Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[7]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[7]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-08 20:21:35.282
	1	+2016-10-08 20:21:35.0

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,10 @@
	1	+Earth will be uninhabitable by 2100. Global warming is increasing and has pushed the earth to the point of no return. Biospheric heat build up is happening too fast for species to adapt.
	2	+Durham 2013. Jessica. Writer, Reporter, Managing Editor at IBT Media. “Will Earth Be Unlivable By 2050? New Study Reveals Global Warming Increases at Alarming Rate, ‘Climate Change Will Cause Intense Droughts’”. DT. MCM.
	3	+Earth may be unlivable by 2050 or 2100 because of the rapid increase in global warming and climate change. According to Opednews.com, an article by Dahr Jamail makes it clear that climate change is accelerating so much that earth will probably be unlivable by 2100, if not 2050. "The global warming that was previously predicted to occur within 2,000 years, is now predicted to occur within the lifetimes of some people who are alive even today," the website said. It continued: Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University was one of the sources quoted by Jamail, and he says, "The fall-off in ice volume is so fast it is going to bring us to zero very quickly." That's how soon (within less than ten years; he estimates probably less than five years) what had only recently been the 90 reflection of the arctic's sunlight out into space will become instead the 90 absorption of that solar energy. Oil companies no longer deny what is happening; they are exploring in the arctic, where snow-covered ice, until recently, used to be. As Julian Cox headlined on 2 June 2013, "Exxon Mobil CEO: We're Going In, Can't Pull Up, Brace For Impact." Cox's ultimate sources in that news story were the AP and the Houston Chronicle . "The bottom line here is that the heat-buildup in our biosphere is happening too fast for species to adapt in any other way than by soaring extinctions, which are already beginning to happen in record numbers. The complex web of ecological changes that will inevitably result from this rapid heat-buildup in our biosphere will cause agriculture to crash, and starvation to become the norm."
	4	+Ending the production of nuclear energy makes space exploration impossible. Nuclear power fuels the spacecrafts necessary for space colonization. RTGs are reliable and NASA has started developing them.
	5	+Mirmina et. al. 2005. Steven A. Senior Attorney, International Law, NASA, Office of the General Counsel, Adjunct Professor of Law for University of Connecticut and Georgetown University. “Nuclear Power Sources and Future Space Exploration.” Chicago Journal of International Law. MCM.
	6	+Thus far, use of NPS Nuclear Power Sources on board US spacecraft has primarily been composed of radioisotope thermoelectric generators ("RTGs"). An RTG unit does not involve nuclear fission; it is not a reactor. Nevertheless, the device is considered to be a Nuclear Power Source, because it uses plutonium (primarily, radioactive isotope plutonium-238 ("Pu-238")) as fuel by converting heat, naturally generated from the plutonium isotope's decay, into electricity.3 Because RTGs have no moving parts and the half-life of their Pu-238 fuel is so predictable, they are a highly reliable power source.4 The rate of decay is sufficiently fast to generate adequate heat, yet not so fast as to decay so quickly that the mission cannot be completed. RTGs are ideal for missions where distance from the sun, extreme closeness to the sun, or sheer duration make other power sources, such as solar panels, untenable. Furthermore, the heat from natural radioactive decay can also be harnessed in its own right to protect instruments from the extreme cold of deep space, using a much smaller and simpler device called a radioisotope heater unit ("RHU").' The use of RHUs has become relatively common to keep instruments warm in outer space. In fact, they have been used by the US on four occasions in the last sixteen years, and numerous other space agencies have contemplated RHUs in their exploration activities.6 More ambitious but far less prevalent in application up to now has been the development of space NPS systems based on nuclear fission reactors. The advantage of reactor-based power plants is plain: They are capable of producing more power and energy than RTGs through intense heat generated by controlled fission reactions. This heat energy can be converted to electricity and used to power spacecraft systems and onboard electric propulsion systems, or can be harnessed directly for propulsion. The United States began experimenting with the concept of airborne fission reactors in the late 1940s both for avionics power and aircraft propulsion. By 1961, NASA had commissioned the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office to oversee aspects of its Nuclear Energy for Rocket Vehicle Application ("NERVA") program.' 4 Testing under NERVA (including one NASA test of a nuclear rocket engine at Jackass Flats, Nevada) and several related efforts continued until 1973, when the nuclear rocket program was cancelled. In 2003, NASA began an effort to "develop and demonstrate the safe and reliable operation of a nuclear-reactor-powered spacecraft on a long-duration space science mission.'.
	7	+,
	8	+There is no future for the human species on Earth. Risk of sudden extinction means space colonization is our only option.
	9	+McKie 2014. Robin. Science and Technology Editor for The Observer. “Life on Earth is in Peril. We Have No Future if We Don’t Go into Space.” The Guardian. MCM.
	10	+Stephen Hawking Physicist and cosmologist Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don’t catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don’t spread the human race into space, which I’m arguing should be our long-term strategy. If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before. Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers ... I think the human race has no future if it doesn’t go into space. TIM PEAKE British astronaut There is no future for us on Earth. If we survive as a human species, it’s inevitable – we are going to have to leave the planet. Now that’s an awful long time away, we hope, but at some point we have to make the leap, and we have to find other resources in the universe – and that starts now. To me it’s an insurance policy. It’s also all about exploration – it’s in our natural psyche to want to explore, to push the boundaries and take the next steps.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-08 20:21:35.972

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+--

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+San Marino KW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Space Colonization DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Voices Round Robin