Tournament: Coppel Classic Swing | Round: 2 | Opponent: Grapevine KB | Judge: Lei Huang
The Space Economy is rapidly growing – all thanks goes to the private sector
Rana and Sharma 21 Damini Rana works at Delhi Public School RK Puram, Delhi, India and Mritunjay Sharma is an Advisor. JSR Volume 10 Issue 3 2021 “The New Final Frontier: A Case Study Analysis of Private Sector’s Increasing Role in the Space Industry” https://www.jsr.org/hs/index.php/path/article/view/1622 aaditg
This has drawn tremendous interest from both entrepreneurs and investors, as space became not just an exciting, but also a lucrative, investment. Figure 4 shows how SpaceX’s success has since sparked a rapid increase in private investments in space. From less than US$500 million per year in 2009, private investment in space had grown to over US$5 billion per annum by 2019. 32. Fig. 4. Cumulative private investments. The next section offers an analysis of how the space economy is expected to grow in the future and the role that private investment will continue to play in it. Future Outlook of Space Revenues and Investments The analysis and research provided above clearly indicates that the commercial sector has a much higher impact on the monetary size of the space economy than the government sector. While the government may have started space research, the growth of the space economy is now driven primarily by private sector initiatives. The space economy’s growth looks promising over the next decades, as humans look to leverage the earthoriented opportunities (communications, earth observation, etc.) in the near term and the prospects of mining, space tourism, as well as Moon and Mars expeditions in future. Several organizations have made forecasts of the space economy using slightly different starting points and future assumptions. The Science and Technology Policy Institute 17 has collated and reviewed some of these forecasts, as provided in Table 4 below. According to its report published in 2017, Morgan Stanley estimates that the global space industry could generate more than US$1 trillion in revenue by 2040 33. As per the report, the industry growth in the next 5-7 years is likely to be driven by the launches of LEO satellite constellations and their associated services, while growth after 2026, to a substantial extent, will be determined by what are mentioned as ‘second order impacts’ in the report – essentially this will require the New Space Economy businesses to start pulling their weight from a commercial perspective. Fig. 5. The global space economy (US$ million). It is evident that while the near-term opportunities are satellite-led and relatively well-established, new space opportunities, that is, asteroid mining, space tourism and the colonization of Mars, are novel and riskier, in terms of both economic value and timelines. Significant investments will be required before some of these are realized. Keeping this in view, a forecast was made for space industry revenues till 2040. Investments required to achieve these revenues were also assessed through quantitative regression analysis. A. Space Economy Forecast Till 2040 The historical data for space economy size used earlier in Table 1 was projected forward to forecast the size of the economy till 2040. As per Table 1, the space economy grew at 6.5 from 2005-2019, with the commercial economy growing at 7.3 and the government at 3.9. Significant recent growth can be attributed to the need for more satellites by a rapidly digitizing world. This is a relatively low-hanging fruit for private sector exploitation. However, it is expected that with increasing scale and greater technical challenges to be overcome in non-satellite business, the growth over the next two decades may be lower than what has been witnessed over the last decade. Hence, the following assumptions have been made for the forecast. Annual growth rate of Commercial Economy: 6.5 Volume 10 Issue 3 (2021) ISSN: 2167-1907 www.JSR.org 11 Annual growth rate of Government Economy: 3 The above assumptions led to a forecast for the space economy as per Table 5 below. The above forecast suggests that the space economy will grow from US$424 billion in 2019 to US$1.4 trillion by 2040, at an annualized rate of about 6. The size of the commercial economy by 2040 will be US$1.26 trillion, while the government economy will be US$162 billion. This indicates that the share of the government economy in the total space economy would decline from 20.5 in 2019 to 11.3 in 2040.
Private Space Exploration solves recession
Sidorov 20 Konstantin Sidorov is chief executive of the London Tech Club. City AM “Need a way out of recession? Look to the stars” https://www.cityam.com/need-a-way-out-of-recession-look-to-the-stars/ 11/23/2020 aaditg
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.” These words by President John F. Kennedy are as important today as they were when he spoke in 1962. Asteroid mining may seem like something out of a sci-fi movie, and not the most obvious choice of investment, especially during a global pandemic and recession. But it is exactly these kinds of aspirations that have pushed human endeavour and technological advancement to new heights. The discoveries made along the way to achieving these sky-high goals have become integral parts of our daily lives — and could even help us out of this recession. The economics of space is now a crucial part of the market and no longer only in the realm of government endeavour. Private capital is paving the way for public partnerships. Supply chains in the “new space economy” are accelerating, startups are emerging, and clusters are forming. Old space discovery was defined by the Russian Voshod and Vostok and the US Apollo missions. We have entered a space age defined by private enterprise. Financial firms Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America Merrill Lynch have each conducted their own studies and found the space economy could reach between $1 trillion and $2.7 trillion by the 2040s. That would make it larger than the 2017 GDP of the UK. But are these astronomical figures relevant to people beyond the likes of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson? The answer is a resounding yes. The space sector is made up of a hidden infrastructure which most people do not see but is central to the technology that surrounds us. The strides humankind is making in space are integral to the day-to-day things we take for granted. Space plays an indispensable role in the global economy. The highest grossing sectors — agriculture, mining, transportation, IT, finance, and insurance — all heavily rely on systems and technology developed for space. We know that without satellite observation our navigation and mapping capacity would be significantly reduced. But that is only the start. Satellite data is being harnessed to protect critical infrastructure, and can be used to prevent disasters like the Morandi bridge collapse in Genoa by monitoring and holding critical information to better manage and maintain these types of structures. Given that there are over 80,000 ageing bridges in Canada alone, most with a design life of less than 100 years, the potential impact could be huge. The insurance industry can also be transformed by “mega constellations” — a group of artificial satellites working together as a system to provide permanent global coverage. Insurers are excited about the prospect of increased real-time data on hurricanes, especially the ability to use imagery and analytics to speed up or question claims. Amazon is rolling out plans to launch over 3,200 satellites to over 95 per cent of the Earth’s surface. The initiative is to launch a constellation of low Earth orbit satellites that will provide low-latency, high-speed broadband connectivity to the unserved communities around the world. Starlink, built by SpaceX, is launching “constellation broadband” to deliver higher-speed internet connections across the world. The volume of space spin-off industries is multiplying every year. NASA has created more than 2,000 inventions that later became widespread products and services. Innovations such as the dialysis machines, CAT scanners and freeze-dried food are all a result of space-related projects. Without investment in space exploration we would be without memory foam or GPS, while an adaptation of the spacesuit upgrade led to the creation of the Nike Air footwear. We are only going to become more dependent on space technologies as AI and the fourth industrial revolution take off. Satellite data and its deep-learning technology are being used to map and monitor solar energy assets for smart city and smart grid initiatives. The AI combines satellite data with other factors such as weather information and local government policies to provide a complete picture of the emissions and financial benefits the technology could bring. And yet, despite these strides, space exploration is still not considered a central part of our everyday lives. That needs to change. Governments must recognise its strategic importance. Consumers must realise how the space industry affects their everyday actions. Investors must consider the value of investment into the sector. Space is key to protecting our people, promoting our global influence, and providing future prosperity.
Recessions cause war – stats support transition wars, resource conflicts, terrorism, and diversionary wars – other authors don’t base their analysis on global studies
Royal ’10 Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, 2010, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215PM
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent slates. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (19) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often-bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (sec also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, likelihood for conflict increases. as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession lends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg and I less. 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. and Wccrapana. 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blomberg. Mess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DcRoucn (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views.
That causes global nuclear war.
Merlini ’11 Cesare, was a nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and is chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome, “A Post-Secular World?”, 03-30-2011, Routledge, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/04_international_relations_merlini.pdfPM
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.