Space - Maurer

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1Maurer/Moore/Rekhi Space

Space Index

Space Index.....................................................................................................................................................................1___________...................................................................................................................................................................2**Uniqueness..................................................................................................................................................................2U—Colonization Now....................................................................................................................................................2______.............................................................................................................................................................................3**Links...........................................................................................................................................................................3Link—Solar.....................................................................................................................................................................4___________...................................................................................................................................................................5**Space Good.................................................................................................................................................................5Space Good—Peace........................................................................................................................................................6Space Good—Thinking/Mindsets...................................................................................................................................7Colonization Good—Extinction.....................................................................................................................................8Colonization Good—Laundry List...............................................................................................................................10Colonization Good—Over-Population.........................................................................................................................11Colonization Good—Hegemony..................................................................................................................................12Colonization inevitable.................................................................................................................................................13AT Colonization Fails...................................................................................................................................................14AT Colonization Fails—Tech.......................................................................................................................................15AT Mars Uninhabitable................................................................................................................................................16AT Not Enough Water..................................................................................................................................................17AT Not Enough CO2....................................................................................................................................................18AT Not Enough Minerals..............................................................................................................................................19AT Radiation/UV..........................................................................................................................................................20AT No Launch Capabilities..........................................................................................................................................21AT No Impact—Earth Resilient...................................................................................................................................22AT No Asteroids...........................................................................................................................................................23AT No Food in Space...................................................................................................................................................24AT Cosmic Radiation...................................................................................................................................................25__________...................................................................................................................................................................26**Space Bad..................................................................................................................................................................26Colonization Fails.........................................................................................................................................................27Colonization Fails—Oxygen........................................................................................................................................28Colonization Fails—Launch Capabilities.....................................................................................................................29Colonization Fails—Tech.............................................................................................................................................30Colonization Fails—Debris..........................................................................................................................................31Colonization Bad—Cosmic Radiation..........................................................................................................................32Space Bad—War...........................................................................................................................................................33Space Bad—Militarization............................................................................................................................................34Space Bad—Radiation..................................................................................................................................................35Space Bad—Solar Radiation.........................................................................................................................................36Space Bad—Disease.....................................................................................................................................................37Space Bad—Timeframe................................................................................................................................................38AT Asteroid Impacts.....................................................................................................................................................39Econ Link—Transports.................................................................................................................................................40_______.........................................................................................................................................................................41**Aliens........................................................................................................................................................................41Yes Aliens.....................................................................................................................................................................42No Aliens......................................................................................................................................................................43Aliens Bad—Disease....................................................................................................................................................45Aliens Bad—War..........................................................................................................................................................46Aliens Good—Unity.....................................................................................................................................................47AT Alien War...............................................................................................................................................................48


___________

**Uniqueness


U—Colonization Now

No uniqueness- space colonization planned in status quoNational 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.


______

**Links


Link—Solar

Solar can supply all the power we need for ColoniesGlobus 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 effortsLunar 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 coloniesPrado 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."

http://www.permanent.com/t-icbm.htm


___________

**Space Good


Space Good—Peace

Empirically proven, space engenders human unityDaley 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.


Space Good—Thinking/Mindsets

( ) Colonization propagates human lifeThe 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.


Colonization Good—Extinction

Space is key to prevent extinctionJames 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.pdfWe 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 existenceMorgan 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.


Colonization Good—Extinction

Travelling to space is the only way to save the human raceEngdahl, 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 extinctionGlobus; ’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.

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/sl9/sl9.html

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/sl9/sl9.html

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm


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_employment_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 extinctionHawking, 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.'


Colonization Good—Over-Population

Colonies solve overcrowdingBloomfield 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.”

ExtinctionJoel 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.


Colonization Good—Hegemony

Colonization yields military high groundMichaels, 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 firstMichaels, 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 WarKhalilzad 1995 – RAND, Ambassador to AfghanistanWashington 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.


Colonization inevitable

( ) Colonization inevitableThe 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.


AT Colonization Fails

Space colonization possible but dependent on public good willBBC 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 existenceDerbyshire 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.'


AT Colonization Fails—Tech

NASA is researching mini-ecosystems to sustain life in spaceBarry, 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 colonizationBBC 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 humansWalker 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.

http://bioscience.ksc.nasa.gov/oldals/als_def.htm


AT Mars Uninhabitable

Water and oxygen on Mars make it inhabitableHoversten, 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 colonizedHiscox 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 liveHiscox 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).

http://spot.colorado.edu/~marscase/cfm/articles/biorev3.html



AT Not Enough Water

Enough water to colonizeHiscox 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 MarsMartin 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 shortagesDavid, 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.

http://www.marssociety.org/portal/c/Conventions/2008/

http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/index.php

http://www.marssociety.org/portal/Members/schnarff/PhoenixCaseForWater/



AT Not Enough CO2

Enough CO2 to colonizeHiscox 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).



AT Not Enough Minerals

Enough minerals to colonizeHiscox 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).



AT Radiation/UV

Space radiation is not fatalBBC 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 layerHiscox 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 layerHiscox 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".



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3302375.stm


AT No Launch Capabilities

New colonizing spaceship has the necessary launch capabilitiesPopular 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 ShuttlePopular 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.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1565327.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/robotics/2584436.html?page=6

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/robotics/2584436.html?page=6

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/3493516.html


AT No Impact—Earth Resilient

Many scenarios for the Earth’s deathBritt 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 explodeNJU 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...

http://NUjournal.net/core.pdf

http://NUjournal.net/core.pdf

http://www.space.com/php/contactus/feedback.php?r=rb


AT No Asteroids

Asteroid may hit the earth, killing millionsCNN 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.


AT No Food in Space

( ) Space food production possibleThe 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.


AT Cosmic Radiation

Design can overcome radiationChoi 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."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344491,00.html


__________

**Space Bad


Colonization Fails

Space colonization too expensive to be feasibleNASA 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 riskZimmerman 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 galaxyBostrom, 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 dreamStross, 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?

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html


Colonization Fails—Oxygen

Humans cannot survive in space due to lack of oxygenSpencer, 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 humansHowStuffWorks, 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.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/blood.htm


Colonization Fails—Launch Capabilities

Current NASA rockets don’t have the launch capabilities necessaryMoonToday.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 assemblePopular 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."


Colonization Fails—Tech

Better Tech needed for us to reach Mars and beyondPopular 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."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4212841.html



http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/1725281.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/1716862.html?page=3



http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/1286556.html


Colonization Fails—Debris

Space Debris Poses Threat to ColonizationPeter 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.


Colonization Bad—Cosmic Radiation

Cosmic rays deadly with current technologyReuters 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 consequencesReuters 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 impracticalReuters 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 ignoredReuters 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.


Space Bad—War

Space wars inevitableThe 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 likelihoodThe 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?


Space Bad—Militarization

Militarization causes World War IIISenator Charles S. Robb, Senate committees on armed services, foreign relations and intelligence, Washington Quarterly, 1999 WinterIn 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.


Space Bad—Radiation

Radiation on moon and Mars kills cellsChoi, 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 reasonsBritt, 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.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/space_drugs_021115.html

http://www.space.com/news/ksc_bush_040116.html

http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/spacesuit_sensors_010827-1.html

http://www.space.com/news/bush_science_040114.html

http://www.space.com/news/bush_plan_faq_040115.html

http://www.space.com/news/061023_space_radiation.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_dangers_040120.html

http://www.space.com/news/061023_space_radiation.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframenewsci.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframesdut.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframethesci.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframeupi.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframepopsci.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframelivesci.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframenewsday.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframescience.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframenyt.html

http://www.geocities.com/cqchoi/stories/storiesframesciam.html


Space Bad—Solar Radiation

More Solar Radiation in space, colonies must deal with itNational 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 diseasesProkop 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 diseasesProkop 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.


Space Bad—Disease

Salmonella will kill people during missions to MarsThe 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 spaceThe 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.


Space Bad—Timeframe

Humanity doesn’t have the time to get to spaceWinterson 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.


AT Asteroid Impacts

Asteroids won’t cause extinction, too minorGorman 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 unlikelyBritt 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 1,000,000Hecht 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.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breaknumbers


Econ Link—Transports

Transport costs alone exceed $15 billionDrezner 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.


_______

**Aliens


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 existDaily 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 universeMalik; ’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.

http://www.space.com/news/ap_070426_hawking_zero-g.html

http://www.space.com/news/060613_ap_hawking_space.html

http://www.space.com/news/080421-hawking-aliens-space.html


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 lowSavage; ’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. T o 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. C onsider: the odds of creating a particular string of nucleotides 600 base pairs long are 4 600 , or 10 360 to 1. Even if Earth's entire surface was covered with nucleic acid molecules -- as many as 10 43 -- and each star in the universe -- about 10 22 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"

http://www.millennial.org/


No Aliens

Evolution need precise environmentLewis 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 unlikelyLewis 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


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.


Aliens Bad—War

ETs will launch aggressive attack upon contactDaily 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.


Aliens Good—Unity

Discovery of ETs will unite humansSouth 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 enlightenmentStraits 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 scienceStraits 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.


AT Alien War

ETs would be unintelligentThe 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."

Documents

Space - Maurer