Shading the Sun to Stop Global Warming

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47 Next
Author Topic: Shading the Sun to Stop Global Warming  (Read 92244 times)
kfsorensen
aerospace and nuclear engineer
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1428
Location: Huntsville, AL



WWW
« on: 03/12/2006 03:46 AM »

Let's talk about this...

A Moon-Made Screen in Space to Reverse Global Warming:
Is it Now Feasible and Affordable?

A White Paper by
Roger Angel and S. Pete Worden,
Department of Astronomy
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ, 85721  USA

Prepared for the International Lunar Base Workshop “Jamestown on the Moon”
Washington DC
October 12, 2005

Summary

We develop a rough sketch of how a space-based shield against global warming might be engineered, with material from the moon deployed at L1, as constellation of many free-flyer elements.  None of the steps looks beyond what could reasonably be accomplished, and it seems possible that costs could be brought in line with the benefit.  It is now worth developing and testing the key technical elements so as to be ready.  
 
The Concept

A screen in space could be used to mitigate warming caused by increased greenhouse effect.  Recent estimates are that a screen yielding a 1.8% reduction in solar flux could reverse fully reverse the effect of a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial level (1).  In a controlled orbit near L1, the Lagrange point a million miles toward the sun, a screen would remain permanently lined up to block a small fraction of the solar radiation.  To be effective it would have to be 1000 miles across, and even at gossamer thickness it would weigh millions of tons.   In 1989 Early (2) proposed a blocker made either opaque or of thin ribbed glass to deflect away the sunlight.  He recognized that the costs of launching so much mass could be prohibitive, and that a practical solution might be found by making the shield from lunar material.  Solar power could be used to both process the material into glass and structural elements, and to drive a magnetic rail for launch into the L1 orbit.  

This idea is now worth revisiting.  Global warming is better modeled and defined.  The value of maintaining a viable climate can be determined in different ways and is likely to be in the range five to ten trillion dollars, a few percent of world GNP over the next 50 years.  The best mitigation strategy will likely be some combination of reducing future CO2 production and shading from space.

In order to find this balance, research is needed now to better understand if a shade could be implemented within the above cost ceiling.  Such studies would provide an important focus to NASA’s exploration initiative.  There are two major elements for any system:  the making and launching the shade components on the moon, and the assembly, deployment and maintenance of the very large system.at L1.

The basic manufacturing and launch parameters can be derived on the assumption that the shade is to be completed within a few decades.  To steer the full spectrum of sunlight away from the Earth the glass needs an average thickness of about 2 microns, and a million square miles will thus weigh 12 million tons. The production rate would need to be some 1000 tons a day, along with several hundred tons a day of titanium or aluminum for structural components.  The electric power needed to mine the ore and to process and accelerate 1500 tons/day to 3 km/sec launch speed would be ~ 250 MW.  This would require a solar plant with a square kilometer or so of solar cells weighing ~ 1000 tons.  

At L1, it will be likely be preferable to assemble the shade not as a single structure but as a constellation of many identically sized, free-flying elements.  For example, if each self-contained unit were as small as a 14 m square and weighing ~ 1 kg, about ten billion would be needed to make up the shield.  The residual force of gravity that pulls each unit toward the center line would be balanced by suitably orientating the redirected light.  In manufacture, the moon-derived structural metal would be fashioned into ultralightweight support struts at free-orbiting factories about L1.  The screen itself, cut in squares from a 14 m wide roll of thin lunar glass, would be attached to a structural cross with four 10-m long struts connected at a center hub.  Each unit wouldinclude tiltable reflecting panels to be used as solar sails for initial placement in the constellation and station keeping, particularly to stabilize any drift in the unstable longitudinal direction.

We envisage the constellation as like a large shoal of fish or flock of birds, with control by autonomous computers in each unit to prevent collisions or self-shadowing. The constellation would be three-dimensional.  On the smallest scale, the units in any plane would be separated from each other by 14 m in both dimensions.  Full blocking would be accomplished by arranging the units in complementary positions in four planes separated longitudinally by ~ 20 m.  The structure would be fractal, with the 4-plane blocking pattern repeated on ever larger scales until the constellation would extend longitudinally as much as 1000 miles.  The average density would then be only ten units per cubic mile.    For each unit the electronics with its own small solar cell might weigh ~1 gram

To make ten billion units in 30 years (10,000 days) will require manufacture and placement of a million units a day at L1.   If there are 1000 factories working in parallel, each factory would have to complete a unit in little more than a minute.  The factories would need to use sophisticated robots made on Earth, and might weigh in the range 1 – 10 tons each.  

The above rough sketch is given simply to establish feasibility and to focus attention to the broad range of studies that need to be undertaken. Clearly such a massive undertaking is beyond the current state of the art in its use of lunar material and in robotic manufacture.  However, the new paradigm based on extensive use of in-situ lunar resources and large scale robotic manufacturing capability on the moon and at L1 appears both feasible.  The developments needed  for this application with potentially immense benefits to human life on Earth  could form a key part of NASA’s New Vision for Space Exploration.

 Some of the key areas for study and experiment are:

1)   Launch costs and the balance of Earth based and lunar based manufacture.  There are three major high tech, lightweight elements that would likely be launched from the Earth.  The first would be for the moon, the robots, electronics, solar cells, wire, bearings, motors and high temperature ceramics for the lunar manufacturing and rail gun.  It would also include the pilot facilities on the moon to bootstrap the local manufacture of structural elements used in full scale lunar operations.  The total mass to be delivered to the moon we estimate at around ten thousand tons.  At L1, the ten billion control units at 1 g each will weigh also ten thousand tons, and so will the thousand robotic assembly factories if we allow ten tons each.  The total mass to be launched from Earth of 30,000 tons is less than 0.2 percent of the screen’s mass, and even at today’s high launch costs of $20,000/kg would cost less than $1 trillion. Reductions in launch cost, however, would give cushion and flexibility to the project.

2)   Space experiments – Clearly it would be desirable and practical to place prototype blocker units at L1 within a few years, to test positioning and station keeping by solar sails.  The materials would be consistent with expected lunar products, and the units should have the correct mass, e.g 1 kg for the example we have chosen.

3)   Development of optimum glass and structural metal composition and manufacturing strategy from lunar ore.  A key requirement for the glass is that it remain crystal clear for a century.  Solarization would affect solar radiation pressure and the orbital balance of the blocker elements.  Prospecting for the optimum ores will be required.  Techniques to mass produce the ribbed sheets need to be developed and tested.  We envisage that ultimately the glass would be manufactured 14 m wide and rolled up for launch.  

4)   Computer optimization of the “collective intelligence” of the blocker swarm for robustness and stability.

5)   Definition and development of robotic requirements for both the moon and L1 factories.  Century long lifetime for the free flyer control units is desired.  Also since there will be millions of failures, an almost biological system to identify failed units and sweep them out for refurbishment or replacement before the swarm is damaged.  

In conclusion, the project is very challenging but is not clearly impossible within the financial target.  It seems certain it would attract the best and brightest from across the world to solve the myriad of challenges, in a way that has not happened since Apollo and the Manhattan projects.  Now is the time to open channels to bring this talent to bear.  

References

1.   Govindasamy, B. & Caldeira, K. 2000, “Geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced climate change”, Geophysical Research Letters Vol 27, p2141.  

2.   Early, J. T., 1989  “Space-based solar shield to offset greenhouse effect”, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol 42, p567.

Advertisement
« on: 03/12/2006 03:46 AM »

 
kfsorensen
aerospace and nuclear engineer
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1428
Location: Huntsville, AL



WWW
« Reply #1 on: 03/12/2006 04:03 AM »

More food for thought:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm

Tap-Sa
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 316


« Reply #2 on: 03/12/2006 11:43 AM »

Quote
vanilla - 12/3/2006  5:46 AM
 Recent estimates are that a screen yielding a 1.8% reduction in solar flux could reverse fully reverse the effect of a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial level (1).  

Does the estimate take into account the related decrease in photosynthesis ie. plants would sequester CO2 at reduced rate?

The only real solution is to transform the world to get along without using fossil fuels.
kfsorensen
aerospace and nuclear engineer
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1428
Location: Huntsville, AL



WWW
« Reply #3 on: 03/12/2006 06:48 PM »

Quote
Tap-Sa - 12/3/2006  5:43 AM
The only real solution is to transform the world to get along without using fossil fuels.
I agree, but even if we could stop all anthropogenic CO2 emission today, most climate modelers still predict a devastating impact to our biosphere over the next century.  This L1 sunshade system would buy us time--probably 200 years or so, to move all our energy production to non-fossil fuels and to sequester the carbon that we've already emitted.  The sunshade would then be disbanded and hopefully we could have averted the worst effects of global warming.
braddock
NSF Private Space Flight Editor
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 992


« Reply #4 on: 03/12/2006 07:21 PM »

Interesting.  I seem to recall a similar concept in a sci fi book I read a few years ago (can't think of the title right now though).

What about just polluting L1 with lunar dust though?  Seems a lot simpler, although I imagine it would have to be constantly refreshed to make up for losses falling out of L1.  And it would need to be constantly stirred up to keep from clumping.  But seems easier than filling the space with manufactured goods.

For that matter, can't we just make a dust-belt at some rarely-used orbital altitude above earth?

Perhaps some form of large centrifuge on the lunar surface can constantly launch the dust, a-kin to some of those lunar sling-shot concepts.

Need to play with a simulator to know the feasiblity of  any of these.
Tap-Sa
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 316


« Reply #5 on: 03/12/2006 09:07 PM »

Sending dust to L1 or LEO sounds easy and would probably be quite efficient, but how do you clean it away when the time comes? The dust cloud may wanna stay there hundreds of years longer than it should, and then you might have a serious heating problem but in the opposite direction.

IMO tinkering nearly two percent away from Sun's output may have devastating unforeseen consequences. IIRC changes in Sun radiation has caused mass extinctions before.
Orbiter Obvious
Extreme Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 390


« Reply #6 on: 03/12/2006 09:25 PM »

Quote
Tap-Sa - 12/3/2006  3:07 PM

Sending dust to L1 or LEO sounds easy and would probably be quite efficient, but how do you clean it away when the time comes? The dust cloud may wanna stay there hundreds of years longer than it should, and then you might have a serious heating problem but in the opposite direction.

IMO tinkering nearly two percent away from Sun's output may have devastating unforeseen consequences. IIRC changes in Sun radiation has caused mass extinctions before.

So technically, this could be a doomsday device in the wrong hands, or if there's a malfunction?
braddock
NSF Private Space Flight Editor
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 992


« Reply #7 on: 03/12/2006 09:27 PM »

Quote
Tap-Sa - 12/3/2006  4:07 PM
Sending dust to L1 or LEO sounds easy and would probably be quite efficient, but how do you clean it away when the time comes?

I guess it depends on the stability of the dusts' position.  It seems it might be a precarious position anyway: a bunch of dust just balanced at L1 (or in orbit around it), on the receiving end of the solar wind, while being constantly struck by dust particles with radically different velocities, and a significant center of mass.  It could work out that the "half life" of the dust up there is quite short before it disperses, or it could even be intentionally positioned to be unstable.

Or you could run through the cloud with your electro-static dust-busters in 300 years... :)
kfsorensen
aerospace and nuclear engineer
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1428
Location: Huntsville, AL



WWW
« Reply #8 on: 03/12/2006 09:37 PM »

Quote
Orbiter Obvious - 12/3/2006  3:25 PM
So technically, this could be a doomsday device in the wrong hands, or if there's a malfunction?
Quite the contrary...it's fail-safe.  The L1 location is unstable without active control...that's why dust won't stay there long enough to work.  You need something actively controlled to stay on the Sun-Earth line.  That's why the picture shows reflective sails used as control systems.

Rather than trying to block the Sun, which would induce solar radiation pressure on the device, Early proposed a "refractive" sail--splitting the light so it misses the Earth entirely.  Only a small amount of refraction is needed because the L1 point is 1.5 million km away from the Earth.  A reflective sail actually ends up being more trouble than it's worth.
braddock
NSF Private Space Flight Editor
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 992


« Reply #9 on: 03/12/2006 09:49 PM »

Quote
vanilla - 12/3/2006  4:37 PM
Rather than trying to block the Sun, which would induce solar radiation pressure on the device, Early proposed a "refractive" sail--splitting the light so it misses the Earth entirely.  Only a small amount of refraction is needed because the L1 point is 1.5 million km away from the Earth.  A reflective sail actually ends up being more trouble than it's worth.

That's nifty.  Does that mean that if we do over-compensate and need a little extra sunlight, we can just move the sails off-center enough to not block the light, but actually refract extra light onto the earth?  Or is the viable L1 region too small to not occlude the direct sunlight (or the refraction too diffuse)?  

(and of course, with a nod to Orbiter Obvious, maybe we can make a death-ray out of it....)

Is the solar wind (not the photonic light pressure, but the "real stuff") not a major issue?
Tap-Sa
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 316


« Reply #10 on: 03/12/2006 09:55 PM »

Quote
vanilla - 12/3/2006  11:37 PM
 The L1 location is unstable without active control.

The point itself yes but aren't Lissajous orbits around it relatively stable?
Tap-Sa
Veteran
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 316


« Reply #11 on: 03/12/2006 10:00 PM »

Quote
braddock - 12/3/2006  11:49 PM
 
Is the solar wind (not the photonic light pressure, but the "real stuff") not a major issue?

Solar wind ions might charge up the dust particles so that the cloud refuses to condense into a clump? Meaning a lot of area to dust-bust once the CO2 levels have settled back home...
kfsorensen
aerospace and nuclear engineer
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1428
Location: Huntsville, AL



WWW
« Reply #12 on: 03/12/2006 10:09 PM »

An excerpt from Martyn Fogg's excellent book "Terraforming" might clear some of this up.

From page 173-178:

4.2.6.1 Shadowing the Earth
Space-based devices that absorb or reflect sunlight could be used as geoengineering tools for a number of applications . Most recently they have been discussed in the context of bringing about a negative radiative forcing to combat global warming. The Earth's surface would be shadowed from some fraction of solar radiation sufficient to offset the positive forcing of greenhouse gas emissions and, in this sense, the technique works in the same way as the dust/aerosol layers discussed in the previous section. Assuming, for simplicity, that the Sun is a point source of light at infinity, the size of the shading area required to screen out 1% of the Earth's insolation is 1% of the planet's projected area, i.e., as = 0.01*pi*re^2 = 1.28 x 10^12 m (where re is the radius of the Earth) . This figure is actually a minimum as the size gradually increases with distance from the planet and not all the shading area may be correctly aligned between the Earth and Sun at any one time, reducing its shadowing efficiency to es < 1 and requiring an increase in area of 1/es. If constructed as a single object, even this minimum area is equivalent to an enormous parasol about 1280 km across, roughly the area of a country the size of Peru. Yet the scale of the project is not as daunting as this analogy suggests. Sunlight can be interrupted by very thin layers of opaque matter and lightweight, flimsy structures that would collapse on Earth could hold their shape perfectly well in the airless, free-fall conditions of space. Ultra-thin films made from common materials are therefore the key to fabricating devices with large areas and relatively little mass. Examples of thin films that everybody is familiar with include aluminum cooking foil (13-25 µm thick) and plastic wrap (13 µm thick). Material designed for solar sail spacecraft has to be much thinner than this to maximize the acceleration the sail is capable of: one design for such a material is only 2 µm thick, consisting of aluminum-coated polymer. We may be able to provide films for space reflectors with areal densities of rhoa < 5 g/m^2 and a total mass, for the area given above, of ~6 million tons . Handling this amount of processed material is already well within the capabilities of civilization and it is interesting to note that it is on the same order as estimates for the mass of stratospheric dust required in the albedo enhancement scenario. The disadvantage with the dust is that it must be continually replenished every year, whereas if one's reflective surface is a fabricated, semi-permanent structure in space, then it might require renewal on a much longer time scale. Of course, structural support for space reflector material will add to its overall areal density and mass, but this might be offset by more "high-tech," thinner material, possibly perforated at a submicron scale so that it will still interrupt visible light.

Four categories of orbit can be envisaged for space parasols and are listed, along with their relative merits, in Table 4.7. Use of the first two, low Earth orbit (LEO) and geostationary orbit (GEO), are hampered by many severe difficulties that will probably rule them out as viable choices for the purpose in question. The principal problem is that since parasols would be circling the Earth, they would be positioned between the Earth and Sun during only a small part of their orbit. Their shadowing efficiency would therefore be low, particularly in the case of GEO where es ~ 1.5 x 10^-3, requiring the shading area (as) to be multiplied by ~670. This is obviously not the way to proceed as it greatly increases the resources, industry and expense involved in cutting down the insolation by the desired fraction. Other objections include the overcrowding of orbits already used by regular satellites; the intrusive visibility inherent in the screen being so close overhead; the reflection of unwanted sunlight onto the planet's night hemisphere; and the complexity of maintaining such extended objects correctly oriented when subject to planetary tidal forces, gas drag, and light pressure. Close orbits do have one dubious advantage and that is, if we are faced with a climatic emergency, and there has been no development of extraterrestrial resources, then LEO could be filled with fleets of parasols launched from the surface of the Earth. However, it is difficult to imagine such a panic measure being practical; it would require a huge increase in launch capability (>1 million 50-ton launch increments) and would thus significantly contribute to environmental stress in its own right.

Since it takes 22 times less energy to launch a payload off the Moon than Earth, and there is no atmosphere to worry about, it makes sense to obtain and process the raw materials for the parasol from the Moon or convenient near-Earth asteroids. The manufacture of large quantities of thin film in space should not present an overwhelming obstacle, especially if it can be made from commonly occurring substances. (Scenarios of space manufacturing in the context of the construction of space habitats envisage the fabrication of much more complex items.) Subsections of parasol might then be conveniently and cheaply launched into their shadowing orbit where they might deploy automatically, or be assembled into larger structures.

A much better choice of shadowing orbit would be available if we could permanently interpose a parasol (or fleet of parasols) between the Earth and the Sun . This would ideally involve a stable orbit that co-revolves with the Earth such that, to an observer on the ground, the parasols would stay fixed relative to the Sun (except for an oscillation across the solar disc in response to a parallax effect caused by the planet's rotation). However, for a parasol to possess the same angular velocity as the Earth, at a smaller orbital radius where the Sun's gravity is stronger, an additional outward force is necessary. It so happens that one of the Sun-Earth libration points (where centrifugal force and the forces of solar and terrestrial gravity balance) is situated inward from the Earth on the Earth-Sun line. This point is called L1 and is shown along with the other libration points L2 - L5 in Fig. 4.13. An object placed at L1 will co-revolve with the Earth about the Sun because of the additional outward force provided by the Earth's gravity.

The situation is in fact more complex than this because L1 is only a semi-stable region, resisting perturbation perpendicular to the Earth-Sun line only. Additionally, a wide, thin object such as a solar sail will also be subject to an extra outward pressure due to sunlight, displacing its equilibrium inward of L1 . For a planar, totally reflective sail, the equilibrium point is determined from the following balance of forces.  When the photon pressure is zero, we obtain the L1 point distance of 1.5 million km (~0.01 AU (about four times the distance to the Moon)).

Since the photon pressure on a solar sail is proportional to its area and not its mass, the acceleration is inversely proportional to its areal density, rho. Thus, the thinner and less massive the solar sail, the further it is displaced from the L1 point, stability being achieved for Re's = 0.02 AU and 0.05 AU for rho = 29 g/m^2 and 11 g/m^2, respectively . Thus, the more we lessen the mass of the parasol by using sails of higher performance, the less we are able to exploit the semi-stable properties of the L1 region. The ideal parasol for the L1 point is therefore not a solar sail at all but a thin disc that would be minimally reflective on its Sunfacing side and with a high infrared emissivity on its Earth-facing side. The photon thrust from radiated infrared energy could be used to offset the thrust from absorption.

A particularly elegant solution to this problem was proposed by James Early of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He suggested fabricating a 2000-km-diameter parasol (his aim being to cut out 2% of sunlight) made from 10-p.m-thick glass which would be scored with a pattern of parallel grooves on one side. It would thus act as a prism, deflecting sunlight through just half a degree, sufficient to miss the Earth. Because the structure is transparent, it is subject to a very low photon pressure, with a calculated equilibrium point of R e's = 1.58 million km, very close to L1 . Another advantage of glass as the main parasol material is that the raw materials from which to make it are readily available in lunar soils, although the feasibility of producing good quality, ultra-thin glass sheets on the Moon remains to be demonstrated.

Most conceivable space reflector systems are going to need some kind of active positional control. The first reason for this is that the L1 point is only semi-stable and a station-keeping mechanism will be required to prevent displacement along the Earth-Sun line. Even so, thrust requirements are very low and could be easily done by making a small fraction of the parasol's area adjustable so that it can function as an attitude-control device, minutely varying the applied photon pressure. It would be a task that would be much less tricky than the fly-by-wire systems of modern fighter aircraft and could therefore be handled autonomously by a simple on-board computer. The second reason for active positional control is that the structures being proposed can be unstable due to their sheer size. Early's parasol, for instance, is a single object that is balanced only where it intersects the Earth-Sun line; all other parts would experience a small radial acceleration toward the center that would be balanced by rotating the structure about the Earth-Sun line at a rate of 2 cycles/year. A slightly faster rotation would give it an outward radial stress that would maintain it as a flat disk. However, in Early's words this situation itself creates another difficulty: "The disk rotation will unfortunately act as a gyroscope which keeps the disk oriented with its axis pointed in one direction. Since the disk axis must always point toward the Sun, a torque must be applied to the disk by a control system to cause the disk to precess at one cycle per year. it is not clear if this control system is simpler than using solar sails at the perimeter of the disk to supply a radial tension to balance the radial gravitational acceleration.

A space-based solution to the symptoms of the Earth's unwanted radiative forcing in the next century is scientifically feasible and merely requires us to develop and become experienced at space-based engineering. Influencing the Earth's climate from L1 or levitated orbits has some obvious advantages over measures that are implemented within our planet's biosphere. The technique would be non-invasive, non-polluting (if most industrial activities are confined to space), and manipulation of insolation can be very precise. Screen fleets can be maneuvered in and out of position comparatively rapidly; negative forcing being adjustable and predictable over shorter time scales than intrinsic geoengineering techniques, the effects of which have to work their way through various physical and biogeochemical processes. Not surprisingly, estimates for the cost of a space parasol project are very crude and vary widely. Early's estimate is $1-$10 trillion and the PIGW report (which considers only the unattractive case of LEO parasols) came to $5.5-$55 trillion. The economics of extrinsic geoengineering are therefore critically dependent on screen lifetime. If we assume that the scenarios referred to above can mitigate the warming equivalent of 4000 billion tons of CO2, and screen components or individual mini-parasols have a 10- to 40-year lifetime, yearly costs range from $0.0006 to $1.4 per ton of CO2. While the space program's track record of underestimating costs would probably drive the real expense into the higher end of this bracket, a collateral benefit of such a project could be that its necessary extraterrestrial operations could lay the foundations for the permanent habitation of space.
Jason Sole
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 209
Location: Chicago


« Reply #13 on: 03/13/2006 03:09 AM »

I'm forced to repeat a question which couldn't be answered on the previous concept. Costings. I can't emphasis this enough, it means nothing without costings. Federal government could be presented with a water into oil concept and they'd still need costings.

Are there any with this?
kfsorensen
aerospace and nuclear engineer
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 1428
Location: Huntsville, AL



WWW
« Reply #14 on: 03/13/2006 04:04 AM »

Quote
Jason Sole - 12/3/2006  9:09 PM

I'm forced to repeat a question which couldn't be answered on the previous concept. Costings. I can't emphasis this enough, it means nothing without costings. Federal government could be presented with a water into oil concept and they'd still need costings.

Are there any with this?
To be brutally honest, what good would the costing be even if they had it?  Would you believe it?  I wouldn't...

I have yet to see any government program or activity come in remotely close to its projected cost.  ISS?  The lunar plan?  The Iraq War?  Avian flu?  How much does a Hurricane Katrina each year cost?

What is the cost of inaction?
Tags:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 22 queries.