Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[24]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[24]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-10 23:51:20.963
	1	+2016-10-10 23:51:20.0

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,6 @@
	1	+Satellites need nuclear power—they last much longer than solar cells in space and provide vital heat for electronics to work
	2	+David 11 Leonard, David (Space Insider Columnist. Reporting on space activities for over 50 years. Has been honored internationally and recognized By the royal Aeronautical Society- award for best space submission at the aerospace journalist convention in Engalnd in 2006. 2010 Winner of the prestigious National space club press award, presented this honor during the club's annual robert H. Goddard Memorial Dinner in April 2011 that was held in Washington, DC.). "50 Years of Nuclear-Powered Spacecraft: It All Started with Satellite Transit 4A." Space.com. N.p., 2011. Web. 09 Aug. 2016. http://www.space.com/12118-space-nuclear-power-50-years-transit-4a.html.
	3	+Consider this a nuclear blast from the past – all the way back to the early days of U.S. space missions, when the first satellite to use a radioactive power source launched into orbit. The satellite, called Transit 4A, launched on June 29, 1961 atop a Thor-DM21 Able-Star rocket. The drum-shaped spacecraft weighed only 175 pounds and was laden with solar cells tied to nickel-cadmium batteries. Fifty years ago, the Transit 4A satellite marked the first flight test of a nuclear power source developed for use in spacecraft. The repercussions stemming from this early satellite now stretch out throughout our known solar system and beyond.Constructed for the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Naval Weapons, a primary duty of Transit 4A was to serve as one of four operational navigational satellites for use by ships and aircraft. More specifically, these satellites updated the inertial navigation systems on board U.S. Navy Polaris submarines that were locked and loaded with nuclear-tipped missiles. Most Destructive Space Weapons The Earth-orbiting Transit 4A was built by the Applied Physics Laboratory of Johns Hopkins University. But here’s the central message: This 1960s vintage vessel heralded a major milestone in the olden times of space technology. Transit 4A's radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) used Plutonium 238 for fuel. The process – called the Seebeck effect – involves direct conversion of the heat generated by the decay of Pu-238 oxide to electrical energy. In the device, heat released by the decay of the radioactive material is converted into electricity using an array of thermocouples. Attached to Transit 4A was the powerful space battery, the SNAP-3B7, a snappy but short substitute for Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power. The prime contractor for the SNAP-3 program was The Martin Company (Nuclear Division), which is now part of Teledyne Energy Systems. This energy supply operated for 15 years, powering a pair of beacons carried by the spacecraft. The nuclear battery churned out all of 2.7 watts of electrical power. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has provided RTGs for space applications since 1961. Between 1961 and 1972, DOE provided power systems for six Navy navigational satellites. In addition, DOE provided power systems for two Air Force communications satellites, LES 8 and LES 9, both launched together on March 14, 1976. "But for the space science community, the major benefit of the Transit 4A program is that it showed that nuclear power could provide electricity to operate spacecraft sensors and components." That being the case, it meant that scientific spacecraft flung outward into the outer solar system would not lack for electrical power. "In short, the entire solar system was now open for scientific exploration," Bennett told SPACE.com. Now available are radioisotope power sources that can produce over 100 times what Transit 4A's RTG yielded. Moreover, there is a direct link from those first small steps with SNAP-3B on Transit 4A, Bennett pointed out. "Thanks to nuclear power, spacecraft are going where no spacecraft dared to go before," Bennett said. "It has been a grand adventure … and the universe still awaits!" For good measure, toss in the sendoff later this year of NASA's Curiosity Mars rover. This large and highly mobile robot will derive its electrical power from a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG). Similar to the radioisotope power systems of the past, MMRTG contains 10.6 pounds (4.8 kilograms) of plutonium dioxide as the source of the steady supply of heat used to produce the onboard electricity and to warm the rover’s innards during the frosty Martian hours of darkness. To be sure, Curiosity’s prowling around on the Red Planet underscores a long-heralded nuclear maxim for the space community: "Nukes do it all night!"
	4	+Satelite collapse causes micalc and full scale space-war
	5	+Young 15: Matt Young (staff writer). “World war brews in space between China, US and Russia.” News.com.au. August 15th, 2015. http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/world-war-brews-in-space-between-china-us-and-russia/news-story/c85d02e00588873de421fe14aaf121bd
	6	+Three leading superpowers: Russia, China and the US are reportedly developing, testing and deploying sophisticated weapons in outer space in advance of a military attack that could see the first great conflict between sparring superpowers in 70 years. A conflict that Popular Science described as “A New Cold War in the Void of Space”. And there’s no rules in this free-for-all space race. Rogue, cosmic cowboys reign supreme. While physical damage on Earth would be minimal in a space war, our entire way of living could be at threat. Satellites in space control everything from mobile phone towers to ATMs and power grids. Even farmers use GPS to work their paddocks. While they’re a long way from Earth, the US military admits this technology we’ve come to rely on is a “sitting duck” — easily visible and hard to manoeuvre from enemy attack. WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? According to Reuters, Earth’s orbit “is looking more and more like the planet’s surface — heavily armed and primed for war”. At least 1,200 satellites that are orbiting Earth for various uses, including navigation and communication, are also being primed for “planetary surveillance”, Scientific American reports. The satellites circle the globe communicating messages from the likes of the US military, 80 per cent of which is done through civilian satellites. While the US remains the “undisputed king of the hill” as the “most heavily armed space power”, China asnd Russia are keen to claim their own territory, working to destroy US satellites and replace them with their own. It comes more than a year after US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James admitted: “We need to be ready”. “We must prepare for the potentiality of conflict that might extend from Earth one day into space”, James told the Space Symposium. “We need to get our heads around the fact that space might not always be a peaceful sanctuary. “Knowledge is power and we need ever improved eyes in the sky,” she said. HOW IS THE BATTLE FOUGHT? These destroyers go by the name of “inspection” satellites, who, according to Reuters, “lurk in orbit, possibly awaiting commands to sneak up on and disable or destroy other satellites”. But as harmless as these “assassin spacecraft” may look, “with the proverbial flip of a switch”, an inspection satellite, ostensibly configured for orbital repair work, could become a robotic assassin capable of taking out other satellites with lasers, explosives or mechanical claws. The destruction of these resources can come in many forms, both on the ground and off. From tampering with antennas, destabilising orbits, or hijacking transmissions. So powerful are these planetary satellites, its enemies are blasting co-ordinated rockets from warships and ground installations, set on a one-way collision course to destroy “enemy spacecraft”. WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG DEAL? In space, satellites equal surveillance, and placement equals power. The concern is, if our leading superpowers are warring over conflict areas such as the South China Sea and Ukraine, similar battles for space are expected to be fought from space. But such a conflict could “cripple” undermine humankind’s advances into the universe and send the war screaming back down to Earth. “The US must prepare for battles high above Earth whether it likes it or not,” said Air Force Space Command Commander General John Hyten. WHICH SUPERPOWER REIGNS IN SPACE? The United States own at least 500 satellites alone, as many as the rest of the world’s satellites combined. It is believed 100 of those US satellites are used for military purposes. It denies it is placing actual weapons in space, yet Air Force Space Command Commander General John Hyten said during a press conference last year: “We have a responsibility to defend against all threats. That’s what our job is. ... There is no doubt we have seen threats appear in the last decade, and we have to be prepared to respond to those threats. “It’s that simple.” Russia’s interest in the space race is no big secret — generated by the Cold War — but China has emerged as a universal powerhouse, launching 130 spacecrafts and satellites into orbit in recent years. These include spy satellites and plans to launch its own space station Tiāngōng in 2022. THE HISTORY BEHIND THE MODERN SPACE RACE Despite a 1967 agreement by the US and Russia expressly banning the use of antiballistic-missile weapons in space, the Outer Space Treaty has been largely ignored since 2002, when President George W. Bush withdrew to deploy interceptor missiles that would protect the United States from “rogue” attacks by enemy countries like North Korea. In 2007, China angered the space community after sending a missile to blow up one of its defunct satellites, leaving a debris field of over 3000 pieces to float in space like garbage. In 2013, they struck again, launching a rocket that reached 6,250 miles into orbit. “The Chinese have continued to test anti-satellite weapons since the year 2007,” US Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said. “There have been additional tests that didn’t destroy a satellite since that time. The testing has continued so that is an ongoing concern, something that we are watching.” WHAT IS THE US DOING ABOUT IT? In May this year, the US Air Force announced a $5 billion program in the upcoming defence budget, aimed to fund offensive and defensive systems to protect themselves in space. This month, the Pentagon announced it was “developing war plans and an operations centre to fend off Chinese and Russian attacks on US military and government satellites” in the next six months. “The ugly reality that we must now all face is that if an adversary were able to take space away from us, our ability to project decisive power across transoceanic distances and overmatch adversaries in theatres once we get there … would be critically weakened,” Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work told the GEOINT symposium in June. “If Russian soldiers are snapping pictures of themselves in war zones and posting them in social media sites, we want to know exactly where those pictures were taken.” Space, according to Mr Work, must now “be considered a contested operational domain in ways that we haven’t had to think about in the past. CAN THE UN INTERVENE? Unfortunately attempts to deal with the issue through diplomacy have done little to ease tensions. In late July, a European Union-drafted code of conduct for space nations failed to see the light, thanks to opposition from Russia, China and several smaller space territories like Brazil, India and South Africa. It is set to put back the debate within the UN General Assembly by years, if ever. “The bottom line is the United States does not want conflict in outer space,” Assistant Secretary Frank Rose told Scientific American. “But let me make it very clear: we will defend our space assets if attacked.”

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-10 23:51:21.364

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Wheeler,OKrent,Bistagne

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harker SP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Satellites DA

Tournament

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