Changes for page Sunset bhat Neg
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-11-14 05:24:15. 9121 +2016-11-14 05:24:15.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +Counter-Plan: Countries ought to invest in high-level nuclear waste disposal space programs while continuing the production of nuclear power. 2 +Coopersmith ‘99: Jonathan Coopersmith writes in “Disposal of High Level Nuclear Waste in Space,” Texas AandM University, College Station, Texas, SSI (Space Studies Institute), http://www.nss.org/settlement/manufacturing/SM12.111.DisposalOfHighLevelNuclearWasteInSpace.pdf 3 +In the spirit of Jonathan Swift, let me offer a modest proposal: Let's put high-level radioactive waste where it belongs - out in space where it cannot endanger anyone on earth. The idea is not new ~-~- NASA's Lewis Research Center concluded it was technically feasible in 1974 and the Space Systems Technical Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics endorsed it in 1981, to name only two of many studies, but space disposal has never received strong institutional support from government or the private sector.6 Space disposal has two major benefits. First, it will permanently remove the burden and responsibility of high-level radioactive waste from future generations. Second, the infrastructure needed to dispose of radioactive waste safely will greatly reduce the cost of exploiting space. The tonnage currently launched into space is not that great. In 1998, rockets launched less than 200 tons of payloads into earth orbit and beyond (excluding the weight of the space shuttle). 7 The attraction for the aerospace community of waste disposal is the guarantee of large payloads for decades to come. What could engineers develop if asked to launch 10,000 tons annually? Space disposal will create the first market for launch systems that could truly provide the inexpensive access to space promised for decades. Disposal in space consists of three steps: - preparing and transporting the waste to the launch site - launching into low earth orbit - launching to a final destination. All three steps have been studied extensively over the last quarter century. I will focus on the last two steps, each of which offers a wide range of technological options. The 112 important criteria are safety, and technological and economic feasibility. The most visible technological choice is the launch system - or systems ~-~- to provide a quantum increase in access to space. The two basic choices are conventional rockets carrying large cargoes or ground-based systems launching smaller vehicles. Most studies in the 1970s-80s assumed the use of the space shuttle, possible derivatives, other rockets like Ariane, and even surplus ICBMs.8 The next generation of rockets, such as the EEL V and even the proposed reusable launch vehicles (like the Kistler K-1) will reduce the cost of access by an order of magnitude at most and probably less. While these are major improvements on existing rockets, only more radical approaches may reduce costs by the one or two more orders of magnitude necessary to truly change the economic perceptions of space. 4 +The target disposal site and mechanisms to conduct the launch of nuclear waste into space are effective and opens up doors to other space development 5 +Coopersmith ‘99: Jonathan Coopersmith writes in “Disposal of High Level Nuclear Waste in Space,” Texas AandM University, College Station, Texas, SSI (Space Studies Institute), http://www.nss.org/settlement/manufacturing/SM12.111.DisposalOfHighLevelNuclearWasteInSpace.pdf 6 +The key determinant in the final destination of the radioactive waste is the energy needed to transport it there. With the exception of proposals to expel charged particles of waste out of the solar system, all studies assume the physical movement of shielded capsules.l2 Some options, such as sending the capsules out of the solar system or into the sun, are very energy intensive, measured in terms of the velocity needed. Soft or hard landings on the moon are another possibility, as are very high earth orbits and the Earth-moon libration points.l3 Possibly more appealing would be a solar orbit inside Venus.l4 This is because future generations might find our radioactive wastes valuable, just as old mine tailings are now a useful source of precious metals. If so, placing the waste in a retrievable location far out of possible human and harm's way, such as a solar orbit, would be wise. Because time is not critical, propulsion systems with low speed - and low cost - will have the advantage over chemical rockets. Again, space disposal will offer opportunities for promising technologies like low-weight solar sails, electric rockets, mass drivers fueled by lunar material, or laser- or microwave-propelled systems. IS Less likely is a nuclear-powered system.l6 A space tug might collect a number of capsules, bind them together, attach the propulsion system, and launch the new spacecraft gently into an orbit around the Sun. 7 +Aff cannot perm, the CP continues nuclear power production, instead of prohibiting it. The aff must defend prohibiting the production of nuclear energy, not its waste. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-14 05:24:17.523 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +23 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sunset bhat Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SO - Space Disposal CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x