bird, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ackerman Scholar at the University of Connecticut School of Business,
Spring 2003, American Business Law Journal, vol. 40 iss. 3 pg. 635, Procedural challenges to environmental regulation of space
debris http://proquest.umi.com/, ProQuest. KH

     Although not universally accepted, sustainable development invokes a principle accepted by a majority of the global
     community for over thirty years, and should be embraced in a space debris regime.160 Including sustainable development
     as a principle governing emission of space debris would allow space debris regime drafters to bask in the reflected
     legitimacy of prior groundbreaking agreements that first utilized the principle. Integrating sustainable development can help
     place regulation of Earth's orbits in a similar class of importance as the conservation of Earth's land and aquatic resources.
     In addition, sustainable development carries less controversy than related theories that apparently provoke more heated



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          43
Space Trash                                                                                                                     DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
     debate.161 Applying more aggressive principles that may theoretically compel better conservation may come at the
     unsustainable cost of attracting negative political and media attention. Advocating a divisive ideology as a basis for any
     treaty development weakens a regime's claim as a document that is an extension of settled international law and that will
     invoke compliance with its terms. Finally, integrating sustainable development principles promotes cooperation and
     harmony among divergent negotiating parties. Space debris regime drafters possessing conflicting national interests may
     point to the principle of sustainable development as a point of common ground with which to begin settling differences.
     The broader the common theoretical ground upon which a framework is based, the more likely a wide cross section of
     nations will participate harmoniously and support the regime's development.162

Without strong international consensus and laws, environmental problems would escalate
Johnathan Charney, Board of Editors American Journal of International Law. “Universal International Law” October 1993. 87
A.J.I.L. 529. Lexis

     The international community of the late twentieth century faces an expanding need to develop universal norms to address
     global concerns. Perhaps one of the most salient of these concerns is to protect the earth's environment. While many
     environmentally harmful activities result only in local damage, others have an impact far beyond the boundaries of the
     states in which they take place and may cause damage to the earth's environment as a whole. For example, the discharge of
     some substances into the atmosphere may adversely affect the global climate or the ozone layer. n1 Discharges that pollute
     the common spaces of the oceans may also have a global impact and thus raise similar concerns. n2 Current threats to the
     environment highlight the importance of establishing norms to control activities that endanger all nations and peoples,
     regardless of where the activities take place. Acts of international terrorism, the commission of international crimes (such as
     genocide and war crimes), and the use of nuclear weapons pose similar global problems and have been on the international
     agenda for some time.
     To resolve such problems, it may be necessary to establish new rules that are binding on all subjects of international law
     regardless of the attitude of any particular state. For unless all states are bound, an exempted recalcitrant state could act as a
     spoiler for the entire international community. Thus, states that are not bound by international laws designed to combat
     universal environmental threats [*530] could become havens for the harmful activities concerned. Such states might have
     an economic advantage over states that are bound because they would not have to bear the costs of the requisite
     environmental protection. They would be free riders on the system and would benefit from the environmentally protective
     measures introduced by others at some cost. Furthermore, the example of such free riders might undermine the system by
     encouraging other states not to participate, and could thus derail the entire effort. Similarly, in the case of international
     terrorism, one state that serves as a safe haven for terrorists can threaten all. War crimes, apartheid or genocide committed
     in one state might threaten international peace and security worldwide. Consequently, for certain circumstances it may be
     incumbent on the international community to establish international law that is binding on all states regardless of any one
     state's disposition.
     Unfortunately, the traditions of the international legal system appear to work against the ability to legislate universal norms.
     States are said to be sovereign, thus able to determine for themselves what they must or may do. n3 State autonomy
     continues to serve the international system well in traditional spheres of international relations. The freedom of states to
     control their own destinies and policies has substantial value: it permits diversity and the choice by each state of its own
     social priorities. n4 Few, if any, states favor a world government that would dictate uniform behavior for all. Consequently,
     many writers use the language of autonomy when they declare that international law requires the consent of the states that
     are governed by it. Many take the position that a state that does not wish to be bound by a new rule of international law may
     object to it and be exempted from its application. n5
     If sovereignty and autonomy prevailed in all areas of international law, however, one could hardly hope to develop rules to
     bind all states. In a community of nearly two hundred diverse states, it is virtually impossible to obtain the acceptance of all
     to any norm, particularly one that requires significant expenses or changes in behavior. Complete autonomy may have been
     acceptable in the past when no state could take actions that would threaten the international community as a whole. Today,
     the enormous destructive potential of some activities and the precarious condition of some objects of international concern
     make full autonomy undesirable, if not potentially catastrophic.

Warming-induced crop failures, wars, and rise in sea levels all culminate in extinction
Ronnie Cummins and Will Allen, Cummins: International Director of the Organic Consumers Association and co-author of the
book, Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers Allen: Policy Advisor for the Organic Consumers
Association. His book The War on Bugs was published by Chelsea Green in 2008, 2-15-2010, Energy Bulletin of the Post Carbon
Institute, Climate catastrophe: Surviving the 21 st century, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51558


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      44
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                            1

     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. The hour is late. Leading
     climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the world needs to reduce
     emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos, crop failures,
     endless wars, melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically reduce CO2 and carbon
     dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and rising
     2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else survival for the
     present and future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-
     8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to
     one billion people. Under this hellish scenario, billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation. If the U.S.
     significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA
     announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately we are
     going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the EPA to crack down on GHG polluters
     (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no" Congressmen-both
     Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel
     lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                           45
Space Trash                                                                                                                              DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                                   1
                                                           I-LAW Weak now
The US has fallen away from international law—Obama administration presents an opportunity to
revitalize our international standing and make headway on non-proliferation, trade, the environment,
and national interests
Lawrence C. Moss, member of UNA‐ USA’s Task Force on Human Rights, J.D. from Stanford Law School, March 20 10, United
Nations Association of the United States of America, Renewing America’s Commitment To International Law,
http://www.unausa.org/Document.Doc?id=722 KH

     Barack Obama campaigned for the Presidency on a platform to restore American leadership in promoting international
     law. “Since the founding of our nation,” he observed, the United States has championed international law because we
     benefit from it. Promoting – and respecting – clear rules that are consistent with our values allows us to hold all nations to
     a high standard of behavior, and to mobilize friends and allies against those nations thatbreak the rules. Promoting strong
     international norms helps us advance many interests, including non‐ proliferation, free and fair trade, a clean environment,
     and protecting our troops in wartime. With President Obama’s leadership, the United States now has the opportunity to
     advance international norms from which it has long stood apart. To secure agreement and cooperation on issues central to
     American security, the US needs to lead by example and ratify and implement existing arms control and environmental
     treaties. To promote democracy and respect for principles of human rights, the US should join and implement human rights
     treaties that many of our friends and allies have endorsed and that our country played a leading role in bringing to fruition.
     The US is party to literally thousands of treaties and binding international agreements that provide the rules that are
     essential to security and commerce in a highly interdependent world. Without these agreements, court judgments could not
     be enforced abroad nor criminals extradited; ships and planes could not cross national borders; international trade would be
     severely restricted; epidemics would spread without coordinated response; intellectual property would have no protection
     abroad; and the world would lack the cooperation necessary for broadcasting, telecommunications and even postal service.
     In the realm of treaties central to peace, security, human rights and international order, however, the US has become
     increasingly estranged from international law, refusing to comply with key treaty obligations, declining to sign or ratify
     essential treaties and withdrawing from others or ratifying treaties only with restrictions that nullify their intent. Many
     Americans would be surprised to look down the long list of important treaties that the US has declined to accept and
     implement, separating itself from much of the world and from our democratic allies in particular. The Administration and
     Congress have a real opportunity to now heal that divide, but they must make a sustained effort to review the treaties from
     which we have stood apart and ratify the great many that serve our national interest.

Recent American disregard for the international treaty regime has left resentment high—only adherence
to international law will bolster relations
Atonia Chayes, Visiting Professor of International Politics and Law in the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University, Summer 2008, International Security Journal vol 33, How American Treaty Behavior Threatens National Security, Project
Muse KH

     Negative reactions to U.S. treaty behavior may well have undercut essential international cooperation.110 We cannot know
     for sure that the "unsigning" of the ICC, walking away from Kyoto, rejecting the Land Mine Treaty, or any other form of
     American treaty behavior will lead to lack of future cooperation on issues that Americans value. But resentment runs
     deep.111
     How did the United States lose the support it had after the September 11 terrorist attacks? The phrase, "We are all
     Americans now," no longer resonates abroad. According to results from the June 2007 Pew Center 47-Nation Global
     Attitudes Survey, "Over the last five years, America's image has plummeted throughout much of the world."112 This is
     particularly true for most Muslim [End Page 74] countries in Asia and the Middle East, where "the U.S. image remains
     abysmal."113 Furthermore, opinions of the United States among some of its oldest allies are declining. According to the Pew
     Center survey, "Currently, just 30% of Germans have a positive view of the U.S.—down from 42% as recently as two years ago—and
     favorable ratings inch ever lower in Great Britain and Canada."114 In addition, "Favorable views of the U.S. are in single digits in
     Turkey (9%) and have declined to 15% in Pakistan."115 Support for the war on terrorism has further eroded while broad concern about
     United States international unilateralism has climbed.116 Although Americans may still see their nation as "the shining city on the hill,"
     others clearly do not. Part of the resentment Americans face from the rest of the world stems from disappointment that U.S.
     leadership has fallen well short of hopes and expectations.117 The comparison between American ideals and behavior in the aftermath of
     World War II and today is thoroughly disappointing.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                                  46
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                              US Key
The US needs to lead the way with an international agreement
Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, Judge Advocate for the United States Air Force, May 20 11, Vanderbilt Journal of
Transnational Law, Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up
the Junk, Lexis. KH

     Such a sudden and massive addition to the space debris environment is cause for concern. In fact, some experts fear that we
     have reached the point that space is so cluttered with debris that a chain reaction of collisions, severely jeopardizing
     sustainable space access, is unavoidable unless international action is taken soon. n10 This Article argues that international
     action must be in the form of a binding international agreement on space debris. The agreement at Annex A provides a
     starting point for discussion. Without legal consequences, including appropriate international sanctions for treaty violations,
     little international influence exists to compel space-faring nations to find a viable solution to this problem. Moreover, space
     debris threatens the durability and survivability of the space assets on which the United States so heavily depends for its
     national security. n11 It is therefore in the United States' best interest to support a binding international agreement to deal
     with the removal and mitigation of space debris. To demonstrate the urgency of the problem and highlight the need for a
     binding international agreement on space debris, this Article first examines the amount of space debris currently in [*593]
     existence and the predictions for future additions. It then discusses the United States' reliance on the unhindered use of
     space for national security and demonstrates why a space debris threat to American space assets presents an immediate and
     serious concern to the United States. The Article then analyzes the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, n12 the 1972 Liability
     Convention, n13 and the 1975 Registration Convention n14 to show that these treaties are, by their terms, insufficient to
     deal with the space debris problem. Next, the Article illustrates why no other international agreement adequately addresses
     or demands the removal of space debris currently in Earth's orbit. Consequently, to better preserve and protect the national
     security interests of the United States by assuring access to space and the freedom to operate there, the United States must
     pursue a binding international agreement with real consequences, and it must persuade the international community to
     follow its lead. Definitions for both "space" and "space debris" are needed in such an agreement. Additionally, countries
     must be required to do at least three things: (1) minimize the creation of space debris; (2) make efforts to rid the space
     environment of the debris they create or have already created; and (3) notify each other when they cause space debris. The
     proposed agreement at Annex A addresses each of these issues. An agreement is necessary because of both the gloomy
     future presented by an unresolved space debris problem and the lack of adequate international law in this area.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                       47
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                   Unilateral Action Best
Existing legal frameworks make the US the ideal leader in space debris removal—key to modeling
Jennifer M. Seymour, Juris Doctor of Georgetown University Law Center, 19 98, Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review, title page, Lexis KH

     The United States should take the lead in addressing the space debris problem, in order to demonstrate to the rest of the
     world that regulation of space activities can successfully include debris mitigation techniques. Since the regulatory
     frameWork for mandating debris mitigation techniques already exists in the United States, this nation is well-equipped to
     take on such a role. Moreover, as one of the world's foremost spacefaring nations, the United States has the most to lose if
     the space debris crisis is not contained.

Studies suggest that space debris clean up be a mainly unilateral action—and the US should be the one to
lead
Megan Ansdell, graduate student specializing in space policy at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington
University, 2010, www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-Debris-Removal.pdf KH

     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 freee from threats like space debris and thus
     assuring U.S. access to space.


Calls from Japan and private companies urge the US to begin unilateral space debris collection
Mobile Communications Report, devoted entirely to news of aeronautical, maritime and land mobile satellites, and radio
determination services, 2-24-1997, MANDATORY PRACTICES FOR REDUCING SPACE DEBRIS SOUGHT BY SOME, Factiva
KH

     U.S. policy-makers have concluded that man-made space debris isn't problem yet and has recommended voluntary
     compliance with debris mitigation techniques. However, Japan and U.S. Big LEO Iridium, which may be susceptible to
     debris in low-Earth orbit, are asking for firmer, mandatory compliance with agreed-upon techniques. William English,
     former gen. counsel and consultant to Iridium, told Space Debris symposium at Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay law firm in
     Washington Feb. 13 that best way to get international compliance is for U.S. to be example by setting rules than convincing
     other nations to abide by similar rules. "We need mandatory means," English said. "It should start in the U.S., not be put
     into a U.N. context until the U.S. has developed a model with other space faring nations. If the U.S. doesn't set an example,
     it won't be done." If satellite operators design systems so that de-orbit at end of life is possible and launch vehicle
     manufacturers build rockets that don't create debris during launch, mandatory rules are required, said George Levin, mgr.-
     NASA Orbital Debris Program. "Voluntary measures have worked very well," he said, and U.S. policy-makers "don't want
     to tip the playing field against U.S. industry." While American launch vehicles are considered clean (i.e., they don't leave
     much debris), and most operators of geostationary satellites boost spacecraft to higher "graveyard" orbit after life, some
     companies such as Globalstar and Ellipsat don't plan to de-orbit their medium and low-earth orbit spacecraft after useful life
     because of added expense. Various aspects of space -- including debris, meteor showers and solar storms -- can and have
     damaged satellite systems. But session sponsor, Reed, Smith partner Delbert Smith, said man-made debris is most


Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    48
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
     interesting to lawyers because there's potential for liability issues that don't exist with natural phenomena. NASA expert
     Nicholas Johnson said there are more than 2 million lb. of debris within 2,000 km of earth's surface and total is increasing
     by 70 metric tons each year. "Satellite breakups are a major source of debris in LEO," he said, but debris from launch
     vehicles tends to stay in orbit longer. Losses from collisions with debris is covered under almost all risk policies, insurers
     said, but if source of debris is proved, insurers could seek compensation. International Space Brokers Chmn. John Vinter
     said satellite operator making claim would have to show only that he lost use of spacecraft and "underwriters may seek
     indemnification." Insurers didn't have opinion whether debris mitigation measures should be mandatory. "Until there's a
     problem, there won't be a proactive approach from the insurance industry," said Glen Surles, consultant with Aurora Group.
     Several groups are examining debris-related questions, including committee of American Institute for Aeronautics &
     Astronautics (AIAA) and U.N. group. Levin said U.N. group last year took measurements on amount of debris in orbit, is
     preparing math models to calculate future debris and next year will examine mitigation techniques. Recommendations are
     expected in 1999, he said. Washington attorney Pamela Merideth said AIAA is divided into 4 groups (launchers,
     geostationary, LEO and legal matters) and will present recommendations next year. She said FCC may be asked to help
     coordinate LEO orbits and mandate de-orbiting of spacecraft: "If the FCC wanted to make proactive regulations, they could
     do it." Karl Kensinger of FCC's International Bureau said U.S. has decided that voluntary compliance is best approach. He
     later told us FCC probably would require additional funds to perform such work if govt. changes position. Most attendees
     thought debris presents less risk than launch failure or other on-orbit weather hazards, but advent of LEO systems could
     bring issues to forefront as more satellites become operational where majority of debris is located. Once debris is created,
     there's not much that can be done to protect satellite against fast-travelling projectiles. Iridium's English said every pound of
     shielding increases launch costs $30,000-40,000, so replacement satellites are cheaper. Christopher Baran of CTA Inc.
     agreed, saying manufacturer of small satellites (see separate story this issue) can provide 2nd satellite at affordable price.
     CTA satellites are designed with redundancies in solar panels, cables are buried and important components are placed deep
     inside spacecraft for protection, he said.

U.S. will take leadership role
Megan Ansdell, second year graduate student in the Master of International Science and Technology Policy Program at the George
Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs focusing on space policy, 20 10, Princeton, “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 BB

     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 IH 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.

DOD singular action key to debris removal
Dinerman 2009. (Taylor Dinerman is a staff writer for The Space Review. “Unilateral orbital cleanup”. May 4, 2009.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1365/1) hss

     As with GPS cleaning up Earth orbit is a job best left to the US Department of Defense. It may legitimately be argued that
     the Pentagon already has too much to do and that the last thing it needs is to take on yet another task, especially one that
     involves providing the international community with another “global good”. However, in the broad scheme of things it
     would be better for the US military to provide this essential service than to leave it to NASA or to a nebulous international
     consortium. By the end of the next decade, NASA, if all goes well, will be getting out of the business of operating
     spacecraft in Earth orbit. The ISS may still be useful but one hopes that by then the Earth sciences mission will have been
     handed over to NOAA and to the National Science Foundation. In any case the agency has its hands full trying to
     accomplish the exploration goals that the President and Congress have already agreed on. An international consortium is a
     recipe for doing almost nothing and doing it very, very slowly. The process of negotiating the preliminary agreement would
     probably take more time than it took the Defense Department to go from concept to the first GPS satellite in orbit. Figuring
     out the industrial politics of a multinational debris collection spacecraft manufacturing project would add years to the whole
     program. Certainly the Pentagon’s procurement process leaves much to be desired—and that’s putting it mildly—but it is
     far better than the alternatives.



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                      49
Space Trash                                                                                                                DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                   1

US action would spark international efforts.
Dinerman 2009. (Taylor Dinerman is a staff writer for The Space Review. “Unilateral orbital cleanup”. May 4, 2009.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1365/1) hss

     Eventually other nations would see America gaining prestige and technological advantages from its efforts and would try
     and emulate it. Such emulation would only show that Washington had the right, public-spirited idea in the first place. It
     would be far better for President Obama’s administration to begin the process of developing the spacecraft that will clean
     up Earth’s celestial neighborhood now, rather than to wait for an international consensus or for more incidents to happen.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                  50
Space Trash                                                                                                                    DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                             International Cooperation bad
International collaboration stalls any solvency for debris removal.
Megan Ansdell, graduate student specializing in space policy at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington
University, 2010, www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-Debris-Removal.pdf. KH

     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 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. 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.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        51
Space Trash                                                                                                                DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                     1
                                                       I-LAW Impacts
Current international law is insufficient to prevent proliferation—strong action would bolster
Thomas Graham, Jr., Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament from 1994-
1997, is the President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, 2K, The George Washington Journal of International Law and
Economics vol 33, pg 49, International law and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, ProQuest

     This outcome is not written in stone. The NPT regime will survive if the nuclear weapon states demonstrate leadership.
     While the United Kingdom and France have taken important steps to reduce their nuclear arsenals in recent years and have
     signed and ratified the CTBT,83 the United States and Russia also must take strong action.84 Recent reports indicate that
     the Russian Government is prepared to press for Duma ratification of START II before the Review Conference.85 This
     would be an important step. The United States and Russia should undertake good faith efforts to ratify and secure entry into
     force of the CTBT, vigorously pursue further nuclear arms reductions to much lower levels and seek deployment of NMD
     in an agreement preserving the viability of the ABM Treaty. In addition, the nuclear weapon states should consider
     declaring they will not introduce nuclear weapons into future conflicts or, at least to agree to make the 1995 negative
     security assurances legally binding. These steps should be taken in the context of the NPT Article VI commitments of the
     nuclear weapon states, perhaps in the form of a new Statement of Principles and Objectives. All of the states parties could
     then adopt therein a consensus position that there will be no threats of any damage to the NPT regime until the 2005
     Review Conference in exchange for these commitments from the nuclear weapon states. Everything must be done to
     minimize the risk that any state might consider withdrawal from the NPT.


Strong international law is key to a strong NPT and preventing the escalation of radical proliferation
Thomas Graham, Jr., Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament from 1994-
1997, is the President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, 2K, The George Washington Journal of International Law and
Economics vol 33, pg 49, International law and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, ProQuest

     The NPT cannot be so strengthened without effective leadership from the nuclear weapon states. The current international
     political environment, lacking the kind of leadership from the nuclear weapon states contemplated by the NPT Statement of
     Principles and Objectives could open the door to the gradual disintegration of the NPT and the widespread proliferation of
     nuclear weapons if not corrected soon. Once opened, that door will be difficult to close, creating a truly nightmarish
     situation for international security. Every future conflict, no matter how small, could run the risk of going nuclear and it
     would be almost impossible to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of dangerous non-state actors such as
     terrorist organizations, religious cults and criminal conspiracies.
     As the Statement of Principles and Objectives remains unimplemented in important respects, some non-nuclear weapon
     state-parties to the Treaty are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of progress in nuclear arms reductions and,
     by extension, their perception that the nuclear weapon states are not committed to NPT Article VI disarmament
     obligations.112 There is a real threat that the NPT could begin to unravel, perhaps beginning subsequent to and despite the
     April 2000 Review Conference. In one scenario, nations such as North Korea, Iran or Iraq eventually may test nuclear
     weapons. This could oblige some states presently committed to non-proliferation - Japan, Egypt, and South Korea, for
     example - to reconsider their status as non-nuclear weapon states. If they were to do so, the NPT regime would be destroyed
     and, because of the delicate compromise it contains, could never be revived, which would undermine international stability
     and security worldwide.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    52
Space Trash                                                                                                                 DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
                                                Impact – GPS Technology
Space debris currently can destroy GPS technology that will cripple the banking systems, and it will only
get worse
Megan Ansdell, graduate student specializing in space policy at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington
University, 2010, www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-Debris-Removal.pdf KH

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 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)




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                  53
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                         1
                                                    Timeframe: Now key
Now key – collisions have begun and will continue exponentially.
Wired Magazine, May 24, 2010, The Looming Space Junk Crisis: It’s time to take out the trash,
http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/kessler-syndrome/

     In that seminal paper, “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The Creation of a Debris Belt,” Kessler painted a
     nightmare scenario: Spent satellites and other space trash would accumulate until crashes became inevitable. Colliding
     objects would shatter into countless equally dangerous fragments, setting off a chain reaction of additional crashes. “The
     result would be an exponential increase in the number of objects with time,” he wrote, “creating a belt of debris around the
     Earth.” Then, on February 10, 2009—just a little more than three decades after the publication of his paper—the Kessler
     syndrome made its stunning debut. Some 500 miles over the Siberian tundra, two satellites were cruising through space,
     each racing along at about 5 miles per second. Iridium 33 was flying north, relaying phone conversations. A long-retired
     Russian communication outpost called Cosmos 2251 was tumbling east in an uncontrolled orbit. Then they collided. The
     ferocious impact smashed the satellites into roughly 2,100 pieces. Repercussions on the ground were minimal—perhaps a
     few dropped calls—but up in the sky, the consequences were serious. The wreckage quickly expanded into a cloud of
     debris, each shard an orbiting cannonball capable of destroying yet another hunk of high-priced hardware. As Kessler
     received reports of the collision from former colleagues at NASA, he realized that the situation had played out pretty much
     as he’d foreseen. After all, he had forecast that the first satellite collision would happen around this time between objects of
     roughly this mass. Like an opening shot in a war, the crash served as a signal that the syndrome had gone from theory to
     reality. “Some people weren’t aware how fast these objects are going,” he says. “At those speeds, even something quite
     small can create tremendous damage.” Almost immediately after the accident, a military unit called the Space Surveillance
     Network sprang into action. Run by the Joint Space Operations Center at California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, the
     network uses a system of radar installations and optical sensors to monitor space junk. Before the Iridium-Cosmos incident,
     it had been tracking 120 active satellites and worrying about an average of five potential collisions, or “conjunctions,” per
     day. The crash took everyone by surprise. “It wasn’t even on their list of possibilities that day,” an Iridium spokesperson
     says. The operations center moved quickly to double its computer capacity. By early 2010, it was keeping a close eye on
     1,000 active satellites, 3,700 inactive satellites and rocket pieces, and another 15,300 objects the size of a fist or larger—a
     level of awareness that revealed a much higher daily average of 75 possible collisions. And that’s ignoring the danger posed
     by the estimated half-million smaller pieces of debris the size of a marble or larger. Too small to track from the ground,
     each of those tiny projectiles is capable of severely damaging a satellite. Just a month after the Iridium accident, a stray
     motor chunk hurtled toward the International Space Station. Cruising at an altitude of 220 miles, astronauts aboard the $100
     billion laboratory were going about their daily chores at around noon EDT when they received a warning—prepare for
     possible impact. The crew was directed to scramble into the station’s equivalent of a lifeboat, an attached Russian-made
     Soyuz capsule. It would give them a chance to abandon ship, if necessary. After a few minutes, the motor zipped by,
     missing the ISS by just a few miles—in space terms, a close call. Then on December 1, with almost no warning, a small
     chunk from a different Cosmos satellite hurtled toward the ISS, coming within a mile of a direct hit. Due to its speeding-
     bullet velocity, even this fragment could have had an impact equal to a truck bomb. “A 10-centimeter sphere of aluminum
     would be like 7 kilograms of TNT,” says Jack Bacon, a senior NASA scientist charged with keeping the ISS safe. “It would
     blow everything to smithereens.” Incidents like these served as clear signs from above that something must finally be done
     about space junk. Its proliferation threatens not only current and future space missions but also global communications—
     mobile phone networks, satellite television, radio broadcasts, weather tracking, and military surveillance, even the
     dashboard GPS devices that keep us from getting lost. The number of manufactured objects cluttering the sky is now
     expected to double every few years as large objects weaken and split apart and new collisions create more Kesslerian
     debris, leading to yet more collisions. NASA’s Bacon puts it bluntly: “The Kessler syndrome is in effect. We’re in a
     runaway environment, and we won’t be able to use space in the future if we don’t start dealing with this now.”




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        54
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                      AT: Low probability
1 collision per year will happen – this impact would result in a loss of billions.
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     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.

Every new piece of debris just increases the chance of a collision
McKnight 2010. (Dr. Darren McKnight Technical Director at Integrity Applications Incorporated Past Chief Scientist at Agilex
Technologies Director of Science and Technology Strategy at SAIC VP, Emerging Technologies at Titan Corporation. “Pay Me Now
or Pay Me More Later: Start the Development of Active Orbital Debris Removal Now”.
http://www.amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2010/Posters/McKnight.pdf) hss

     While the probability of a single spacecraft being destroyed, or even just rendered non-operational, by a collision with a
     large trackable piece of debris is small, the probability that any large object will collide with another is quite a bit higher.
     The probability of collision for a specific satellite is proportional to the number of objects posing a collision hazard with it
     while the collision rate between objects is a function of the square of the number of objects present, assuming that the ratio
     of the large fragments to intact spacecraft is constant with time. [7] In this way, while a hypothetical 20% increase in the
     population would only produce a 20% increase in collision probability for a single large object, the probability that any two
     large objects colliding goes up by over 40%. This collision rate is only an approximation since as collisions occur between
     large objects the ratio of large fragments to intact spacecraft will change. However, early in this process (i.e. for several
     decades) this approximation introduces very little error. Eventually, this increased collision rate will result in a series of
     collisions between large objects and the total debris population will start to increase rapidly. In fact, before the 2007
     Chinese ASAT event, the average annual increase to the cataloged population was around 250 objects per year. The
     Chinese test contributed over 2,700 trackable objects (while more than 3,000 have actually been identified) so, this single
     event contributed over ten years’ worth of population number growth.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          55
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                        **2AC Blocks**
                                                         AT Treaty CP
1) Space treaty is an ineffective process—results in important concessions, bad policy, and “soft” law
David Tan, LL.M., Harvard Law School; LL.B. (Hons), B.Com., University of Melbourne. Former Tutor in Law, Trinity College,
University of Melbourne, Winter 2K, The Yale Journal of International Law, Towards a New Regime for the Protection of Outer
Space as the ‘Province of All Mankind’, Lexis

     Motivated by the highest of ideals, but constrained by political compromises, the consensus methodology employed by both
     the fifty-three-member COPUOS and the forty-member Conference on Disarmament has consistently failed to produce any
     treaties in the outer-space context that are applicable to the needs of the present and the immediate future. The consensus
     methodology, also known as the rule of unanimous consent, impels each negotiating member to search for the lowest
     common denominator. It contributes to the difficulty of negotiations because sometimes a single state can resist the
     development of a common position and demand concessions as the price of securing unanimous consent. "Compromises or
     "package deals' achieved in small circles" n94 may or may not survive to become the final conference result. Traditionally,
     the "international regime" that emerges at the end of the day "frequently involves intense bargaining that leads to critical
     compromises" n95 and becomes manifest in conceptual creations rather than concrete entities. An advantage, however, is
     that the treaty secures immediate widespread acceptance. The provision of a treaty does not of itself ensure a hard
     obligation. If a treaty is to be regarded as creating "hard" obligations, i.e., possessing some autonomous binding norms, it
     must be precisely worded and specify the exact obligations undertaken by signatory states. Where a treaty provides only for
     general goals and statements of policy, it is itself "soft" and [*166] is devoid of any significant legal content. n96
     Controlled largely by the constellation of spacefaring states, the present space treaties never matured beyond the level of
     soft law and could not rely on an institutional underpinning.
     Under the "unanimous consent" approach, the cumbersome and time-consuming process of political negotiation, signature,
     and ratification often results in events overtaking the convention. n97 In addition, the problem of extensive reservations
     may also render obligations under conventional international law more apparent than real. The permissibility of
     reservations to the present space treaties only serves to undermine the rudimentary protection offered to the outer-space
     environment. At the same time, we must also acknowledge the political reality of the exploration and use of outer space and
     the different sovereign interests involved. Part VI will examine new methods of international environmental law-making -
     in particular, a "regime-building" approach - and their contribution to the future of the law of outer space.

2) Perm do both—US can effectively mitigate space debris while an international treaty dictates we do so

3) Cross apply that US space action creates international cooperation, that’s Twibell from solvency—
solves for all their impacts

4) Space debris clean up should be a unilateral job—and the US should be the one to lead
Megan Ansdell, graduate student specializing in space policy at the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington
University, 2010, www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2010/Space-Debris-Removal.pdf KH

     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



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    56
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
     States has a vested interest in keeping the near-Earth space environment freee from threats like space debris and thus
     assuring U.S. access to space.

5) Perm do the plan and the CP in all non-mutually exclusive instances

6) International treaties adversely affect the United States- Law of the Sea Treaty proves
Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. While serving as a Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he was a
Deputy Representative to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 4-8-2004, The Cato Institute, The Law of the
Sea Treaty: Inconsistent with American Interests, from a testimony delivered to the Committee on Armed Services, United States
Senate, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12297

     Any extensive international regulatory system would likely inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and
     discourage innovation, thereby wasting much of the benefit to be gained from mining the oceans. But the byzantine regime
     created by the LOST is almost unique in its perversity. Unfortunately, the amendments made in 1994, which I discuss
     below, do not change the essential character of the treaty. For instance, as originally written, the treaty was explicitly
     intended to restrict, not promote, mineral development. Among the treaty's objectives were "rational management," "just
     and stable prices," "orderly and safe development," and "the protection of developing countries from the adverse effects" of
     minerals production. The LOST explicitly limited mineral production, authorizing commodity agreements (rather like
     OPEC). Further, the treaty placed a moratorium on the mining of other resources, such as sulphides, until the Authority
     adopted rules and regulations -- which could be never. The process governing mining reflected this anti-production bias. A
     firm had to survey two sites and turn one over gratis to the Enterprise even before applying for a permit, in competition
     with the favored Enterprise and developing states. The Authority could deny an application if the firm would violate the
     treaty's antidensity and antimonopoly provisions, aimed at U.S. operators. And the Authority's decisions in this area were to
     be set by the Legal and Technical Commission, the membership of which could be stacked, and the 36-member Council,
     which would be dominated by developing states, making access for American firms dependent upon the whims of countries
     that might oppose seabed mining for economic or political reasons.

7) Solvency deficit- no access to our international cooperation advantage—the US needs to be the leader
in space debris removal in order to be perceived by the rest of the world




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     57
Space Trash                                                                                                                   DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                   AT On the Ground CP
1) Ground-based technology is perceived as space weaponization
Lars Rose, PhD Department of Materials Engineering, University of British Columbia, 10-17-2007, Space Policy vol 24, pg 208-
223, Review and assessment of select US space security technology proposals, ScienceDirect

     The US administration regularly asserts the need to maintain its critical access to and use of security space assets, for
     example through the Offensive Counterspace Program. In this respect, the USA is no different than any other spacefaring
     nation. However, official texts usually avoid mentioning offensive space weaponry, since the priority of any nation with
     significant dependence on space technology is space situational awareness [42]. In addition, the USA has focused on
     reconstitution of space capabilities through so-called operationally responsive space systems as a response to space threats,
     rather than through offensive space control [43], [44] and [45]. However, it can be argued that these response systems are
     also capable of constituting a perceived threat to others. Furthermore, contrary to official Russian, Chinese and US
     statements, space weapons tests do occur. In early 2008, a US spy satellite was shot down by US forces, officially and
     plausibly for safety concerns regarding the toxic hydrazine tank of the spacecraft. The test was announced several days
     before the incident and was extensively documented with original video footage online [46] and [47]. China, too, destroyed
     one of its own satellites in early 2007 with a ground-launched missile, creating debris in an orbit crossing the ISS [48]. The
     Chinese operation was much more secretive and remained officially unconfirmed for days after the event, allowing
     unnecessary international tension to mount. The sequence of these events could also be interpreted as one country trying to
     reproduce the previous successes of another country and suggests that any militarization of space will be emulated by other
     international space powers, even though the reason at least for the US satellite destruction was likely a safety issue, a reason
     diffused by media interpretation. Independent of potential additional reasons, the tests in both countries provided a unique
     opportunity to actually test ASAT equipment on a real target in space. And if aging spacecraft with similarly toxic contents
     are deorbiting in the future, this test also proved that such threats can be deflected, even with hardware not specifically
     developed for the task.

And even perceived US space weaponization leads to Chinese miscalculation and space wars
Chase 3-25 (Michael S. Chase is an Associate Research Professor and Director of the Mahan Scholars Program at the U.S. Naval
War College in Newport, Rhode Island. “Defense and Deterrence in China’s Military Space Strategy” Publication: China Brief
Volume: 11 Issue: 5. 3-25-2011 2011 01:22
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=37699&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=25&cHash=
e3f0fcd233f563e2364ad7bc49425244 LShen)
      A review of Chinese writings on military space operations indicates that Chinese strategists are concerned about a wide
      variety of perceived threats to Chinese space systems. In particular, Chinese analysts characterize U.S. space policy as
      inherently threatening to China’s interests because of its emphasis on space dominance. As Zhang Hui of Harvard’s Belfer
      Center for Science and International Affairs writes, "Many Chinese officials and security experts have great interest in U.S.
      military planning documents issued in recent years that explicitly envision the control of space through the use of weapons
      in, or from, space to establish global superiority" [7]. Similarly, according to Bao Shixiu, a senior fellow at the PLA’s
      Academy of Military Science (AMS), "the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the United States unilaterally seeks to
      monopolize the military use of space in order to gain strategic advantage over others" [8]. Given that China must protect its
      own interests, Bao argues, "China cannot accept the monopolization of outer space by another country." Consequently, he
      asserts that U.S. space policy "poses a serious threat to China both in terms of jeopardizing its national defense as well as
      obstructing its justified right to exploit space for civilian and commercial purposes" [9]. Chinese writers also assert that
      U.S. space war exercises reflect the growing militarization of space. Yet Beijing’s concerns are not limited to the realm of
      policy statements and war games. Indeed, some Chinese strategists appear to believe that other countries are actively
      developing counter-space capabilities that could threaten Chinese satellites. Some Chinese writers discussed what they
      characterize as a long history of ASAT research, development, and testing in the United States and Russia dating back to
      the Cold War [10]. Like their Western counterparts, Chinese writers divide these potential threats into two major categories:
      "soft kill" and "hard kill" [11]. Soft kill threats can cause temporary loss of the effectiveness of space systems, causing them
      to be unable to carry out operational functions. According to Chinese military researchers, the main methods of soft kill
      anti-satellite attack include electronic warfare and computer network attacks [12]. In contrast to soft kill threats such as
      jamming, hard kill capabilities are intended to cause permanent damage to spacecraft. Chinese writers identify kinetic
      energy weapons and directed energy weapons such as high-energy lasers as the main hard kill ASAT threats. Other Chinese
      writings offer more detailed discussions of perceived threats from a wide range of systems, such as kinetic energy
      interceptors, laser ASAT systems, nuclear ASAT systems, microwave weapons, and space planes that could be used to



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                    58
Space Trash                                                                                                                  DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                       1
     disable or destroy an adversary’s satellites [13]. In addition, some Chinese authors assert that U.S. missile defense
     interceptors provide the United States with an inherent ASAT capability [14]. In all, according to Chinese analysts, as a
     result of the actions of the world’s major space powers, space war is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Indeed, they
     argue that it is already more a reality than a myth. Consequently, they conclude that China must be prepared not only to
     degrade an adversary’s ability to use space, but also to protect its own space capabilities. Chinese writings suggest that
     Beijing would consider doing so through a combination of defensive measures and deterrence.

2) Perm do both

3) The THEL couldn’t solve for at least 4 years.
Kim 4
Angela Kim, Staff Writer, 27 February 2004 Aviation Daily Volume 355, No. 37 ‘Northrop Grumman Developing Ground-Based
Missile Defenses’
     Northrop Grumman is working on a ground-based laser to counter shoulder-fired missile attacks on jetliners, but the
     technology is still at least four years from fruition under a best-case scenario of unlimited research and development
     funding, a company official said. The Hazardous Ordnance Engagement Toolkit (HORNET) is a high-energy laser system
     that can be mounted on trucks, which would be based at airports to protect aircraft during takeoff and landing. The laser
     results from 30 years of development, said Alvin Schnurr, manager of chemical laser weapon system initiatives at Northrop
     Grumman. The laser beam is invisible and missiles hit by the laser would appear to have spontaneously exploded, Schnurr
     said. Each system's software and algorithms would allow use only against certain types of threats. The system would
     establish clear "keep-out zones" so that the beam would not hit aircraft, Schnurr said.

4) Take their evidence with a grain of salt—their solvency advocate is from the company developing the
lasers, of course he would say they’re the best alternative. It’s like asking Steve Jobs if Macs are effective

5) perm do the plan and counterplan in all non mutually exclusive instances

6) High energy lasers are expensive
Defence Daily International, staff writer Kerry Gildea, 12-14-2001, vol 3 iss 7 pg1, Costs May Force Army to Mothball High
Energy Lasers, ProQuest

     WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M.--The Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) is seeking
     customers to share the costs of its highest powered laser or may have to turn off the laser for good, SMDC officials here at
     the High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) said last week. The Mid-Infrared Chemical Laser (MIRACL) is the
     "workhorse" at HELSTF, Army Lt. Col. Lyn Tronti, director of HELSTF, told reporters here touring the high energy laser
     site. MIRACL, she noted, is a 3.8- micron wavelength laser--"the most powerful in the world." But, if the Army doesn't
     find some customers in the other services who can benefit from and share in the costs of future MIRACL tests, it may have
     to be turned off for good, Tronti said. HELSTF has a strategy in place now to transition MIRACL within three years into a
     "testbed" and if customers are not found to support future tests it will be mothballed or turned off for good, she said.
     HELSTF officials want to avoid that scenario, because the MIRACL data has significance for some of the other directed
     energy weapons and technologies the Army is pursuing like the new Solid State Heat Capacity Laser and the Advanced
     Tactical Laser, Tronti and other SMDC officials said. "It's hard to be the high energy laser test facility, if you don't have a
     high energy laser," Tronti said. However, the cost of the MIRACL tests is very steep, she said. Because MIRACL is a huge
     chemical laser, it's very expensive to run-- about $40,000 per second to lase, Tronti noted. One reason the system is so
     expensive for HELSTF to fund on its own is because it requires nitrogen fluoride to run and that has to produced
     specifically for that use, she said. "It's old and it costs money to run...that money, about $4 million a year, could be put to
     better use," Tronti said. The MIRACL laser has a run time of 60 seconds, Tronti noted. The laser was fired for 40 seconds
     in an Oct. 4 test for the Air Force.

Cross apply that the economy can’t take any more spending without collapse, that’s Roe from the 1AC.
And cross apply economy collapse causes great power war from Green and Schrage.

7) Lasers can’t solve resource scarcity- EDDE collects materials and allows them to be re-used –



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                   59
Space Trash                                                                                                                 DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                      1
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss

     Instead of dropping debris objects to burn in the atmosphere, the EDDE mobility vehicle could capture them and take them
     to a “space junkyard” in LEO, providing tons of aluminum and other valuable materials for recycling and for space
     construction. This would support the installation of a commercial recycling facility in orbit. This facility could recover
     material that cost $20,000 per kg to place in orbit and make further use of it, rather than launching new material. Recycling
     material in space would also lessen the risk to the ground from large objects re-entering the atmosphere.

8) Only EDDE doesn’t create more space debris by blowing up space debris—lasers only exacerbate the
problems




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                     60
Space Trash                                                                                                                      DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                           1
                                                        AT Spending DA
1) no link- EDDE saves money -- can be launched with another satellite creates no launch costs
Pearson 2010. (Jerome Pearson is president of STAR, Inc., a small business in Mount Pleasant, SC, that has developed aircraft,
spacecraft, and space-tether concepts for DOD and NASA. He invented the Earth and lunar space elevators, developed multi-winglets
for lowered aircraft drag, published engineering solutions to global warming and space debris, and conceived the propellantless
electrodynamic spacecraft EDDE. “The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE): Removing Debris in Space”
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/SP10Pearson.pdf) hss

     A further advantage of the propellantless spacecraft is that it folds compactly into a box 60 cm square and 30 cm deep. This
     allows it to be launched in one of the secondary payload slots of the Boeing Delta 4 or Lockheed Atlas 5 ESPA ring (Figure
     4). It can also be launched as a secondary payload on the Orbital Sciences Pegasus airlaunched vehicle and the new SpaceX
     Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. If there is payload margin for the launch vehicle, then there is no additional cost to launch EDDE
     vehicles piggyback. One or two vehicles can fit into each secondary payload slot, leaving room for several nanosatellites
     that EDDE can carry to custom orbits after the primary payload is released.

2) probability that space debris will strike a satellite is massive—there are innumerable amounts of junk
in LEO and GEO. Our spending is a drop in the bucket and would barely trigger the impact. The
economy will collapse because of a breakage in the telecommunications industry before spending on
space R&D

3) we control a greater internal link—Satellites key to the global economy.
Deblois, Bruce M. Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, Summer 2003, "The Advent of Space Weapons."
Astropolitics. Vol. 1, No. 1

     Hundreds of billions of dollars in resources are invested in globally exposed assets orbiting the earth that directly support
     national economies and militaries, and in general, the twenty-first century civilized way of life. The total economic impact
     resulting from the destruction of space-based resources would be far greater than the loss of revenues from these assets, as
     many other sectors rely critically on satellite-related services. As such, any exposed and valuable asset is a target for
     adversaries - a target warranting protection.* The threat includes well-funded terrorists or the possibility of space collateral
     damage from rogue actors perceiving a military threat from an adversary in space, and responding against it (i.e., die impact
     to commercial and civil activities Is simply a byproduct of an assault on military activities). The emergence of
     microsatellites and possibilities for space mines must not be overlooked. While space-based weapons might not be the most
     obvious means of defending on-orbit assets, concepts of on-orbit weapons co-located with at-risk assets, with automated
     kinetic or directed energy intercept capability, must be considered. In a future of thousands of critically important and
     valuable national and international space assets some will, if left unchecked, inevitably support self-defense mechanisms
     that by any definition would constitute weapons in space.

4) prefer our economy scenario—the timeframe is immediate. Space debris has already reached critical
mass at certain altitudes, that’s Bearley from inherency. If any one of our satellites goes down, it’s
thousands of dollars to replace by private companies and the government—if there’s even a 1% risk (and
there’s more than that) of a collision, you vote aff
Campbell 2000. (Jonathan W. Campbell, a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve, is presently assigned as the Individual
Mission Augmentee to the CADRE Commander at Air University. Dr. Campbell is a scientist and advanced projects manager in the
Advanced Projects Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) at the Marshall Space Flight Center in
Alabama. He has worked for over 20 years in the space program a number of advanced research projects. “Using Lasers in Space:
Laser Orbital Debris Removal and Asteroid Deflection”. December 2000. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf) hss

     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



Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                          61
Space Trash                                                                                                                         DDI 2011
                                                                                                                                          1
     satellites, the probability is that there will be one collision per year. And that loss could amount to billions of dollars.




Last printed 10/11/2012 2:41:00 AM
                                                                                                                                        62

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:10/11/2012
language:English
pages:62