<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<atom:link href="http://www.spacedebate.org/newevidence.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<title>Spacedebate.org: New Evidence</title>
<description>Latest evidence added to the database on Spacedebate.org</description>
<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/newevidence.xml</link>
<managingEditor>contact@spacedebate.org ()</managingEditor>
	<item>
	<title>Space Debris Problem is Already Hindering Our Utilization of Space</title>
	<description><![CDATA[This orbital junkyard is already hindering our utilization of outer space. In recent years, the vast amount of space debris has affected space launch schedules and caused in-space collisionavoidance maneuvering. On March 12, 2009, the near collision of space debris with the International Space Station (ISS) caused the ISS crew to temporarily evacuate into a Russian escape capsule docked with the station.28 This was the second time in less than a year that space debris threatened the ISS,29 and it highlighted a list of nine 2009 space debris collision-avoidance maneuvers by satellites under NASA’s control.30 Since February 2009, over thirty-two collision-avoidance maneuvers have been reported, including one by China.31 Concerns with space debris also threatened a space shuttle launch in fall 2008, as NASA warned that the risk of a catastrophic collision between space debris and the shuttle exceeded the norm.32 Earlier that year, in order to ensure that an Atlas V rocket carrying a secret payload into space did not collide with space debris, the United States was forced to delay the rocket’s launch for two weeks.33 Additionally, in 2005, a spacecraft that is a major part of NASA’s Earth Observing System successfully performed a small collision avoidance maneuver to ensure that it did not collide with space debris.34
----
Imburgia, Joseph S. "Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 44 (2011): 589-641.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5598</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5598</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Space Debris Problem has Already Caused Satellite Collisions</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Unfortunately, the space debris problem is not limited to near misses. On February 10, 2009, five hundred miles above Siberia, a Russian communications satellite collided with a privately owned Iridium telecommunications satellite “in an unprecedented orbital accident that would have been visible from the Earth.”35 If defunct, the Russian satellite would be properly considered “space debris”36; however, there is some skepticism as to whether the satellite was truly “defunct.”37 According to former Department of Defense space consultant Taylor Dinerman, the “possibility the Russians were testing a pre-positioned space mine is very plausible.”38 Russian Major General Leonid Shershnev, however, claims that the United States deliberately caused the collision.39
----
Imburgia, Joseph S. "Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 44 (2011): 589-641.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5599</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5599</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Space Debris Cascade is a Greater Threat to U.S. Space Assets Than Asat Weapons</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Some experts believe that once space debris collisions begin, they will be impossible to stop.54 The fear is that these cascading “collisions will eventually produce an impenetrable cloud of fragmentation debris that will encase Earth[, making] space travel . . . ‘a thing of the past’ and . . . obstruct[ing] our dream of colonizing outer space.”55 Experts warn that if the cascade effect occurs, space will be unusable for centuries due to the time it will take for all of the debris to eventually disintegrate in Earth’s atmosphere.56

If space debris is not immediately countered by preventative and removal measures, the cascade effect could occur in little more than a decade.57 In February 2008, Dr. Geoffrey Forden, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist and space programs expert, stated that the United States is “in danger of a runaway escalation of space debris.”58 He argued that the danger of a cascade effect is a greater threat to U.S. space assets than the threat of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons.59
----
Imburgia, Joseph S. "Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk." Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Vol. 44 (2011): 589-641.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5600</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5600</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Long-Range Ballistic Missile Threat from Iran Continually Over-Hyped by Iran and Western Analysts Alike</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Notwithstanding the insinuations of strategic missile defense proponents, no long-range ballistic missiles have been observed or flight-tested in Iran. The medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) continues to be the premier weapon in the Iranian inventory. Iran is still flight-testing (for the seventh time in February 2011), but not yet deploying, the two-stage solid-fueled Sejjil 2 MRBM, which would be the most likely delivery vehicle if Iran were eventually to field a nuclear warhead. With its 2200 km range, this system would be able to target Israel and other Middle Eastern countries from Iran’s interior.

Iran’s long range ballistic missile threat has been exaggerated for many years, starting with the Rumsfeld Commission’s warning in 1998 that Iran, et al, would be able to flight-test an intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM) in about five years. The U.S. intelligence community appeared to validate this concern in its 1999 National Intelligence Estimate, judging that Iran could test an ICBM within “a few years,” assigning an “even to likely” chance that it would test an ICBM by 2010.  Nearly two years past the marker set then by the intelligence community for the appearance of a 5500+ km. range Iranian ICBMs, nothing is in sight.
----
"Iranian Ballistic Missile Developments: Non-Barking Dog and Dead Monkey." Arms Control Today. October 24, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:30:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5584</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5584</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Iranian Space Program is Still in Its Infancy and has Many Barriers to Overcome</title>
	<description><![CDATA[One must acknowledge, however, that space rocket programs also warrant concern because they too involve development of technology relevant to long-range ballistic missile systems. The U.S. Intelligence Community warned in its 1999 NIE on the foreign ballistic missile threat that space launch vehicle development can mask military missile programs. Although conversion from space launch vehicle to military missile system is not as trivial as is often implied, it is true that much missile technology is transferable from peaceful to military uses. It is therefore necessary, in assessing the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles, to evaluate parallel space program developments as well.

In spite of Tehran’s promotional efforts and extravagant claims, Iran’s space program is in its infancy. U.S. press and politicians are often too quick to accept Iranian propaganda as reality. For example, Iran’s February 2010 display of the Simorgh, a space-launch vehicle (SLV) with a first-stage cluster of four No Dong class missiles, was heralded at the time as a “nascent ICBM” and has served since as a stand-in for Iran’s long-range missile potential. Yet the public had only been shown a mock-up, which, if constructed as a military system, would have a relatively small payload and no mobility.
----
"Iranian Ballistic Missile Developments: Non-Barking Dog and Dead Monkey." Arms Control Today. October 24, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:15:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5583</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5583</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Iranian Space and Ballistic Missile Program Unlikely to Progress Under Current Sanctions Regime</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Such things happen in the early years of a space program and Iran’s effort is in the “early years” by any measure. What is not comparable in the U.S. and Soviet experiences is the extent of obstacles Iran must surmount in trying to acquire or develop the necessary technology and experience to make progress. Although Iran has benefited from global technological advances, acquisitions of foreign missiles, and past assistance from foreign scientists, it must still overcome many technical obstacles to develop longer range missiles. In spite of its oil wealth, Iran does not have the large pool of rocket scientists the Soviet Union could draw on for the space race of the 1950s and 1960s, and Tehran cannot marshal the resources available to the vast Soviet empire during the Cold War.

Unless Iran can get out from under the international restrictions imposed on space program efforts because of their potential contribution to nuclear weapons delivery vehicle development, the prognosis of Iran’s space program is not good. Unlike other spacefaring nations, Iran faces an international community, which has officially banned its space launch attempts and is committed to blocking the transfer to Iran of missile technology items listed in the MTCR Annex. UN and unilateral sanctions thus pose a double burden for Iran: Not only are the opportunities for a “masked” military effort minimized; the opportunities for displaying the technological prowess and prestige of the Islamic Republic are also crimped. Unless Iran shows willingness to fulfill its nuclear safeguards obligations to the IAEA, its race to space is likely to be a discouraging slog.
----
"Iranian Ballistic Missile Developments: Non-Barking Dog and Dead Monkey." Arms Control Today. October 24, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5582</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5582</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>China's Lack of Military Transparency and Human Rights Record Are Reasons Not to Pursue Cooperation in Outer Space</title>
	<description><![CDATA[However, others warn there are significant dangers in extending an orbital olive branch, especially if that includes sharing U.S. technology and knowledge.

"I think that is a path that runs a great deal of risk unless it's very carefully managed," said Dean Cheng, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy think tank. "We don't know enough about the Chinese space policy system and the very heavy military element that permeates the Chinese space program. When we deal with China on space, we are dealing with their military. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but requires us to go in with our eyes open."

Certain U.S. lawmakers have objected strongly to space cooperation with China.

"Most countries expanding their space programs are strong U.S. allies that are primarily interested in advancing science research or building a commercial space industry. The Chinese, however, do not fall into this category," Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said during a U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing in May.

Wolf argued that China's space activities are too tied to its military, whose actions are often at odds with U.S. interests, and added that China's human rights abuses shouldn't be rewarded with cooperation.
----
Moskowitz, Clara. "US & China: Space Race or Cosmic Cooperation?." Space.com. September 27, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:45:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5548</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5548</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>China Could Win a New Space Race with the United States</title>
	<description><![CDATA[The Chinese space program is rising just as NASA faces difficult growing pains following the retirement of its 30-year space shuttle program this summer.

President Barack Obama has challenged the U.S. space agency to begin planning for human missions to an asteroid and Mars. Meanwhile, NASA is handing off to the private sector the burden of sending astronauts to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station.

All of these new U.S. initiatives will take time. Add China's momentum into the mix, and many in the American space community fear a new space race is something the United States wouldn't necessarily win this time

"The U.S. is currently in a situation of refocusing its spaceflight efforts," said Joan Johnson-Freese, chairwoman of the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "We don't have the political will that China has right now. If there's a race going on, their advantage is through political will, not technology."

While the United States remains the international leader in spaceflight ability, she said, it is unclear whether that will always be the case.
----
Moskowitz, Clara. "US & China: Space Race or Cosmic Cooperation?." Space.com. September 27, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:45:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5547</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5547</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>China Appears to be Pursuing Integrated Space Attack and Missile Defense Capabilities</title>
	<description><![CDATA[China is developing a multi-dimensional programme aimed at improving its ability to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during a crisis, the Pentagon says in its latest report on the country’s military. Is this another step toward a ‘Star Wars’ missile defence shield?

Certainly according to South Korea’s Chosun Ilbo, it is. ‘China is developing a missile defence system in the highest layer of the atmosphere and outer space using high-end technologies like laser beams and kinetic energy intercept,’ the paper notes as it dissects the report, which has just been presented to the US Congress.
 
Entitled ‘Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2011’, the report assesses China’s military progress over the past 12 months, including potential space-based applications. It notes that China conducted a national record 15 space launches last year, and also ‘expanded its space-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, navigation, meteorological, and communications satellite constellations.’
----
"China’s Missile Shield Plans." The Diplomat. August 31, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:15:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5514</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5514</guid>
	</item>

	<item>
	<title>Advantage of Asymmetric Tactics Against Space Assets Will Prevent Any Country from Gaining Space Dominance</title>
	<description><![CDATA[Regardless of China’s advances, Navy War College professor and frequent The Diplomat contributor Andrew Erickson argues in an interview with Flashpoints blogger David Axe that it’s not in China’s interests to even try to compete with the United States.
 
‘Space is expensive to enter, hard to sustain assets in, contains no defensive ground, and – barring energy-intensive maneuvering  – forces assets into predictable orbits,’ Erickson notes. ‘Some of the most debilitating asymmetric tactics could be employed against space and cyberspace targets.’
 
According to Axe, this essentially means that spacecraft are highly vulnerable to physical and electronic attack, and so are their control stations. To avoid these ‘asymmetric’ assaults at which China has proved particularly skilled, Axe quotes Erickson as saying that the Pentagon should take its current space-based equipment and move it downward to the atmosphere as the air is more secure than space.
----
"China’s Missile Shield Plans." The Diplomat. August 31, 2011.	]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:15:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5513</link>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/5513</guid>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

