Sunteți pe pagina 1din 50

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1

Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Index
Space Index.....................................................................................................................................................................1
___________...................................................................................................................................................................2
**Uniqueness .................................................................................................................................................................2
U—Colonization Now....................................................................................................................................................3
______.............................................................................................................................................................................4
**Links............................................................................................................................................................................4
Link—Solar.....................................................................................................................................................................5
___________...................................................................................................................................................................6
**Space Good.................................................................................................................................................................6
Space Good—Peace ......................................................................................................................................................7
Space Good—Thinking/Mindsets...................................................................................................................................8
Colonization Good—Extinction.....................................................................................................................................9
Colonization Good—Laundry List...............................................................................................................................11
Colonization Good—Over-Population ........................................................................................................................12
Colonization Good—Hegemony ..................................................................................................................................13
Colonization inevitable.................................................................................................................................................14
AT Colonization Fails...................................................................................................................................................15
AT Colonization Fails—Tech.......................................................................................................................................16
AT Mars Uninhabitable................................................................................................................................................17
AT Not Enough Water..................................................................................................................................................18
AT Not Enough CO2 ...................................................................................................................................................19
AT Not Enough Minerals..............................................................................................................................................20
AT Radiation/UV .........................................................................................................................................................21
AT No Launch Capabilities .........................................................................................................................................22
AT No Impact—Earth Resilient...................................................................................................................................23
AT No Asteroids ..........................................................................................................................................................24
AT No Food in Space....................................................................................................................................................25
AT Cosmic Radiation ...................................................................................................................................................26
__________...................................................................................................................................................................27
**Space Bad..................................................................................................................................................................27
Colonization Fails ........................................................................................................................................................28
Colonization Fails—Oxygen.........................................................................................................................................29
Colonization Fails—Launch Capabilities ....................................................................................................................30
Colonization Fails—Tech ............................................................................................................................................31
Colonization Fails—Debris...........................................................................................................................................32
Colonization Bad—Cosmic Radiation..........................................................................................................................33
Space Bad—War ..........................................................................................................................................................34
Space Bad—Militarization............................................................................................................................................35
Space Bad—Radiation..................................................................................................................................................36
Space Bad—Solar Radiation.........................................................................................................................................37
Space Bad—Disease ....................................................................................................................................................38
Space Bad—Timeframe ...............................................................................................................................................39
AT Asteroid Impacts ....................................................................................................................................................40
Econ Link—Transports ................................................................................................................................................41
_______.........................................................................................................................................................................42
**Aliens .......................................................................................................................................................................42
Yes Aliens ....................................................................................................................................................................43
No Aliens .....................................................................................................................................................................45
Aliens Bad—Disease....................................................................................................................................................47
Aliens Bad—War .........................................................................................................................................................48
Aliens Good—Unity.....................................................................................................................................................49
AT Alien War................................................................................................................................................................50
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 2
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

___________
**Uniqueness
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 3
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

U—Colonization Now
No uniqueness- space colonization planned in status quo
National Post 07 (June 1,
“Space Hotels Seen in Exploration Vision,” L/N)
Mining the moon and space tourism -- including "space hotels" -- are part of a grand plan for space
exploration agreed to by agencies from around the world. The Global Exploration Strategy, released
yesterday by the Canadian Space Agency and 13 other organizations, spells out what officials are calling their
shared vision for space exploration and colonization. The strategy makes no mention of the enormous costs
involved, but says agency officials have agreed after months of negotiation to co-ordinate their ambitious plans.
"With increasing intent and determination, we are resolved to explore our nearest companions -- the Moon,
Mars and some nearby asteroids," the strategy says. "Our goal is not a few quick visits, but rather a
sustained and ultimately self-sufficient human presence beyond Earth supported by robotic pathfinders." The
document outlines the rationale for returning to the Moon and exploring Mars, noting it is fundamental human
nature to explore the unknown. The agencies, notorious for incurring cost overruns on such projects as the
international space station, also make reference to economic opportunities related to the plan. "Already, far-sighted
entrepreneurs are thinking about further commercial expansion into space," says the report, pointing to opportunities
for companies to provide crew and cargo transportation services, telecommunications and navigation systems, and
space-based resource extraction and processing capabilities. Moon rocks, for instance, are rich in oxygen that might
be exploited to provide life-support systems for lunar operations.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 4
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

______
**Links
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 5
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Link—Solar
Solar can supply all the power we need for Colonies
Globus 08, member of the board for the National Space Society, senior research associate for
Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research
Center ( Al, “Orbital Space Colonies” ,http://space.mike-combs.com/excerpts.html, July 14,
2008)
In orbit there is no night, clouds, or atmosphere. As a result, the amount of solar energy available per
unit surface area in Earth orbit is approximately seven times that of the Earth's surface. Further, space
solar energy is 100 percent reliable and predictable. Near-Earth orbits may occasionally pass behind the
planet, reducing or eliminating solar power production for a few minutes, but these times can be precisely
predicted months in advance. Solar power can supply all the energy we need for orbital colonies in the
inner solar system. Almost all Earth-orbiting satellites use solar energy; only a few military satellites
have used nuclear power. For space colonies we need far more power, requiring much larger solar
collectors. Space solar power can be generated by solar cells on large panels as with current satellites,
or by concentrators that focus sunlight on a fluid, perhaps water, which is vaporized and used to turn
turbines. Turbines are used today by hydroelectric plants to generate electricity, and are well understood.
Turbines are more efficient than today's solar cells, but they also have moving parts and high temperature
liquids, both of which tend to cause breakdowns and accidents. Both panels and concentrator/turbine
systems can probably work, and different orbital colonies may use different systems. Understand though
that orbital colonies can have ample solar-generated electrical energy 24/7 so long as sufficiently sized
solar panels or appropriate concentrator-turbine systems can be built. This is a matter of building what
we already understand in much greater quantities - which gives us the much sought after economies of scale.
Economies of scale simply means that if you do the same thing over and over, you get good at it.

Solar and nuclear power, should be used for our colonization efforts
Lunar and Planetary Institute 05, research institute that provides services to NASA and
other in the planetary science community, (“About Space Colonies”,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/colonies/, July 13, 2008)
Sunlight is available for near planets and moons — like Mars and Earth's Moon. Sunlight, captured by
solar panels, is converted into energy that can be stored. The International Space Station gets its power
from solar panels. The challenge to storing sufficient solar energy on the Moon is its long night —
equivalent to two Earth weeks. On Mars, the prolonged dust storms may inhibit solar energy
collection. For planets and moons far from the Sun, and for transportation between these planets,
other energy sources will be necessary. Nuclear power is probably the most efficient power source for
transporation to distant planets.

Solar power solves power for colonies


Prado 99- (http://www.permanent.com/t-icbm.htm Copyright date- 1999. Physicist Mark Prado, has worked for parts of the
American space program fulltime for the Pentagon ("Star Wars"/SDI and other advanced planning in the US Department of Defense
back in the 1980s) and as a consultant. More recently, Mark Prado has been consulting to multinational engineering and construction
companies building industrial facilities and infrastructure in remote parts of the world)
Electrical energy will be abundant and cheap from solar cells. As the MIT report on manufacturing SPSs
in space put it: "...the cost of energy for the SMF operations resembles the cost pattern of SPS's: a large
initial outlay for the solar array, followed by a very low operating cost (due to the absence of need for fuel
and the low maintenance requirement). Therefore, for long operating times, the cost of energy in SMF
operations can be substantially lower than the cost of energy in earth manufacture; this is another
potential cost reduction in the lunar material scenario over the earth-based construction scenario."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 6
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

___________
**Space Good
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 7
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Good—Peace
Empirically proven, space engenders human unity
Daley 07 (Tad, Why Progressives Should Care About Human Destiny in Space, August 11, p. 2,
http://www.alternet.org/story/59310/?page=1)
And space has already shown that it can serve as perhaps the single greatest engine of human unity. On
July 20, 1979, on the tenth anniversary of humanity's first footsteps on the moon, Neil Armstrong was
asked how he had felt as he saluted the flag up there. "I suppose you're thinking about pride and
patriotism," he replied. "But we didn't have a strong nationalistic feeling at that time. We felt more that it
was a venture of all mankind." (One wonders if any consideration was given, in the high councils of the
Johnson and Nixon administrations, to having Armstrong and Aldrin plant not a flag of the United States on
the moon, but a flag of Planet Earth.) Many of the fortunate souls who have made it into Earth orbit (and
the infinitesimal 27 who have left Earth orbit and ventured to the moon) have expressed remarkably
similar sentiments. "The first day or so we all pointed to our countries," said the Saudi astronaut Sultan bin
Salman Al-Saud. "The third or fourth day we were pointing to our continents. By the fifth day, we were
aware of only one Earth." "The Earth was small, light blue, and so touchingly alone," said the Russian
astronaut Aleksei Leonov, "our home that must be defended like a holy relic." "From out there on the
moon, international politics look so petty," said Edgar Mitchell, one of only 12 humans to have walked on
the surface of another world. "You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter
million miles out and say, 'Look at that, you son of a bitch.'" This is why the late Carl Sagan claimed that
spaceflight was actually subversive. Although governments have ventured into space, Sagan observed,
largely for nationalistic reasons, "it was a small irony that almost everyone who entered space received
a startling glimpse of a transnational perspective, of the Earth as one world." Seeing our planet as a
whole, apparently, enables one to see our planet as a whole.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 8
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Good—Thinking/Mindsets
( ) Colonization propagates human life
The Economist, 07 (September 29, “Spacemen are from Mars; Sputnik”, L/N, accessed on 7/14/08)
Half a century of space exploration has actually served to illuminate the Earth FIFTY YEARS ago the
Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite. Sputnik burst into orbit on October 4th 1957, in the
midst of the cold war. It was a surprise to the world, a shock to many Americans, and the starting gun for the
space race between the superpowers. Thereafter, America vied with the Soviet Union for supremacy in
aerospace's equivalent of "mine's bigger than yours", as successively taller rockets lobbed larger payloads
further afield. The legacy of all this posturing is a view of space travel as a macho, gung-ho affair, all about
the conquest of the solar system by men with shiny suits and very big rockets. In the 1950s many people
imagined that in the decades to come the new frontier would be beaten back by pioneers bent on
interplanetary colonisation. By the end of the millennium there would be a moon base at the very least.
Probably, there would be hotels in orbit, frequent missions to other planets and mines on asteroids extracting
metals considered rare and precious on Earth. To extend John Gray's metaphor about men and women: space
was from Mars. As it has turned out, space is actually from Venus. People have hardly travelled anywhere at
all—although a scandalous amount of money has been wasted on the conceit that voyaging across the
cosmos is humanity's destiny. Instead, what has happened is inward-looking and Venusian in an almost
touchy-feely way rather than outwardly directed. Most of the satellites in orbit round Earth look down,
rather than up, and the biggest mental change wrought by spaceflight has been not an appreciation of
the vastness of the universe, but rather of the smallness, fragility and unity of Earth. This mental
change began in a very Martian way. Before Soviet engineers built the rockets that put Sputnik in orbit,
warfare was seen as being, in some sense, a limited thing. Even in the atomic decade that had preceded the
space age, bombers flown by real people would have to deliver nuclear death to their targets. Negotiations
could take place while they were in the air. They could be shot down. And those that got through would
probably not destroy everything. After Sputnik, megadeath would arrive in minutes by rocket, non-
negotiably, and in such quantities that global annihilation looked on the cards. But bellicose intercontinental
ballistic missiles were not the only spawn of Sputnik's launch. There was also the satellite itself. Today
almost 900 of the things are in orbit around Earth, operated by more than 40 countries. Some are old-
fashioned martial spy satellites, but many more are Venusian—watching the weather, the oceans, the
changing climate and the use of land. Others broadcast television programmes, relay telephone calls, or send
out the signals that tell people exactly where they are on the Earth's surface. Such satellites have enabled
scientists and engineers to treat the planet as a single thing in a way that they previously did not. More
subtle—and just as far-reaching—was the message epitomised during the next leg of the space race
when the crew of Apollo 8 photographed Earth-rise over a lunar horizon on Christmas Day, 1968.
Earth is a fragile pocket of life in a very large and lonely universe. Looking back at a small, blue-green
planet from outer space and seeing its unity and its vulnerability also changed perspectives. It was a
force behind the environmental movement, which began at about that time. Rather as a foreign
country helps a traveller understand his home, so it has taken space flight to understand Earth. Some
insist that humanity must hurry on with the Martian vision, to explore and ultimately to colonise other
planets to secure the species's future. That may be necessary one day and many countries, and some
companies, still pursue this vision of space. America's government wants a moon base, the Chinese are
interested in going there, too. There might be a rekindling of the kind of nationalistic fervour of
yesteryear. The lesson of the past 50 years, however, is that the more humanity discovers about space,
the rarer and more precious life on Earth seems. For the moment Venusian voyages to understand
mankind's home planet are better than Martian ones to understand how to abandon the mother ship.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 9
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Good—Extinction
Space is key to prevent extinction
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from
opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow men
into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect, and
help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of people from
all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets, warriors and
conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our species must
venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging the very high
costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a species depends on
colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids that might someday
smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagan’s opinion, the only way to avert
inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in space. He compares
humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander through space. We will
wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly infinite prospect of new
directions to explore. Sagan’s vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that the exploration of space
would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our allies into this new sea, set
with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back, it may be to the detriment of
more than our country.

Space colonization key to sustain human existence


Morgan 06 (New York Times, Richard, August 1, “Life After Earth: Imagining Survival Beyond This Terra
Firma,” L/N)
To a certain group preoccupied with doomsday, these projects are laudable but share a deep flaw: they are Earth-
bound. A global catastrophe -- like a collision with an asteroid or a nuclear winter -- would have to be rather
tame in order not to rattle the test tubes in the various ark-style labs around the world. What kind of feeble
doomsday would leave London safe and sound? Cue the Alliance to Rescue Civilization, a group that
advocates a backup for humanity by way of a station on the Moon replete with DNA samples of all life on Earth, as well as
a compendium of all human knowledge -- the ultimate detached garage for a race of packrats. It would be run by people who, through fertility
treatments and frozen human eggs and sperm, could serve as a new Adam and Eve in addition to their role as a new Noah. Far from the lunatic
fringe, the leaders of the alliance have serious careers: Robert Shapiro, the group's founder, is a professor emeritus and senior research scientist in
biochemistry at New York University; Ray Erikson runs an aerospace development firm in Boston and has been a NASA committee chair;
Steven M. Wolfe, as a Congressional aide, drafted and helped pass the Space Settlement Act of 1988, which mandated that NASA plan a shift
from space exploration to space colonization, and was executive director of the Congressional Space Caucus; William E. Burrows, an author of
several books on space, is the director of the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program at N.Y.U. President Bush has already
proposed a Moon base. ''He just needs to be told what it's good for,'' Dr. Shapiro said. Dr. Shapiro has written
a number of books on the origins of life on Earth, as well as ''Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life Beyond
Earth,'' where he unveiled the civilization rescue project. In 1999, the same year the book came out, Dr. Shapiro
wrote an essay with Mr. Burrows for Ad Astra, an astronomy journal. There, they formally laid out their plan
for the rescue alliance, beginning by warning that ''the most enduring pictures to come back from the Apollo missions were not of
astronauts cavorting on the Sea of Tranquillity, nor even of the lunar landscape itself.'' ''They were the haunting views of Earth, seen for the first
time not as a boundless and resilient colossus of land and water,'' they continued, ''but as a startlingly vulnerable lifeboat precariously plying a
vast and dangerous sea: a 'blue marble' in a black void.'' A conversation shortly after the essay was published, Dr. Shapiro recalled, resounded
with the earnest imagination of science fiction drama: The mission of the Alliance to Rescue Civilization has also attracted
the support of Col. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, who now devotes much of his time to the
idea of Martian colonization. ''It takes a big reason to go to the Moon, because, frankly, it's a lousy place to be,''
Colonel Aldrin said in a telephone interview. ''But this is exactly the kind of planning as a human race we need
to secure our future. ''But the A.R.C. idea isn't ahead of its time because it's needed right now. It's a
reasonable thing to do with our space technology, sending valuable stuff to a reliable off-site location. NASA is certainly not
bending backwards to do it. It's the private people like A.R.C.'' Born and raised within walking distance of the Bronx Zoo -- and he walked that
distance often -- Dr. Shapiro developed an early interest in biodiversity. He frets over the frailty of civilization and the planet, but he is not a
pessimist. He compares the Moon-base idea to a safe-deposit box. ''It makes sense to protect the things you value,'' he said. ''But we, as a
civilization, we don't have anything like that.'' The trouble with doomsday, Dr. Shapiro argues, is that it is almost always rendered in popular
culture as grandiose, though in reality, many minor incidents present substantial everyday threats.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 10
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Good—Extinction
Travelling to space is the only way to save the human race
Engdahl, an American science fiction writer, 03, (“Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of Colonizing
Space
”, http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm, February, accessed on July 14, 2008 )
Until recently, the reason most commonly offered for believing our survival depends on space travel was
that our species will need to move elsewhere in order to survive the ultimate death of our sun, or the
possibility of our sun turning into a nova. (Scientists now believe that these specific scenarios won’t happen; but the sun
will eventually become a red giant, which as far as Earth is concerned, is an equally disastrous one.) This is not of such remote concern
as it may seem, as I’ll explain below. However, it surely is a remote event, billions of years in the future, and I don’t blame anyone for
not giving it very high priority at present. It is far from being my main reason.
A more urgent cause for concern is the need not to “put all our eggs in one basket,” in case the worst
happens and we blow up our own planet, or make it uninhabitable by means of nuclear disaster or
perhaps biological warfare. We would all like to believe this won’t happen, yet some people are seriously afraid that it will—
it’s hardly an irrational fear. Peace with Russia may have drawn attention from it, yet there are other potential troublemakers, even
terrorists; the nuclear peril is not mere history. Furthermore, there is the small but all-too-real possibility that Earth might be struck by an
asteroid. We all hope and believe our homes won’t burn down, and yet we buy fire insurance. Does not our species as a whole need an
insurance policy? Even Carl Sagan, a long-time opponent of using manned spacecraft where robots can
serve, came out in support of space colonization near the end of his life, for this reason; see his book Pale
Blue Dot. And in an interview with Britain’s newspaper Daily Telegraph, eminent cosmologist Stephen
Hawking said, “I don’t think that the human race will survive the next thousand years unless we
spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet.” Hawking is more
worried about the possibility of our creating a virus that destroys us than about nuclear disaster. However, he said, “I’m an optimist. We
will reach out to the stars.”

Space colonization key to prevent extinction


Globus; ’05; NASA official; “Space Settlement Basics”;
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html
Someday the Earth will become uninhabitable. Before then humanity must move off the planet or
become extinct. One potential near term disaster is collision with a large comet or asteroid. Such a
collision could kill billions of people. Large collisions have occured in the past, destroying many
species. Future collisions are inevitable, although we don't know when. Note that in July 1994, the
cometShoemaker-Levy 9 (1993e) hit Jupiter If there were a major collision today, not only would billions
of people die, but recovery would be difficult since everyone would be affected. If major space
settlements are built before the next collision, the unaffected space settlements can provide aid, much
as we offer help when disaster strikes another part of the world. Building space settlements will
require a great deal of material. If NEOs are used, then any asteroids heading for Earth can simply be torn
apart to supply materials for building colonies and saving Earth at the same time.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 11
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Good—Laundry List


Colonizing space is key to stimulate growth, protect the environment, and prevent resource
wars.
Collins & Autino 08, 7/7/08, (Patrick Collins, Adrienne Autino) Space Future Journal, What the Growth of a
Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education,
Culture and World Peace
http://www.spacefuturejournal.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could_contribute_to_e
mployment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_culture_and_world_peace.shtml
Vehicles capable of supplying low-priced sub-orbital passenger space travel services could have been
produced as early as 1950 if German rocket technology had not been used solely for military purposes by the
USA and USSR. If that had happened, orbital passenger flight services could have started during the 1960s.
In this case passenger space travel could have grown into a major industry by today. In growing to large
scale, space travel would also have reduced the cost of space travel far below that of the expendable rockets
still in use today, of which the first orbital vehicle, the R-7 / Soyuz, is still the cheapest and most reliable 50
years later. Several decades of growth of space travel and related space activities could have had a
major beneficial influence on the modern world. The paper discusses the scope for new employment,
stimulating economic growth, reducing environmental damage, encouraging education particularly in
the sciences, stimulating cultural growth, and preserving peace by eliminating any need for "resource
wars".

Space colonization is insurance against extinction


Hawking, 08 (Stephen, the worlds best known cosmologist, PhD in Cosmology from Cambridge, 7/12/08, L/N)
He also called for a massive investment in creating colonies on the Moon and Mars. The physicist has
previously suggested colonising space as an insurance against humanity being wiped out by
catastrophes such as nuclear war and climate change. 'If the human race is to continue for another
million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before.' Humanity can afford to battle
earthly problems such as climate change and still have plenty of resources left over for colonising
space, he added. Professor Hawking compared those who do not want to spend money on human space
exploration to those who opposed the journey of Christopher Columbus in 1492. 'The discovery of the new
world made profound difference to the old,' he said. 'Just think, we would not have a Big Mac or KFC.
'Spreading out into space will completely change the future of the human race and maybe determine
whether we have any future at all.'
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 12
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Good—Over-Population
Colonies solve overcrowding
Bloomfield 06 (National Space Society, Book Review: The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, Masse
Bloomfield, 2006, http://www.nss.org/resources/books/non_fiction/review_008_highfrontier.html)
O'Neill's solution in 1976 was “We now have the technological ability to set up large communities in
space — communities in which manufacturing, farming, and all other human activities could be
carried out.” In a caption under the famous drawing of an O'Neill cylinder it says, “Human colonies in
space — not a luxury, but a necessity. Earth is overcrowded, running out of raw materials, in
desperate need of a growing energy supply, and being ecologically destroyed. The problems are worse
with each passing day, and there are no solutions to be found on Earth itself. Mankind's destiny — its
very survival — is in space.… But a commitment is needed, a decision to go for it and the
determination to see it through.”

Extinction
Joel Campbell, St. Joseph Scollard Hall, May 20th, 1998, http://dieoff.org/page142.htm, accessed 5/6/03
"If humanity fails to act, nature may end the population explosion for us, in very unpleasant ways, well
before 10 billion is reached" (Ehrlich, 98). Population in our world is like a disease, its wide spread will only
bring devastation to a people who will eventually end up breeding themselves into extinction. The world as
we know it cannot sustain much more population growth without increasing the instances of food shortages,
lack of resources, poverty, ozone depletion, deforestation, and desertification, to name a few.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 13
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Good—Hegemony
Colonization yields military high ground
Michaels, Aerospace Specialist, 2008 (Paris, A Space Odyssey, April 15, l/n)
Eric Sterner's Friday Op-Ed column, " More than the Moon, " describing the future of the United States'
manned space program, portrayed some disturbing perspectives to all Americans who take pride in this
nation's space accomplishments. Space exploration and lunar colonization are the kind of spectacular
undertakings expected of superpower nations. The first to arrive on the moon will dominate a military
high ground never before exploited by those preceding them. How will the world respond to a second
nation's reoccupation of the moon?

US must make it back to the moon first


Michaels, Aerospace Specialist, 2008 (Paris, A Space Odyssey, April 15, l/n)
Apollo 15 left the Hadley-Apennine region of the moon on Aug. 2, 1971. For nearly four days, its astronauts
ventured on the rolling hills surrounding the landing site, using a lunar roving vehicle (LRV). Parking the
LRV for the last time, astronaut James Irwin produced a Bible. He deftly placed it atop the dashboard of
the vehicle. There's no reason not to believe that Bible still rests in that very same spot. Would China,
now making an issue of athletes bringing Bibles into the 2008 Olympic park there, ever take action to
disturb the one left on the dashboard of a lunar rover on the Moon? Could the act of disturbing this
Bible be considered a hostile act? If China's leaders promised it would be left undisturbed, would U.S.
officials believe them? Should they believe them? What's at stake is more than just national prestige. U.S.
national interests dealing with everything from security to fending off hegemonic pressure imposed by
other space-faring nations are on the chopping block.

Nuclear War
Khalilzad 1995 – RAND, Ambassador to Afghanistan
Washington Quarterly, Spring
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a
global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding
principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment
would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems,
such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts.
Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United
States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a
global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar
or a multipolar balance of power system.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 14
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization inevitable
( ) Colonization inevitable
The Scotsman, 07 (January 11, “British scientists shoot for the Moon”, Craig Brown, L/N, accessed on 7/14/08)
The study was prepared by Professor Sir Martin Sweeting, founder and chief executive of Surrey Satellite
Technology, a University of Surrey spin-off company with its headquarters in Guildford. He said the cost of
space exploration had fallen sufficiently to allow Britain to mount a "go-it-alone" Moon mission, paid for
jointly by the government and industry. Britain's space ventures have been carried out jointly with the
American space agency NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA). "Current small missions to the Moon
cost around 500 million [GBP 335 million]," Sir Martin said. "With advances in small satellites, we could
probably cut the cost by at least a fifth." He believes going solo to the Moon would be a major boost to
British industry: "In the UK, we have tremendous expertise in this area. A UK Moon programme would
enable us to get a foothold in what could ... be an economically important area for a relatively low cost." It is
estimated that the Moonlight project alone would cost between GBP 50 million and GBP 100 million. A
British moonshot would allow UK space companies to develop support technologies for what is turning out
to be a 21st century space race, said Sir Martin. The United States hopes to start building lunar colonies
by 2020 and the European, Indian and Chinese space agencies are all planning missions to the Moon.
Andy Phipps, project manager for the two British lunar projects, said they were a natural progression for the
company, which has built 26 spacecraft for various countries, including the US. "We have been looking at
more demanding missions, in particular lunar ones for five or ten years now," he said. "This will be the first
UK mission to the Moon and that in itself is interesting. I think it is relatively ambitious; we're slowly
pushing the envelope of what we can do." He added that, while Britain was a long way from sending
people to the Moon's surface, he believed that the missions could provide vital infrastructure and
support for lunar bases, and place the UK at the forefront of lunar colonisation. Meanwhile, Dr Andy
Ball, a member of PPARC involved in considering the science behind the project, said that the
proposals were a sign of a resurgence of interest in the Moon not seen since the US Apollo space
programme in the 1960s and 70s. He said: "With this sort of project, the UK is starting to feel its way
towards what its role will be in this phase of lunar exploration." Dr Ball added that it was vital to be
involved now, as "sooner or later, people are going to living on the Moon". "I think whether it takes 15
years or another 30, it's going to happen," he said. "At the beginning of the last century, people may have
speculated as to whether anyone would end up living at the South Pole, but here we are with many dozens of
people living at Antarctica and doing science there." Dr Ball said that the Moonlight project would give
greater insight into the structure of the Moon. "We still don't know how big the core of the Moon is," he said.
"And that's something we need to help understand the formation scenario for the Earth-Moon system." He
said that there was still much else to learn generally about the Moon and that recent studies had shown it was
geologically active more recently than had been previously thought.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 15
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Colonization Fails
Space colonization possible but dependent on public good will
BBC News 03 (Helen Briggs, science reporter, August 19, “Moon colony 'within 20 years,'”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3161695.stm)
Humans could be living on the Moon within 20 years, says a leading lunar scientist. According to Bernard
Foing of the European Space Agency, the technology will soon exist to set up an outpost for visiting astronauts.
However, political will is needed to inspire the public to support the initiative. "We believe that
technologically it's possible," the project scientist on Europe's first Moon mission, Smart-1, told "But it will
depend in the end on the political will to go and establish a human base for preparing for colonisation of the
Moon or to be used as a refuge for the human species."

Space colonization is both possible and crucial to our continued existence


Derbyshire 08 (David, April 23, Daily Mail,
“Space is full of aliens, warns Hawking. But they aren't too bright,” L/N)
However, Professor Hawking said the odds were in favour of the existence of suitable planets ripe for
colonisation. If only one per cent of the 1,000 or so stars within 30 light years of our solar system had an Earth-size
rocky planet in just the right place for life, there would still be ten potential candidates for colonisation in our
'neighbourhood', he said. 'We cannot envision visiting them with current technology, but we should make
interstellar travel a long-term aim,' he said. 'By long term, I mean over the next 200 to 500 years.' He also called
for a massive investment in creating colonies on the Moon and Mars. The physicist has previously suggested
colonising space as an insurance against humanity being wiped out by catastrophes such as nuclear war and
climate change. 'If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where
no one has gone before.' Humanity can afford to battle earthly problems such as climate change and still have
plenty of resources left over for colonising space, he added. Professor Hawking compared those who do not want
to spend money on human space exploration to those who opposed the journey of Christopher Columbus in 1492.
'The discovery of the new world made profound difference to the old,' he said. 'Just think, we would not have a Big
Mac or KFC. 'Spreading out into space will completely change the future of the human race and maybe determine
whether we have any future at all.'
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 16
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Colonization Fails—Tech
NASA is researching mini-ecosystems to sustain life in space
Barry, 01 (Patrick L. Barry, Master's degree in science journalism from Boston University, Environmental
science degree with a focus in journalism from the University of Florida) 4/9/01,
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09apr_1.htm
"In order to have affordable -- and even doable -- long-term exploration (of space), you need to
incorporate biology into the life support system," said Chris Brown, director of space programs at the
Kenan Institute for Engineering, Technology & Science at North Carolina State University. NASA
researchers at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Johnson Space Center (JSC) are figuring out
how to do just that. They're exploring technologies that could wed people, plants, microbes, and
machines into a miniature "ecosystem" capable of supporting space travelers indefinitely. This type of
life support system -- called "bioregenerative" -- would be fully self-contained, creating an ecologically
sound microcosm where each element supports and is supported by each of the others. "If we really
want to leave (the Earth) on a permanent basis, we need to figure out how this blue ball in space
supports all of us, and somehow replicate the parts that are necessary so that we can move on," said Jay
Garland, principal scientist for the Bioregenerative Life Support Project at Dynamac, Inc., at KSC. Humans
and plants are ideal space traveling companions. Humans consume oxygen and release carbon dioxide.
Plants return the favor by consuming carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Humans can use edible
parts of plants for nourishment, while human waste and inedible plant matter can -- after being
broken down by microbes in tanks called "bioreactors" -- provide nutrients for plant growth. Plants
and microbes can also work to purify water, possibly with help from machines. The only input needed
to keep such a system going is energy in the form of light.

Technology is advanced enough for colonization


BBC News, 03, (Helen Briggs, BBC News Online Science Reporter) 8/19/03,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3161695.stm
According to Bernard Foing of the European Space Agency, the technology will soon exist to set up an
outpost for visiting astronauts. However, political will is needed to inspire the public to support the
initiative. "We believe that technologically it's possible," the project scientist on Europe's first Moon
mission, Smart-1, told BBC News Online. "But it will depend in the end on the political will to go and
establish a human base for preparing for colonisation of the Moon or to be used as a refuge for the
human species."

Technology could make Mars livable for humans


Walker 07 (Frank, February 11, The Sun Herald (Australia), “What's bad for us is good for Mars;
Discovery,” L/N)
Pollution might be damaging the Earth's atmosphere, but some scientists say man-made pollution could
create a new liveable atmosphere on Mars. "Global warming is proof that man can change entire
atmospheres," Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin said from Denver last week. "It is ironic but we can use
the technology that damaged our own climate to bring life to a dead world." Zubrin, an astronautical
engineer, has long argued for the colonisation of Mars, but only now are scientists focusing on making
it a reality. Landing the first human on Mars has become the prize in a new space race. The US is
working on a manned mission by 2030, and the European Space Agency is planning to get a European
there by 2035. Russia topped them by declaring they could get to Mars by 2015, while China is also in
the space race. Zubrin argues that "terraforming" Mars - transforming the planet to make it similar
to Earth - could one day save the human race. It could be done, but it would take 1000 years, he said. Stage one would be the
release of frozen carbon dioxide trapped in Martian soil and in ice at the poles. "Let's move forward 100 years in time when there are substantial settlements
on Mars in small enclosed habitats," Zubrin said. "To heat up the planet they create a greenhouse effect by building giant factories producing
carbontetraflouride (CF4). It is a superstrong greenhouse gas that does not attack the ozone layer. "After 30 years this will raise temperatures by 10 degrees.
Carbon dioxide frozen in the soil is released into the air. After 50 years the atmospheric pressure rises from the current eight millibars to 100 millibars - 1/10
that of Earth." Stage two would come after 100 years, when the atmosphere would be up to 200 millibars, but nearly all carbon dioxide. The poles would
melt. Martian residents could go outside without a spacesuit but with an oxygen mask. Stage three would take 1000 years - which is how long it would take
plants to create an atmosphere fit for humans - but Zubrin said scientific advances could make it happen within 200 years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 17
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Mars Uninhabitable
Water and oxygen on Mars make it inhabitable
Hoversten, 2000, (Paul Hoversten, Washington Bureau Chief) 6/22/00,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_futurist_000622.html
Finding water on Mars could burst open the floodgates to a new era of exploration on the planet, fueling the drive for eventual human
colonies. Futurists and far-thinkers say that if water is found to exist in sizable quantities, it someday could lead to everything from fuel
farms and filling stations for rockets to shower stalls for astronauts. [quote] "It opens up enormous potential," said Pat Dasch, executive
director of the National Space Society, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "Going to Mars is like a camping trip, so it's the
difference between having to pack everything in with you or finding gas tanks and showers when you get there. It could make
establishing a human presence on Mars a lot easier," she said. Water -- the source of life Water is about the most valuable
resource Mars has because it can sustain life. "Gold is not going to do you much good on Mars. You can't
live off that," said Wes Huntress, director of the Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of
Washington. "But you can live off water and you can use it to grow food. It makes the planet habitable."
Living off the land is crucial because it would allow humans to stay for long periods on Mars. "Once you
can live off the land you can explore the planet like we did in the [American] West 150 or 200 years ago," Huntress said. Scientists
believe trace amounts of water already exist on Mars beneath patches of permafrost at the planet's poles. But if Mars once had lakes or
rivers on its surface, as research suggests, the water retreated long ago. Until now, it seems. Human missions to the Red
Planet Researchers at last appear to have a good fix on where some of Mars' water is working its way
back to the surface. And that has far-reaching implications for both robotic and human missions to the Red Planet. Because of its
chemical components hydrogen and oxygen, water is "a significant resource for exploration at the planet," said John Niehoff, a
planetary-program planner at SAIC (Science Applications International Corp.) in Schaumburg, Illinois. Mars already has plenty
of oxygen in its carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. But hydrogen is exceedingly rare. "Hydrogen is a key resource in the
development of fuels for all kinds of purposes. You could run surface [power] systems or fuel launch vehicles or create fuel-cell storage
devices to manage your electricity," Niehoff said. "We've always been assuming we'd have to bring the hydrogen with us. But with it
there, in the form of water, we can go with the equipment and have a power supply. That is a tremendous leverage."

Mars can be colonized


Hiscox 08- “Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,” http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last
modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A. Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at
Birmingham
From the perspective of biology, planetary engineering is the ability to alter the environment of a planet so
that terrestrial organisms can survive and grow (McKay, 1982). The feasibility of altering planetary
environments is clearly demonstrated by mankind's activities on the Earth (Levine, 1991; Fogg, 1995a) and it
is increasingly apparent that in the near term future mankind will gain the technological capability to
engineer the climate of Mars. Current thought experiments/proposals for the planetary engineering of Mars differ in their
methodology, technical requirements, practicality, goals and environmental impact (reviewed and discussed by Fogg, 1995b). The
planetary engineering of Mars may be divided into two distinct mechanistic steps, ecopoiesis followed by
terraforming. Ecopoiesis, a term derived by Haynes (1990) which, when applied to Mars, can be viewed as the creation
of a self-regulating anaerobic biosphere. On the other hand, terraforming refers to the creation of a human
habitable climate (discussed in Fogg 1995b).

Mars has everything needed to live


Hiscox 08- “Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,” http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last
modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A. Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at
Birmingham
A number of compounds and elements are absolutely required for life; liquid water, the so called
CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous and sulfur) are the main elements which
constitute amino acids (which make up proteins) and nucleotides (which make up DNA and RNA) and various
minerals are also required. All of these elements/compounds are believed to be present on Mars (Banin
and Mancinelli, 1995). The amount and location of these resources on Mars is briefly reviewed below. For a
more in depth reviews refer to Fogg (1995b,c); Meyer and McKay, 1989, 1991a; and Banin and Mancincelli (1995).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 18
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Not Enough Water


Enough water to colonize
Hiscox 08- (“Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A.
Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham)
Water. Currently, the surface of Mars is devoid of liquid water and the atmosphere only contains minute
amounts of water vapor (Table 1)(Carr, 1987). The two main sources of remaining water on Mars are thought to
be the north polar cap and the regolith. The quantity of water on Mars is uncertain, and estimates range in order of
magnitudes, equivalent to a layer of water over the planet 13 meters (m) to 100 m (Squyres and Carr, 1986). The north polar cap is
composed mainly of water ice (Kieffer et al. 1976). The equatorial regions of Mars appear to be ice poor whereas the heavily
cratered terrain pole-ward of ± 30° latitude appears to be ice rich (Squyres and Carr, 1986), with perhaps a conservative estimate of the
equivalent of 17 m of ice spread over the surface of Mars (Jankowski and Squyres, 1993). How much liquid water would be
necessary, or indeed liberated by either ecopoiesis and/or terraforming has not been determined.
However, based on current data, a detailed model for the hydrological cycle on Mars has been proposed
(Clifford, 1993) and perhaps this could be adapted for modeling the hydrological cycle during ecopoiesis/terraforming. Mars will probably
never be a wet planet as it might have been in the past (Carr, 1986; 1987), although the view that Mars was "warm and wet" is uncertain and
perhaps "cold and icy" may be more appropriate (Kasting, 1991; Squyres and Kasting, 1994). However, there will probably be
sufficient water for some type of a biosphere to be established. For certain, the water requirement for ecopoiesis will be
several orders of magnitude less than that for a terraformed biosphere. Ultimately, it may be possible to import water onto
Mars, for example by the redirection of ice asteroids into the Martian atmosphere to release their volatile
components (see Fogg, 1995b). However, although such proposition might be technically feasible, the number of asteroids needed to be
diverted is very large.

New sources of water found on Mars


Martin 08 – (http://www.marssociety.org/portal/Members/schnarff/PhoenixCaseForWater/ Susan Holden Martin is a member of The Mars
Society and provides editorial and administrative support. She is a former Director of The Mars Foundation, and currently serves as Operations
Officer. Ms. Martin has a B.A. in American Studies (magna cum laude, 2000) and a MBA in Human Resources Management (2007) from
Franklin Pierce University. Last modified 2008-06-30 13:58)
NASA announced recently that the Phoenix lander, launched on a mission to the northern polar region of
the Red Planet in August 2007, had detected water ice during the first of many chemical analyses planned
during the three month mission. In addition, initial mineralogy experiments have revealed a striking
similarity between Martian soil and the soil found in the Antarctic region of Earth. The significance of
these findings cannot be overstated. Liquid water and chemical energy are essential for life, and in the
presence of these two, as Dr. Wesley Huntress once remarked: "Life may be a cosmic imperative." As
ancient life on Mars would have required a source of water, water alone is not enough to establish habitability. But together, water
and Martian soil that is conducive to the growth of organisms, are important clues to the ability to
construct and establish viable human settlements on Mars. There will be an update on the Phoenix mission from
members of the Phoenix science team at the 11th Annual International Convention in Boulder this August 14-17, and a presentation on the
Mars impact findings recently released by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Colonization on Mars solves water shortages


David, Senior Space Writer, 2005 (Leonard, “Space Colonization: The Quiet Revolution”, February 23,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_colonization_050223.html)
Water availability on Mars is another huge plus. There is abundant evidence of past water activity on
Mars. It should be present in permafrost at higher latitudes on the planet. It may also be present in
hydrated minerals, McCullough stated. "The availability of water on Mars in significant quantities
would once again simplify our projected industrial activities. This makes extensive bases leading to
colonies more likely," McCullough concluded.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 19
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Not Enough CO2


Enough CO2 to colonize
Hiscox 08- “Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A.
Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham
Carbon. On first inspection the two main sources of "trapped" carbon dioxide are as a solid in the polar
caps and adsorbed in the regolith. These sources are thought to exchange between 10 and 100 times the
current atmospheric pressure of CO2 via the atmosphere and are thus thought to regulate climate change
on Mars (Fanale et al. 1982). The permanent cap at the south pole is thought to contain at the most around 10 mbar of CO2 (Fanale and
Cannon, 1979) (however this figure is uncertain). Due to the uncertainty in the extent of the Martian regolith, the total mineral surface area
exposed to the Martian atmosphere is not known. However, laboratory simulations of the simultaneous adsorption of H2O and CO2 (Zent
and Quinn, 1995), where palagonite is used as an analogue of the Martian regolith (Zent et al. 1987), would appear to confirm that the
current absorbed inventory of CO2 is 30-40 mbar. An even greater source of CO2 may be combined in the form of
carbonate. Carbonates would have been formed by CO2, present in the early Martian atmosphere,
dissolving in water and combining with cations such as Ca2+, Fe2+ and Mg2+ and subsequent precipitates forming carbonates
(refer to McKay and Nedell, 1988 and references there in). Warren (1987) suggests that the regolith's low Ca/Si ratio is due to the fact that
Ca was removed from the regolith as calcium carbonate. Warren (1987) estimates that perhaps a global shell 20m thick would suffice to
remove 1000 mbar of CO2 from the Martian atmosphere. Whether this amount of carbonate is present is not known. However, the layered
deposits observed in the Valles Marineris (Nedell et al. 1987) (believed to be an ancient water system) are thought to be derived from the
precipitation of 30 mbar of atmospheric CO2 as carbonate in lakes (McKay and Nedell, 1988).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 20
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Not Enough Minerals


Enough minerals to colonize
Hiscox 08- “Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A.
Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham
Minerals. Minerals are also essential for biological process, for example as co-factors in enzyme catalyzed
reactions and components of vitamins. All of the elements necessary to support terrestrial life are thought
to be present on Mars, although as with the CHNOPS elements their concentration compared to Earth are either slightly higher,
lower or the same (Banin and Mancinelli, 1995). Mineral deposits, carbonates and nitrates etc. may be located in
ancient evaporate basins (Forsythe and Zimbelman, 1995) and given suitable locations, i.e. at equatorial latitudes (maximum
surface temperature), low point (maximum atmospheric pressure), these may be ideal areas for establishing pioneer
ecosystems. Indeed, locations where ancient Martian life may have flourished would contain subsurface
organics that have been buried sufficiently deep enough to be protected from oxidation (Zent and McKay,
1994). However, as mentioned above, depending on their depth, these deposits may remain in deep freeze and thus inaccessible for a long
periods of time. Locations for ancient Martian life include old oceans along northern planes (Helfer, 1990), ancient ice-covered lakes (Scott
et al. 1991; Andersen et al. 1995) and evaporites (Rothschild, 1990). Therefore, site selection to establish these ecosystems may closely
resemble site selection for Martian exobiology (Rothschild, 1990; Farmer et al. 1995).
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 21
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Radiation/UV
Space radiation is not fatal
BBC News, 03, Richard Black, BBC Science Correspondent) 10/9/03,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3302375.stm, date accessed 7/13/08
Instrument data show radiation around the Red Planet might cause some health problems but is unlikely
to be fatal. Mars Odyssey has sent back a wealth of information about Earth's neighbour since it went into orbit two years ago. The
new research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. Radiation risk On Earth, we
are protected from the worst cosmic radiation. The Earth's magnetic field acts like a shield, diverting radiation away. But for astronauts
on the Martian surface - or travelling between Earth and Mars - there is no such protection. Nasa scientists have been measuring
radiation around Mars with an instrument on board the Mars Odyssey orbiting probe. According to Cary Zeitlin, from the
National Space Biomedical Research Institute, it has found that astronauts on the Red Planet would be exposed to
roughly double the radiation dose they currently experience on the International Space Station. "The dose [an] astronaut would receive
on a Mars mission is large enough to be beyond what they've experienced in Earth orbit," he told BBC News Online. "Therefore it
opens some questions about the biological effects of this radiation that we haven't really fully addressed yet." Martian bunkers He
continued: "People are going to the space station for about six months. "A Mars mission would last around three years. And it's the
duration of the exposure that becomes the issue; it's also the fact that the radiation is quite exotic. "It's galactic cosmic radiation. It
comes from all over the galaxy. We call it heavy ion radiation." This radiation could perhaps lead to more cancers, more cataracts and
nervous system damage. But overall, Dr Zeitlin says, it is manageable - humans could go on Mars missions
relatively safely. They would need to use the planet itself to shield them, building their shelters in
hollows, and perhaps taking materials which would reduce radiation further.

CO2 can create a sufficient ozone layer


Hiscox 08- “Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A.
Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham
Ozone. One of the main functions of initial planetary engineering would be to increase the ozone layer
thus providing shielding of organisms from UV-radiation (Hiscox and Lindner, 1996). Based on O3
estimates in a Precambrian atmosphere, the minimum ozone column being tolerable by unprotected bacteria
would fall between 1x1018 and 4x1018 cm2 depending on the bacterial species being considered (Francois and
Gerard, 1988). Fortuitously, oxygen is not required to generate an ozone layer, instead the
photodissociation of CO2 might be used to generate sufficient ozone to provide an ozone layer (Hiscox
and Lindner, 1996). Such a scenario may be self-regulating (Figure 2).

CO2 can create a sufficient ozone layer


Hiscox 08- “Biology and the Planetary Engineering of Mars,”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html - Last modified Sunday, July 13, 2008. Julian A.
Hiscox BSc, UCL; PhD, Department of Microbiology, Professor at University of Alabama at Birmingham
Therefore a planetary engineering mechanism that can create such a dust storm would be useful in
providing additional protection to organisms by reducing the amount of UV-radiation reaching the
surface. First by providing direct shielding against UV-radiation and second by inducing localised
increases in the production of ozone, thus restoring an ozone layer. One mechanism to generate a global
dust storm may be heating of the polar regions with space based sunlight reflectors (Zubrin and McKay,
1993) (abbreviated to SBR). Similar to what occurs on Mars at the moment, the asymmetric heating of one
pole would cause a pressure differential i.e. wind, and this would carry dust. However, if the polar reserves
of carbon dioxide and water are liberated early in planetary engineering then an alternative mechanism is
required. Such a mechanism could be the heating of a near by dusty area on Mars by a SBR (Hiscox and
Lindner, 1996). This may cause a localised dust storm which would provide local UV-radiation coverage by
plugging the nearby ozone hole. Satellites could be used to monitor atmospheric ozone abundances and warn of
impending ozone "holes".
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 22
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT No Launch Capabilities
New colonizing spaceship has the necessary launch capabilities
Popular Mechanics 07, (“Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back — and Stay This
Time” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4212906.html, July 13, 2008)
Scott Horowitz, NASA's associate administrator for Exploration Systems, defends the agency's approach.
"Sure, we'd love to have antimatter warp drive," he says. "But I suspect that would be kind of expensive.
Unfortunately, we just don't have the money for huge technological breakthroughs. We've got to do the best
we can within our constraints of performance, cost and schedule." The result, as NASA boss Michael
Griffin puts it, is "Apollo on steroids" — a new-and-improved version of what was, as even critics must
acknowledge, mankind's greatest technological feat. Recently dubbed Orion, the CEV will share
Apollo's conical form, but be one and a half times as wide (16.5 ft.) and have more than double the
habitable internal volume (361 cu. ft.), allowing it to carry six astronauts to the space station and four
to the moon. Orion also will boast a number of new tricks, such as hands-off autodocking and the
ability to autonomously loiter in lunar orbit for up to six months. Its dual-fault tolerant avionics, based
on those of the Boeing 787, will be able to sustain two computer failures and still return the vehicle to
Earth. The avionics also will have open architecture, which means they can be easily updated and
modified.

Colonizing Rocket safer than Space Shuttle


Popular Mechanics 07, (“Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back — and Stay This
Time” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4212906.html, July 13, 2008)
Shuttle astronauts have virtually no possibility of escaping a failing vehicle. They literally bet their
lives that nothing will go wrong during launch. In addition to placing Orion at the top of the rocket
and away from falling debris, NASA's return to a vertical "stack" architecture permits a launch abort
system (LAS) that can blast the capsule to safety. According to the agency, this capability will make
Orion 10 times safer than the shuttle. Orion's LAS, which fits like a glove over the top of the capsule, is
being designed for the spacecraft's two most critical failure modes: liftoff and at "max-Q," the point of
maximum aerodynamic pressure, which occurs about 1 minute after liftoff at Mach 2 and 70,000 ft.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 23
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT No Impact—Earth Resilient
Many scenarios for the Earth’s death
Britt 00 (Freeze, Fry or Dry: How Long Has the Earth Got? By Robert Roy Britt Senior ScienceWriter posted:
09:45 am ET 25 February 2000, Space,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/death_of_earth_000224.html)
Before Earth's oceans ever have a chance to freeze or fry, they might have already dried up and
evaporated into space, said James Kasting, a Penn State professor of meteorology and geosciences. Kasting
estimates his version of the end is a mere 1 billion years away. "The sun is getting brighter with time
and that affects the Earth's climate," Kasting said. "Eventually temperatures will become high enough
so that the oceans evaporate." And, Kasting said, a cataclysmic finale may come even sooner. As Earth
becomes a global desert, carbon dioxide levels are expected to drop. At a certain level, which he and his
colleagues say might be achieved in half a billion years, there would not be enough carbon dioxide to
support photosynthesis, and most plants would die. Remaining plants would not be sufficient to
support a biosphere, Kasting contends. So while the entire planet might incinerated in a few billion
years, or cast off into a deep freeze, it's possible that life on Earth is already in the sunset years. "If we
calculated correctly, Earth has been habitable for 4.5 billion years and only has a half-billion years
left," Kasting said.

The Earth will explode


NJU 01 (Global Warming: Can Earth EXPLODE? June 2001 new scientific journal NUJournal.net,
http://bioresonant.com/news.htm)
Polar ice caps melt not because the air there is warmer than 0 deg Celsius, but because they are
overheated from underneath. Volcanoes become active and erupt violently not because the Earth's interior
"crystallizes", but because the planetary nucleus is a nuclear fission reactor that needs COOLING. It seems
that the currently adopted doctrine of a "crystalline inner core of Earth" is more dangerous for humanity than all weapons of
mass destruction taken together, because it prevents us from imagining, predicting and preventing truly global disasters. In any
nuclear reactor, the danger of overheating has to be recognized early. When external symptoms
intensify it is usually too late to prevent disaster. Do we have enough imagination, intelligence and integrity to
comprehend the danger before the situation becomes irreversible? It seems that if we do not do anything today
about Greenhouse Emissions that cause the entire atmosphere to trap more Solar Heat, we may not
survive the next decade. In a systematically under-cooled spherical core reactor the cumulative cause-effect relationship is
hyperbolic and leads to explosion. It seems that there will be no second chance...
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 24
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT No Asteroids
Asteroid may hit the earth, killing millions
CNN 03 (Tuesday, September 2, 2003 Posted: 11:38 AM EDT, Giant asteroid could hit Earth in 2014,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/09/02/asteroid.reut/index.html, CNN)
Asteroid "2003 QQ47" will be closely monitored over the next two months. Its potential strike date is
March 21, 2014, but astronomers say that any risk of impact is likely to decrease as further data is
gathered. On impact, it could have the effect of 20 million Hiroshima atomic bombs, a spokesman for
the British government's Near Earth Object Information Centre told BBC radio.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 25
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT No Food in Space
( ) Space food production possible
The Irish Times, 08 (July 10, “Food for thought on mission to Mars”, Marina Murphy, L/N, accessed on
7/14/08)
Michelle Bennett is an aspiring astronaut but is also conducting research for Nasa on the use of bog
plants for food production on a mission to Mars 'BOG PLANTS! That's how I got into Nasa," says
Michelle Bennett, currently head of the Department of Applied Science at the Limerick Institute of
Technology. "It was a pure fluke. I left samples in airtight containers in my father's garage and forgot about
them. When I found them again a year later, they had changed but they were still alive. "The question then
was, what would happen if we put them in an enclosed container in space. That's when I came up with the
idea of using them in enclosed life systems used in space flight, the International Space Station and
planet colonisation models," she says. Now it looks like these humble mosses could soon be doing for astronauts
what they have long been doing for Ireland's bogs - keeping them fed and watered. Sphagnum mosses are what make a
bog a bog. Without them, there would be no bogs. They form a living skin that covers a floating mass of partially rotten
plant material that can be several metres deep. When the moss dies, it becomes part of this under layer. The living moss is
capable of absorbing up to 20 times its own weight in water. This water is used to support a world of microscopic plants
and animals, which in turn provide food for all the organisms living in the bog, from midges to frogs. Providing enough
food, water and oxygen for those humans brave enough to consider long-duration space flight, on the other hand, is not so
easy. Previously, spacecraft life-support systems were designed for short missions and relied on stored sources of water,
food, and oxygen. On longer missions, however, storing the necessaries would not be economically or logistically
feasible. Therefore, designing new technology to cultivate crops in space is vital to human exploration of
the Moon and Mars, which is where Bennett and her bog plants come in. "What I discovered that day in my
father's garage was an absolutely new, accidental discovery. Not only were the plants still alive but they had
survived in a closed system without the normal requirements for growth found on the bog." Since then,
Bennett, who hails from Clara, Co Offaly, has been working with scientists at Nasa to discover how the
unusual qualities of sphagnum mosses might be used in space. "Sphagnum mosses have really proved to
be perfect for space flight," Bennett says. They are a perfect growth medium for plants, are slightly
antimicrobial and can also be used for waste treatment. "They are natural filters. The nutrients in urine,
for example, can be filtered out to feed the plant." Tests using the mosses have been a great success.
Lettuce was grown in sphagnum according to Nasa test conditions. Four of five planting trays used
sphagnum as a growth medium. An artificial urine was used as a food source in two trays and two trays were
supplied with a standard nutrient solution. The remaining tray acted as a control using standard Nasa growth
medium and standard nutrient solution. "The results were very exciting. It was the first time lettuce has been
grown in such a system using urine to produce a healthy crop," says Bennett. And it is very likely that these
mosses will make it into space. "Research is under way for the development of a flight test for sphagnum,"
Bennett says. But she is not giving away any secrets. When asked about the species of sphagnum, she said:
"Can't say." In other work, Bennett is looking at how nutraceutical levels might be increased in crops
likely to be grown in space, like lettuce, peppers, radishes and onions. "This would enrich astronauts
diets and strengthen their immune systems," she says.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 26
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Cosmic Radiation
Design can overcome radiation
Choi 08 (Charles Q., Study: Radiation Would Kill Astronauts Before They Got to Mars, April 2,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344491,00.html)
When it comes to shielding astronauts from radiation, spacecraft designers and mission planners have
to consider trading off a safe amount of protective material — say, high density plastic — with cutting
weight in order to enter space practically. Crafts that are too heavy simply can't carry enough fuel to
make flight practical. Further research could not only look into better shielding materials, but also
spacecraft designs that put electronics and machinery in the periphery between astronauts and harm's
way. "Lava tubes on the moon might also be useful as habitats from a shielding point of view,"
Schimmerling said. "I don't know how realistic the idea is, but they would have the advantage of reduced
exposure to radiation."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 27
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

__________
**Space Bad
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 28
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Fails
Space colonization too expensive to be feasible
NASA 05 (Al Globus and Bryan Yager, September 22, “Space Settlement Basics,”
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html#who)
Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and
operate. For example, the current (2004) cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20
million. To enable large scale space tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-
$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude. Space tourism has launch requirements similar to space
settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in manufacturing technology my be necessary to enable
space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-$14,000 per pound for operational
vehicles.

Space colonization has too much risk


Zimmerman 2000, “PREDICTING SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION AND
COLONIZATION” 2/24/00, Carl Zimmerman, techno-marketing writer in the U.S. for a major global
manufacturer of animal nutrition and health products, B.S. degree in chemistry and M.B.A. in marketing,
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/101_fun_stuff/32939/latest/2
We can't afford failure This imaginary dialogue depicts the direction that the U.S. and many other developed countries are taking
today--space exploration and colonization. Currently, the main goal is to develop new technologies that will improve the quality of life
on Earth, but as the dialogue suggests, the colonists may "fall in love" with living on other planets. This will especially happen if the
cost of solving major problems, such as ecological disasters, on Earth becomes prohibitive. Models which predict the innovations that
are likely to succeed will improve the quality of life on Earth as well as for our colonists on distant planets. In some previous
innovations, such the airplane, the consequences of early failure were limited (e.g., a biplane crashing
on the side of a barn). For innovations needed for space exploration and colonization, the costs of
failure would be enormous, including, for example, ecological disasters during testing on Earth and
destruction of entire colonies on other planets.

Humans will go extinct before colonizing the galaxy


Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, 08 (“The dread planet Why
finding fossils on Mars would be extremely bad news for humanity,” p. lexis, May 25, accessed on July 13,
2008)
There are planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Any intelligent species on those planets would have had ample time to
recover from repeated social or ecological collapses. Even if they failed a thousand times before they succeeded, they could still have
arrived here hundreds of millions of years ago. Obviously, we must hope that the Great Filter is behind us rather than ahead of us. If the
Great Filter is ahead us, we have still to confront it. The kind of risk we are talking about here is called an
"existential risk" - one that would either cause the extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or
destroy its potential for future development. It could be a war fought with powerful future weapons; badly programmed
super intelligent machines; even a high-energy physics experiment gone awry. If it is true that almost all intelligent species
go extinct before they master the technology for space colonization, then we must expect that our own
species too will go extinct before reaching technological maturity - we have no reason to think that we will be any
luckier than most other species at our stage of development. If the Great Filter is ahead of us, we must relinquish all
hope of ever colonizing the galaxy, and we must fear that our adventure will end soon, or at any rate
that it will end prematurely.

Space Colonization is an impossible dream


Stross, science fiction writer, 07 (“The High Frontier, Redux” http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html, June, 16, accessed on July 14, 2008
This is not to say that interstellar travel is impossible; quite the contrary. But to do so effectively you
need either (a) outrageous amounts of cheap energy, or (b) highly efficient robot probes, or (c) a magic
wand. And in the absence of (c) you're not going to get any news back from the other end in less than
decades. Even if (a) is achievable, or by means of (b) we can send self-replicating factories and have
them turn distant solar systems into hives of industry, and more speculatively find some way to
transmit human beings there, they are going to have zero net economic impact on our circumstances
(except insofar as sending them out costs us money). What do I mean by outrageous amounts of cheap energy?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 29
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Fails—Oxygen
Humans cannot survive in space due to lack of oxygen
Spencer, space historian, 97 (“How Long Can a Human Live Unprotected”
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html, June 3, accessed on July 14, 2008)
How long can a human live unprotected in space? If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to
space for half a minute of so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to
damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum
trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm
-- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not
boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness. Various minor problems (sunburn,
possibly "the bends", certainly some [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue) start
after 10 seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate.
After perhaps one or two minutes you're dying. The limits are not really known.

Living in space is impossible for humans


HowStuffWorks, 00, (“How long can a human survive in outer space?
http://science.howstuffwrorks.com/question540.htm ”, December 22, accessed on July 14, 2008)
Outer space is an extremely hostile place. If you were to step outside a spacecraft, such as the International
Space Station, or on a world with little or no atmosphere such as the moon or Mars without the protection of
a space suit, then the following things would happen: You would lose consciousness because there is no
oxygen. This could occur in as little as 15 seconds. Because there is no air pressure to keep your blood
and body fluids in a liquid state, the fluids would "boil." Because the "boiling process" would cause
them to lose heat energy rapidly, the fluids would freeze before they were evaporated totally (There is a
cool display in San Francisco's science museum, The Exploratorium, that demonstrates this principle!). This
process could take from 30 seconds to 1 minute. So, it was possible for astronaut David Bowman in "2001:
A Space Odyssey" to survive when he ejected from the space pod into the airlock without a space helmet and
repressurized the airlock within 30 seconds. Your tissues (skin, heart, other internal organs) would expand
because of the boiling fluids. However, they would not "explode" as depicted in some science fiction
movies, such as "Total Recall." You would face extreme changes in temperature sunlight - 248 degrees
Fahrenheit or 120 degrees Celsius shade - minus 148 degrees Fahrenheit or minus 100 degrees Celsius You
would be exposed to various types of radiation (cosmic rays) or charged particles emitted from the sun (solar
wind). You could be hit by small particles of dust or rock that move at high speeds (micrometeoroids) or
orbiting debris from satellites or spacecraft. You would die quickly because of the first three things listed,
probably in less than one minute. The movie "Mission to Mars" has a scene that realistically demonstrates
what would happen if an astronaut's space suit were to rapidly lose pressure and be exposed to outer space.
So to protect astronauts, NASA has developed elaborate space suits.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 30
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Fails—Launch Capabilities

Current NASA rockets don’t have the launch capabilities necessary


MoonToday.net 06, (“CBO Report: Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch
Capabilities”, http://www.moontoday.net/news/viewsr.html?pid=22323, July 14, 2008)
The proposed return to the moon called for under the VSE and now planned by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) could require the development of the capacity to
launch payloads weighing more than 100 metric tons (mt). No launch vehicles currently exist that can
handle payloads weighing more than about 25 mt. Thus, NASA's plans for manned space flight beyond
low earth orbit (LEO) could require a significant increase in launch capability. How that capability
could be provided and at what cost is the primary focus of this study. In considering manned lunar missions,
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explored alternatives that would use existing launch vehicles; those
that would require minor modifications to the designs of existing launchers (termed "close derivatives"); as
well as those that would call for major modifications to existing vehicle designs to develop essentially new
and much more capable launchers.

A Space Settlement Mission would require capabilities we don’t have now.


European Space Agency 04, (“Exploring Space”,
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAEMZPV16D_exploration_0.html, July 14, 2008)
To undertake such a mission will require tremendous efforts of organisation, logistics and
technological development. How will the astronauts survive for such a long period in an unfriendly
environment? What will they eat, what will they drink and more important still, how much can we recycle
or produce on Mars itself? Not least of the problems will be learning to cope with the psychological
pressure and stress of living in a confined space, for a long period of time, with a small number of
colleagues. Research and simulation on the ground, as well as experience gained from working on the ISS,
will all help to meet and overcome these difficulties.

Current Colonizing Ship Impossible to assemble


Popular Mechanics 07, (“Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back — and Stay This
Time” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4212906.html, July 13, 2008)
Although the CEV concept has been percolating for well over a year, the real design work — putting
detailed flesh on NASA's basic frame — is only just beginning at the agency and at Lockheed Martin,
NASA's prime contractor. Engineers face a bewildering array of decisions, a complex matrix of
tradeoffs among cost, weight, time, safety and mission. "We're struggling mightily to figure out the
ramifications of all these requirements," says Bill Johns, Lockheed Martin's chief engineer for Orion. "It's
a huge coordination problem that keeps me awake at night."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 31
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Fails—Tech

Better Tech needed for us to reach Mars and beyond


Popular Mechanics 07, (“Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back — and Stay This
Time” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4212906.html, July 13, 2008)
Not long after the inaugural launch of Endeavour (the fifth and final shuttle) in 1992, NASA began
contemplating a new generation of manned spacecraft. The agency selected Lockheed Martin to design the
X-33 single-stage-to-orbit space plane in 1996; it was abandoned five years later because of technical
difficulties. The agency then considered the less ambitious Orbital Space Plane, or OSP. But the second
shuttle disaster, the loss of Columbia in 2003, forced NASA to rethink its entire manned space program. It
dropped the OSP and suggested another concept: the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). After
reviewing an initial round of proposals, NASA announced the basic design parameters in September 2005.
Many space buffs were disappointed. Instead of Lockheed Martin's proposal for a sleek, high-tech space
plane, first previewed in PM's June 2005 issue, the agency decided to build its new spacecraft with off-
the-shelf technology. The squat "spam-in-the-can" capsule that NASA unveiled was at first glance a
dead ringer for the 1960s-era Apollo spacecraft. Even the launch vehicles were to be pieced together
using warmed-over components from both the current shuttle and the Apollo-era Saturn boosters. By
relying on existing technology, the design would allow for more efficient construction, narrowing the gap
between the shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the next manned flight. But it also stirred a hot debate within the
aerospace community. "NASA's attitude seems to be that Apollo worked, so let's just redo Apollo," says
Charles Lurio, a Boston space consultant. Burt Rutan, the mastermind behind the rocket SpaceShipOne,
likened the new CEV to an archeological dig. "To get to Mars and the moons of Saturn, we need
breakthroughs. But the way NASA's doing it, we won't be learning anything new."
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 32
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Fails—Debris
Space Debris Poses Threat to Colonization
Peter Spinks August 12, 2007 (The Age Newspaper L/N search: Spaced Out with Junk,
Accessed July 14, 2008)
Space campers, when not engaging in rocket science, cannot resist glancing up at the sky. The atmosphere
might be polluted, they reason, but some imagine the void that lies beyond is really empty and clean.
Well, is it? Not really. Some failed spacecraft, redundant satellites and spent booster rockets end up
back on Earth. But the fragmented remains of others are collecting like interplanetary flotsam and jetsam
in the space surrounding our beautiful but defiled planet. The man-made debris poses a heightened
threat to spacecraft, as well as to future attempts to colonise the moon or Mars. Unless Russian,
American and European space pioneers - who between them launch more than 100 spacecraft every year -
find ways to stop the pollution and perhaps start a clean-up, humans may one day not be able to navigate
their way safely beyond Earth's atmosphere. As you read this edition of All About Science, thousands of
sizeable pieces of junk are hurtling around the Earth at thousands of kilometres an hour. They are
accompanied by hundreds of thousands of pieces of space shrapnel smaller than a tennis ball, some
with the potential to penetrate or even wreck a spacecraft.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 33
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Colonization Bad—Cosmic Radiation


Cosmic rays deadly with current technology
Reuters 08 (Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Space Rays Keeping Us From Mars, April 1, p.1,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN3139657820080401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are
unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts,
experts said on Monday. And NASA is not properly funding the right experiments to find out how, the
National Research Council committee said. "One of the big issues is they have really cut funding for biology
issues," retired space shuttle astronaut James van Hoften, who chaired the committee, said in a telephone
interview. "It is tough on them when they don't have any new money coming in. They are using old data," he
added -- including research done on survivors of the nuclear bombings of Japan during World War Two.
"Given today's knowledge and today's understanding of radiation protection, to put someone out in
that type of environment would violate the current requirements that NASA has."

Cosmic radiation creates long-term health consequences


Reuters 08 (Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Space Rays Keeping Us From Mars, April 1, p.2,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN3139657820080401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)
The cosmic rays include galactic cosmic radiation or GCR and solar particles. "You can put on very
thick walls and they just won't protect you from that," van Hoften said. "The younger you are the worse
it is," he added, because as with many types of radiation, it can take years for the damage to cause
disease.

Current solutions are impractical


Reuters 08 (Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Space Rays Keeping Us From Mars, April 1, p.2-3,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN3139657820080401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)
Ejections of dangerous particles from the sun can be forecast, but astronauts must hide in specially
shielded areas of shuttles or space stations and may miss important tasks, the committee said. Adding
more shielding can make spacecraft too heavy and is too expensive, added the report from the council,
one of the independent National Academies of Science that advises the federal government.

Unknown health risks cannot be ignored


Reuters 08 (Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor, Space Rays Keeping Us From Mars, April 1, p.3,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN3139657820080401?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)
The report, commissioned by NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, said the radiation poses
cancer and other health risks for years after astronauts return to Earth. "The committee finds that lack
of knowledge about the biological effects of and responses to space radiation is the single most
important factor limiting prediction of radiation risk associated with human space exploration," the
report reads.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 34
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Bad—War
Space wars inevitable
The Northern Echo, 07 (January 24, “BETRAYED AND DECEIVED”, Harry Mead, L/N, accessed on
7/14/08)
ONE day, probably not too far off now, there will be war in space. It's inevitable. We fight on land, we
fight on and under the sea. We fight in the air - a relatively new form of combat. The pioneers of flight did
not have fighting in mind. But we soon got round to it and now take it for granted. Given our manic desire
to kill each other, it is too much to expect that the conquest of space will be any different. And once
colonisation of other planets begins, we will fight there. Which is why, paradoxically, I take a little
comfort from China's destruction of a redundant satellite by a rocket. Hopefully, more of the same will
quickly fill space with so much debris that it pins us down here on earth. We are not fit to take our
destructive way of life elsewhere.

Space wars inevitable, WMDs a likelihood


The Herald, 06 (Glasglow, December 14, “Blast off in battle for control of the final frontier”, Harry Reid, L/N,
accessed on 7/14/08)
AN ANNIVERSARY we shall be celebrating next year will be that of the launch by the Russians of the first Sputnik satellite in October
1957. The tiny satellite successfully orbited our planet, and the space age began. This was as much a propaganda coup as a scientific
breakthrough. The reactions in the UK and the US were very different. In the UK there was a generalised admiration for the Soviet
achievement. There was respect for the Russians, and a sense that they had pulled one over the Americans. Those on the far left, the
fellow travellers, regarded the Sputnik mission as proof that the communists were well ahead when it came to the technologies of the
future. In the US, and Washington in particular, the reaction was one of panic. The president, Dwight Eisenhower, was an indolent
military man who preferred golfing and quail shooting to the hard work of politics. He tried to react calmly to the Soviet triumph, but his
opponents ensured that was not an option. The frenzy increased when the Soviets had the gall to send up a second Sputnik a month later.
This was a much bigger satellite, weighing more than 1100lbs. But what seized the world's imagination was that inside it there was a
sentient being, a dog called Laika. The Democrat Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the most consummate politician the US has ever produced,
seized the moment. "How long, oh God, how long will it take us to catch up with the Russians' two satellites?" he asked with a well-
honed sense of melodrama. Early in 1958 Johnson told his fellow Democrats that a powerful US space programme was imperative.
"Control of space means control of the world, " he announced. These were ominous and prophetic words, as I shall try to
show. He further declared that the two Sputniks amounted to the greatest challenge to America's security in its entire history. Later that
year Johnson was able, with Republican help, to introduce legislation that paved the way for the creation of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (Nasa). When John F Kennedy was elected president, Johnson was his vicepresident - and he was in charge of
space. He gave vast amounts of money to Nasa, and the Apollo programme was launched. But not before the Soviets once more trumped
the Americans, when in 1961 the cosmonaut Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin became the first man to travel in space, completing an orbit of
the Earth in the Vostok satellite. These Soviet triumphs were largely political stunts, designed to humiliate the Americans and present
them as scientific laggards. But the space race was to become increasingly militaristic. In this century, space,
the final frontier, will become the plaything of the world's military men. So it would be naive to think
of space as some pristine new world in which mankind can move in a spirit of idealistic exploration, a
vast untainted sanctuary that is pure and untrammelled by our more base instincts and aspirations.
Fat chance. Space will instead become the ultimate environment for warfare. To some extent it has
already been colonised by the military men. It is even now cluttered with surveillance and intelligence
gathering equipment, and various early-warning systems. Many US strategists are convinced that
fully-f ledged warfare in space is not just a possibility, but a likelihood. Satellites will be used to direct
and propel weapons of mass destruction. Worse, "suicide satellites" - that is, satellites that are
themselves weapons of mass destruction - will be developed. People called "orbitologists" will
increasingly have the ear of politicians, not just in the US, but in China, India and elsewhere.
"Enhancing space capability" is already a key aim of the Pentagon. The Americans worry that there is
at present unimpeded access to space, and they want to ensure that the US can control this access
before it loses its status as the world's only superpower. Indeed, such control might be the only way of
retaining that status. There are parallels with the development of air power in the first part of last century,
when it became clear that control of the air would become crucially important in the winning of wars.
Colossal amounts of money will be lavished on the development of space technologies and orbitology,
money that could obviously be better spent for the direct benefit of mankind in so many other areas.
But there is no world agency capable of preventing this gruesome colonisation of the final frontier. The
UN can hardly manage small-scale peacekeeping, let alone effective intervention in an area of humanitarian crisis such as Darfur. So
how on earth will it regulate the space race, which is increasingly bellicose? Or is that too bleak a conclusion? Could it just be that in
2045, when the UN - if it still exists - celebrates its centennial, it will be able to claim that, while it may not have saved the world, it has
saved space?
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 35
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Bad—Militarization
Militarization causes World War III
Senator Charles S. Robb, Senate committees on armed services, foreign relations and intelligence, Washington
Quarterly, 1999 Winter
In a second, more likely scenario, the United States deploys the same capabilities, but other nations do not
simply acquiesce. Understanding the tremendous advantages of military space operations, China deploys nuclear
weapons into space that can either be detonated near U.S. satellites or delivered to the earth in just minutes.
Russia fields ground-based lasers for disabling and destroying our satellites, then deploys satellites with
kinetic-kill munitions for eradicating ground targets. It also reneges on the START treaties, knowing that, rather
than trying to replicate America's costly defensive systems, its incremental defense dollar is better spent on offensive warheads
for overwhelming American defenses. Other rogue nations, realizing that their limited missile attack capabilities are now
useless against our new defense screen, focus on commercially available cruise missiles, which they load with
chemical and biological warheads and plan to deploy from commercial ships and aircraft. Still others bring to
fruition the long-expected threat of a nuclear weapon in a suitcase. If history has taught us anything, it is that a future more
like the second scenario will prevail. It defies reason to assume that nations would sit idle while the United States invests billions of dollars in
weaponizing space, leaving them at an unprecedented disadvantage. This second scenario suggests three equally troubling consequences. The
first is that Americans would, in a relative sense, lose the most from a space-based arms race. The United States is currently the preeminent world
military power, and much of that power resides in our ability to use space for military applications. A large percentage of our military
communications now passes through space. Our troops rely on weather satellites, our targeteers on satellite photos, and virtually all of our new
generations of weapons on the Global Positioning System satellites for pin-point accuracy. By encouraging potential adversaries to deploy
weapons into space that could quickly destroy many of these systems, a space-based arms race would render many of these more vulnerable to
attack than they are today. Even if our potential adversaries were unable to build a competing force, they could still position deadly satellites
disguised as commercial assets near or in the path of our most vital military satellites. And even if we could sustain our space advantage, the costs
would be extraordinary. Why pursue this option when there is no compelling reason to do so at this time? Why make a battlefield out of an arena
upon which we depend so heavily? The second consequence would be that a space-based arms race would be essentially
irreversible -- we would face the difficulty, if not impossibility, of assessing what is being put into space. Under the START regime,
signatories currently cooperate in inspecting and monitoring each other's intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers, and submarines, all of which
operate within a narrow band above and below sea level. Most space payloads, however, are built and launched with great secrecy and can
operate at any distance from the earth, even on celestial bodies such as the moon. Most satellites would operate up to geostationary orbit, or about
22,000 miles from the earth's surface, yielding a total operational volume millions of times greater than that now occupied by missiles, bombers,
and submarines. Attempting to monitor weapons in this vast volume of space would be daunting. We would no longer be counting with
reasonable confidence the number of concrete silos at missile wings or submarine missile tubes at piers or bombers on airfields. In many cases we
would have no idea what is out there. Military planners, conservative by nature, would assume the worst and try to meet enemy deployments in
space with an equal or greater capability. Of course, for about $ 400 million per launch, we could use the space shuttle to make closer inspections,
assuming that other nations would be willing to tolerate our presence near their critical space assets. Due to orbital constraints, however, the
shuttle could reach only a fraction of the total number of satellites in orbit. Another option would be to expand and improve our space monitoring
assets -- but only at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Once this genie is out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back in. We could never
afford to bring all these systems back to earth, and destroying them would be equally unfeasible, because the billions of pieces of space debris
would jeopardize commercial satellites and manned missions. The third consequence of U.S. space weaponization would be the heightened
probability of strategic conflict. Anyone familiar with the destabilizing impact of MIRVs will understand that weapons in space will
bring a new meaning to the expression "hair trigger." Lasers can engage targets in seconds. Munitions fired
from satellites in low-earth orbit can reach the earth's surface in minutes. As in the MIRV scenario, the side to
strike first would be able to destroy much of its opponent's space weaponry before the opponent had a chance
to respond. The temptation to strike first during a crisis would be overwhelming; much of the decisionmaking
would have to be automated. Imagine that during a crisis one of our key military satellites stops functioning
and we cannot determine why. We -- or a computer controlling our weapons for us -- must then decide
whether or not to treat this as an act of war and respond accordingly. The fog of war would reach an entirely
new density, with our situational awareness of the course of battle in space limited and our decision cycles too slow
to properly command engagements. Events would occur so quickly that we could not even be sure which nation
had initiated a strike. We would be repeating history, but this time with far graver consequences. In the absence of explicit evidence that
another nation with the economic and technical means is developing weapons for space, we should forgo our advanced prototyping and testing of
space weapons. We should seek to expand the 1967 Treaty on the Exploration and Use of Outer Space to prohibit not just weapons of mass
destruction in space, but all space-based weapons capable of destroying space, ground, air, or sea targets. We should also explore a verification
regime that would allow inspection of space-bound payloads. During the Reagan years advocates of the Strategic Defense Initiative ran an
effective television spot featuring children being saved from nuclear attack by a shield represented by a rainbow. If we weaponize space,
we will face a very different image -- the image of hundreds of weapons-laden satellites orbiting directly over
our homes and our families 24 hours a day, ready to fire within seconds. If fired, they would destroy thousands
of ground, air and space targets within minutes, before there is even a chance of knowing what has happened, or why.
This would be a dark future, a future we should avoid at all costs.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 36
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Bad—Radiation
Radiation on moon and Mars kills cells
Choi, 08, (Charles Q. Choi, Writer, Scientific American, The New York Times, Science magazine, Newsday,
LiveScience, Popular Science, United Press International, The Scientist magazine, The San Diego Union-Tribune
and the New Scientist in London) 3/31/08, http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080331-radiation-shielding.html
Dangerous levels of radiation in space could bar astronauts from a mission to Mars and limit
prolonged activity on the moon, experts now caution. However, more research could reveal ways to
handle the risks that radiation poses to space missions. The magnetic field of Earth protects humanity
from radiation in space that can damage or kill cells. Once beyond this shield, people become far more
vulnerable. Astronauts have long seen white flashes while in space due to cosmic rays, or extremely
high-energy particles, passing through their heads. A return to the moon or a mission to Mars that NASA
and other space agencies are planning would place astronauts at continued risk from cosmic rays or
dangerous bursts of solar radiation. Several reports in the past have outlined the potential risks. To further
investigate the risks that space radiation currently pose, the National Research Council assembled experts in
space and biology together. At the present time, given current knowledge, the level of radiation astronauts
would encounter "would not allow a human crew to undertake a Mars mission and might also
seriously limit long-term Moon activity," this committee notes in their new report today.

Space radiation dangerous – multiple reasons


Britt, 04, (Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Editor of space.com, managing editor of livescience.com), 1/20/04,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html
There is no "biggest danger" in setting up a permanent lunar presence or sending people to Mars, says
John Charles, an enthusiastic proponent of both ideas and a NASA analyst of the costs and risks of
human space flight: "There are several." Launch, landing and re-entry are perhaps the riskiest moments of any space
venture, history shows. But on long missions, what would otherwise be minor threats could become at best serious limitations or at worst
deadly disasters. Basking in the glow of President Bush's call for sending humans back to the Moon as early as 2015 and then eventually
to the red planet, Charles, who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, offered up his danger list
yesterday: Lack of a medical facility could turn a mundane injury into a life-threatening situation;
"Psychosocial" pressure will be high in a small group isolated for months or years; Zero or reduced
gravity causes bone and muscle loss; Dangerous radiation particles are abundant beyond Earth orbit.
"Radiation is a potential show stopper," Charles told SPACE.com, quickly adding that researchers are "getting on top of
that" while also learning how to clear the other hurdles. Total exposure Any grand leap into the cosmos, as outlined by Bush last week,
will start with dangerous baby steps as explorers cautiously venture into the hazardous, radiation-laden space beyond Earth's protective
magnetic field. Scientists are still working to characterize the dangers and develop the technologies necessary for safe suits and ships.
This much they know: Any trip beyond Earth orbit will involve radiation threats not faced by residents of the International Space
Station, which sits inside the planet's magnetic field. A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would
expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines. The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more
dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built. Mission planners
knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a
key to creating favorable odds. "A big solar event during one of those missions could have been catastrophic," said Cary Zeitlin, a
radiation expert at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. "The risk was known.
They gambled a bit." The White House plan calls for a permanent lunar base. NASA already spends millions of dollars every year on
research into space radiation and its biological effects, and more money goes into research on other health risks of long-term spaceflight.
The new plan would refocus space station activities on supporting these investigations. Double dose Particle radiation in space
goes right through the human body and can tear apart strands of DNA, the software of life that resides
inside a cell nucleus. Damaged cells can lose the ability perform normally and to repair themselves.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 37
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Bad—Solar Radiation


More Solar Radiation in space, colonies must deal with it
National Space Society 06, independent, grass roots, educational, organization dedicated to
the creation of a space faring civilization, (“Needs”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/designer/needs.html, July 13, 2008)
There is a great deal of radiation in space. This radiation primarily comes from deep space (cosmic
rays) and the Sun (solar flares). Deep space radiation is substantially in excess of permissible radiation
limits on Earth, and a large solar flare can kill an unprotected human very quickly. On Earth, we are
protected from this radiation by the Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere. A space colony must be
encased in sufficient mass to shield colonists from radiation. This can be done with any mass; for
example, large amounts of lunar soil. A 4.5 meter thick layer of lunar soil may be able to provide adequate
protection. Active shielding by creating an electro-magnetic field tries to change the trajectories of charged
particles, somewhat like Earth's magnetoshpere (see above link).

Long term exposure to solar radiation leads to blood cell obliteration and other diseases
Prokop et al 07, Chair and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Pediatric
Dermatology, Medical University of Lublin, (Jolanta Budzynska, “Influence of Solar
Radiation of Skin”, http://www.annales.umcs.lublin.pl/D/2007/20.pdf, July 13, 2008)
Frequent, long-term exposures to solar radiation makes the skin dry, scaling, yellow in colour and
thickened. Moreover, pigmentary changes and blood vessel dilatations (telangiectasia) are observed. In
the process of skin ageing due to sun exposure, the phenomenon of elastosis is observed. It consists in
the degeneration of elastic fibres and their compaction into a shapeless mass. The number of collagen
fibres decreases whereas the number of fibroblasts increases. The amount of mucopolysaccharides also
decreases. The dermoepidermal junction gets flattened. In the process of photo-ageing, the epidermis gets
thickened as opposed to the skin aging, which refers to the natural process of chronologic aging. In the
epidermis, changes in sizes and shapes of keratinocytes and melanocytes take place and the number of
Langerhans’ cells decreases. As a result of UV radiation, blood vessel obliteration also takes place.

Solar Radiation leads to immune system loss and dermatological diseases


Prokop et al 07, Chair and Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Pediatric
Dermatology, Medical University of Lublin, (Jolanta Budzynska, “Influence of Solar
Radiation of Skin”, http://www.annales.umcs.lublin.pl/D/2007/20.pdf, July 13, 2008)
The impairment of the immune system, mutagenic influence of UVA and UVB radiations and long-
term exposure to solar radiation are responsible for neoplasmatic diseases (5). Basal cell carcinoma
(BCC) is the most common. BCC foci are most often localized on the face. Squamous cell carcinoma
(SCC) develops on the border of mucose membranes and skin (lower lip, area of orbital cavities, nose,
and genital organs) (3). Solar radiation may provoke various dermatological diseases. The disorders
which are characterized by hypersensitivity to ultraviolet radiation are called photodermatoses. They
include: idiopathic photodermatoses (summer prurigo, hydroa vacciniforme, solar cheilitis, chronic actinic
dermatitis, solar urticaria, xeroderma pigmentosum), exogenous ones (phototoxic and photoallergic
reactions), endogenous and congenital ones.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 38
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Bad—Disease
Salmonella will kill people during missions to Mars
The Guardian 07 (James Randerson, Salmonella More Virulent In Space, Study Suggests, September 25, l/n)
Food poisoning bacteria become super-virulent in space, according to a study of salmonella that spent 12
days orbiting the Earth on the space shuttle Atlantis. The research raises fears that diseases boosted by
low gravity could pose unexpected medical problems on future long-haul space journeys or for
astronauts on a proposed future moon base. It is the first study to examine the effect of space flight on the
virulence of a pathogen. "Given the proposed increase in both duration and distance from Earth for
future manned space flight missions - including lunar colonisation and a mission to Mars - the risk for
in-flight infectious diseases will be increased," said Cheryl Nickerson at Arizona State University.

Diseases are more virulent in space


The Guardian, 07 (London, September 25, “Science: Salmonella more virulent in space, study suggests”, James
Randerson, L/N, accessed on 7/14/08)
Food poisoning bacteria become super-virulent in space, according to a study of salmonella that spent
12 days orbiting the Earth on the space shuttle Atlantis. The research raises fears that diseases boosted
by low gravity could pose unexpected medical problems on future long-haul space journeys or for
astronauts on a proposed future moon base. It is the first study to examine the effect of space flight on
the virulence of a pathogen. "Given the proposed increase in both duration and distance from Earth for
future manned space flight missions - including lunar colonisation and a mission to Mars - the risk for
in-flight infectious diseases will be increased," said Cheryl Nickerson at Arizona State University. Her
team sent vials of salmonella bacteria into orbit on Atlantis's 12-day mission in September last year. They
kept bacteria from the same strain in conditions as close to the space shuttle as possible on Earth. When they
fed the samples to different groups of mice they found that the bacteria that had been in space were nearly
three times as likely to kill the animals. "Since spaceflight involves a number of environmental changes we
do not know the exact part of spaceflight that caused the change in virulence or other phenotypes we
observed in our experiment," said Professor Nickerson, "However, our collective data strongly suggests it is
the low fluid shear growth environment, where turbulence and fluid action is minimal, that plays a major role
in the response of salmonella to spaceflight." The team also compared the pattern of gene expression in the
space bacteria and those that had stayed on the ground. They found that the expression level in 167
different genes had been altered, they report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"This experiment is a 'first of its kind' in spaceflight biological study. It is the first study to examine the effect
of spaceflight on the virulence of a pathogen, and the first to obtain the entire gene expression response of a
bacterium to spaceflight," said Prof Nickerson. Although the team cannot be sure that the same increase in
virulence occurs in other pathogens, the results will concern those planning future missions in which
astronauts spend extended periods in space. President Bush has committed the US to returning
astronauts to the moon by 2020 and setting up a permanent moon base. This would require much more
time in zero gravity and low gravity conditions which would mean more opportunities for astronauts
to fall ill. Two weeks ago a government advisory committee said the UK should reconsider its ban on
human space flight and begin a crewed space programme. The committee, convened by the British
National Space Centre, said there would be huge scientific, cultural and economic benefits to sending
humans into space. Building up an astronaut corps from scratch would cost £50m to £75m over five years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 39
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Bad—Timeframe
Humanity doesn’t have the time to get to space
Winterson 06, writing for The Evening Standard, August 4 (Lexisnexis: Jeanette, “Hawking’s
science can’t save the planet,” accessed 7-14-2008)
In a world in chaos, politically, environmentally and socially, how can the human race sustain another
100 years? This is the question Stephen Hawking has posted on the internet. He has received more
than 25,000 responses, but his own response seems dispiriting; he doesn't have an answer. His best
hope is that science can be employed to modify our warlike instincts for long enough to give us time to
colonise space and quit this troubled rock. To do that he reckons we need at least another 100 years. I
have huge respect for Hawking, and I have bought New Scientist every week for as long as I can remember,
but I am always disturbed when we look to science to solve all our problems. Hawking doesn't have an
answer because he is a scientist and the moral and ethical problems the human race must confront are not
scientific questions. Does Hawking really believe that genetic or chemical modifications are an answer
to our stupidity, selfishness and suicidal warmongering? Wouldn't it be better to encourage the evolution
of the species towards tolerance, cooperation and culture? It is feasible to create a world of Stepford Wives,
men and women alike, who will sacrifice autonomy in order to curb aggression; chemical policing of the
human brain is already big business, as the medicalisation of anger, shyness, depression, jealousy, you name
it, is set to take over any sense of personal responsibility.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 40
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Asteroid Impacts
Asteroids won’t cause extinction, too minor
Gorman 2003, Discover Magazine Staff Writer (Rachael Moeller, “Discover Data: Extinction Trends: No Need
to Fear the Asteroids?” February 1, http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breaknumbers, accessed on July 14,
2008)
Based on evidence that an asteroid impact helped to reduce the dinosaurs to dust 65 million years ago,
scientists have reasoned that other large impacts might produce similar extinctions—and that humans could
be next on the hit list. But John Alroy of the University of California at Santa Barbara finds that life may be
surprisingly resilient. He examined the size and ages of major craters in North America and compared
them with the mammalian fossil record over the past 65 million years. Contrary to the predictions of
one prominent extinction model, known as Raup's Kill Curve, Alroy could detect no correlation
between impact size and the rate of extinction (above). He argues that life is far more tenacious than some scientists make
it out to be. Furthermore, mass extinctions are very unusual, he says, and are rarely caused by a single
catastrophic event. They are much more likely to result from slower, less dramatic processes such as
species migration, climate change, competition, and disease.

Death by asteroid very unlikely


Britt 05, writing for Live Science, January 6 (Robert Roy, “The odds of dying,”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_dying.html, accessed 7-14-2008)
Perceptions of risk factors can change over time simply because more is learned. The chances of an
Earth-impacting asteroid killing you have dropped dramatically, for example, from about 1-in-20,000
in 1994 to something like 1-in-200,000 or 1-in-500,000 today. The new numbers -- their range
reflecting the need for further research -- were offered up last week by Clark Chapman of the Southwest
Research Institute and David Morrison at NASA's Ames Research Center. Why such a dramatic
downgrade? Active intervention. "A significant part of it is that we have now discovered, in the last
dozen years, a good fraction of the largest, most deadly asteroids and found that they won't hit the
Earth," Chapman told LiveScience.

Likelihood of small asteroid impacts reduced to 1 in 1,000,000


Hecht 02, writing for the NewScientist.com news service, November 20 (Jeff, “Small but deadly
asteroid threat downgraded,” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3093-small-but-deadly-
asteroid-threat-downgraded.html, accessed 7-14-2008)
A new analysis of data from US military satellites shows that locally devastating impacts by small
asteroids are likely only about once in a millennium. The benchmark for such impacts is a 1908 blast
that levelled 2000 square kilometres of forest in the Tunguska area of Siberia. Scientists calculate that a
50- or 60-metre object exploded in the atmosphere with the force of 10 megatons of TNT. But no other
well-documented case is known and this size of object is too small to spot reliably in space, so estimates
of their frequency are sketchy. The previous best guess suggested such blasts were likely every 200 to
300 years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 41
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Econ Link—Transports
Transport costs alone exceed $15 billion
Drezner 03 (Daniel W., How About Funding More HBO Miniseries About Outer Space Instead?, December 6,
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000922.html)
A rudimentary, stripped-down Moon base and supplies might weigh 200 tons. (The winged "orbiter"
part of the space shuttle weighs 90 tons unfueled, and it's cramped with food, oxygen, water, and power
sufficient only for about two weeks.) Placing 200 tons on the Moon might require 400 tons of fuel and
vehicle in low-Earth orbit, so that's 600 tons that need to be launched just for the cargo part of the
Moon base. Currently, using the space shuttle it costs about $25 million to place a ton into low-Earth
orbit. Thus means the bulk weight alone for a Moon base might cost $15 billion to launch: building the
base, staffing it, and getting the staff there and back would be extra. Fifteen billion dollars is roughly
equivalent to NASA's entire annual budget. Using existing expendable rockets might bring down the
cargo-launch price, but add the base itself, the astronauts, their transit vehicles, and thousands of support staff
on Earth and a ten-year Moon base program would easily exceed $100 billion. Wait, that's the cost of the
space station, which is considerably closer. Okay, maybe $200 billion.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 42
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

_______
**Aliens
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 43
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Yes Aliens
According to Stephen Hawking, extra-terrestrial life exists and is dangerous to humans
Derbyshire 08 (David, April 23, Daily Mail,
“Space is full of aliens, warns Hawking. But they aren't too bright,” L/N)
The universe is teeming with alien life but little of it is intelligent, according to Stephen Hawking. In a
speech to mark the 50th birthday of Nasa, the astrophysicist said the Earth was unlikely to be the only
planet where life had evolved. But he warned that an encounter with extra-terrestrials could prove deadly
for humanity. 'Watch out if you meet an alien,' he said. 'You could be infected with a disease to which
you have no resistance.' Many respected astronomers say alien life is likely, given that there are billions
of stars in the known universe. During his speech at George Washington University, Professor Hawking speculated on the
reasons why mankind has failed to detect any signs of alien life. He offered three possibilities: that life of any kind is very rare in the
universe; that simple life forms are common, but intelligent life rare; or that intelligent life tends to destroy itself quickly. 'Personally, I
favour the second possibility - that primitive life is relatively common, but that intelligent life is very rare,' he said. 'Some would say it
has yet to occur on Earth.' The 66-year-old Cambridge University scientist, who has motor neurone disease and speaks via a voice
synthesiser, called for mankind to seek out Earth-like planets around far distant stars and colonise space. Although scientists have
discovered 287 planets around distant stars, none could support life as we know it.

Aliens must exist


Daily Telegraph, 08, Julian Ryall, writer, 5/15/08,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1950034/Shuttle-astronauts-say-alien-life-does-
exist.html
"Life like us must exist elsewhere in the universe," Takao Doi, who had been on a 16-day Endeavour
mission to the International Space Station, told reporters in Tokyo. Mr Doi and his colleagues denied
seeing anything that proved the existence of extraterrestrial life forms, but said the scale of the solar system
and beyond had impressed upon them the possibility of alien life. Mike Foreman, a mission specialist,
said: "If we push back boundaries far enough, I am sure eventually we'll find something out there." In
December, Nobutaka Machimura, Japan's chief Cabinet secretary, said that UFOs definitely existed
and that he was firmly of the opinion that aliens were out there.

Extraterrestrial life is inevitable due to the vastness of the universe


Malik; ’08; Senior editor of Space.com; “Primitive alien life may exist, Stephen Hawking says”;
http://www.space.com/news/080421-hawking-aliens-space.html
Given the size of the universe, it is unlikely that Earth is the only planet to develop some sort of life,
Hawking told an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He added that humanity
must embrace space exploration, if only to ensure its long-term survival. "While there may be primitive life
in our region of the galaxy, there don't seem to be any advanced intelligent beings," said Hawking during a
lecture as part of a series commemorating NASA's 50th anniversary this year.

Life in the universe is plausible do to panspermia and the vastness of the universe
Hawking; ’08; astrophysicist; “NASA lecture series: Why we should go into space”;
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacepolicy/hawking.htm
But we don’t know how life first appeared. The probability of something as complicated as the DNA
molecule being formed by random collisions of atoms in the primeval ocean is incredibly small. However,
there might have been some simpler macromolecule which then built up the DNA or some other
macromolecule capable of reproducing itself. Still, even if the probability of life appearing on a suitable
planet is very small, since the Universe is infinite, life would have appeared somewhere. If the probability is
very low, the distance between two independent occurrences of life would be very large. However, there is a
possibility, known as panspermia, that life could spread from planet to planet, or from stellar system to stellar
system, carried on meteors. We know that Earth has been hit by meteors that came from Mars, and others
may have come from further afield. We have no evidence that any meteors carried life, but it remains a
possibility. An important feature of life spread by panspermia is that it would have the same basis, which
would be DNA for life in the neighborhood of the Earth. On the other hand, an independent occurrence of
life would be extremely unlikely to be DNA based. So watch out if you meet an alien. You could be infected
with a disease against which you have no resistance.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 44
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 45
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

No Aliens
There are no evidence on the existence of aliens
Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, 08 (“The dread planet Why
finding fossils on Mars would be extremely bad news for humanity,” p. lexis, May 25, accessed on July 13,
2008)
Why? To understand the real meaning of such a discovery is to realize just what it means that the universe
has been so silent for so long - why we have been listening for other civilizations for decades and yet have
heard nothing. Aliens may visit us in books and films and in rumors in Internet chat rooms, but it's a fact
that there has been no objective evidence for the existence of any extraterrestrial intelligent
civilization. We have not received any alien visitors, nor have our radio telescopes detected their
signals. As far as we can determine, the night sky is empty and silent.

Great Filter caused the absence of observable aliens.


Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, 08 (“The dread planet Why
finding fossils on Mars would be extremely bad news for humanity,” p. lexis, May 25, accessed on July 13,
2008)
So what's stopping them? Perhaps the most compelling theory is that there is some kind of barrier - what the economist and polymath
Robin Hanson called a "Great Filter" - that prevents the rise of intelligent, self-aware, technologically
advanced, space-colonizing civilizations. This filter would be one or more highly improbable steps along the path that starts
with the creation of a planet and ends with a race capable of colonizing the galaxy. Somewhere between those two points, the Great
Filter operates, and it must be powerful enough that even with all the billions of possible starting worlds on which life might evolve - all
those rolls of the cosmic dice - one ends up with nothing: no aliens, no spacecraft, no signals, at least not in our neck of the woods. The
important question for us, however, is just where on the long timeline of development this Great Filter
might be located. Is it behind us, in our distant past, or somewhere ahead of us in the decades or millennia to come? Consider first
the possibility that the filter is in our past, somewhere between the creation of our planet and emergence of digital technology. We tend
to take it for granted that the evolution of life was inevitable because, well, here we are. But perhaps it's extremely improbable that even
simple self-replicating organisms should emerge on an Earthlike planet. Perhaps that very first step could be the Great Filter in which
almost all planets get stuck. Or perhaps it comes later, during the transition from the most basic life form into something more complex.
For example, it took 1.8 billion years for life on Earth to evolve from prokaryotes, the most basic organism, into eukaryotes - still very
simple, but with the addition of a membrane-enclosed cell nucleus. That immense span of time suggests that some extraordinary,
improbable coincidence, some bit of amazing luck, might have been required in order for the simplest kind of life to become just a little
bit more complex. This step is a good candidate for a Great Filter. Others include the rise of multicellular organisms or sexual
reproduction. Each of these steps took a very long time, suggesting that they might have required a huge amount of evolutionary trial
and error, combined with a huge amount of luck. So one possibility is that the Great Filter is behind us. If so, this
also explains the absence of observable aliens. Why? Well, if the rise of intelligent life is sufficiently
improbable, then it follows that we are likely the only such civilization in our galaxy, and perhaps even
in the entire observable universe.

The genome proves the probability of alien life is low


Savage; ’04; Author of the Millennial Project; “Do aliens exist?”; http://www.gateway-to-
the-universe.org/brent/tourist/article0.htm
Does life exist elsewhere in the universe? Marshall T. Savage, author of the Millennial Project has one
argument saying that it doesn't. He says that life's origin is a very highly improbable occurrence. Take DNA,
for example, the genetic blueprint of any organism on Earth. To make life, the "Genesis DNA" would require
about 600 nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA), at minimum. This minimum is required to create a self-
replicating organism -- the minimum definition of life. To create the "Genesis DNA" from random chemical
reactions is an extremely unlikely thing. Consider: the odds of creating a particular string of nucleotides 600
base pairs long are 4600, or 10360 to 1. Even if Earth's entire surface was covered with nucleic acid molecules --
as many as 1043 -- and each star in the universe -- about 1022 stars -- had an pre-Earth-like planet with an
ocean of nucleic acid molecules the chances of life occurring are still remote. It would take a hundred
quadrillion nonillion nonillion googol googol or 10268 years for the magic strand of DNA to appear. Boggles
the mind, doesn't it? As Marshall Savage says: "You can't even talk about such numbers without sounding
like your brain has been fused into molten goo. If you persist in thinking about them it certainly will be"
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 46
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

No Aliens
Evolution need precise environment
Lewis 04 (PBS, Susan K. Lewis, Do aliens exist in the Milky Way? Life flourishes in hostile places, but not
complex life, creates science documentaries for WGBH’s "Nova" series for more than ten years, functioning as
writer, producer and director, July 2004, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/alie-flash.html)
Even if microbes are common in the galaxy, SETI skeptics stress that complex life forms -- animals and
higher plants -- are likely to be rare: "[E]volution never moves on a straight line toward an objective
('intelligence'), as happens during a chemical process or as a result of a law of physics ... evolutionary
pathways are highly complex and resemble more a tree with all of its branches and twigs. After the origin of
life, i.e., 3.8 billion years ago, life on Earth consisted for 2 billion years only of simple prokaryotes, cells
without an organized nucleus. ... Owing to an astonishing, unique event that is even today only partially
explained, 1,800 million years ago the first eukaryote originated, a creature with a well-organized nucleus
and the other characteristics of 'higher' organisms." -- Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist and professor
emeritus, Harvard University "Living things have existed here almost from the beginning, but multicellular
animal life did not appear until about 700 million years ago. For more than three billion years, Earth
was inhabited solely by single-celled microorganisms. This time lag seems to imply that the evolution of
anything more complicated than a single cell is unlikely." -- Ian Crawford, astronomer, University College
London "Although life may exist on the harshest of planets and moons, animal life -- such as that on Earth --
not only needs much more benign conditions but also must have those conditions present and stable for great
lengths of time. Animals as we know them require oxygen. Yet it took about 2 billion years for enough
oxygen to be produced to allow all animals on Earth." -- paleontologist Peter Ward and astrophysicist
Donald Brownlee, coauthors of Rare Earth

Aliens unlikely
Lewis 04 (PBS, Susan K. Lewis, Do aliens exist in the Milky Way? Intelligence is unlikely, creates science
documentaries for WGBH’s "Nova" series for more than ten years, functioning as writer, producer and director, July
2004, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/alie-flash.html)
Many prominent scientists think that the evolution of any form of higher intelligence is unlikely:
"Nothing demonstrates the improbability of the origin of high intelligence better than the ... lineages
that failed to achieve it. ...[T]here have been billions, perhaps as many as 50 billion species, since the
origin of life. Only one of these achieved the kind of intelligence needed for the establishment of a
civilization." -- Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist and professor emeritus, Harvard University
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 47
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Aliens Bad—Disease
ETs could carry deadly diseases
Daily Mail 08 (David Derbyshire, Space is full of aliens, warns Hawking. But they aren't too bright, April 23,
l/n)
THE universe is teeming with alien life but little of it is intelligent, according to Stephen Hawking. In a
speech to mark the 50th birthday of Nasa, the astrophysicist said the Earth was unlikely to be the only planet
where life had evolved. But he warned that an encounter with extra-terrestrials could prove deadly for
humanity. 'Watch out if you meet an alien,' he said. 'You could be infected with a disease to which you
have no resistance.' Many respected astronomers say alien life is likely, given that there are billions of stars
in the known universe.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 48
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Aliens Bad—War
ETs will launch aggressive attack upon contact
Daily Telegraph 07 (Scott Hillis, Be Prepared for the Alien Invasion, April 26, l/n)
''The probability is there that aliens exist and are old enough to have technology to enable them to come
here,'' Taylor said. Taylor and Boan are hardly basement-dwelling paranoiacs obsessed with tinfoil hats and
Area 51. Taylor holds advanced degrees in astronomy and physics. He and Boan have done consulting work
for the Defence Department and the US space agency NASA. Taylor acknowledges alien invasion is hardly a
mainstream concern but says it is naive to assume that any beings advanced enough to master star travel
will have evolved beyond war. ''It's a wonderful idea that has no basis in reality,'' Taylor said. Taylor and
Boan plugged in what they felt were conservative estimates, such as that aliens cannot travel faster than 10
per cent of the speed of light. After crunching the numbers, they say it is possible that our Milky Way galaxy
harbours thousands of intelligent alien species and that there is a ''high probability'' that one or two of them
visit Earth every century. But if there are so many aliens out there, why haven't we heard from them already?
That is the question famously posed by the physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950 to dismiss speculation by his
colleagues that intelligent life should be routine. Taylor and Boan are convinced Fermi got it wrong. Even if
aliens used god-like technology to jump across thousands of light years in a single day, they would still
need millions of years to explore all the star systems in the galaxy. They simply may not have stumbled
across our neck of the woods yet. Taylor and Boan started thinking about how to respond to an
aggressive extraterrestrial attack during a 2001 discussion about defending against terrorist attacks.
Failure to prepare may mean mankind will have to dig in and fight with improvised weapons and hit-
and-run tactics, much the same way Islamic extremists have battled the US military in Iraq, Taylor
says.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 49
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Aliens Good—Unity
Discovery of ETs will unite humans
South Wales Echo 06 (Kate Bodinger, We'll see aliens in the next 10 years... then there'll be peace on
Earth, August 16, l/n)
Prof Wickramasinghe believes world peace could be brought about if it was proved aliens really were out
there. 'We will discover we are not alone, so what will all this bickering on our planet mean?' he said.
'It will make us less bigoted as nations. Unity has to happen through external contact.'

Finding ET leads to global enlightenment


Straits Times 07 (Chew Tuan Chiong, Why Humans Year to Discover ET, June 16, l/n)
The third motivation is much like the first, which is curiosity-driven, but here it delves much deeper, and
hooks up with the perennial question of the purpose of life and the world. The day that we make contact
with extraterrestrial intelligence will be a momentous one. While spiritual faith neither contradicts nor
requires scientific basis, many theological constructs contain vivid descriptions of the physical world,
as well as the special place held by humans. Just as the Roman Catholic Church found disconcerting
Galileo's idea that it is the Sun, and not the Earth, that is the centre of the universe, would some religious
beliefs be shaken by the discovery that man is not necessarily at the top of the intellectual heap?
Finding ET will drastically transform the way we see ourselves, give us a new identity, and, hopefully,
enlighten us on our purpose as a living species.

ETs would reaffirm faith in science


Straits Times 07 (Chew Tuan Chiong, Why Humans Year to Discover ET, June 16, l/n)
Still, we truly yearn to know if any life, and preferably intelligent life (something beyond microbial bacteria
and algae) exists out there. Contemporary science postulates that life began as an accident, and since
physical laws hold true in every corner of the cosmos, the same accidents can happen if conditions are
duplicated. The discovery of ET will reinforce our faith in science.
Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 50
Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

AT Alien War
ETs would be unintelligent
The Scotsman 08 (Martyn McLaughlin, It's Life, Jim, But it Just Doesn’t Know it, April 23, l/n)
Speaking at an event to mark the 50th anniversary of Nasa, the space agency, Prof Hawking told of his
belief that mankind is not alone, but suggested our unidentified cohabitants might not be the intelligent,
technologically advanced beings that are the stuff of science fiction. Prof Hawking outlined several possible
views on whether extra-terrestrial life exists in the furthest corners of the cosmos. The first is that it does not.
The second, and more disconcerting option, is that far-flung worlds are home to intelligent life, but once it is
sophisticated enough to send signals into space, so too it would be capable of creating destructive nuclear
weapons and bringing about its own demise. The third theory, the one in which Prof Hawking puts his faith,
is that the odds are in favour of another kind of life existing, but that it would not be blessed with any
great wisdom. Illustrating his point before an audience at George Washington University, the 66-year-old
said if there was intelligent life on other planets, humanity would have detected it by now. Why, he
asked, had we not stumbled upon some alien broadcast beamed deep into space, like "alien quiz
shows"? He said: "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare," before adding: "Some
would say it has yet to occur on Earth."

S-ar putea să vă placă și