A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Plutonium Blurb



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 5th 05, 12:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb

Heads up Florida! He has a point about how distruptive
a launch failure could be in terms of evacuations, etc.

"http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN45120405.htm"

- Ed Kyle

  #2  
Old December 5th 05, 01:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb

Ed Kyle wrote:

Heads up Florida! He has a point about how distruptive
a launch failure could be in terms of evacuations, etc.

"http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN45120405.htm"

- Ed Kyle



Hmm. Lessee: "Grossman, professor of journalism at the State University
of New York/College at Old Westbury..."

Yeah.



--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller
  #3  
Old December 5th 05, 03:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb

Ed:

Do you ever worry about the atmosperic nuke tests that dispersed a LOT
more than 25 lbs of Pu. Probably not because this really isnt an issue
but is simply fodder for the ignorant.

  #4  
Old December 5th 05, 03:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb


"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
Heads up Florida! He has a point about how distruptive
a launch failure could be in terms of evacuations, etc.


"http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN4512040
5.htm"


Yep, they've decided to power their future spacecraft with nuclear
fuel. Ya know, the Space Solar Power program was meant to
also be a generic source for powering spacecraft, stations and habitats
of all kinds. SSP was meant to provide the most basic infrastructure
needed to colonize and explore space.

They've chosen the easy route, the one that won't build a long
term infrastructure. This is the same mistake made by the Apollo
program. A one shot deal, no meaningful infrastructure.





- Ed Kyle



  #5  
Old December 5th 05, 04:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb

wrote:
Ed:

Do you ever worry about the atmosperic nuke tests that dispersed a LOT
more than 25 lbs of Pu.


Yes, actually. I spent some time looking at the once-secret
fallout maps. I think there is a pretty good chance that more
people died of cancer over the years as a result of the Nevada
tests especially than would otherwise have died. How many
we will never know, because smoking cancers were so much
more prevalent.

Here is the thing about an RTG space launch. The worst case
would be a launch failure on or near the pad - an explosion
and a big nasty fire that spread everything around and burned
for awhile with an onshore seabreeze blowing the smoke back
toward Merritt Island. Maybe the RTG modules stay mostly
intact as designed, etc., but what are the locals going to do?
They are going to beat it, that's what, hurricane evacuation
style, abandoning their cars roadside when the gas stations
run out as usual, etc.. A few will die during the evacuation, as
they usally do, from accidents or fistfights or whatever.

And who is going to handle the cleanup situation to the survivor's
satisfaction? FEMA? The Air Force? The Government that
has won its citizens over with its competence recently? And
given their rumor-spreading performance during Katrina, just
how well should we expect the national media to cover this
crises? What of the Port Canaveral fisheries? What of Port
Canaveral, with its cargo and passenger ships? What of
the Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center launch sites?
How much money to clean the mess?

Remember, Lockheed Martin is flying this particular RTG
aboard an unproven Atlas 5 variant (551, never flown before)
- on a particular rocket that was damaged, by the way, during
a recent hurricane - on a machine that was designed to meet
a 2% acceptable mission loss rate criteria.

The odds are against failure, but the odds of failure are still very
real. I look at it this way. I might go watch the launch myself,
but I wouldn't take my kids.

- Ed Kyle

  #6  
Old December 5th 05, 06:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb

Ed Kyle wrote:


Here is the thing about an RTG space launch. The worst case
would be a launch failure on or near the pad - an explosion
and a big nasty fire that spread everything around and burned
for awhile with an onshore seabreeze blowing the smoke back
toward Merritt Island. Maybe the RTG modules stay mostly
intact as designed, etc., but what are the locals going to do?
They are going to beat it, that's what, hurricane evacuation
style, abandoning their cars roadside when the gas stations
run out as usual, etc.. A few will die during the evacuation, as
they usally do, from accidents or fistfights or whatever.



If that happens, then the anti-nuke crowd needs to be arrested en masse
and put up on charges of inciting to riot.





--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller
  #7  
Old December 5th 05, 07:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ed:

Do you ever worry about the atmosperic nuke tests that dispersed a LOT
more than 25 lbs of Pu. Probably not because this really isnt an issue
but is simply fodder for the ignorant.


One of my grandfathers blamed his cancer on nuke tests. At one time, people
in Nevada used to go out and watch nuclear explosions. They even announced
it on the local radio.


  #8  
Old December 5th 05, 12:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb


Ed Kyle schrieb:

Heads up Florida! He has a point about how distruptive
a launch failure could be in terms of evacuations, etc.

I think nowadays, where people have some real problems to worry about,
it is much harder to get them to panic over a non-issue like that.

But maybe in the long term it would be a good idea to launch
controversial missions from a remote location like kwajalein. It would
certainly make protesting much harder, and since in case of a launch
accident the payload would almost certainly land in the water, you
could just recover and reuse the RTG.

The funny thing about this is that launching a cold nuclear reactor
would actually be even safer than launching a hot RTG. But the
anti-nuclear crowd would go totally berserk if somebody were to launch
a reactor into space. Just shows how irrational these folks are.

The alternatives to using RTGs are using cold-launched nuclear reactors
or completely stopping exploration of the outer solar system. Since the
first option would be even more controversial than RTGs, we would just
have to stop missions to the outer solar system. But I guess that would
be OK for the anti-nuclear crowd. They would probably prefer it if the
money that goes to NASA would go to the UN to "heal the world".

The best thing is to just ignore them.

  #9  
Old December 5th 05, 01:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb


Ed Kyle wrote:
Heads up Florida! He has a point about how distruptive
a launch failure could be in terms of evacuations, etc.

"http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN45120405.htm"

- Ed Kyle


Grossman takes quotes from the New Horizons EIS and deliberately uses
them out of context to create an unrealistic picture in order to
generate fear. The 1-in-300 number is for the overall mission up to
the point of the probe reaching earth escape velocity. The 100 cancer
fatalities is for an "extremely unlikely" accident in which all the
safety systems are assumed to fail and up to 2% of the RTG plutonium
inventory is released. The EIS gives the probabilities for this type
of accident at from 1 in 1.4 million to 1 in 18 million. The 1 in 1.4
million scenario is for the fully intact launch vehicle to fly into the
ground on top of the spacecraft.

Grossman later quotes a Dr. Sternglass who paints a picture of an
explosion raining plutonium down on people below. Note Sternglass does
not specify an explosion of what. To the uninformed, it sounds like
the explosion is that of the RTG itself. The EIS states the RTG is
expected to remain intact in overpressure from an explosion of the
Atlas 1st and 2nd stages. If there is any accidental release of
plutonium, it would come from impact of the RTG with the ground. The
solid 3rd stage for this flight contains an additional flight
termination system to break up the upper dome and the propellant to
prevent an intact 3rd stage from impacting with the RTG.

The EIS also describes an average individual risk as population risk
divided by the number of persons exposed. This number for potentially
exposed population near the launch site is estimated as 1 in 2 billion.
The EIS includes a table of individual risks for various causes in the
US, e.g., the risk of death from a lightning strike is 1 in 6 million.

There is a valid concern about nuclear safety. The EIS describes the
measures taken to reduce the consequences of an accident. The risk is
several orders of magnitudes lower than the risks we face from natural
and technological causes. Consider if the risks from a non-nuclear
space mission was the same as that of the New Horizons mission. Would
Grossman and his ilk be fostering similar hysteria? Or is it just
because New Horizons uses "nuclear power" that he spends so much effort
in creating unreasoning fear?

  #10  
Old December 5th 05, 02:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Plutonium Blurb


Ed Kyle wrote:

Here is the thing about an RTG space launch. The worst case
would be a launch failure on or near the pad - an explosion
and a big nasty fire that spread everything around and burned
for awhile with an onshore seabreeze blowing the smoke back
toward Merritt Island. Maybe the RTG modules stay mostly
intact as designed, etc., but what are the locals going to do?
They are going to beat it, that's what, hurricane evacuation
style, abandoning their cars roadside when the gas stations
run out as usual, etc.. A few will die during the evacuation, as
they usally do, from accidents or fistfights or whatever.


Unfortunate, and based on the unreasoning fear of anything "nuclear".
In the Titan 4B / Cassini launch, the greater immediate hazard from an
on pad or early launch explosion would have been from the nitrogen
tetroxide rather than the plutonium.

And who is going to handle the cleanup situation to the survivor's
satisfaction? FEMA? The Air Force? The Government that
has won its citizens over with its competence recently? And
given their rumor-spreading performance during Katrina, just
how well should we expect the national media to cover this
crises?


I expect the media to spread unreasoning fear. Particularly if they
get Mr Grossman on an interview. They will cause more immediate damage
than the any actual hazard from plutonium.

What of the Port Canaveral fisheries? What of Port
Canaveral, with its cargo and passenger ships? What of
the Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center launch sites?
How much money to clean the mess?


How these are affected will depend on the nature of the accident. The
greatest fear comes from the most unlikely scenarios, e.g., the intact
stack lands on top of Port Canaveral. As Grossman cites from the EIS,
the potential decontamination cost estimate is up to 1.3 billion per
square mile. This is for mixed-use urban areas. Rangeland
decontamination estimates is 241 million per square mile.

Remember, Lockheed Martin is flying this particular RTG
aboard an unproven Atlas 5 variant (551, never flown before)
- on a particular rocket that was damaged, by the way, during
a recent hurricane - on a machine that was designed to meet
a 2% acceptable mission loss rate criteria.


As I am sure you are aware, the damage was to the SRB that was already
attached to the Atlas V. The SRB was replaced. The 2% loss rate is
not from launch pad explosions and early launch failures but for the
entire mission up to spacecraft separation. Even with launch pad
explosions and early launch failures, the vast majority of accident
scenarios is for the RTG to survive intact.

The odds are against failure, but the odds of failure are still very
real. I look at it this way. I might go watch the launch myself,
but I wouldn't take my kids.

- Ed Kyle


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNN: U.S. considers plutonium space rockets Jim Oberg Policy 25 September 16th 05 03:21 AM
Plutonium on Next Atlas V - Bad Idea? Ed Kyle Policy 65 August 17th 05 10:48 PM
Cassini plutonium controversy (was OT - lefties fail in space) james_anatidae Policy 3 January 15th 05 04:45 PM
Bechtel Nevada: Control of the World's Largest Nuclear Weapons Facilities * Astronomy Misc 0 May 2nd 04 05:29 PM
MWBR 2.71 K linked to color Color of the Universe is silverywhite like the element plutonium (JohnsHopkins) Archimedes Plutonium Astronomy Misc 3 March 25th 04 08:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.