Big Sky Debate Page
INTENSE MICROWAVE BEAMS WOULD ENDANGER BIRDS AND PLANES-Corkish ‘07
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EVEN IF MICROWAVES ARE SAFE, PUBLIC CONCERN WILL MAKE DEPLOYMENT CHALLENGING-Shiner ‘08
- SOLVENCY: SHOULD BE INTERNATIONAL SOLAR POWER SATELLITES WOULD BE BEST ACCOMPLISHED AS AN INTERNATIONAL AGENDA- Glaser ‘08
- IF ONE NATION DOES IT ALONE, MISTRUST WOULD OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE SHIFT IN POWER-Glaser ‘08
- INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION WILL BE CRITICAL FOR SBSP DEPLOYMENT-Hsu ‘10
- SPACE ENERGY WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-Betancourt ‘10
- SOLVENCY: NSSO REPORT HAS NO CREDIBILITY THE NSSO REPORT WAS WRITTEN TO JUSTIFY THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ITS OFFICE-Day ‘08
- THE NSSO STUDY HAD NO BUDGET, SHOWING IT IS NOT A WASHINGTON PRIORITY-Day ‘08
- SOLVENCY: LUNAR SBSP WILL NOT WORK WE ARE FARTHER FROM LSP THAN WE WERE IN 1968-Dinkin ‘05
- LSP WOULD NOT STOP DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITIONAL ENERGY THAT CAUSES POLLUTION-Dinkin ‘05
- OIL WOULD STILL BE DEVELOPED; SIMPLE ECONOMICS MEAN LSP WILL NOT REPLACE IT-Dinkin ‘05
- Space Elevator Negative
- IT WILL BE INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING TO FIND A MATERIAL STRONG ENOUGH FOR THE ELEVATOR CABLE-Klerkx ‘06
- CARBON NANOTUBE TECHNOLOGY MAY NEVER BE READY FOR SPACE ELEVATORS-Klerkx ‘06
- EXISTING AND GROWING SPACE DEBRIS WILL DESTROY RIBBONS IN SPACE ELEVATORS-Paulson ‘08
- WEATHER, INTERACTION WITH THE EARTH, AND HEALTH RISKS ALL MAKE SPACE ELEVATORS INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING-Hale ‘07
- SPACE ELEVATORS WOULD EXPOSE PASSENGERS TO DAYS OF DEADLY RADIATION-New Scientist ‘06
- 8000 CHUNKS OF SPACE DEBRIS THREATEN THE SPACE ELEVATOR CABLE-Munck ‘03
- THE TECHNOLOGY IS 50 YEARS AWAY-International Business Times ‘11
- THE SPACE ELEVATOR LACKS NECESSARY INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS AND TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY-International Business Times ‘11
- THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS NECESSARY FOR SPACE ELEVATORS HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED-International Business Times ‘11
- NANOTUBES HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED AND PRESENT HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES-Foust ‘03
- ORBITAL DEBRIS WILL POSE A SERIOUS OBSTACLE, WITH 5 OBJECTS PASSING CLOSE EACH MONTH-Foust ‘03
INTENSE MICROWAVE BEAMS WOULD ENDANGER BIRDS AND PLANES-Corkish ‘07 [Richard; School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering at the University of New South Wales; Pentagon backs future space-based power stations; Australian Broadcasting Corporation; 17 Oct 2007] The conversion from the electricity to microwave on the satellite, can be done quite efficiently I believe. The transmission from the satellite to earth is done by transmission from a microwave antenna on the satellite and reception on the earth with a microwave antenna array. Ideally, you'd be wanting to have a very intense, narrow beam of energy coming down to earth, there-fore you have a smaller antenna on the ground and you take up less land space in collecting it, however, there are legitimate concerns I think about having a very intense microwave beam coming down through which you've got to have birds passing, also aeroplanes for example. The trade-off is that you need to have a very diffuse beam spread quite widely when it gets to the ground and the cost of that is a very big collecting area to recollect that energy.
[Linda; staff writer; Where The Sun Does Shine; Air and Space; 01 July 2008; http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Sun_Does_Shine.html?c=y&page=2; retrieved 06 Aug 2011] Perhaps the biggest hurdle facing space solar power is public concern about how low-level microwave beams will affect animals and humans. Never mind that the fear remains unfounded. Because of the widespread use of microwaves for communication, the Federal Communications Commission has established a safety standard for human exposure. In all proposed space power systems, the expected power density at the edges of the receiving antenna, where people are most likely to be affected, meets the standard. But explaining this to the public, which hears “microwave” and thinks “oven,” might require a large and costly education campaign. Another worry, that microwave beams could scramble a passing airliner’s avionics or harm passengers, could be addressed by restricting the airspace around the beams, just as the Federal Aviation Administration restricts the airspace over nuclear power plants. Space power advocates may find it instructive to study the political struggles of the nuclear power industry. SOLVENCY: SHOULD BE INTERNATIONAL SOLAR POWER SATELLITES WOULD BE BEST ACCOMPLISHED AS AN INTERNATIONAL AGENDA-Glaser ‘08 [Dr. Peter; PD.D.;Mechanical Engineering; An Energy Pioneer Looks Back; Ad Astra; Spring 2008; www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] Since it would be such a huge undertaking, I think it would be best accomplished at an international level, perhaps even managed by the United Nations. Each country could contribute their best effort, and then each country would reap the benefit of cheap and plentiful power from the sun. We could utilize the knowledge of all the nations that have been researching spacebased solar power. If only one country has the satellites, the international community will worry that the technology will be misused. With every nation taking part in the planning, building, and operation of the system, there would be inherent transparency, oversight, and equality. There would be no secrets, and no country would be left in the dark. IF ONE NATION DOES IT ALONE, MISTRUST WOULD OCCUR BECAUSE OF THE SHIFT IN POWER-Glaser ‘08 [Dr. Peter; PD.D.;Mechanical Engineering; An Energy Pioneer Looks Back; Ad Astra; Spring 2008; www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf; retrieved 11 Jul 2011] On the other hand, if one nation decides to build the system, all hell may break loose. There would be distrust and a huge shift in the balance of power. Any nation with such a system would not only have an advantage in space, but they would have economic and military advantages on the ground as well. And there are many countries taking the idea of solar power from space much more seriously that we are in the United States. I would prefer to see a network of power satellites built by an international effort. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION WILL BE CRITICAL FOR SBSP DEPLOYMENT-Hsu ‘10 [Feng; Sr. Vice President Systems Engineering & Risk Management, Space Energy Group; Harnessing the Sun: Embarking on Humanity's Next Giant Leap; Online Journal of Space Communication; Winter 2010; http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/hsu.html;retrieved 23 Jun 2011] An major effort led by the U.S. - similar to the 1960s Apollo Project to put a man on the moon - with broad participation from the international community may be what is needed to create, implement and operate a commercial scale SPS system. Please remember, an inherent feature of Solar Power Satellites is their location in earth orbit outside the borders of any individual nation. Their energy will be delivered back to the earth by way of wireless power transmission. WPT applications must be compatible with other uses of the radio frequency spectrum in the affected orbital space. SPS infrastructures must also be launched and delivered into space. International involvement of governments is mandatory for coordinating global treaties and agreements, frequency assignments, satellite locations, space traffic control and other features of space operations to prevent international confrontations. SPACE ENERGY WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION-Betancourt ‘10 [Kiantar; JD student, University of Maryland; Legal Challenges Facing Solar Power Satellites; Online Journal of Space Communication; Winter 2010; http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/betancourt.html; retrieved 24 Jun 2011] Space energy is not the only option for solving the world’s future energy needs, but it is one of the most promising. The idea of satellites sending clean continuous power from the sun may still sound like science fiction, but many of today’s technological marvels had a similar history. The realization of solar power satellites will not happen overnight; in fact it has been an idea over 40 years in the making. Launch costs need to be lowered. The international legal regime needs further development to accommodate to space solar power implementation. SBSP will require substantial international between and among countries and their private companies. All are difficult challenges but will be rewarded with a worthy prize. SOLVENCY: NSSO REPORT HAS NO CREDIBILITY THE NSSO REPORT WAS WRITTEN TO JUSTIFY THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ITS OFFICE-Day ‘08 [Dwayne; Knights in shining armor; The Space Review; 09 Jun 2008; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1; retrieved 14 Jul 2011] But in this case, the activists touting the NSSO study do not understand where the NSSO fits into the larger military space bureaucracy. The National Security Space Office was created in 2004 and “facilitates the integration and coordination of defense, intelligence, civil, and commercial space activities.” But any office that “facilitates” the activities of other organizations has limited influence, especially when those other organizations are much bigger and have their own interests and connections to the senior leadership. The NSSO has a minimal staff and budget and does not command any assets—it does not fly any satellites, launch any rockets, or procure any hardware, all of which are measures of power within the military space realm. Simply put, the NSSO exists essentially as a policy shop that is readily ignored by the major military space actors such as Strategic Command, Air Force Space Command, and the National Reconnaissance Office whenever it suits them. As one former NSSO staffer explained, the office consists of many smart, hardworking people who have no discernible influence on military space at all. In fact, for several years there have been persistent rumors that the NSSO was about to be abolished as unnecessary, irrelevant, and toothless. THE NSSO STUDY HAD NO BUDGET, SHOWING IT IS NOT A WASHINGTON PRIORITY-Day ‘08 [Dwayne; Knights in shining armor; The Space Review; 09 Jun 2008; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1; retrieved 14 Jul 2011] Add to this the way in which the NSSO’s solar power satellite study was pursued—the study itself had no budget. In Washington, studies cost money. If the Department of Defense wants advice on, say, options for space launch, they hire an organization to conduct the study such as the RAND Corporation, or they employ one of their existing advisory groups such as the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. All of this requires money to pay for the experts to perform the work. Even if the study is performed by a committee of volunteers, there are still travel, printing, staff support, overhead, and other expenses. Costs can vary widely, but at a minimum will start in the many tens of thousands of dollars and could run to a few million dollars. In contrast, the NSSO study of space solar power had no actual funding and relied entirely upon voluntary input and labor. This reflects the seriousness by which the study was viewed by the Pentagon leadership. SOLVENCY: LUNAR SBSP WILL NOT WORK WE ARE FARTHER FROM LSP THAN WE WERE IN 1968-Dinkin ‘05 [Sam; columnist; Rectifying the case for beaming Lunar solar power; The Space Review; 11April 2005;http://www.thespacereview.com/article/354/1; retrieved 27 June 2011] There are substantial questions that need to be answered regarding cultural, legal, financial, and political challenges before the more modest engineering challenges can be embarked upon. Dr. David Criswell advocates LSP as a panacea for global poverty, petroleum wars, pollution, US growth, Social Security, Medicaid, interplanetary travel, and colonization. Is it the real deal, or is it being thoughtlessly oversold like orbital solar, helium-3, and hydrogen? Criswell’s frontal assault on the academy has been going on for decades. Even as the economics and technology gets steadily validated through other projects, we are further from LSP now than we were in 1968.
[Sam; columnist; Rectifying the case for beaming Lunar solar power; The Space Review; 11April 2005;http://www.thespacereview.com/article/354/1; retrieved 27 June 2011] One benefit that cannot be banked on (at least not without intervention or a complete turnover of the capital stock) is reduction of carbon pollution. Cost of coal is about nil. It is between $10–40/ton delivered. That generates about 25 million BTU, which converts into about 7,300 kWt-h or about 2,400 kWe-h. That puts it right around $0.01/kWe-h. If the cost of Lunar solar generated electricity dropped to that, coal would still be burned in about half the plants in America if we discount operating and maintenance costs. Since there is nothing really to do with coal if we don’t burn it, the price of coal would drop if we stop. The prices would drop to microprices. It is reasonable to expect that few new coal, nuclear or gas plants would be built if Lunar solar starts offering electricity at $0.01, but that would entail a huge drop in the cost of carbon and uranium. It might still be profitable to operate rather than close them after the capital is written off. The only way to stop the burning of coal in existing plants is to impose a tax or outlaw it. We can do either of those things without Lunar solar power. OIL WOULD STILL BE DEVELOPED; SIMPLE ECONOMICS MEAN LSP WILL NOT REPLACE IT-Dinkin ‘05 [Sam; columnist; Rectifying the case for beaming Lunar solar power; The Space Review; 11April 2005;http://www.thespacereview.com/article/354/1; retrieved 27 June 2011] Oil is a similar deal. There are still very-low-cost oil fields to work, especially in the Middle East. If the cost of electricity dropped to $0.01/kWe-h due to market saturation of solar, oil would likely drop precipitously until burning it became competitive since petrochemicals demand would take years to reach the same level of demand as burning oil as fuel for heating or transportation. There would be many expensive wells that would be capped. There would be few, if any, new wells drilled, but oil would continue to flow and be burned for years following such a price drop. Again, a steep carbon tax would be required to eliminate it.
SOLVENCY SPACE ELEVATOR DESIGN HAS NOT SOLVED THE THREAT OF CASCADING RIBBON FAILURE-Nugent ‘06 [Tom; Research Director @ LiftPort Inc; Space Elevator Ribbon: The Elastic Energy Problem; 2006 Liftport Technical Letter; 2006; http://web.archive.org/web/20060708010156/http://www.liftport.com/papers/2006Feb-ElasticEnergy.pdf; retrieved 21 Jun 2011] Elastic energy is a problem facing development of the space elevator which has not been adequately addressed to date. The brief discussion above of the problem suggests that the threat of cascading ribbon failure due to the break of a single small thread is probably avoidable, but is of enough concern to warrant further study. The most important next step is to perform finite element analysis on CNT threads of various lengths. The analyses should examine the acceleration and speed distribution of the thread over time, and what (if any) effect there is on the length of thread studied (in other words, is there an important separation distance for cross-beams?). The results of hypervelocity impacts of threads also needs to be studied. Long threads impacting at a skew angle from each other are a very different geometry from the ”typical” hypervelocity impact. Energy deposition will be different when only part of the high-speed mass impacts the target.
[Greg; science journalist; Elevator to the stars: Forget rockets, there's a gentler way to get into space; New Scientist; 02 Sep 2006; pg. 36-39] Perhaps the biggest challenge is finding a material strong enough for the elevator cable. A research paper published in May in the Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter (vol 18, p s1971) could dash the hopes of the carbon nanotube enthusiasts. According to Nicola Pugno of the Polytechnic of Turin, Italy, while carbon nanotubes are amazingly strong individually, manufacturing flaws will make them much weaker when ganged together on the scale required for a space elevator. Pugno says that if a nanotube lacks even one atom, its strength is reduced by 30 per cent. According to her statistical model, atomic-scale defects in the vast quantities of nanotubes that would be needed for a space elevator cable will, almost inevitably, reduce any elevator cable's strength by at least 70 per cent. CARBON NANOTUBE TECHNOLOGY MAY NEVER BE READY FOR SPACE ELEVATORS-Klerkx ‘06 [Greg; science journalist; Elevator to the stars: Forget rockets, there's a gentler way to get into space; New Scientist; 02 Sep 2006; pg. 36-39] Edwards admits that the carbon nanotubes being produced in volume, particularly in China, France and Japan, just aren't right for space elevators. "Right now most of the carbon nanotubes produced are short and tangled," he says, the kind of carbon nanotube useful for strengthening construction materials like concrete, for instance. "Optimally the nanotubes we need are long and aligned." Edwards says about 600 tonnes of carbon nanotubes would be needed to construct an initial space elevator capable of carrying 15 tonnes of cargo. Like Pugno, Hoyt isn't optimistic about the evolution of carbon nanotubes as building blocks for space elevators, or for tether technology in general. "It would be foolish to say 'never'," Hoyt says. "However, it is clear that building a space elevator will require pushing our capabilities in nano-engineering and material processing to a level of perfection as yet unheard of." Rather than "wait for unobtainium", Hoyt says that MAST uses a braided structure that is durable, light and ready to use now. EXISTING AND GROWING SPACE DEBRIS WILL DESTROY RIBBONS IN SPACE ELEVATORS-Paulson ‘08 [Tom; staff reporter; THERE'S NO STAIRWAY TO HEAVENS? TAKE THE ELEVATOR EXPERTS GATHER AT MICROSOFT TO TRY TO MAKE SCI-FI DREAM A REALITY; Seattle Post-Intelligencer; 19 Jul 2008; pg. A1] Actually, former NASA director of advanced concepts Ivan Bekey told the 50 or so people at the meeting that there's an even bigger challenge once the climbing cable and energy system problems are solved. "Today, there are 6,000 satellites in orbit and some 5,000 of them are dead," said Bekey, who now runs a private aerospace consulting firm in Virginia. There are an estimated 150,000 pieces of space debris the size of basketballs and millions of tiny bullet-fast pieces - all of which are almost guaranteed to rip apart any cable or ribbon tethering the space elevator, he said. "There will be impacts, no question," said Bekey, adding that any elevator must be able to avoid collisions and self-repair rapidly to the tethering system. "I'm a frustrated advocate," Bekey said, and challenged his colleagues: "Please prove me wrong. I'd love to be wrong."
[Alan, astronomer; Elevator Ride to the Stars; Ruidoso News; 29 Mar 2007] There remain numerous difficult challenges in the development of such a structure. The vagaries of Earth's surface weather, the interaction of the ribbon with the Earth's ionosphere and magnetosphere, and - when the issue of transporting humans is discussed - exposure to the Van Allen radiation belts (and thus the need for shielding - and additional weight) - are all serious issues that would have to be dealt with. The political and economic issues are non-trivial as well, although Laubscher has calculated that the first ribbon could be built for $18 billion, and subsequent ribbons for even less. SPACE ELEVATORS WOULD EXPOSE PASSENGERS TO DAYS OF DEADLY RADIATION-New Scientist ‘06 [Risky Ride for Space Climbers; New Scientist; 11 Nov 2006; pg. 29] Space elevators are touted as a cheap alternative to rocket propulsion for transporting cargo and even people into orbit. So far, they exist only on paper, but ultimately robots could climb a cable stretching thousands of kilometres from Earth's surface into space. However, there is a hitch: passengers could be killed by the radiation they receive on the way to the top, say Anders Jorgensen and Steven Patamia at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and Blaise Gassend of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the proposed speed of 200 kilometres per hour, passengers would spend a few days in the Van Allen radiation belts, long enough to induce severe sickness and even death. One way to reduce the risk would be to shift the base of the elevator away from its planned site near the equator, the trio report in a forthcoming issue of the journal Acta Astronautica . But while this would avoid some of the most intense areas of radiation, it would probably not be enough to protect passengers.
[Bob; researcher for NASA NIAC program; The Space Elevator; 16 Jan 2003; http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/HighLift/contents.html; retrieved 02 Aug 2011] Currently space debris larger than 10 cm diameter is tracked by U. S. Space Command. This accounts for roughly 8000 objects (satellites and space debris). An additional 100,000 objects with diameters between 1 and 10 cm are in Earth orbit. Of these objects most are in LEO (500 - 1700 km) which has the highest and most deadly relative velocity to the space elevator cable. With this density of debris we can expect the cable to be hit and possibly severed once every 250 days. One possible solution to this problem is to track all of the space debris between 1 and 10 cm diameter and move the cable out of the path of any that are on a collision course (Chapter 6:Anchor). THE TECHNOLOGY IS 50 YEARS AWAY-International Business Times ‘11 [20 Years After Nanotube, Space Elevator Project Still Far From Take Off; International Business Times; 31 July 2011; http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189813/20110731/venturing-space-through-space-elevator-research-meet-conference-sesi-washington-nasa-arthur-clarke-s.htm; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Constructing and deploying tether technology in space is a real challenge. Carbon nanotube is the likely material for tethering. It is 180 times stronger than steel cable, with lightweight properties and tensile strength. "We don't have the ability to make long cable out of the carbon nanotubes at the moment. Although I'm confident that within a reasonable amount of time we will be able to do this," said Professor Jeff Hoffman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. According to Smitherman, the construction of a space elevator is not feasible today, but it could be toward the end of the 21st century. "First we'll develop the technology," said Smitherman. "In 50 years or so, we'll be there."
[20 Years After Nanotube, Space Elevator Project Still Far From Take Off; International Business Times; 31 July 2011; http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189813/20110731/venturing-space-through-space-elevator-research-meet-conference-sesi-washington-nasa-arthur-clarke-s.htm; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Finally, there remains the real challenge of developing transportation, utility and infrastructure to support space construction from Earth out to GEO. The cost of putting an elevator and transport system can be justified only by frequent usage of elevator to transport passengers and payloads. There are practical difficulties in executing any approved project on the space elevator. Finding an ideal site to build the elevator is not easy and it requires international consensus. THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS NECESSARY FOR SPACE ELEVATORS HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED-International Business Times ‘11 [20 Years After Nanotube, Space Elevator Project Still Far From Take Off; International Business Times; 31 July 2011; http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189813/20110731/venturing-space-through-space-elevator-research-meet-conference-sesi-washington-nasa-arthur-clarke-s.htm; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] After fixing the right cable in the right place, the next challenge lies with the selection of lightweight, composite structural materials for construction. Then, high-speed, electromagnetic propulsion for mass-transportation systems have to be developed. NANOTUBES HAVE NOT BEEN TESTED AND PRESENT HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES-Foust ‘03 [Jeff; The Space Elevator: Going Up?; The Space Review; 22 Sep 2003; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/48/1; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] One issue the conference addressed that had not previously been widely contemplated is the environmental and health risks that nanotubes pose. Ron Morgan of Los Alamos noted that nanotubes could pose a health risk through skin irritation, ingestion, or inhalation. “The human body has never been subjected to materials like this,” he noted, saying the material most like nanotubes was asbestos, a known carcinogen. Animal tests of nanotubes are just beginning, he noted, and early results do show some adverse affects. “These are not completely inert in mammalian tissue,” he said. He urged researchers to treat the materials with caution, using fume hoods and other equipment to keep them from inhaling the material. “Don’t be the guinea pig.” ORBITAL DEBRIS WILL POSE A SERIOUS OBSTACLE, WITH 5 OBJECTS PASSING CLOSE EACH MONTH-Foust ‘03 [Jeff; The Space Elevator: Going Up?; The Space Review; 22 Sep 2003; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/48/1; retrieved 01 Aug 2011] Besides addressing the technological barriers to building a space elevator, conference attendees also looked at the various hazards an elevator would face once built. Paramount among them was the issue of orbital debris, the small (and not so small) inert objects orbiting the Earth that could damage, or even sever, a space elevator. “The major problem is from orbital debris and satellites,” said noted author and space elevator proponent Arthur C. Clarke, appearing via a satellite link from Sri Lanka. “Debris is a serious concern,” Edwards concurred. In his original proposal, Edwards argued that putting the elevator anchor at sea, on a mobile platform, would allow it to move the elevator ribbon around, allowing it to dodge large debris. Minor damage to the ribbon caused by small pieces of debris as well as micrometeoroids could be fixed by special repair climbers. David Smitherman of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, who led a look at the space elevator concept in the late 1990s, offered some data on the risk orbital debris poses to the elevator. Using current estimates of the amount of debris in orbit 10 centimeters across and larger, his model found that, on average, 52.5 objects a month would pass within one kilometer of the elevator. Of those, 12.5 per month would pass within 500 meters. The major peaks in the distribution of debris are at altitude of 910 and 1525 kilometers, which Smitherman said were from upper stages of launch vehicles. Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 1.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|