Docstoc

DSpace Debris DA.doc - Wikispaces

Document Sample
DSpace Debris DA.doc - Wikispaces Powered By Docstoc
					Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                                            Space Debris DA-Planet Debate
Space Debris DA-Planet Debate ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Space Debris DA—1NC (1/2) ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
   A) Uniqueness—Risk of space debris collisions are low now ...................................................................................... 4
   B) Link—Any vehicle launched into space increases the amount of space debris in orbit ........................................... 4
   C) Impact—Space debris proliferation risks collapsing the global economy, U.S. hegemony, and causing mass starvation and
   global conflict ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Space Debris DA—1NC (2/2) ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
***Uniqueness*** ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (1/2)............................................................................................................. 7
   Space debris collision risks are low now ....................................................................................................................... 7
   Space debris situation will be stable for the near future ................................................................................................ 7
   Risk of space debris hitting space assets are low .......................................................................................................... 7
   Debris threat is low in LEO and GEO orbits currently ................................................................................................. 7
Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (2/2)............................................................................................................. 8
   Space debris risks are low now ..................................................................................................................................... 8
   Status quo space debris will only hit a satellite once every three years ........................................................................ 8
***Links*** .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Space Debris DA—Link Magnifier—Cascade Effect ............................................................................................................................ 10
   Increased space debris causes the cascade effect—meaning one piece of debris can spawn thousands of pieces ...... 10
   Space debris colliding creates more debris ................................................................................................................. 10
Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (1/3) ................................................................................................................................................. 11
   Space exploration and development ensures more space debris ................................................................................. 11
   Any space mission produces space debris ................................................................................................................... 11
Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (2/3) ................................................................................................................................................. 12
   All space activities produce space debris .................................................................................................................... 12
   Any space mission will produce space debris ............................................................................................................. 12
   Launch events are the principal cause of space debris—more launches equals more debris ...................................... 12
Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (3/3) ................................................................................................................................................. 13
   Space debris is inevitable while conducting operations in space ................................................................................ 13
Space Debris DA—Link—Space Weapons ............................................................................................................................................ 14
   Development of kinetic-intercept weapons causes space debris ................................................................................. 14
Space Debris DA—Link—ASAT‘s ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
   Development of ASAT‘s causes space debris ............................................................................................................. 15
Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites ..................................................................................................................................... 16
   Launching satellites produces lots of space debris ...................................................................................................... 16
Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites/Rockets ....................................................................................................................... 17
   Satellites and spent rocket parts are key contributors to the space debris threat ......................................................... 17
Space Debris DA—Link—Satellites ...................................................................................................................................................... 18
   Satellites cause lots of space debris ............................................................................................................................. 18
Space Debris DA—Link—Rocket Launches .......................................................................................................................................... 19
   Rocket launches produce lots of space debris ............................................................................................................. 19
***Impacts*** ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Space Debris DA—Impact—Satellites ................................................................................................................................................... 21
   Increased space debris risks uncontrolled chain reactions that destroy or disrupt commercial and military satellites 21
   Access to low Earth orbit is key for allowing communications and civilian satellites to function ............................. 21
Space Debris DA—Impact—Weather Satellites ..................................................................................................................................... 22
   Reliable and accurate data from weather satellites are key to saving millions of lives each year ............................... 22
Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................ 23
   Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit ..................................................................................................... 23
   Commercial satellites are vital to upholding U.S. hegemony ...................................................................................... 23
   U.S. hegemony is key to preventing great power wars, arms races and miscalculation .............................................. 23
Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (1/2) ............................................................................................................................... 24
   Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit ..................................................................................................... 24
   Commercial satellites are vital to the global economy ................................................................................................ 24
Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (2/2) ............................................................................................................................... 25
Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Economy .......................................................................................................................................... 26
                                                                                                                                                                                                           1
                                                                                      Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
   Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit ..................................................................................................... 26
   Loss of commercial satellites would immediately crash the U.S. economy ................................................................ 26
Space Debris DA—Impact—Multilateral Space Cooperation ................................................................................................................ 27
   Diminishing the number of available orbital slots denies access to space and hurts multilateral space cooperation efforts ............. 27
Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (1/2) ..................................................................................................................................... 28
   Increased space debris causes ozone depletion and disruptions in the Earth‘s radiation belts .................................... 28
   Ozone depletion leads mass death due to cancer, diseases, and global warming ........................................................ 28
Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (2/2) ..................................................................................................................................... 29
   Increased space debris threatens the ozone layer and access to space ......................................................................... 29
Space Debris DA—Impact—Insurance Rates ........................................................................................................................................ 30
   Increased space debris causes the cost of space insurance to skyrocket ...................................................................... 30
   Increased space debris causes higher insurance rates and risks destroying vital communications and military satellites ................ 30
Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (1/2) ........................................................................................................................... 31
   Increased space debris causes the cost of launch and orbit insurance to rise—which deters private access and investment in space 31
   Private space initiatives are key to sustain exploration efforts and spearhead the colonization of Mars .................... 31
Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (2/2) ........................................................................................................................... 32
   Mars colonization is key to prevent extinction ............................................................................................................. 32
   Private space initiatives are vital to overall space innovation—turning the case ........................................................ 32
Space Debris DA—Impact—Accidental War ......................................................................................................................................... 33
   Collision of space debris with sensitive military satellites could spark miscalculation and accidental war ................ 33
Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Conflict .......................................................................................................................................... 34
   Increased space debris risks nations using it as a weapon to disable enemy satellites ................................................ 34
Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (1/2) ................................................................................................................... 35
   More space debris threatens to disrupt global communications .................................................................................. 35
   Telecommunications satellites are vital tools for global development and economic growth .................................... 35
   Space debris proliferation threatens global communications and future space missions ............................................ 35
Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (2/2) ................................................................................................................... 36
   GEO satellites are vital to enable global communication ............................................................................................ 36
Space Debris DA—Impact—Radioactive Contamination ...................................................................................................................... 37
   Increased space debris risks atmospheric radioactive contamination .......................................................................... 37
Space Debris DA—Impact—Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 38
   Space debris hurts the collection of accurate scientific data ....................................................................................... 38
Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (1/2) .............................................................................................. 39
   Increased space debris leads to more spacecraft shielding—hurting space exploration efforts and denying access to space .......... 39
   More space debris threatens all future space missions ................................................................................................ 39
   Even small space debris can threaten spacecraft and deny space access ..................................................................... 39
Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (2/2) .............................................................................................. 40
   Space debris limits the number of orbital slots available ............................................................................................ 40
   Keeping access to Low Earth Orbit is vital to space exploration efforts ..................................................................... 40
Space Debris DA—Impact—Magnitude—Remains a Threat for Centuries ........................................................................................... 41
   Space debris can remain a threat for centuries ............................................................................................................ 41
***Answers To*** .................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Space Debris Increasing Now ................................................................................................ 43
   1) 2009 increase in space debris was due to freak debris generating events that are not common ............................. 43
   2) Short term increase in space debris is only due to China‘s ASAT test .................................................................... 43
Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Kessler Syndrome.................................................................................................................... 45
   1) The Kessler Syndrome cascading effect won‘t happen until 2055 ......................................................................... 45
   2) Even Kessler concedes his theory has been over-hyped by others .......................................................................... 45
Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Future Missile Tests ............................................................................................................... 46
   1) Future missile tests won‘t happen—especially one‘s conducted by China ............................................................. 46
Space Debris DA—AT—No Link—New Technologies Don‘t Produce Debris .................................................................................... 47
   1) Even with new technology the generation of space debris is unavoidable ............................................................. 47
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Technology Solves .................................................................................................................... 48
   1) There is no existing technology that can remove space debris in the short term .................................................... 48
   2) Modest debris mitigation efforts can only account for a small percentage of total debris ...................................... 48
   3) Political controversies and lack of practical technology prevent short term debris removal .................................. 48
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—U.S. Efforts Solve ..................................................................................................................... 49
   1) U.S. has no plans for space debris mitigation technology ....................................................................................... 49
                                                                                                                                                                                                   2
                                                                                        Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
   2) There‘s no short or medium term solution to space debris—governments and private industry are not interested in the problem 49
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Lasers Solve .............................................................................................................................. 50
   1) Lasers are too controversial to be developed .......................................................................................................... 50
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Electrodynamic Tethers Solve .................................................................................................. 51
   1) Electrodynamic tethers are not a feasible solution in the short term ...................................................................... 51
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Solar Sails Solve ....................................................................................................................... 52
   1) Solar sails cannot remove space debris in the short term ........................................................................................ 52
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tungsten Clouds Solve ............................................................................................................. 53
   1) Tungsten clouds are too controversial to be used in the short term ........................................................................ 53
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tracking Solves ......................................................................................................................... 54
   1) Status quo tracking technology and methods won‘t prevent collisions with space debris ...................................... 54
   2) Surveillance measures cannot predict every possible collision ............................................................................... 54
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—De-Orbiting Solves ................................................................................................................... 55
   De-orbiting is complicated and doesn‘t always work .................................................................................................. 55
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Graveyard Orbits Solve ............................................................................................................. 56
   1) Graveyard orbits don‘t solve for the space debris threat ......................................................................................... 56
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Shielding Solves ........................................................................................................................ 57
   1) Shielding all spacecraft isn‘t feasible or possible ................................................................................................... 57
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Voluntary Measures Solve ........................................................................................................ 58
   1) Voluntary measures to reduce space debris fail ...................................................................................................... 58
   2) Voluntary measures to prevent space debris fail ..................................................................................................... 58
   3) Voluntary norms to reduce space debris won‘t solve the problem ......................................................................... 58
Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Computer Modeling Solves ...................................................................................................... 59
   Trajectory of space debris cannot be predicted by computer models .......................................................................... 59




                                                                                                                                                                        3
                                                                            Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                      Space Debris DA—1NC (1/2)
A) Uniqueness—Risk of space debris collisions are low now

Space Daily, 10-15-10 (―Space Debris‘ Environmental Impact,‖ accessed 5-6-11,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Space_Debris_Enviromental_Impact_999.html)

Current estimates place the total number of trackable RSOs at about 22,500 with most of these in an
altitude band of approximately 700 km to 1200 km. In addition, there are thought to be millions of debris
objects that are too small to track. While it is true that operational spacecraft in this altitude band are at risk
of colliding with debris, space is still "big" and collision probabilities are still low.

B) Link—Any vehicle launched into space increases the amount of space debris in orbit

Magnuson, Writer for National Defense Magazine, 10 (Stew, ―Taking Out the Trash: What Can Be Done About Space
Debris?,‖ July 2010, accessed 5-7-11,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/July/Pages/WhatCanBeDoneAboutSpaceDebris.aspx)

Retired Lt. Gen. Brian Arnold, vice president for space strategy at Raytheon space and airborne systems
and former commander of the Air Force‘s space and missile systems center, said, ―Virtually every time
we launch a vehicle into space, we contribute and continue to contribute to space debris. Fuel tanks, bolts,
and screws come loose, paint chips come off and eventually satellites die in orbit.‖

C) Impact—Space debris proliferation risks collapsing the global economy, U.S. hegemony, and causing
     mass starvation and global conflict

Moore, Independent Institute Research Fellow, 2-22-09 (Mike, ―SPACE JUNK IT'S BEEN A NUISANCE; IT SOON
MAY BECOME A NIGHTMARE,‖ Pittsburgh Post Gazette, accessed 5-3-11, p. factiva)

At the moment, the amount of debris in "low-Earth orbit" -- the region of space that extends a few hundred
miles above the atmosphere -- is merely a nuisance. The United States tracks objects in space and shares the
data with the world. Satellite handlers based in many countries use the data to slightly alter the course of their
birds if a collision seems possible. End of story? Not quite. "Orbital space" is a natural resource, as surely
as land, air and water. It must be protected because it is home to nearly a thousand satellites put up by
many countries -- communications, geo- observation, geopositioning, weather and other types.
"Globalization" would not be possible without commercial satellites. Further, the United States' military-
related birds permit the country to conduct "precision" war. For the first time in history, satellites
provide the data and the guidance necessary to enable bombs and missiles to actually hit the targets they
are fired at. That's a moral plus. If a war must be fought, it should be prosecuted in such a way that military
targets are hit and civilians spared to the greatest extent possible. No other country can fight a conventional
war as cleanly and humanely as the United States. Satellites make the difference. Because of the
importance of satellites to the American way of war, the United States insists that it must achieve the capability
to militarily dominate space in a time of conflict. It is the only country that claims that right. Space, says
international law, is the common heritage of humankind and must be devoted to "peaceful purposes." America's
truculent space-dominance language annoys many of its friends and allies.

Card continues on the next page…



                                                                                                                      4
                                                       Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                    Space Debris DA—1NC (2/2)
The card continues…

Meanwhile, some major powers -- particularly China and Russia -- think it smells of imperialism. A country
that could control space in a time of conflict might also exercise that control in a time of peace. Since 1981,
virtually every country save the United States and Israel has gone on record in the U.N. General Assembly as
favoring a treaty that would prevent an arms race in space. Every year, the United States -- under presidents
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- has used its veto power at the
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to prevent serious talks. No one, including the United States, is likely to
have actual weapons in space in the foreseeable future. Space control does not require such weapons. Ground-
based, sea-based and even air-based antisatellite weapons (ASATs) can do the trick. The United States has long
been working on a variety of highly sophisticated ASAT programs -- indeed, the infrastructure for missile
defense is the sort of infrastructure needed for ASAT systems. When a country builds ever greater military
capabilities, potential rivals react. China, in particular, is wary of the coercive possibilities of U.S. military
power. The Middle Kingdom says it wants a space treaty, but in January 2007, it tested its own somewhat
primitive ASAT -- a kinetic-kill device that roughly replicated a test the United States carried out in 1985. Is a
space-related arms race under way? Yes. But there is still time to ratchet it down, and the Obama administration
has signaled that it might do so. That will be difficult, though. The belief in America as the exceptional nation is
a major driver of U.S. foreign policy, and influential people and hard-line think tanks are comfortable with the
idea that full-spectrum dominance in all things military is America's right. A nightmare scenario: The United
States continues to work on its "defensive" ASAT systems. China and Russia do the same to counter U.S.
capabilities. India and Japan put together their own systems. Ditto for Pakistan, if it survives as a coherent
country. Israel follows suit, as does Iran. In a time of high tension, someone preemptively smashes spy satellites
in low-Earth orbits, creating tens of thousands of metal chunks and shards. Debris-tracking systems are
overwhelmed and low- Earth orbits become so cluttered with metal that new satellites cannot be safely
launched. Satellites already in orbit die of old age or are killed by debris strikes. The global economy,
which is greatly dependent on a variety of assets in space, collapses. The countries of the world head back
to a 1950s-style way of life, but there are billions more people on the planet than in the '50s. That's a
recipe for malnutrition, starvation and wars for resources.




                                                                                                                   5
                                                    Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  ***Uniqueness***




                                      6
                      Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
             Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (1/2)
Space debris collision risks are low now

Swiss Reinsurance Company, 3-24-11 (Leading insurer for functioning satellites, ―Space debris: on collision course for
insurers?,‖ accessed 5-2-11, http://media.swissre.com/documents/Publ11_Space+debris.pdf)

Much has been written about the collision risk in LEO and the results are well documented. For example, in
sun-synchronous orbit within LEO, the annual probability of collision of a 1 cm size debris with a 10 m
satellite exceeds 0.8%. This is the largest debris collision hazard anywhere in Earth orbit.

Space debris situation will be stable for the near future

David, Space.com Columnist, 5-9-11 (Leonard, ―Ugly Truth of Space Junk: Orbital Debris Problem to Triple by 2030,‖
accessed 5-9-11, http://www.space.com/11607-space-junk-rising-orbital-debris-levels-2030.html)

The good news is that no immediate action is necessary in terms of removing debris objects, Kaplan
advised, as experts estimate that the situation will not go unstable anytime soon.

Risk of space debris hitting space assets are low

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Collisions between such space assets as the International Space Station and very small pieces of untracked
debris are a frequent but manageable problem. Collisions with larger objects remain rare. A US National
Research Council study found that within the orbital altitude most congested with debris (900–1,000 km),
the chance of a typical spacecraft colliding with a large fragment was only about one in 1,000 over the
spacecraft‘s 10-year functional lifetime.

Debris threat is low in LEO and GEO orbits currently

Baiocchi and Welser, 10 (Dave and William, ―Confronting Space Debris: Strategies and Warnings from Comparable Examples
Including Deepwater Horizon,‖ accessed 5-9-11, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1042.html)

Orbital (space) debris represents a growing threat to the operation of man-made objects in space.2 According to
Nick Johnson, NASA‘s chief scientist for orbital debris, ―[T]he current orbital debris environment poses
a real, albeit low level, threat to the operation of spacecraft‖ in both LEO and GEO (Johnson, 2010).
There are currently hundreds of thousands of objects greater than one centimeter in diameter in Earth‘s orbit.
The collision of any one of these objects with an operational satellite would cause catastrophic failure of that
satellite.




                                                                                                                         7
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
              Space Debris DA—Uniqueness—Collision Risk Low Now (2/2)
Space debris risks are low now

Hackett, Washington Times Contributing Writer, 4-25-07 (James, ―Much ado about space debris,‖ Washington Times,
accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Some 80 percent of debris orbits between 500 and 600 miles altitude. The Chinese test, at 527 miles, created
more debris right where traffic is heaviest. Air Force Space Command is tracking more than 1,000 pieces of
debris from the Chinese test, plus 14,000 that were there before. So far, none has hit an active spacecraft. In
fact, over the last 50 years there have been only three documented debris impacts with operational
spacecraft, and none have been destroyed. A Space Command Web site describing the Space Surveillance
Network that tracks debris notes there is only a small amount in the low orbits of the space shuttle and
space station, and gives a worst-case estimate of 1 chance in 10,000 years of a piece of debris of baseball size
or larger hitting either one. Even in the debris-heavy area around 500 miles altitude, Space Command says
normally there are only three or four objects orbiting in an area equivalent to the airspace over the
continental United States up to an altitude of 30,000 feet. Thus, it states, the likelihood of a collision is very
small.

Status quo space debris will only hit a satellite once every three years

Guterl, Newsweek International Senior Editor, 8-17-09 (Fred, ―Space Junk: Earth is being engulfed in a dense cloud of
hazardous debris that won't stop growing,‖ Newsweek, p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

The event served as a wake-up call to space planners. Insurance rates for the $18 billion worth of active
commercial satellites now in orbit have ticked upwards by 10 to 20 percent since the accident. Governments,
too, have grown to rely on networks of satellites to gather intelligence, direct weapons systems, forecast climate
and weather changes, monitor agriculture, and operate communications and navigation systems. Experts
calculate that debris will now strike one of the 900 active satellites in LEO every two or three years. For
the first time, junk is the single biggest risk factor to equipment in some orbits. Among the orbital threats are
two former Soviet nuclear reactors. Even the International Space Station may one day be at risk, as debris
slowly descends to its 350-kilometer orbit.




                                                                                                                        8
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  ***Links***




                                   9
                   Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                      Space Debris DA—Link Magnifier—Cascade Effect
Increased space debris causes the cascade effect—meaning one piece of debris can spawn thousands of
     pieces

Williams, 95 (Christopher, ―SPACE: THE CLUTTERED FRONTIER,‖ 60 J. Air L. & Com. 1139, May/June 1995, accessed 5-6-
11, p. lexis)

One of the most serious dangers posed by debris, and also one of the greatest theoretical dangers, is the
"cascade effect." The cascade effect is "a process by which space debris will become self-generating and
therefore uncontrollable." The more space objects there are in orbit, the greater the probability that there
will be a collision. With each new collision, there is a corresponding increase in the amount of debris,
which would then result in an even greater probability of collisions. Some experts state that, even if
mankind launched no new objects into orbit, the debris population would continue to increase exponentially and
make at least parts of Earth orbit, such as LEO, unusable. While this is still a largely theoretical problem,
simulations demonstrate the population of large space objects needed to begin such a chain-reaction is
only two to three times the current number of objects in orbit.

Space debris colliding creates more debris

Guterl, Newsweek International Senior Editor, 8-17-09 (Fred, ―Space Junk: Earth is being engulfed in a dense cloud of
hazardous debris that won't stop growing,‖ Newsweek, p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

The consequences go far beyond merely the loss of two pieces of property. Each satellite weighed more than
half a metric ton and was moving at 7.5 kilometers per second. The resulting explosion was catastrophic,
generating a massive cloud of cosmic debris--perhaps 100,000 pieces of junk bigger than one centimeter in
diameter, estimates David Wright, a space expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In one stroke, the
accident increased by nearly a third the number of stray objects in the crucial 700-to-900-kilometer band
known as low Earth orbit (LEO). The junk cloud will eventually disperse around the entire planet, like a
shroud.




                                                                                                                        10
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                   Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (1/3)
Space exploration and development ensures more space debris

Brisibe and Pessoa-Lopes, INMARSAT Regulatory Information Officer and Principal Consultant @
Space Risks, 01 (Tare and Isabel, ―The Impact of Orbital Debris on Commercial Space Systems,‖ accessed 5-3-11, http://www.on-
orbit-servicing.com/pdf/Debris_Commercial.pdf)

However, the debris population in LEO may grow in an accelerated manner in the future if space flight
continues to be conducted as it was in the past. This was comprised of instances with the same launch and
explosion frequencies, coupled with the absence of end-of-life de-orbiting of either payloads or rocket boosters.
Most models agree that rapid population growth can occur in the absence of appropriate debris mitigation.
The models also agree that the population level required to trigger rapid growth in a given orbital region
will be achieved before rapid growth is observed. In this regard, the Re-orbiting (boosting) of GEO
spacecraft into disposal orbits (‗graveyard orbits‘) at the end of their active life is a measure already in practice,
and will contribute to a sustainable debris population in GEO.

Any space mission produces space debris

Taylor, USAF Major, 07 (Michael, ―Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth's Orbital Debris Problem,‖ 20 Geo.
Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1, Fall 2007, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

C. SOURCES OF ARTIFICIAL ORBITAL DEBRIS As of August 2007, the U.S. Space Surveillance Network ("SSN")
had cataloged approximately 12,300 pieces of orbital debris. In addition to the cataloged objects, several thousand other objects are
trackable but have not been added to the SSN catalog because of delays in completing the detailed analysis required before an object
can be cataloged. Although the international community has agreed that comprehensive debris tracking efforts will benefit everyone,
the community has not reached agreement on the definition of orbital debris. The following proposal made by David Tan is, however,
a good beginning: "Any man-made earth-orbiting object which is non-functional with no reasonable expectation of assuming or
resuming its intended function or any other function for which it is or can be expected to be authorized." Of course, this definition
properly excludes naturally-occurring space objects and particles as well as functioning satellites. The definition, however, does not
clearly address the issue of what makes a satellite non-functional. For example, functionality could be defined in terms of the ability to
accomplish the intended mission or in terms of maneuverability, or both. Considering this definition and its limitations, experts
generally identify four sources of orbital debris: inactive payloads, operational debris, fragmentation debris, and microparticulate
matter. The following paragraphs discuss these sources of orbital debris. 1. Inactive Payloads Inactive payloads are primarily
made up of satellites that have run out of propellant for station-keeping operations or have
malfunctioned and are no longer able to maneuver. The payload is the raison d'etre for a launch, as
distinguished from the rocket and upper stages used to place the payload into orbit. The SSN currently tracks
almost 3000 objects in this category, only a few hundred of which are active satellites, and the remainder of
which are debris. 2. Operational Debris Operational debris includes any intact object or component part
launched or released into space during normal operations. Intact rocket bodies that remain in orbit after
launching a satellite constitute most of this type of debris. The SSN currently tracks approximately 1600
rocket bodies still in orbit around Earth, and an additional 1400 miscellaneous operational debris objects,
including rocket nose cones, payload separation hardware, bolts, straps, and propellant tanks resulting from the
normal process of launching a satellite into orbit. 3. Fragmentation Debris The breaking apart of a space
object through explosions, collisions, and deterioration creates fragmentation debris. Over 170 space
objects have fragmented in this manner. The SSN tracks approximately 7300 pieces of fragmentation-type
debris--the largest category of trackable debris. Explosions create most of this type of debris. For example,
between 1957 and 1999, fifty-seven rocket upper stages created fragmentation debris because the residual
propellant in the upper stage exploded. These explosions account for 30% of all the cataloged debris.


                                                                                                                                       11
                                                                Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                 Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (2/3)
All space activities produce space debris

Jakhu, McGill Univ. Professor, 07 (Ram, ―Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications, the Geostationary Orbit, and Space
Debris,‖ Astropolitics, Volume 5, Issue 2, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

There are various forms of space debris, but it mostly ‗‗consists of jettisoned spacecraft parts, nuts and
bolts, solar cells, abandoned satellites, paint chips, nuclear reactor cores, spent rocket stages, and solid
fuel fragments.‘‘ All space missions inevitably create space debris, e.g., rocket booster stages are
expended and released to drift in space and exhaust products are created. The testing of ASAT weapons
has also created hundreds of pieces of debris. It is the space powers that have created the problem, particularly
the U.S. and Russia. Together, they have accounted for more than 80% of all debris, though the space activities
of other space-faring nations are contributing to the problem.

Any space mission will produce space debris

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

While all space missions inevitably create some amount of space debris, mainly as rocket booster stages
are expended and released to drift in space along with bits of hardware, more serious fragmentations are
usually caused by energetic events such as explosions. These can be both unintentional, as in the case of unused
fuel exploding, or intentional, as in the testing of weapons in space that utilize kinetic energy interceptors.
Catastrophic events of both types have created thousands of long-lasting pieces of space debris.1 More recently,
2009 was the third consecutive year during which a major debris-creating event occurred. In January 2007 the
Chinese weather satellite FY-1C was destroyed with an Anti-Satellite Weapon (ASAT) and in February 2009
two satellites – the Russian satellite Cosmos 2251 and the US satellite Iridium 33 – collided for the first time.

Launch events are the principal cause of space debris—more launches equals more debris

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Two key factors affecting the amount of space debris are the number of objects in orbit and the number of
debris-creating launches each year. Growth in the debris population increases the probability of inter-
debris collision, which may in turn create further debris. A study by NASA has shown that, in LEO, inter-
debris collisions will become the dominant source of debris production within the next 50 years. As debris
collides and multiplies, it will eventually create a ―cascade of collisions‖ that will spread debris to levels
threatening sustainable space access.4 As of 2003 it was estimated that 43 percent of tracked debris resulted mostly from
explosions and collisions.5 Additional space debris in LEO could be created by use of ground- and space-based midcourse missile
defense systems currently under development, or other weapons testing in space.6 Between 1961 and 1996 an average of
approximately 240 new pieces of debris were cataloged each year; these new pieces were the result, in large part, of fragmentation and
the presence of new satellites. Between 8 October 1997 and 30 June 2004 only 603 new pieces of debris were
cataloged — a noteworthy decrease, particularly given the increased ability of the system. This decline can
be related in large part to international debris mitigation efforts, which increased significantly in the 1990s,
combined with a lower number of launches per year. In recent years, however, an increase in the annual rate
of debris production has again been observed, as a result of the aforementioned major debris-creating events
observed in three consecutive years (2007–2009). Debris events in 2009 alone resulted in more than 1,650
cataloged pieces of debris (i.e., 10 cm in diameter or larger).
                                                                                                                                   12
                                                            Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                Space Debris DA—Link—Generic (3/3)
Space debris is inevitable while conducting operations in space

O‘Neill, Writer for Universe Today, 2-24-08 (Ian, ―Space Debris May be Catastrophic to Future Missions,‖ accessed 5-7-
11, http://www.universetoday.com/12933/space-debris-may-be-catastrophic-to-future-missions-and-google-earth-is-watching/)

Even the most tightly controlled missions, such as the International Space Station, are expected to shed bits
and pieces over the course of their lifetimes. Space junk comes in all shapes and sizes and can be anything
from a small screw to entire dead satellites. Recorded examples of space junk include an old glove lost by Ed
White during the first ever US space walk in 1965 (during the Gemini-4 mission), a camera that Michael Collins
let slip in space in 1966 (during the Gemini-8 mission) and a pair of pliers that International Space Station
astronaut Scott Parazynski dropped during an EVA last year.




                                                                                                                            13
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                              Space Debris DA—Link—Space Weapons
Development of kinetic-intercept weapons causes space debris

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Security concerns arising from the development of negation capabilities are compounded by the fact that many
key space capabilities are inherently dual-use. For example, space launchers are required for many anti-satellite
systems; microsatellites offer great advantages as space-based kinetic-intercept vehicles; and space surveillance
capabilities can support both space debris collision avoidance strategies and targeting for weapons. The
application of some destructive space negation capabilities, such as kinetic-intercept vehicles, would also
generate space debris that could potentially inflict widespread damage on other space systems and
undermine the sustainability of space security, as discussed in Chapter 1. In addition, a HAND is
indiscriminate in its effects and would generate long-term negative impacts on space security.




                                                                                                                     14
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                    Space Debris DA—Link—ASAT‘s
Development of ASAT‘s causes space debris

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Because actors may seek to offset space-based threats, the deployment of space-based strike systems would
most likely encourage the development of anti-satellite weapons and legitimize attacks on space assets in self-
defense, thereby undermining certain normative restrictions and moratoria concerning such attacks. To ensure a
rapid response, strike systems would have to be placed in low earth orbit, making them vulnerable to attack.4
Further, the testing and deployment of ASAT systems in response to the development of space-based strike
capabilities could generate space debris, further compromising the sustainable use of space for all space
actors.




                                                                                                                     15
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                          Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites
Launching satellites produces lots of space debris

Swiss Reinsurance Company, 3-24-11 (Leading insurer for functioning satellites, ―Space debris: on collision course for
insurers?,‖ accessed 5-2-11, http://media.swissre.com/documents/Publ11_Space+debris.pdf)

Mission-related debris is hardware released as part of the normal deployment and operations of a spacecraft. A
typical space mission involves the launch of one or more satellites into orbit while releasing a variety of
pieces of hardware along the way from the launch process, such as explosive bolts and adaptor rings.
Spent rocket bodies are a special type of mission-related debris treated separately due to their large mass and
proclivity to explode. Likewise, once the satellite is placed into its final orbit, hardware may also be
released as the satellite is ―started up.‖ This mission-related debris includes lens covers, solar panel
clamps and the like.




                                                                                                                         16
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                   Space Debris DA—Link—Launching Satellites/Rockets
Satellites and spent rocket parts are key contributors to the space debris threat

Swiss Reinsurance Company, 3-24-11 (Leading insurer for functioning satellites, ―Space debris: on collision course for
insurers?,‖ accessed 5-2-11, http://media.swissre.com/documents/Publ11_Space+debris.pdf)

More than half (57%) of the in-orbit population is fragmentation debris. Non-operational satellites and spent
rocket bodies together make up only 25% by number while they contribute over 90% of the mass of the
in-orbit population. The number of objects in –orbit drive the current collision hazard while the mass in-orbit
will drive the future collision hazard since this mass provides a potential source for future debris-
generating collisions.




                                                                                                                         17
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                  Space Debris DA—Link—Satellites
Satellites cause lots of space debris

Pusey, JD Candidate @ Univ. of Colorado Law School, 10 (Natalie, ―The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a
Global Response to the Space Debris Problem,‖ 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 425, Spring 2010, accessed 5-6-11, p.
lexis)

Debris also enters Earth orbit as a by-product of normal satellite function. For example, when a satellite
deploys instruments or solar panels, it may accidentally release small pieces of hardware, such as bolts.
Additionally, a gradually deteriorating space object can produce "microdebris," such as bits of metal and
paint flecks. Extravehicular activity ("EVA"), i.e., astronaut spacewalks, also generates a relatively small
quantity of space debris; International Space Station astronauts have lost an access panel, a foot restraint, and a
thermal blanket during EVAs. Finally, satellites create debris when they stop functioning. When satellites
run out of power or fuel, operators can no longer maneuver these dead satellites, also known as inactive
payloads. Thus, these inactive payloads become debris. As recently as February 2009, an inactive Russian
satellite collided with a functional American commercial satellite; the two former satellites are now 402 pieces
of orbital debris.




                                                                                                                          18
                                                       Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                            Space Debris DA—Link—Rocket Launches
Rocket launches produce lots of space debris

Swiss Reinsurance Company, 3-24-11 (Leading insurer for functioning satellites, ―Space debris: on collision course for
insurers?,‖ accessed 5-2-11, http://media.swissre.com/documents/Publ11_Space+debris.pdf)

In examining GEO, the population of 190 rocket bodies residing near the GEO arc is troubling. Historically, the
explosion of rocket bodies has been a major contributor to the debris environment with nearly 100 rocket
body fragmentations leading to nearly 40% of the total in-orbit population catalogued, mostly in LEO.
Many of these events happened years after the rocket body‘s release in-orbit.




                                                                                                                         19
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  ***Impacts***




                                    20
                    Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                                   Space Debris DA—Impact—Satellites
Increased space debris risks uncontrolled chain reactions that destroy or disrupt commercial and
     military satellites

Blake, Writer for the London Telegraph, 5-27-10 (Heidi, ―Space debris threatens global communications; Orbiting junk
could destroy satellites, poses a risk to astronauts: Pentagon,‖ London Daily Telegraph, accessed 5-6-11, p. factiva)

Space is so littered with debris that a collision between satellites could set off an "uncontrolled chain
reaction" capable of destroying the communications network on Earth, according to a Pentagon report.
The volume of abandoned rockets, shattered satellites and missile shrapnel in the Earth's orbit is
reaching a "tipping point" and now threatens the $250-billion U.S. space services industry, scientists say.
A collision between two satellites or large pieces of "space junk" could send thousands of pieces of debris
spinning into orbit, each capable of destroying satellites. Global positioning systems, international phone
connections, television signals and weather forecasts are among the services at risk of being disrupted, the
U.S. Defence Department's interim Space Posture Review says. This chain reaction could leave some orbits
so cluttered with debris, they would become unusable for commercial or military satellites, the report says.

Access to low Earth orbit is key for allowing communications and civilian satellites to function

The Economist, 8-21-10 (―Junk science: the problem of space pollution,‖ accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Such low-Earth orbits, or LEOs, are among the most desirable for artificial satellites. They are easy for
launch rockets to get to, they allow the planet's surface to be scanned in great detail for both military and
civilian purposes, and they are close enough that even the weak signals of equipment such as satellite
phones can be detected. Losing the ability to place satellites safely into LEOs would thus be a bad thing.
And that is exactly what these two incidents threatened. At orbital velocity, some eight kilometres a second,
even an object a centimetre across could knock a satellite out. The more bits of junk there are out there, the
more likely this is to happen. And junk begets junk, as each collision creates more fragments—a phenomenon
known as the Kessler syndrome, after Donald Kessler, an American physicist who postulated it in the 1970s.




                                                                                                                        21
                                                             Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                         Space Debris DA—Impact—Weather Satellites
Reliable and accurate data from weather satellites are key to saving millions of lives each year

Brearley, Univ. of Southampton Professor, 05 (Andrew, ―Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: Orbital Debris,‖ Astropolitics,
Volume 3, Issue 1, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

The usefulness of satellites is not limited to hi-tech telecommunications; satellite imagery can be utilised to
predict the optimal location to plant crops in harsh conditions. The importance of accurate
meteorological information, which can only be provided by satellites, is measured by saved lives. Clarke
notes that these satellites have already saved thousands, and would have saved more in a single instance –
when a cyclone was tracked across the Bay of Bengal but the warning did not reach the population on the
ground in time, half a million people were killed.




                                                                                                                        22
                                                     Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                             Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Hegemony
Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit

The Economist, 2-21-09 (―Flying blind; debris in space,‖ p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

Space junk is dangerous. Anything larger than a fleck of paint poses a hazard to the useful working
satellites that surround the Earth, and on which the world increasingly depends for communications,
broadcasting and surveillance. Space waste is not biodegradable. You cannot sweep it up. Instead, it will stay
in orbit for decades, or even centuries, before it eventually falls to earth and burns up.

Commercial satellites are vital to upholding U.S. hegemony

Akir, Ohio Univ. Doctoral Student, 03 (Ziad, ―Space Security: Possible Issues and Potential Solutions,‖ accessed 5-7-11,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf)

Commercial space systems are vital in support of military and other governmental operations and
activities. Military forces can often operate in environments with little or no existing communication
infrastructure. Collecting information in the form of mapping and real-time movements of enemy forces
is of crucial importance. Commercial satellite imagery systems are used by governments to achieve their
national security interests.15 During the U.S. showdown with Iraq earlier this year, the U.S. government used
satellites to track the movement of the Iraqi military as well as keeping track on the where-abouts of the Iraqi
weapons.16 Failure in commercial satellite operation may have devastating consequences on the outcome
of a military or political conflict.

U.S. hegemony is key to preventing great power wars, arms races and miscalculation

Khalilzad, 2-8-11 (Zalmay, ―The Economy and National Security,‖
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad)

The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the
era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating
consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to
balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms
races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to
accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the
United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.




                                                                                                                           23
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                        Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (1/2)
Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit

The Economist, 2-21-09 (―Flying blind; debris in space,‖ p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

Space junk is dangerous. Anything larger than a fleck of paint poses a hazard to the useful working
satellites that surround the Earth, and on which the world increasingly depends for communications,
broadcasting and surveillance. Space waste is not biodegradable. You cannot sweep it up. Instead, it will stay
in orbit for decades, or even centuries, before it eventually falls to earth and burns up.

Commercial satellites are vital to the global economy

Akir, Ohio Univ. Doctoral Student, 03 (Ziad, ―Space Security: Possible Issues and Potential Solutions,‖ accessed 5-7-11,
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.




                                                                                                                           24
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                      Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Economy (2/2)
Economic decline triggers global conflicts

Auslin and Lachman, scholar and fellow at American Enterprise Institute, 09 (Michael and Desmond, ―The
Global Economy Unravels‖, 3-6, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravels-opinions-contributors-g20.html)

The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just
reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced
upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats
to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own
people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state
completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown
Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic
largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a
continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face
increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted
by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans.
Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off.
Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already
protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country.
Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously
increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have
increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999,
while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The
xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn,
let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible
protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of
the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may
be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.




                                                                                                                          25
                                                        Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                               Space Debris DA—Impact—U.S. Economy
Space debris is a huge risk to all satellites in orbit

The Economist, 2-21-09 (―Flying blind; debris in space,‖ p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

Space junk is dangerous. Anything larger than a fleck of paint poses a hazard to the useful working
satellites that surround the Earth, and on which the world increasingly depends for communications,
broadcasting and surveillance. Space waste is not biodegradable. You cannot sweep it up. Instead, it will stay
in orbit for decades, or even centuries, before it eventually falls to earth and burns up.

Loss of commercial satellites would immediately crash the U.S. economy

Akir, Ohio Univ. Doctoral Student, 03 (Ziad, ―Space Security: Possible Issues and Potential Solutions,‖ accessed 5-7-11,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue6/pdf/ziad.pdf)

Economic sectors such as telecommunication;, energy and utilities; transportation; and banking and
finance; rely on satellite systems. Damage to satellite operations will cause huge and painful monitory losses
to the operators of such services. The more dependent countries become on the information and services
provided by satellites, the more significant the impact of failure are sure to be. For a country such as the United
States, an attack on its commercial satellite systems will create an ―Information Pearl Harbor.‖ Such an
attack can damage the U.S. economy via its financial markets. Moreover, economic consequences can also
be due to hijacking satellite links that provide telephony and television broadcast.




                                                                                                                           26
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
               Space Debris DA—Impact—Multilateral Space Cooperation
Diminishing the number of available orbital slots denies access to space and hurts multilateral space
     cooperation efforts

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

The distribution of scarce space resources, including the assignment of orbital slots and radio frequencies
to spacefaring nations, has a direct impact on the ability of actors to access and use space. Growing
numbers of space actors, particularly in the communications sector, have led to more competition and
sometimes friction over the use of orbital slots and frequencies, which have historically been allocated on a
first-come, first-served basis.




                                                                                                                     27
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                           Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (1/2)
Increased space debris causes ozone depletion and disruptions in the Earth‘s radiation belts

Seymour, JD @ Georgetown Univ. Law Center, 98 (Jennifer, ―Containing the Cosmic Crisis: A Proposal for Curbing the
Perils of Space Debris,‖ 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 891, Spring 1998, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

The use of certain rocket and stratospheric aircraft fuels has been found to speed the depletion of the earth's
ozone layer. Specifically, the chlorine, aluminum, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide that are present in these
fuels have been detected in the ozone layer by scientists. At least one study has concluded that the presence of
nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide in the earth's atmosphere "may reduce the temperature of the
earth's surface," potentially impacting agricultural production. Another study has predicted that if space
missions began using liquid fuels, rather than the solid fuels that have been found to deposit ozone-
depleting chlorine and aluminum, "there would be a reduction in acid rain, ozone depletion, toxicity, the
production of aluminum particulates, and ice." In addition, scientist Andrei Konradi has suggested that
the introduction of debris into the near-earth environment has altered "high-energy proton fluxes in the
Van Allen radiation belt." Using data about the debris environment in near-earth orbit, Konradi's study found
that projected impacts between protons and debris particles would shorten the lifetimes of such protons, which
could affect the radiation environment in near-earth orbit. Konradi's conclusion was based on data obtained
ten years ago, not reflecting the significant increase in commercial uses of space that has prompted concern
about the orbital debris issue. Thus, the risk would likely be even more serious if current data were considered.
Finally, at least one author has suggested that extensive use of the earth's atmosphere to burn up space
objects, either intentionally or incidentally, could damage the upper atmosphere. This concern does not
reflect current conditions but predicts a possible side-effect of the number of current and future space objects
that could become debris.

Ozone depletion leads mass death due to cancer, diseases, and global warming

Environmental Protection of Asia Foundation, 06 (―The Environment,‖ accessed 5-9-11,
http://www.environmentalprotectionofasia.com/primer/environment.htm)

The ozone layer, a thin band in the stratosphere, the upper part of the atmosphere, serves to shield the earth
from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays. In the 1970s, scientists discovered that the layer was being attacked
by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals used in refrigeration, air-conditioning systems, cleaning solvents,
and aerosol sprays. CFCs release chlorine into the atmosphere; chlorine, in turn, breaks ozone down into its
constituent parts of oxygen. Because chlorine is not affected by its interaction with ozone, each chlorine
molecule has the ability to destroy a large amount of ozone for an extended period of time.
The consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer are dramatic. Increased ultraviolet radiation will
lead to a growing number of skin cancers and cataracts and also reduce the ability of people's immune
systems to respond to infection. Additionally, the growth rates of the world's oceanic plankton, the base of
all marine food chains, will be negatively affected, perhaps leading to increased atmospheric carbon
dioxide and thus to global warming. Even if the use of CFCs was immediately banned, the chlorine already
released into the atmosphere would continue to destroy the ozone layer for many decades. Additionally, the
latest studies suggest that global warming may increase the amount of ozone destroyed.




                                                                                                                28
                                                             Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                             Space Debris DA—Impact—Ozone Layer (2/2)
Increased space debris threatens the ozone layer and access to space

Seymour, JD @ Georgetown Univ. Law Center, 98 (Jennifer, ―Containing the Cosmic Crisis: A Proposal for Curbing the
Perils of Space Debris,‖ 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 891, Spring 1998, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

The recent increase in commercial space activity has brought to the table an issue that has been literally hanging
over us for forty years: space debris. In fact, since the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, the problem of
human-made pollution in near-earth orbit has grown to a very dangerous level. Without swift action by
both international regulators and the commercial space industry, this hazard will reach a level of self-
perpetuation that will significantly limit the possible human uses of space, threaten the earth's ozone
layer and potentially "permanently alter the near-Earth trapped radiation environment."




                                                                                                                29
                                                             Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                              Space Debris DA—Impact—Insurance Rates
Increased space debris causes the cost of space insurance to skyrocket

Taylor, USAF Major, 07 (Michael, ―Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth's Orbital Debris Problem,‖ 20 Geo.
Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1, Fall 2007, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

E. INSURANCE Increased space debris will eventually affect the cost of insurance for space operations.
Insurance for space operations falls into one of two categories. The first type compensates a satellite owner or
operator for the loss of a functional satellite and covers different phases of a satellite's life. The most common
insurance of this type provides coverage for the phases of launch-in-orbit commissioning and in-orbit life. In a
typical policy, 25% of the premium covers the launch and 75% applies to the remainder of the satellite's
operational life. Many satellites undoubtedly fail due to design or operational reasons unrelated to orbital debris,
but some satellites do collide with orbital debris. Thus, insurance underwriters will eventually have to
consider debris when setting insurance premiums for a satellite's operational phase. The insurance
market changes rapidly in response to launch successes and launch failures, even though launch coverage
makes up only 25% of the premiums. Similarly, as the risk of collision with orbital debris increases,
insurance underwriters will undoubtedly pay attention to that trend and respond by increasing
premiums or excluding damage caused by orbital debris from their policies.

Increased space debris causes higher insurance rates and risks destroying vital communications and
     military satellites

Guterl, Newsweek International Senior Editor, 8-17-09 (Fred, ―Space Junk: Earth is being engulfed in a dense cloud of
hazardous debris that won't stop growing,‖ Newsweek, p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

The event served as a wake-up call to space planners. Insurance rates for the $18 billion worth of active
commercial satellites now in orbit have ticked upwards by 10 to 20 percent since the accident.
Governments, too, have grown to rely on networks of satellites to gather intelligence, direct weapons
systems, forecast climate and weather changes, monitor agriculture, and operate communications and
navigation systems. Experts calculate that debris will now strike one of the 900 active satellites in LEO every
two or three years. For the first time, junk is the single biggest risk factor to equipment in some orbits.
Among the orbital threats are two former Soviet nuclear reactors. Even the International Space Station may one
day be at risk, as debris slowly descends to its 350-kilometer orbit.




                                                                                                                        30
                                                                Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                     Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (1/2)
Increased space debris causes the cost of launch and orbit insurance to rise—which deters private access
     and investment in space

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Insurance affects both the cost and risk of access to space. Insurance rates also influence the ease with
which start-up companies and new technologies can enter the market.75 Although governments play an
important role in the insurance sector insofar as they generally maintain a certain level of indemnification for
commercial launchers, the commercial sector assumes most of the insurance burden. There are two types of
coverage: launch insurance, which typically includes the first year in orbit, and on-orbit insurance for
subsequent years. Most risk is associated with launch and the first year in orbit. When covering launches,
insurance underwriters and brokers discriminate among launch vehicles and satellite design so that the most
reliable designs subsidize the insurance costs of the less reliable hardware.76 Following a decade of tumultuous
rates due to tight supply of insurance and a series of industry losses, many companies abandoned insurance
altogether, but recently there has been a softening of the launch insurance market.77 The approximate
premium for launch vehicles (as a percentage of launch costs) has recently been in the range of: Ariane-5, 6.5
percent; Atlas-5, 6.6 percent; Sea Launch, 7.5 percent; Chinese Long March, 7.9 percent; and Proton, 10.3
percent.78 Terms have also become more restricted. Insurers do not generally quote premiums more than 12
months prior to a scheduled launch and in-orbit rates are usually limited to one-year terms and often do not
cover events such as terrorism or ―Acts of God.‖79 It is possible that insurance costs may go higher in the
future, owing to the risk caused by the significant increase in space debris in recent years.

Private space initiatives are key to sustain exploration efforts and spearhead the colonization of Mars

Sarath, 2-25-11 (Patrice, ―Space, Inc: as the shuttle program lands for good, private companies step in,‖ accessed 5-9-10,
http://www.bizmology.com/2011/02/25/space-inc-as-the-shuttle-program-lands-for-good-private-companies-step-in/)

This warms the cockles of any science fiction writer‘s heart, and it‘s certainly dear to mine. However, as sad as
I am to see the shuttle program go dark, it‘s important to note that NASA is still in business, working on a new
rocket among other technological initiatives. Still, political and financial considerations have kept the
brakes on government space exploration through the past 30 years of triumphs and heartbreaks. This is
where private companies and private initiatives step in. The X Prize, Burt Rutan, Richard Branson‘s Virgin
Galactic, all of these initiatives will drive the commercialization of space flight. Private funding along with
space tourism may be able to fill the void left behind by the end of the shuttle program, and provide the
research and development necessary to put humans on Mars. It‘s not just the plot of a science fiction novel,
either. Humans are a resource-hungry species. With the right infrastructure, from rockets to shuttles to space
stations, to automated mining equipment to space elevators (my personal favorite in the pie-in-the-sky space
exploration Olympics), it is possible that the exploration of space will become the business of space in a
fairly short time. It‘s interesting to compare the development of space flight with the development of manned
flight. It‘s only now that the private sector has stepped in, after the government has stepped back, whereas the
Wright Brothers and their intrepid ilk led the way in their rickety airplanes. At a recent discussion of space
flight at ConDFW, a science fiction convention, several experts in the space industry said that is exactly
what space flight needs now to carry it forward: the barnstormers and the space tourists to put it within
reach.


                                                                                                                             31
                                                           Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                     Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Privatization (2/2)
Mars colonization is key to prevent extinction

Zubrin, President of the Mars Society, 94 (Robert, ―The Significance of the Martian Frontier,‖ accessed 5-9-11,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html)

Turner presented his paper in 1893. Just three years earlier, in 1890, the American frontier was declared closed:
the line of settlement that had always defined the furthermost existence of western expansion had actually met
the line of settlement coming east from California. Now, a century later, we face the question that Turner
himself posed — what if the frontier is gone? What happens to America and all it has stood for? Can a
free, egalitarian, democratic, innovating society with a can-do spirit be preserved in the absence of room
to grow? Perhaps the question was premature in Turner's time, but not now. Currently we see around us an ever
more apparent loss of vigor of American society: increasing fixity of the power structure and bureaucratization
of all levels of society; impotence of political institutions to carry off great projects; the cancerous proliferation
of regulations affecting all aspects of public, private and commercial life; the spread of irrationalism; the
banalization of popular culture; the loss of willingness by individuals to take risks, to fend for themselves or
think for themselves; economic stagnation and decline; the deceleration of the rate of technological innovation
and a loss of belief in the idea of progress itself. Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall. Without a
frontier from which to breathe life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that
America has offered to the world for the past several centuries is fading. The issue is not just one of
national loss — human progress needs a vanguard, and no replacement is in sight. The creation of a new
frontier thus presents itself as America's and humanity's greatest social need. Nothing is more important:
Apply what palliatives you will, without a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire
global civilization based upon Western enlightenment values of humanism, reason, science and progress
will die. I believe that humanity's new frontier can only be on Mars.

Private space initiatives are vital to overall space innovation—turning the case

Diamandis, X Prize Foundation CEO, 2-1-10 (Peter, ―NASA Embraces American Capitalism and Entrepreneurship,‖
accessed 5-9-11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-diamandis/nasa-embraces-american-ca_b_444673.html)

The U.S. Government doesn't build your computers, nor do you fly aboard a U.S. Government owned and
operated airline. Private industry routinely takes technologies pioneered by the government and turns
them into cheap, reliable and robust industries. This has happened in aviation, air mail, computers, and
the Internet. It's about time that it happen in space. The President's plan for commercial competition will
ultimately take us much farther and much faster, not only to the Moon, but to Mars, the asteroids and beyond.
Private companies will drive a very high level of safety because they will cease to exist if they do not.
America's capitalist engine drives reliability in our aircraft, our cars, our computers and will do so in
space, as well. Private companies will also inject innovation and breakthrough technology into our space
program because that is their ethos.




                                                                                                                    32
                                                           Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                            Space Debris DA—Impact—Accidental War
Collision of space debris with sensitive military satellites could spark miscalculation and accidental war

Jakhu, McGill Univ. Professor, 07 (Ram, ―Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications, the Geostationary Orbit, and Space
Debris,‖ Astropolitics, Volume 5, Issue 2, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

There have been several recorded close encounters with space debris and one confirmed collision, in which the
spent third stage of Ariane Flight 16 collided with and disabled the French military micro-satellite CERISE on
24 July 1996. Several Space Shuttle flights, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Long Duration Exposure Facility,
and the International Space Station (ISS) have suffered numerous times damage due to space debris. In 1985, a
U.S. kinetic energy ASAT test produced over 250 pieces of catalogued debris, some of which came within
1.3km of the ISS. The last piece of debris generated from this test de-orbited almost twenty years later in
2002.A collision of a piece of space debris with an active military satellite, such as the CERISE accident,
during a period of high tension could have very serious implications between the concerned states. Debris
not only pose a threat to active satellites in orbit, but can also cause damage on the surface of the Earth. For
example, the Soviet satellite COSMOS 954 disintegrated in 1978 and scattered radioactive debris over a large
area in Northern Canada.




                                                                                                                       33
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                            Space Debris DA—Impact—Space Conflict
Increased space debris risks nations using it as a weapon to disable enemy satellites

Pusey, JD Candidate @ Univ. of Colorado Law School, 10 (Natalie, ―The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a
Global Response to the Space Debris Problem,‖ 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 425, Spring 2010, accessed 5-6-11, p.
lexis)

In addition to the incidental dangers that space debris poses, it has the potential to be intentionally used as a
military weapon. Nations could deliberately create debris and use it to harm or destroy enemy
reconnaissance satellites, communications devices, and even astronauts. Space debris could also be
intentionally used to effectively render a particular orbit unusable for space activity. The lack of
international law regarding the intentional and aggressive use of space debris makes this problem even more
concerning. While Cold War-era space treaties prohibited nuclear warfare and the use of weapons of mass
destruction in space, international space law does not prohibit the use of conventional explosives in Earth orbit.




                                                                                                                          34
                                                       Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (1/2)
More space debris threatens to disrupt global communications

Graham-Rowe, Science Writer, 6-3-10 (Duncan, ―Junk in space,‖ The Times, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Of the 20,000 or so large objects now in orbit only 5 per cent are active spacecraft; apart from the Moon the rest
is junk. And with an average speed of more than 22,000mph even very small pieces of debris have the potential
to rip open anything in their path. Besides the space-faring passengers of Virgin Galactic, this poses a real threat
to any orbiting spacecraft, satellite or probe unlucky enough to end up in the firing line. If the problem is left
unchecked, the implications for the rest of us here on Earth are: increasing disruptions to our
communications and weather services, satellite navigation devices taking a wrong turn and TV
transmissions zoning out. The situation is already out of our control and experts agree that it is going to get
worse - much worse.

Telecommunications satellites are vital tools for global development and economic growth

Jakhu, McGill Univ. Professor, 07 (Ram, ―Legal Issues of Satellite Telecommunications, the Geostationary Orbit, and Space
Debris,‖ Astropolitics, Volume 5, Issue 2, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

It is generally known that telecommunications infrastructure and services are indispensable tools for
socioeconomic and cultural development of a country. Telecommunication ‗‗facilities and services are not
only the consequence of economic growth, but a prerequisite for overall development;
telecommunications are an integral part of the national and international development process.‘‘ About
two-thirds of world‘s population does not have reasonable access to basic telecommunications and the
remaining one-third keeps expanding its communications requirements. This implies that there is a need for a
major expansion of telecommunications in the world. Consequently, there might be an enormous market for
telecommunications equipment and services. It is undisputed that satellites are the best means for a rapid
expansion of telecommunications, particularly for thin-route traffic, and mobile and broadcasting services.
Because of the unique advantages of satellites, their use is, and will be, expanding. However, the level of that
expansion is, and will be, greatly determined by the availability of the two indispensable tools for satellites,
which are orbital positions and radio frequencies, i.e., electromagnetic spectrum.

Space debris proliferation threatens global communications and future space missions

Schwartz, Wired Magazine Contributing Writer 5-24-10 (Evan, ―The Looming Space Junk Crisis: It‘s Time to Take
Out the Trash,‖ Wired Magazine, accessed 5-3-11, http://www.wired.com/magazine/tag/kessler-syndrome/)

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.




                                                                                                                       35
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  Space Debris DA—Impact—Global Communications (2/2)
GEO satellites are vital to enable global communication

Brearley, Univ. of Southampton Professor, 05 (Andrew, ―Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: Orbital Debris,‖ Astropolitics,
Volume 3, Issue 1, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

GEO exists much further away from the planet than LEO; it is located in a ring around the Earth‘s equator, at a
mean altitude of approximately 36,000 km.34 GEO is extraordinarily useful, as satellites within it have the
appearance of being fixed in the sky when viewed from the planet‘s surface.35 Several authors refer to it in
term of a ‗unique natural resource‘; Yasaka goes further, stating that its importance is such that in terms of
human welfare its contribution could never be over-emphasised. Arthur C. Clarke first identified this orbit
in a 1945 paper, wherein he calculated the altitude at which an object would remain stationary in the sky. The
threat of debris is brought into focus by the immense importance of geostationary orbit; satellites located
there allow for instant telephone, television and e-mail contact from any point on the planet, they are the
‗back-bone‘ of global communications. Such revolutionary means of communications, provided by satellite
technology, have been a primary force in the phenomenon of globalisation. The origin of these communications
can be traced to 1967 when one television broadcast, ‗Our World‘, linked 24 countries for the first time, a
broadcast witnessed by 400,000,000 people. Technology used in GEO has developed in the last 20 years such
that direct satellite broadcasts are possible to homes with a receiver dish. It is by this means that the Sky
satellite network is broadcast in the UK; more importantly, from a political perspective, it is the means by which
al-Jazeera can broadcast, without restriction, to countries throughout the Middle East.




                                                                                                                        36
                                                     Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  Space Debris DA—Impact—Radioactive Contamination
Increased space debris risks atmospheric radioactive contamination

Pusey, JD Candidate @ Univ. of Colorado Law School, 10 (Natalie, ―The Case for Preserving Nothing: The Need for a
Global Response to the Space Debris Problem,‖ 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 425, Spring 2010, accessed 5-6-11, p.
lexis)

Another possible danger of space debris is its potential surface harm when it re-enters the atmosphere.
Approximately 200 objects return to Earth from space each year. Despite this frequency, re-entry does not pose
a notable risk to people, property, or the environment, as most of the debris incinerates when it enters the
atmosphere. The dangers of radioactive debris re-entry, however, represent a disconcerting reality. Cold
War-era satellites were often built with radioactive components. Approximately 1,500 kilograms of
radioactive material orbits Earth. If this type of debris re-enters Earth's atmosphere over a populated
area, it could greatly harm human health and property. In addition to the alarming possibility that
radioactive debris can re-enter the atmosphere, it also presents a safety hazard for manned space operations.




                                                                                                                          37
                                                       Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                              Space Debris DA—Impact—Data Collection
Space debris hurts the collection of accurate scientific data

Seymour, JD @ Georgetown Univ. Law Center, 98 (Jennifer, ―Containing the Cosmic Crisis: A Proposal for Curbing the
Perils of Space Debris,‖ 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 891, Spring 1998, accessed 5-6-11, p. lexis)

"Scientists believe space debris may impair the accuracy of scientific data by settling on optical surfaces,
thereby reducing their transmission, cause interference with radio signals, and may degrade the surfaces
of optical instruments and solar panels, thereby impairing the accuracy of the data collected." These
factors make it difficult for scientists to accurately determine the value not only of independent research, but
also of their assessments of the debris condition in near-earth orbit.




                                                                                                                38
                                                             Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
      Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (1/2)
Increased space debris leads to more spacecraft shielding—hurting space exploration efforts and denying
     access to space

Broad, New York Times Science Writer, 2-6-07 (William, ―Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat,‖ New York
Times, accessed 5-5-11, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html)

If nothing is done, a kind of orbital crisis might ensue that is known as the Kessler Syndrome, after Mr. Kessler.
A staple of science fiction, it holds that the space around Earth becomes so riddled with junk that launchings are
almost impossible. Vehicles that entered space would quickly be destroyed. In an interview, Mr. Kessler called
the worst-case scenario an exaggeration. ―It‘s been overdone,‖ he said of the syndrome. Still, he warned of an
economic barrier to space exploration that could arise. To fight debris, he said, designers will have to give
spacecraft more and more shielding, struggling to protect the craft from destruction and making them
heavier and more costly in the process. At some point, he said, perhaps centuries from now, the costs will
outweigh the benefits. ―It gets more and more expensive,‖ he said. ―Sooner or later it gets too expensive
to do business in space.‖

More space debris threatens all future space missions

David, Secure World Foundation Research Associate, 09 (Leonard, ―Space Debris; a growing challenge,‖ Aerospace
America, October 2009, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

Orbital debris "is the gravest threat to new and existing space systems." That is a view shared by two
RAND experts, Caroline Reilly, a research assistant working on defense strategy and planning, and Peter
Zimmerman, former chief scientist for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former State Dept.
science advisor. They cite the sheer volume of debris and the lack of any mechanism for cleaning it up, factors
enhancing the odds that more orbital junk, if left unchecked, may render portions of space temporarily or
permanently unusable.

Even small space debris can threaten spacecraft and deny space access

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Space is a harsh environment and orbital debris represents a growing threat to the secure access to, and
use of, space due to the potential for collisions with spacecraft. Because of orbital velocities of up to 7.8 km
per second (~30,000 km per hour) in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), debris as small as 10 cm in diameter carries
the kinetic energy of a 35,000-kg truck traveling at up to 190 km per hour. While objects have lower
relative velocities in Geostationary Orbit (GEO), debris at this altitude is still moving as fast as a bullet – about
1,800 km per hour. No satellite can be reliably protected against this kind of destructive force and, while
some satellites and spacecraft have been hardened to withstand minor impacts from space debris, it is
considered impractical to shield against objects bigger than a few centimeters.




                                                                                                                     39
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
      Space Debris DA—Impact—Turns Case—Denies Access to Space (2/2)
Space debris limits the number of orbital slots available

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Earth orbits are limited natural resources. Actors who wish to place a satellite in orbit must secure an
appropriate orbital slot in which to do so and secure a portion of the radio spectrum to carry their satellite
communications. Both radio frequencies and orbital slots are indispensable tools for all space operations,
and in certain orbits their national assignments are coordinated through the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU). This chapter assesses the trends and developments related to the demand for orbital slots and radio
frequencies, as well as the conflict and cooperation associated with the distribution and use of these scarce
space resources. This includes compliance with existing norms and procedures developed through the ITU to
manage the use and distribution of orbital slots and radio frequencies.

Keeping access to Low Earth Orbit is vital to space exploration efforts

Brearley, Univ. of Southampton Professor, 05 (Andrew, ―Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: Orbital Debris,‖ Astropolitics,
Volume 3, Issue 1, accessed 5-9-11, p. EBSCO)

LEO is the lowest altitude at which orbit can be sustained; it exists up to approximately 2,000km from the
surface of the Earth and it is in this area that the majority of debris exists. There is a simple reason why LEO is
the most polluted section of near Earth space; it is the area that has been utilised most. A wide range of
satellites are to be found there, including those conducting astronomical observation, along with those for
meteorology and navigation; as this orbit provides optimal viewing of the planet it is also used for
military surveillance satellites. There are also projected future means in which LEO will be utilised, the
most promising being pharmaceuticals based upon crystals grown in the absence of gravity and as a
launching point for missions carrying crews to other planets.




                                                                                                                        40
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
    Space Debris DA—Impact—Magnitude—Remains a Threat for Centuries
Space debris can remain a threat for centuries

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

The total amount of manmade space debris in orbit is growing each year and is concentrated in the orbits
where human activities take place. LEO is the most highly congested area, especially the Sun-synchronous
region. Some debris in LEO will reenter the Earth‘s atmosphere and disintegrate in a relatively short period of
time due to atmospheric drag, but debris in orbits above 600 km will remain a threat for decades and even
centuries. There have already been a number of collisions between civil, commercial, and military spacecraft
and pieces of space debris. Although a rare occurrence, the reentry of very large debris could also pose a threat
to Earth infrastructure and human lives.




                                                                                                                     41
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  ***Answers To***




                                      42
                      Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
        Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Space Debris Increasing Now
1) 2009 increase in space debris was due to freak debris generating events that are not common

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

After a year of relatively minor fragmentation events and an overall decrease in the orbital debris population,
2009 saw one significant debris-generating event and a number of smaller ones. By the end of the year, the
total number of large- and medium-sized objects (>10cm) in orbit cataloged by the US SSN was 15,090.24 This
number represents an increase of 2,347 objects or 15.6% percent over yearend data for 2008.25 This
number does not include the objects tracked by the SSN but not catalogued, which number at least 6,000
additional objects. In addition to the collision between the Iridium and Cosmos satellites, there were two
minor fragmentation events in 2009. The first was of an ullage motor from a Russian SL-12 rocket, object
1991-025F, which was used to place three GLONASS navigation satellites into medium earth orbit (MEO).26
Each SL-12 launch vehicle has two ullage motors (also known as aux motors), which are auxiliary motors used
to boost the upper stage and accompanying payloads into a highly elliptical transfer orbit from the original LEO
parking orbit. The ullage motors are usually jettisoned after this burn and left in the transfer orbit. They have a
proclivity to fragment: the 2009 breakup was the 37th detected event of this type.27 The second minor breakup
in 2009 was of Cosmos 192, a 42-year-old Russian LEO navigation satellite, on 30 August. It released as many
as 20 trackable pieces at an altitude of around 710 kilometers.28 Although the exact cause of this event is
unknown, it is speculated that it was due to a breach of the pressurized spacecraft, possibly from the impact of a
small piece of debris.

2) Short term increase in space debris is only due to China‘s ASAT test

Guterl, Newsweek International Senior Editor, 8-17-09 (Fred, ―Space Junk: Earth is being engulfed in a dense cloud of
hazardous debris that won't stop growing,‖ Newsweek, p. lexis, accessed 4-28-11)

As Kessler and his team worked against the clock to slow the accumulation of debris, the cloud continued to
expand. The Soviets tried ejecting the liquid metal at the cores of its nuclear satellites in the hope that the
radioactive droplets would burn up harmlessly upon reentering the atmosphere; instead the liquid hardened into
100,000 or so metal balls, each too small to detect but big enough to cause significant damage to other satellites.
In 1991, Cosmos 1934 hit a piece of junk that had previously broken off Cosmos 296. In 1996, France's Cerise
satellite struck a discarded Ariane rocket stage. Junk struck a U.S. weather satellite in 1997 and a Russian
satellite in 2002. Discarded U.S. and Chinese rocket stages collided with each other in 2005. In 2007, in
separate collisions, the Meteosat 8 weather satellite and NASA's UARS satellite were knocked out of their
orbits. Even so, for a while the total number of objects in the sky seemed to be leveling off, appearing to
undermine Kessler's forecasts, until the China incident. China's medium-range missile took off from its
Xichang space center without incident on Jan. 11, 2007. It climbed to about 850 kilometers, the typical altitude
of U.S. intelligence satellites (which is probably not a coincidence). The missile's lower stages dropped away to
burn up in the atmosphere, leaving the "kill vehicle" to continue on to its target: a defunct Feng Yun weather
satellite. The engineering was flawless. The missile blew the satellite to bits--2,500 of them, each larger than
10 centimeters, according to the experts who keep count. The explosion increased orbital debris in LEO by
about 40 percent. What Beijing hoped would be an impressive display of military prowess instead made China
the world's biggest space litterbug. In one move it undid a decade of diplomatic progress in slowing the buildup
of debris.


                                                                                                                        43
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate




                                  44
                  Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Kessler Syndrome
1) The Kessler Syndrome cascading effect won‘t happen until 2055

Graham-Rowe, Science Writer, 6-3-10 (Duncan, ―Junk in space,‖ The Times, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

How you define the point at which Earth's orbit will become unusable very much depends on your perception of
what risks are acceptable. From Nasa's perspective, there is still plenty of time. "We're talking about
hundreds of years of doing nothing before it gets to be a serious issue," says Johnson. But Nasa's idea of
"safe" is unlikely to tally with that of the average space tourist. What's more, even if it does take 200 years to
get to this stage, a tipping point will arrive long before that. Around 2055 we will start to see a shift in the
main cause of debris. Exploding obsolete satellites will cease to be the main source of junk and collision
debris will take over.

2) Even Kessler concedes his theory has been over-hyped by others

Broad, New York Times Science Writer, 2-6-07 (William, ―Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat,‖ New York
Times, accessed 5-5-11, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html)

If nothing is done, a kind of orbital crisis might ensue that is known as the Kessler Syndrome, after Mr.
Kessler. A staple of science fiction, it holds that the space around Earth becomes so riddled with junk that
launchings are almost impossible. Vehicles that entered space would quickly be destroyed. In an interview,
Mr. Kessler called the worst-case scenario an exaggeration. ―It‘s been overdone,‖ he said of the
syndrome.




                                                                                                                 45
                                                        Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
              Space Debris DA—AT—Non Unique—Future Missile Tests
1) Future missile tests won‘t happen—especially one‘s conducted by China

Graham-Rowe, Science Writer, 6-3-10 (Duncan, ―Junk in space,‖ The Times, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

As for missile attacks, or target practice on satellites, even China appears to be mending its ways. "The
Chinese incident was extremely unfortunate," says Johnson. "But to China's credit they now understand that
and we don't anticipate that kind of event will be repeated." To show it had fallen into line, when China
tested another missile test in January it went out of its way to point out that the rocket would not produce any
orbital debris or pose a risk to satellites.




                                                                                                              46
                                                     Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
  Space Debris DA—AT—No Link—New Technologies Don‘t Produce Debris
1) Even with new technology the generation of space debris is unavoidable

Perek, Czech Academy of Sciences, 04 (Lubos, ―SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION AND PREVENTION:
HOW TO BUILD A STRONGER INTERNATIONAL REGIME,‖ Astropolitics, Volume 2, Issue 2, accessed 5-10-11, p. EBSCO)

It is up to the designer of spacecraft not to let any loose parts separate from the vehicle. Explosive bolts
should be used with caution; covers should be attached to the vehicle even if they are not needed anymore, etc.
But it is impossible to avoid the generation of any debris. The unavoidable debris should, however, have a
limited lifetime of less than 25 years. This limit is both significant and technically attainable.




                                                                                                               47
                                                  Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Technology Solves
1) There is no existing technology that can remove space debris in the short term

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

In December 2009, NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) jointly held the first
International Conference on Orbital Debris Removal.67 The conference brought together government,
academia, and the private sector to discuss the problem of actively removing space debris from orbit. Various
technical solutions were presented, along with discussions on the related economic, legal, and policy
challenges. Although some techniques have promise, none have been operationally proven and all have
significant nontechnical and political challenges that need to be addressed.

2) Modest debris mitigation efforts can only account for a small percentage of total debris

Graham-Rowe, Science Writer, 6-3-10 (Duncan, ―Junk in space,‖ The Times, accessed 5-3-11, p. lexis)

One thing that seems certain is that regardless of which organisation takes on the salvage operation, it will
only go after the big stuff. And that will leave a gaping hole in the defence against space debris. Although
it makes perfect sense to try to remove large objects that can do significant damage, these represent a
small percentage of the total debris.

3) Political controversies and lack of practical technology prevent short term debris removal

Space Daily, 10-15-10 (―Space Debris‘ Environmental Impact,‖ accessed 5-6-11,
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Space_Debris_Enviromental_Impact_999.html)

For several reasons, action is unlikely to occur anytime soon. The technology for removing RSOs does not
exist. Although there are many suggestions, none are practical at this time. The economics of debris
removal are simply overwhelming. Culturing and political issues may prove to be the most difficult to
overcome. It seems entirely possible that access to space may be denied at some point in the future.




                                                                                                                     48
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                   Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—U.S. Efforts Solve
1) U.S. has no plans for space debris mitigation technology

David, Space.com Columnist, 5-9-11 (Leonard, ―Ugly Truth of Space Junk: Orbital Debris Problem to Triple by 2030,‖
accessed 5-9-11, http://www.space.com/11607-space-junk-rising-orbital-debris-levels-2030.html)

When asked if the U.S. Air Force plans on funding space debris mitigation capability, Shelton responded:
"We haven‘t found a way yet that is affordable and gives us any hope for mitigating space debris. The
best we can do, we believe, is to minimize debris as we go forward with our operations. As we think about how
we launch things, as we deploy satellites, minimizing debris is absolutely essential and we‘re trying to convince
other nations of that imperative as well."

2) There‘s no short or medium term solution to space debris—governments and private industry are not
     interested in the problem

Baiocchi and Welser, 10 (Dave and William, ―Confronting Space Debris: Strategies and Warnings from Comparable Examples
Including Deepwater Horizon,‖ accessed 5-9-11, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1042.html)

When viewed in light of the comparable problems, there is evidence to suggest that orbital debris does not at
present pose a great-enough risk to warrant the deployment of a remediation technology.6 A community will
only move on to the next stage shown in Figure S.1 when the current stage is not sufficient to properly address
the problem. While everyone in the space community certainly agrees that orbital debris poses a risk, the
lack of government and private industry funding for this effort suggests that the perception of risk has
not yet crossed a critical threshold that would prompt demands for remediation. The current lack of
private funding for debris remedies is particularly telling. Today, the majority ownership of operational space
assets (as a percentage of the total operational inventory) has shifted from government to commercial industry.7
For this new majority of commercial stakeholders, the ―imperative to create shareholder value entails that any
investment in a technical system be guided by its value creation potential‖ (Brathwaite and Saleh, 2009). In
other words, if debris were deemed to represent an unacceptable risk to current or future operations, a
remedy would already have been developed by the private sector.




                                                                                                                     49
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                       Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Lasers Solve
1) Lasers are too controversial to be developed

Kushner, Writer for Popular Science, 7-13-10 (David, ―Five ideas to fight space junk,‖ Popular Science, accessed 5-6-11,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/cluttered-space)

Lasers How It Works: In a ground-based configuration, a detection system could be made up of radar or lidar to
locate a piece of stray debris. Then a laser fires a series of pulses at the object, altering its orbit and knocking it
into the atmosphere, where it descends and is incinerated. Space-based systems require a shorter range and
lower laser power. Pros: A laser system is effective on objects smaller than four inches in size, because they are
less apt to create more debris during the removal process. A laser-equipped satellite would wait in orbit for a
target to pass by and then zap it. ―The duck-hunter paradigm is becoming an option,‖ says Richard Fork, a
principal investigator for the Laser Science and Engineering Laboratory at the University of Alabama at
Huntsville. ―You sit and wait for debris to come past you. Then you can hit it with enough impulse to deorbit
it.‖ Cons: Because the ground-based lasers would need to be powerful, the systems are alarming to
countries that see in them the potential for anti-satellite military technology. Plausibility: It‘s technically
possible but still very controversial for political reasons.




                                                                                                                       50
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
         Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Electrodynamic Tethers Solve
1) Electrodynamic tethers are not a feasible solution in the short term

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

The progressive development of international and national debris mitigation guidelines has been complemented
by research on technologies to physically remove debris, such as electromagnetic ―tethers‖ that could help to
safely de-orbit non-operational satellites or debris.46 However, a 2006 IADC report concluded that, while
―electrodynamic tethers have strong potential to become effective mitigation measures…various
problems are still to be solved before this technique can be practically adopted.‖47 Currently, natural
decay due to atmospheric drag remains the only feasible way to remove debris, although research into this
area continues.




                                                                                                                     51
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                    Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Solar Sails Solve
1) Solar sails cannot remove space debris in the short term

Kushner, Writer for Popular Science, 7-13-10 (David, ―Five ideas to fight space junk,‖ Popular Science, accessed 5-6-11,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-07/cluttered-space)

Solar Sails How It Works: The sun‘s radiation exerts force on the ultrathin fabric of solar sails, much like wind
propels a sailboat. These sails can clean up orbit by slowing debris enough that it deorbits. For example, an
expandable 97-square-foot sail can be launched as a secondary payload on even a small 110-pound satellite, and
an onboard system or ground control triggers its deployment. Conductive coils embedded in the sail control its
angle, so it can maneuver a satellite out of orbit; sail and satellite disintegrate together in the atmosphere. Pros:
The material is cheap and portable. Cons: The sail‘s expansion and the spacecraft‘s altitude need to be
carefully calculated beforehand. Plausibility: The technology has existed for decades, from a sail-equipped
craft in the mid-1970s intended to ride along with Halley‘s Comet (the craft never flew, and the project was
scrapped) to large solar arrays currently affixed to the Messenger spacecraft, which are helping steer it to
Mercury. Most recently, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency launched a solar-sail-propelled ―space yacht‖
called Ikaros in May. But the solar sails precisely controllable enough to remove debris are still years
away.




                                                                                                                       52
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
               Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tungsten Clouds Solve
1) Tungsten clouds are too controversial to be used in the short term

Discover Magazine, 4-12-11 (―Astronomers Say: Spew 20 Tons of Dust Into Orbit to Clear the Junk,‖ accessed 5-6-11,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/04/12/astronomers-say-spew-20-tons-of-dust-into-orbit-to-clear-the-junk/)

What‘s the News: The many bits of space junk orbiting Earth, from foil scraps to lens caps to chunks of frozen
urine, can damage satellites and spacecraft, which is why researchers have long sought methods to remove
debris from orbit. Scientists at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory have proposed a new way of taking out the
trash (in two senses): They want to pump 20 tons of tungsten dust into Earth‘s orbit; this dust would exert drag on
the junk‘s orbit, slowing it down and gradually lowering it until Earth‘s atmosphere can burn it up. This
bid to protect Earth‘s 900 active satellites is controversial because the dust could potentially harm solar panels
on satellites and obstruct astronomical measurements, but it‘s a handy fix because it doesn‘t require
ambitious new technology.




                                                                                                                           53
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                    Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Tracking Solves
1) Status quo tracking technology and methods won‘t prevent collisions with space debris

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

Underlying some of these claims was the mistaken belief that the US military tracks and continuously
watches all objects in orbit, and thus accidental collisions cannot happen. Although both the American and
Russian militaries had been performing daily collision screening long before February 2009, neither detected
the collision beforehand.19,20 This was because neither military included the two satellites that collided in
the list of screened objects, even though both had the highly accurate positional data gathered from their
respective tracking networks to do so.21 The primary reason cited for neither country‘s screening these
satellites was a lack of resources, both in computer power and trained personnel. The lack of a clear
requirement and responsibility for either military to screen commercial or nonfunctional payloads was also a
factor. Although a significant amount of US military tracking data is published, it was not accurate
enough to be useful in predicting the collision. On the day of the collision, an automated calculation done by
the SOCRATES website using this publicly available data indicated that the two satellites would have a close
approach of just under 600 meters, which ranked it as the 152nd-closest approach on that day.22 An Iridium
Vice-President had said that in the past the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) had given Iridium daily
conjunction warnings, but it had used only the imprecise public position data and was generating over 400 close
approaches within 5 kilometers every week across the entire Iridium constellation— too many for Iridium to
deal with in a useful manner.

2) Surveillance measures cannot predict every possible collision

Johnson, 10 (Nicholas, ―Orbital Debris: The Growing Threat to Space Operations,‖ accessed 5-9-10,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100004498_2010003521.pdf)

Due to inherent uncertainties in space surveillance measurements, the dynamic state of the atmosphere,
and, in many cases, the instability of at least one of the conjuncting objects, predicting the collision of two
satellites remains a probabilistic endeavor. Typical collision avoidance maneuver probability thresholds are 1
in 10,000 for human space flight and 1 in 1,000 or more for robotic satellites.




                                                                                                                     54
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                  Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—De-Orbiting Solves
De-orbiting is complicated and doesn‘t always work

Perek, Czech Academy of Sciences, 04 (Lubos, ―SPACE DEBRIS MITIGATION AND PREVENTION:
HOW TO BUILD A STRONGER INTERNATIONAL REGIME,‖ Astropolitics, Volume 2, Issue 2, accessed 5-10-11, p. EBSCO)

The technique of re-orbiting into disposal orbits is rather ambitious because it requires a fairly good
estimate of fuel which remained in the storage tanks and can be used for necessary maneuvers. The re-
orbiting is not always successful and not always attempted. Besides, some commercial ventures hesitate to
re-orbit at the approaching end of activity of the satellite because at that time all income from the venture
is pure profit. Shareholders are not very pleased to support re-orbiting instead of continuing for some time a
profitable operation.




                                                                                                               55
                                                 Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
              Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Graveyard Orbits Solve
1) Graveyard orbits don‘t solve for the space debris threat

Christensen, 11-17-04 (Bill, ―The Terminator Tether Aims to Clean Up Low Earth Orbit,‖ accessed 5-9-11,
http://www.space.com/537-terminator-tether-aims-clean-earth-orbit.html)

It has been suggested that every satellite deployed should carry extra propellant so the satellite can boost
itself up to a higher "graveyard" orbit. Unfortunately, not only must the extra kilograms of propellant be
boosted up from Earth, the rocket and guidance systems must be usable for many years after launch. Also,
graveyard orbits merely leave satellites up higher, where micrometeorite damage slowly causes these
objects to break apart; smaller fragments will filter back down, leaving this problem for our children to
solve. These smaller fragments are almost impossible to clean up.




                                                                                                           56
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
                    Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Shielding Solves
1) Shielding all spacecraft isn‘t feasible or possible

Johnson, 10 (Nicholas, ―Orbital Debris: The Growing Threat to Space Operations,‖ accessed 5-9-10,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100004498_2010003521.pdf)

Shielding techniques, however, are practical only for particles on the order of 1 cm or less. Moreover,
many robotic spacecraft cannot not afford the mass penalty associated with orbital debris shields, and
payload elements frequently cannot host shields for operational reasons.




                                                                                                          57
                                                         Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
            Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Voluntary Measures Solve
1) Voluntary measures to reduce space debris fail

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

It is becoming increasingly evident to all space operators that the creation of space debris and other
irresponsible behavior in space can have negative implications for all space users, given the indiscriminate
nature of the adverse effects. While policymakers are working to implement the existing debris mitigation
guidelines, scientists have begun research on the next phase – orbital debris removal – that will be a necessary
complement to debris mitigation to ensure continued space security. However, creating voluntary guidelines
has proven to be insufficient, as demonstrated by the continued failure of spacecraft operators to comply
with end-of-life requirements in the GEO belt. To enhance the positive impact that the implementation of
agreed guidelines may have on debris mitigation, the establishment of enforcement mechanisms at either the
international or national level is necessary.

2) Voluntary measures to prevent space debris fail

Space Security Index, 10 (International Research Consortium, ―Space Security 2010,‖ August 2010, accessed 4-26-11,
http://www.spacesecurity.org/space.security.2010.reduced.pdf)

A yearly report on the GEO region produced by the European Space Agency found that, of the 21 GEO
spacecraft that reached end-of-life in 2009, only 11 were moved 250 kilometers above the active GEO belt
and into the disposal region outlined by the IADC debris mitigation guidelines.57 Six of the noncompliant
spacecraft were partially reorbited, but not to the altitude in the guidelines. Three spacecraft, all Russian,
appear to have been abandoned in the active GEO region. Figure 1.8 shows the general trend of increased
compliance with the guidelines since 2002; however, it should be noted that in 2009 six spacecraft were moved
from the operational zone but were not boosted to the altitude outlined in the IADC guidelines.

3) Voluntary norms to reduce space debris won‘t solve the problem

Baiocchi and Welser, 10 (Dave and William, ―Confronting Space Debris: Strategies and Warnings from Comparable Examples
Including Deepwater Horizon,‖ accessed 5-9-11, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1042.html)

In the case of orbital debris, the established behavioral norm is that most countries have agreed not to
pollute the space environment if they can avoid doing so. This norm is merely a suggestion; there are
currently no direct legal or financial penalties for littering in space. However, the U.S. space community
has adopted this practice on good faith and does not purposefully release debris into the environment. Norms
tend to discourage unwanted behavior, but some individuals or groups will continue to flout them. To
discourage these wrongdoers, the next step is to establish mitigation practices, which may consist of any
combination of rules, regulations, standards, incentives, or penalties. These incentive structures are usually very
effective at reducing, while not necessarily eliminating, the population of rule-breakers.




                                                                                                                     58
                                                          Planet Debate
Space Debris DA
Planet Debate
           Space Debris DA—AT—No Impact—Computer Modeling Solves
Trajectory of space debris cannot be predicted by computer models

Excell, 2-22-10 (Jon, ―Man Made Junk: The Waste of Space,‖ The Engineer, accessed 5-10-11, p. lexis)

The problem is compounded by the fact that space debris does not behave in a particularly predictable
manner. The collisions or explosions that generate the debris impart a slightly different velocity and
angular inclination on every single particle and it is not always possible to model the resulting erratic
orbit with much accuracy. It was just this uncertainty that caused the ISS crew to scamper for cover last year.




                                                                                                              59
                                                        Planet Debate

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:8/15/2011
language:English
pages:59