Big Sky Debate Page
SOLVENCY: SPACE WEAPONIZATION UNDERMINES US LEADERSHIP
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AMERICAN RHETORIC ABOUT SPACE WEAPONS ALIENATES ALLIES AND RIVALS-Moore ‘09
- DOLMAN’S ARGUMENT FOR SPACE WEAPONIZATION IGNORES THE IMPACT OF AMERICAN DETERRENCE POLICY ON OTHER NATIONS AND AMERICAN LEADERSHIP-Weeden ‘08
- AMERICAN PLANS FOR HEGEMONIC DOMINANCE OF SPACE WILL LEAD TO DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES-Van Der Linden ‘10
- SOLVENCY: PASSIVE DEFENSE IS BETTER RATHER THEN WEAPONIZATION, THE US SHOULD USE PASSIVE DEFENSE, REDUCING THE CHANCE OF SPACE BECOMING A BATTLEGROUND-Johnson ‘07
- PASSIVE COUNTERMEASURES ARE A MORE EFFECTIVE CHOICE-Kosiak ‘07
- SATALLITES CAN USE STEALTH AND DECOYING METHODS FOR DEFENSE-Friedman ‘07
- A/T: TREATY/VERIFICATION FAILS A UNIVERSAL BAN ON SPACE WEAPONS WOULD GIVE THE US LEGITIMACY TO RESPOND TO AN ATTACK-Blazejewski ‘08
- Webb Telescope Negative
- THE VERY EXISTENCE OF WEBB HAS UNDERMINED OTHER NASA MISSIONS-Lemonick ‘11
- LAWMAKER THAT SUGGESTED THE CUTS IS WORKING TO RESTORING FUNDING-DiMascio ‘11
- HARMS: NO IMPACT TO CUTTING PROGRAM CLAIMS THAT CUTTING THE WEBB TELESCOPE WILL COST AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ARE UNTRUE-Campbell ‘11
- DECISION TO END SUPER COLLIDER DEMONSTRATES LEADERSHIP CLAIMS ARE WRONG-Campbell ‘11
- THE RESEARCH WEBB WOULD HAVE DONE COULD BE DONE BY OTHER NATIONS WITH NO NET LOSS TO SCIENCE-Lemonick ‘11
- SOLVENCY: WEBB IS BADLY MANAGED/OVER BUDGET THE WEBB TELESCOPE KEPT EXPANDING IS REACH, RELYING ON UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGIES-Billings ‘10
- NASA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR PROJECTS TO KEEP BUDGETS UNDER CONTROL-Campbell ‘11
- EVEN IF ONE CONCEDES THE BENEFITS OF WEBB, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR BUDGETS-Campbell ‘11
- CANCELING THE WEBB TELESCOPE WILL BE WAKE-UP CALL FOR NASA-Campbell ‘11
- THE WEBB DESIGN WAS FLAWED FROM THE OUTSET-Kelly ‘11
- COST OVERRUNS WILL HAVE A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED NASA PROGRAMS-Klamper ‘10
- SOLVENCY: WEBB UNDERMINES FUNDING FOR OTHER PROGRAMS
SOLVENCY: SPACE WEAPONIZATION UNDERMINES US LEADERSHIP AMERICAN SOFT POWER IS BADLY UNDERMINED BY OUR INTRANSIGENCE ON SPACE MILITARIZATION-Moore ‘08 [Mike; retired as editor of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Space War, The Logical Next Mistake for US Exceptionalism; Disarmament Diplomacy; Spring 2008] Morally just? That phrase lies at the heart of the debate. What is America's message to the world? We are a free and open society, we have a commitment to liberty and the rule of law, we have a generosity of spirit that is uncommon in the history of the world, and we are not averse to tooting our own horn about it. On balance, that sounds like a nation concerned with morality and justice as well as with good P.R. And yet, we Americans sometimes ask, Why do so many people in other nations seem to hate us? One answer comes easily: We are the world's richest and most powerful nation, a nation that lives extravagantly well, thus soaking up an inordinate share of the world's irreplaceable natural resources. But there is another and harsher answer. Some men and women hate us because they know the common belief among Americans is that the United States - alone among nations - is nearly always right. Indeed, righteous. For more than a century, dozens of US interventions, overt and covert, in the internal affairs of other states have been driven by that sense of righteousness. National righteousness is not an uncommon thing. It characterizes the elites of any number of states, beginning with France, a nation whose chief exports seem to be wine, cheese, bureaucracy and moral smugness. Britain and Germany are powerfully righteous states, too, as are Norway and Sweden, Russia and India, Saudi Arabia and Israel, China and Japan... However, none of these states - and that includes China - contemplates developing and deploying a unilateral space-control capability. None of these states is attempting to design space-based weapons. None of these states seeks to achieve military dominance of space. None of these states is intent on extending a triumphalist ethic into space. And none of these states systematically vetoes the negotiation of a new space treaty. AMERICAN RHETORIC ABOUT SPACE WEAPONS ALIENATES ALLIES AND RIVALS-Moore ‘09 [Mike; a research fellow with the Independent Institute; Space Debris: From Nuisance to Nightmare; Foreign Policy; 12 Feb 2009;http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/11/space_debris_from_nuisance_to_nightmare; retrieved 16 Jun 2011] America's truculent space-dominance language annoys many of its friends and allies. Meanwhile, some major powers -- particularly China and Russia -- think it smells of imperialism. A country that could control space in a time of conflict might also exercise that control in a time of peace. Since 1981, virtually every country save the United States and Israel has gone on record in the U.N. General Assembly as favoring a treaty that would prevent an arms race in space. Every year, the United States -- under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush -- has used its veto power at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to prevent serious talks. DOLMAN’S ARGUMENT FOR SPACE WEAPONIZATION IGNORES THE IMPACT OF AMERICAN DETERRENCE POLICY ON OTHER NATIONS AND AMERICAN LEADERSHIP-Weeden ‘08 [Brian; technical consultant with the Secure World Foundation; Space Weaponization: Aye or Nay?; Arms Control Today; November 2008; http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_11/Book_review; retrieved 05 Jul 2011] Everett Dolman’s essay “Astropolitics and Astropolitik: Strategy and Space Deployment” lays out one of the best arguments I have seen for the weaponization of space by the U.S. military. Whatever your ideological predilection is, this essay is perhaps the most well written and convincingly structured of any in the collection. Dolman eloquently traces the evolution of modern military strategy from its roots with Clausewitz to modern warfare and then applies these lessons and logic to space. He argues that the direct consequence of these precepts is that the U.S. military must weaponize space by placing weapons for offensive deterrence in orbit. Although it is difficult to find fault with the logic of Dolman’s argument, three unmentioned or unresolved factors need to be seriously considered before adopting such a position, putting aside the considerable questions of technical and economic feasibility. First, although Dolman’s conclusion that orbital weapons could prove to be an effective deterrent is correct, he never defines what exactly would they be deterring: “Evil” behavior by rogue states? Conventional military actions by states around the world? Soft-power expressions counter to U.S. national interests? To work effectively, there must be a clear understanding of which actions and of which players are being deterred, otherwise the deterrence is bound to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Is this space deterrence a replacement for or complementary to the existing nuclear deterrent? A second factor to consider is what psychological effects such a space-to-ground offensive capability would have on U.S. leadership and the world in general, were the United States alone to possess it. Would having such a capability make it more or less likely that the U.S. president would use it or other military force aggressively? What would the psychological impact be on other world leaders knowing that they are under threat of attack from the United States at all times, without any warning and without much of a chance to defend themselves? Would this make unstable world leaders of rogue nations, that such a threat may be attempting to deter, more or less stable? AMERICAN PLANS FOR HEGEMONIC DOMINANCE OF SPACE WILL LEAD TO DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES-Van Der Linden ‘10 [Harry; Professor of Philosophy, Butler University; From Hiroshima to Baghdad: Military Hegemony versus Just Military Preparedness; Philosophy After Hiroshima; 2010; pgs. 203-232] Yet, for a decade now the United States has consistently blocked widely supported efforts in the United Nations to negotiate a Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty. For an even longer time the United States has issued military policy documents proclaiming that military domination of space, involving both anti-satellite weapons located in space and on earth as well as weapons in space directed against terrestrial targets, is needed to maintain its dominance of air, land, and sea (Hitchens 2007, 2-13 and 17-18; Grossman 2001). Thus hegemonic ambitions together with the apparent belief that somehow other countries will not challenge the United States as “space cop” might set in motion a disastrous course of events. SOLVENCY: PASSIVE DEFENSE IS BETTER RATHER THEN WEAPONIZATION, THE US SHOULD USE PASSIVE DEFENSE, REDUCING THE CHANCE OF SPACE BECOMING A BATTLEGROUND-Johnson ‘07 [Rebecca; PhD, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy; Threat of Weaponisation; 09 October 2007; http://www.acronym.org.uk/space/congo.htm; retrieved 19 Jul 2011] Instead of turning to the sledgehammer of space weaponisation to deal with the potential vulnerabilities of space assets, a more sensible approach (and one consistent with the United Nations Charter) would combine arms control efforts with the technical hardening and shielding of as many satellites as possible, plus space situation awareness, redundancy and other 'passive' defence means. Progress in nuclear disarmament, strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), negotiating a nuclear weapons convention, further efforts to restrict missile proliferation, building on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCoC) would also contribute to security and reduce the chances of space becoming a battleground - which would be in nobody's interests. PASSIVE COUNTERMEASURES ARE A MORE EFFECTIVE CHOICE-Kosiak ‘07 [Steven; Vice President, Budget Studies, at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Arming the Heavens: A Preliminary Assessment of the Potential Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Space-Based Weapons; 31 Oct 2007; retrieved 21 Jul 2011; http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2007/10/arming-the-heavens-a-preliminary-assessment-of-the-potential-cost-and-cost-effectiveness-of-space-based-weapons/] Fourth, space-based defensive (“bodyguard”) satellites would, to a great extent, be indistinguishable from space-based ASAT weapons. Thus, such systems would likely have similar costs. In addition, their deployment would presumably have similar implications for sparking or accelerating an arms race in space. These weapons would also be incapable of protecting against some of the ASAT threats most likely to emerge in coming years. A more effective and cost-effective approach might be to rely on a range of passive countermeasures. Strengthening US space surveillance and tracking capabilities could also offer an important means of improving the security of US satellites. SATALLITES CAN USE STEALTH AND DECOYING METHODS FOR DEFENSE-Friedman ‘07 [Norman; War in space?; US Naval Institute Proceedings; March 2007; http://www.spacedebate.org/citation/2883; retrieved 14 August 2011] Another possibility is to complicate the Chinese targeting problem by making satellites stealthy. If the satellites cannot be tracked in the first place, they cannot be intercepted. For the last few years reports have surfaced of stealthy or "black" satellites apparently launched by the United States. They would seem to fit this bill. If satellites cannot be stealthy, they can be made more maneuverable, particularly if short lifetimes (set by on-board fuel loads) are accepted. Yet another possibility is decoying. Just as ballistic-missile developers produce decoys to saturate defensive systems, satellite developers can presumably produce dummy inflatable satellites. At high enough altitude it may be impossible to distinguish them from real ones, at least until the Chinese become significantly more sophisticated. Given U.S. expertise in producing decoys for missile re-entry vehicles, it seems very likely that satellite decoys can be made (or perhaps already are being made). A/T: TREATY/VERIFICATION FAILS A UNIVERSAL BAN ON SPACE WEAPONS WOULD GIVE THE US LEGITIMACY TO RESPOND TO AN ATTACK-Blazejewski ‘08 [Kenneth; lawyer focusing primarily on international corporate and financial transactions; Space Weaponization and US-China Relations; Strategic Studies Quarterly; Spring 2008; http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdf; retrieved 05 Jul 2011] Fourth, a universal ban on space weapons would engender a normative framework that would justify a swift reaction by the United States, such as the deployment of its own space weapons or ASAT attack if another country violated the ban first. Finally, if the United States is able to negotiate for greater transparency in Chinese military planning, as suggested above, it would reduce the possibility of a surprise Chinese launch. Webb Telescope Negative INHERENCY: CUTS ARE NOT FINAL
[Mary Beth; If Congress Cancels Hubble’s Successor, What Then?; Popular Mechanics; 14 Jul 2011; http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/telescopes/if-congress-cancels-hubbles-successor-what-then; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] The James Webb telescope’s fate is not sealed. For funding to be cut, the bill would have to be accepted by both the House of Representatives and the Senate as is, and there is some hope that funding could be restored in future versions of the bill. In fact, Mikulski—who commissioned the initial review of JWST’s budget woes—has emerged as a potential champion for the project in the Senate. She issued a statement on June 7 after the House subcommittee decided to cancel the project, calling the decision a “shortsighted and misguided move.” With nothing set in stone and the final budget decision still months away, the scientists connected to the telescope aren’t losing hope. “We’re working full steam ahead to execute a really great telescope” Grunsfeld says. “It’s doing these ambitious space programs that allows us to grow.” THE VERY EXISTENCE OF WEBB HAS UNDERMINED OTHER NASA MISSIONS-Lemonick ‘11 [Michael; staff writer; After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA’s Next Great Telescope?; Time Magazine; 13 Jul 2011] It's not as though astronomers were completely thrilled with the Webb either, whose voracious appetite for money has sucked in about 40% of the agency's budget for space science. The telescope is the gorilla in the living room whose very existence has forced NASA to postpone or cancel other important projects — among them, a telescope called the Terrestrial Planet Finder, which would have searched for signs of life on earthlike worlds. LAWMAKER THAT SUGGESTED THE CUTS IS WORKING TO RESTORING FUNDING-DiMascio ‘11 [Jen; Move Afoot To Keep Webb Telescope Alive; Aviation Week; 15 July 2011; http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/07/14/01.xml; retrieved 14 August 2011] A top lawmaker who sought to end the James Webb Space Telescope indicated July 13 that he may be willing to keep investing in the Hubble replacement. After recommending that funding be zeroed for the infrared telescope being developed by Northrop Grumman, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of NASA spending, said, “We’re going to try to take care of the James Webb.” Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, pulled an amendment he had planned to offer that would have restored funding for the telescope, saying he hoped they could work together to keep it going. President Obama had asked for $354.6 million for the telescope in fiscal 2012. The exchange came during debate by the House Appropriations Committee on a bill including $16.8 billion to fund NASA. The committee approved the bill, which will be forwarded to the full House for additional debate. HARMS: NO IMPACT TO CUTTING PROGRAM CLAIMS THAT CUTTING THE WEBB TELESCOPE WILL COST AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ARE UNTRUE-Campbell ‘11 [Hank; editor; Webb Space Telescope - Why Congress May Be Right To Kill It; Science 2.0; 8 Jul 2011; http://www.science20.com/science_20/webb_space_telescope_why_congress_may_be_right_kill_it-80701; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] People who circle the wagons around every bit of funding (see Shrimp On A Treadmill) will say you can't ever cut funding. They worry that if America cancels this successor to the Hubble we will lose 'leadership' in astronomy, the same way they claim we lost 'leadership' in physics by canceling the Superconducting SuperCollider, despite the fact that there was no indication it would even be completed today - or how it would have worked. It was a goal, not a specification for engineers. The Webb telescope has likewise been a black hole for funding. In James Webb Space Telescope delivers more bad news last year I noted that the budget was up to $6.5 billion and now an earliest completion date of 2015, though its original claim was it would be done by now. DECISION TO END SUPER COLLIDER DEMONSTRATES LEADERSHIP CLAIMS ARE WRONG-Campbell ‘11 [Hank; editor; Webb Space Telescope - Why Congress May Be Right To Kill It; Science 2.0; 8 Jul 2011; http://www.science20.com/science_20/webb_space_telescope_why_congress_may_be_right_kill_it-80701; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] Those who compare the Webb Telescope to losing the SSC should take note - canceling the SSC made the much more reasonable, both in cost and engineering, Large Hadron Collider (LHC) a reality. Did it give Europe some ethereal, unquantifiable 'leadership' in physics? No, lots of projects are still done in the US and Japan but the task of finding the Higgs boson, which may not even exist, and its press has fallen to Europe. America still contributes and its knowledge will benefit all scientists, just like the Tevatron in the US has helped all scientists worldwide. THE RESEARCH WEBB WOULD HAVE DONE COULD BE DONE BY OTHER NATIONS WITH NO NET LOSS TO SCIENCE-Lemonick ‘11 [Michael; staff writer; After Hubble: Will Budget Woes Kill NASA’s Next Great Telescope?; Time Magazine; 13 Jul 2011] Certainly, Congress has swallowed a loss on such sunk costs before. Back in 1993, it pulled the plug on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), a mammoth particle accelerator that could have unraveled the mysteries of the subatomic realm. The reason: cost overruns, delays and a sense that solving such esoteric mysteries was an impractical extravagance. The SSC is now a vast, $2 billion doughnut-shaped tunnel beneath the ground in Waxahachie, Texas. Frugality wasn't a crazy justification then, and it's not entirely crazy now. You can argue that particle physics or astronomy have valuable spin-offs — jobs for the people who build telescopes and accelerators, for example, and technological innovations that can move into the private sector. But you can also argue that there's no need for the U.S. to spend on projects that might well be on parallel tracks elsewhere. The Large Hadron Collider over in Europe may not be as powerful as the SSC would have been, but it will still do science and the knowledge will be available to us just as if the work had been done in Texas. Europe builds space probes and huge ground-based telescopes; so does Japan. So maybe we don't have to. SOLVENCY: WEBB IS BADLY MANAGED/OVER BUDGET THE WEBB TELESCOPE KEPT EXPANDING IS REACH, RELYING ON UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGIES-Billings ‘10 [Lee; Space Science: The Telescope that Ate Astronomy; Nature’ 27 Oct 2010; http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101027/full/4671028a.html; retrieved 25 Jul 2011] With each iteration, the JWST's science objectives swelled. The core instrument package came to include a large-field-of-view near-infrared camera (NIRCam) and a multi-object near-infrared spectrograph (NIRSpec), primarily for investigating the earliest stars and galaxies; a general-purpose mid-infrared camera and spectrograph for observing dust-shrouded objects in the Milky Way; and a fine guidance sensor and tunable-filter imager to support the other three. These expanded capabilities would have to be supported by expensive and largely unproven technologies. The instruments needed extra-large, ultra-stable infrared detectors. A five-layered membranous sunshield would have to be folded around the spacecraft before launch, then deployed in space to allow the telescope to cool to cryogenic temperatures. Unfurled, each layer would be about the same area as a tennis court. The primary mirror, too large to fit into any existing rocket fairing, would have to be assembled in 18 hexagonal, adjustable segments that would also unfold in orbit. Each segment would be painstakingly chiselled from beryllium, then coated with gold and polished. Arrays of electromechanical devices called microshutters would allow NIRSpec to take spectra from up to 100 objects simultaneously, even if some of those objects were faint and lay next to brighter stars. Each individually controllable microshutter would be the width of a few human hairs, and NIRSpec would require more than 62,000 of them. NASA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR PROJECTS TO KEEP BUDGETS UNDER CONTROL-Campbell ‘11 [Hank; editor; Webb Space Telescope - Why Congress May Be Right To Kill It; Science 2.0; 8 Jul 2011; http://www.science20.com/science_20/webb_space_telescope_why_congress_may_be_right_kill_it-80701; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] Budgets are finite. Everyone knows this except partisans in science. The $1.5 billion that JWST now claims it needs in order to not waste the billions already spent could fund 5,000 basic science research projects in space science (see While Webb Bleeds, Space Science Hemorrhages) and $1.5 billion is just the latest cost overrun, not the total budget that may come up as more engineering concerns arise - so rather than circle the wagons around this project because it is science and people want to avoid a slippery slope, scientists can do a world of good holding each other accountable and making it less necessary for politicians to do so. EVEN IF ONE CONCEDES THE BENEFITS OF WEBB, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH HAS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR BUDGETS-Campbell ‘11 [Hank; editor; Webb Space Telescope - Why Congress May Be Right To Kill It; Science 2.0; 8 Jul 2011; http://www.science20.com/science_20/webb_space_telescope_why_congress_may_be_right_kill_it-80701; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] The idea behind the Webb Telescope is a great one - continuing the work started by Hubble and Webb will be able to see light from about 250-400 million years after the Big Bang whereas the Hubble Space Telescope sees back to only 800 million years. It sounds esoteric to the public but there are fascinating things we can learn. However, science has to have a cost attached to a value, basic research or not. This is what killed the SSC. CANCELING THE WEBB TELESCOPE WILL BE WAKE-UP CALL FOR NASA-Campbell ‘11 [Hank; editor; Webb Space Telescope - Why Congress May Be Right To Kill It; Science 2.0; 8 Jul 2011; http://www.science20.com/science_20/webb_space_telescope_why_congress_may_be_right_kill_it-80701; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] It may be that canceling the JWST will be the wake-up call NASA has needed for a long time. The Obama administration already pulled the plug on the Constellation project and it may be time to do two things that are painful in the short term but essential for space science in the long term: First, fund smaller projects that don't have big engineering issues and are achievable. Second, make missions time-based, get back to 'acceptable risk' and allow NASA to shuck off the modern 'zero defects' mentality and the tentacles of bureaucracy and regulatory constraints that infect much of government-funded science. Creating bold missions where project managers use a 'joint confidence level' of 50% are not going to work in a time of budget concerns. Let's hope the science community takes this warning shot as a chance to get fundamental reform in how science is done. THE WEBB DESIGN WAS FLAWED FROM THE OUTSET-Kelly ‘11 [John; reporter; NASA’a James Webb Space Telescope Billions Over Budget, 7 Years Late; Floriday Today; 06 Jun 2011; http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=195686; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] NASA and its contractors underestimated the telescope's cost and failed to include enough reserve cash to handle the kinds of technical glitches that always crop up in development of a complex spacecraft, including many expensive risks managers knew about. --Leaders at agency headquarters in Washington and Goddard Space Flight Center in Baltimore, which led the project before the problems came to light, failed to act on repeated warnings that cash flow was too tight and technical glitches too many to meet the budget or schedule. --The project was green-lighted and passed key reviews with too many known engineering flaws and still-changing requirements, and no money to deal with them, a longtime NASA habit auditors have complained about for decades.
[Amy; JWST's Latest $1.5B Cost Overrun Imperils Other High-priority Projects; Space News; 12 Nov 2010; http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101112-jwst-cost-imperils-priority-projects.html; retrieved 26 Jul 2011] Stanford University professor Roger Blandford, who chaired the decadal survey panel, said the new cost and schedule estimates for the JWST could be devastating to current and future programs. “Clearly it’s going to have a severe impact on the current program, let alone the recommended one,” Blandford said in a Nov. 11 interview, adding that his committee worked hard to develop an affordable and exciting program in its survey. Blandford said scientists participating in the decadal survey were told to assume NASA’s astrophysics budget would remain flat or decline slightly in the decade ahead. The panel also took into consideration the strain that additional JWST delays would impose on the astrophysics budget, he said. “We put a lot of effort into those cost estimates,” he said. “Obviously it’s extremely disappointing to many people to learn that these management problems have led to severe cost overruns and delays.” SOLVENCY: WEBB UNDERMINES FUNDING FOR OTHER PROGRAMS 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:
|