Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Okay


  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
  1. Is it harder to be the first or second speaker. I know they both have important roles but which one is harder? I've seen teamed who switch off on different sides. Does that mean one side is harder to speak second on?
  2. Does that apply? Lol I don't really have a good understanding of concepts.EDIT: I was also told it only applied to political feasibility.
  3. I was also wondering how to respond to unfeasible. My coach gets mad whenever I bring them up and just says carbon nanotubes are not developed enough to build a space elevator.
  4. I'm running it along side space elevators. I've coupled it with the 60s navy radiation dumping, that's also a good point to run with it. I'd look into it.

    Big affs

    Well yea that's not an impacts file I'm just saying I don't think UNCLOS is a good idea beacasue there are a lot of Ks and Disads against it.
  6. No I've heard of it can you explain it to me I think it might apply to me.
  7. I over exaggerated that part in not running space warfare is different buti went get into that but how exactly is Colo topical.
  8. Okay so next year is my first year debating, and as many of you probably know the topic is oceans. If you visited the oceans subforum then you already know that I'm running space elevators. So my question is when they argue T is a good response that the means used to achieve is is what justifies T ,not the ends. Like when I talk about space colonization and they argue T is it a sufficient response to say that we're building the elevators in the oceans even though we're using them for colonization and space warfare so because we're building them in the oceans it is topical?
  9. If you plan on running this what is your specific plan text to make it T. I'm a novice so I don't know how to word it to avoid troubles.
  10. My plan is at about $400B right now, so I don't think an extra 20 will hurt.
  11. Also I should add,whoever plans on running this should look into the Helium-3 advantage.
  12. Space Elevator solves SPS Riatt and Edwards 4 - * Senior Technology Transfer Officer, Technology Transfer & Promotion Office, European Space Agency and **President, X Tech Corp (David and Bradley, 2004, "The Space Elevator: Economics And Applications," IAC-04-IAA.3.8.3, 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada, http://www.spaceelevator.com/Docs/Iac-2004/Iac-04-iaa. One major use envisioned at the outset is that of launching solar energy platforms which will collect the limitless energy of the sun and beam it down to Earth for a constant source of clean, renewable power. This would have enormous implications for the environment and sustainable development by cutting fossil fuel consumption and thus eliminating harmful greenhouse gases. It would also avoid the necessity of constructing tall solar towers which, of necessity, have huge ground footprints. The solar tower under development in Australia, for instance, will have a collector nearly 6km in diameter and require over 50 square kilometers for the construction. Current costs put the capital investment needed for a space solar power system well in the tens of billions of dollars. Such systems would be able to supply power at approximately $0.2/kW-hr which is still above conventional power production rates of competitive terrestrial options such as fission plants and wind turbines. The major hurdle has been the launch costs required to place 20 million kilo systems at geosynchronous altitude. Conventional rocket systems can place 5000kg in geosynchronous for roughly $200m (Atlas V or Delta IV). This would place the total launch costs at $800bn. However, recent work suggests that these costs would drop with the Space Elevator. Total launch costs would be around $30bn and allow for roughly $0.1$/kW-hr power production. This is competitive with terrestrial-based power supplies. More R&D work is needed to bring the technology to maturity for such a programme but countries such as Japan have stated a commitment to construct a space solar power system by 2040. Solve solar power and disaster response Kent 07 - Major, USAF, PE (Jason, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. "Getting To Space On A Thread, Space Elevator As Alternative Space Access" April 2007)#SPS Building a space elevator suddenly makes many projects feasible which would have direct application to support the U.S. military. Power generation from orbit and on-call night- time illumination are but two of these missions. Solar power is a free and inexhaustible energy supply. Using a space elevator, massive solar power collection and transmission stations could be constructed in GEO that could relieve and someday replace fossil fuel-based energy production. For the military, such stations could be developed to beam power down to fielded forces relieving these units from the need to bring fuel or generators into an undeveloped area of operations. Similarly, on-call illumination from either mirrors or spotlights in orbit could be built to support military operations or emergency response. These satellites would prove very useful in illuminating targeted areas or exposing enemy positions while leaving friendly forces shielded by darkness. In an emergency response situation, the same orbital illumination could be used to provide light while terrestrial power was restored or response personnel were in action. With a space elevator, legacy missions would grow while new missions are enabled. With these missions in mind, it is time to turn to the actual construction and operation of a space elevator
  13. http://www.debatecoaches.org/openev-archive/files/download/Space_Elevators_Aff_7WK.doc Here's some cards. http://www.debatecoaches.org/openev-archive/files/download/Colonization_Aff___Wave_1___KNDI_2011.docx And some more. Thanks to Solax for putting them in the big affs thread.
  • Create New...