Did Galileo/Cassini anti-nuke crowd go AWOL?

What happened to the anti-nuke crowd that used to come out of the woodwork
whenever there was a Cassini fly-by? About how the plutonium could kill
'millions'?

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with
evil plutonium?
The irreparable harm? Or even, the deplorable precedent that was set?
What about the ethics of using space, or a planet, as humanity's garbage
dump? How about leaving space unharmed until we prove ourselves 'worthy' of
going there? Was this a test for a new brand of the militarisation of space?

But, no, the silence is deafening, as silent as empty space itself.

There are no certainties any more.

Filip De Vos

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:37:11 GMT, "dinges"
wrote:

What happened to the anti-nuke crowd that used to come out of the woodwork
whenever there was a Cassini fly-by? About how the plutonium could kill
'millions'?

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with
evil plutonium?
The irreparable harm? Or even, the deplorable precedent that was set?
What about the ethics of using space, or a planet, as humanity's garbage
dump? How about leaving space unharmed until we prove ourselves 'worthy' of
going there? Was this a test for a new brand of the militarisation of space?

But, no, the silence is deafening, as silent as empty space itself.

There are no certainties any more.

That's because the anti-nuke in space crowd are dick heads.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

dinges wrote:

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with
evil plutonium?

Guess the anti-nuke crowd doesn't give a damn about the Jovians.

But then I always viewed the Jovians as a bunch of windbags, myself.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:37:11 GMT, "dinges"
wrote:

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with
evil plutonium?

I don't read German, but the context of this article implies that the
answer to your question is 'in Germany'.:


http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/index.htm

Galileoabsturz erinnert an nukleare Gefahren
Presseerklärung – zur sofortigen Freigabe

18 September 2003




Die USI-amerikanische Weltraumbehörde NASA wird am 21. September die
mit 22 kg Plutonium-238 beladene Raumsonde Galileo gezielt auf den
Jupiter stürzen lassen, wobei die Sonde durch die Hitzeentwicklung
verglüht.

In zwei sogenannten RTGs (radioisotope thermoelektrische Generatoren)
wird das hochgiftige und radioaktive Plutonium verwendet, um Strom für
die Bordinstrumente zu erzeugen. Die NASA will durch den geplanten
Absturz verhindern, dass Galileo mangels Treibstoff außer Kontrolle
gerät und unbeabsichtigt auf dem Jupitermond Europa zerschellt. Dort
werden Spuren außeriridschen Lebens vermutet, und eine Kontamination
mit irdischen Bakterien soll daher unbedingt vermieden werden.

Zum Ende dieser nuklearen Weltraummission fordert das Global Network
Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space ein Ende des Einsatzes von
Nuklearenergie in der Weltraumfahrt. Im jetzigen Moment sei die
Entscheidung der NASA für die treibstofflose Sonde möglicherweise
richtig, aber die Gefahren beim Start und fehlende Pläne für die
ordentliche Entsorgung von nuklearen Weltraumsonden nennt das deutsche
Vorstandsmitglied Regina Hagen "höchst unverantwortlich."

Schon vor dem Start von Galileo 1989 wollten besorgte US-Bürger die
Mission stoppen. Die NASA mußte in späteren
Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien für die ebenfalls mit RTGs bestückte
Saturnsonde Cassini einräumen, dass bei einem Startunfall soviel
Radioaktivität in die Erdatmosphäre entweichen könnte, dass mit 1.300
Toten zu rechnen wäre.

"Deutschland hat Mitverantwortung für die Gefahren aus den beiden
nuklearen Raumflügen." beklagt Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck von der
Pressehütte Mutlangen und Beirat im Global Network. Bei Galileo war
die deutsche Regierung der wichtigste internationale
Kooperationspartner der NASA, weil sie das Antriebssystem der
Raumsonde und zwei wissenschaftliche Instrumente lieferte. Der Antrieb
wurde von MBB (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, heute Teil von EADS)
entwickelt und gebaut. Zur Cassini-Mission steuerte die europäische
Weltraumagentur ESA die Schwestersonde Huygens bei.

Aus früheren russischen und US-amerikanischen Raumfahrtmissionen
umkreisen heute Hunderte von Kilogramm Plutonium-238 und etwa eine
Tonne hochangereichertes Uran-235 die Erde und stellen aufgrund ihrer
Umlaufbahnen auf lange Sicht eine Gefährdung der Erdatmosphäre durch
nukleare Verseuchung dar. Bei solchen Missionen wurden in der
Vergangenheit durch den unbeabsichtigten Wiedereintritt in die
Erdatmosphäre bereits beträchtliche Mengen von Plutonium freigesetzt,
die weltweit zu Krebstoten führten.

Hagen verweist darauf, daß Alternativen bestehen. Bereits vor dem
Start von Galileo kam eine NASA-Studie zu dem Schluß, dass Galileo mit
Solarenergie zu betreiben wäre. Dennoch verfolgte die
US-Raumfahrtbehörde die nukleare Option, und in Deutschland wurde das
hingenommen.

Der gefährliche Kurs wird fortgesetzt. Zur Zeit verfolgt die NASA das
Projekt Prometheus, mit dem u.a. für den Flug zum Mars nukleare
Antriebs- und Energiesysteme erforscht und entwickelt werden sollen.
Mehr als drei Milliarden US-Dollar werden in den nächsten Jahren in
diese Forschung gesteckt.

"Wenn die Sorge um das Leben auf der Erde ebenso groß wäre wie um
mögliche Lebensspuren auf dem Jupitermond Europa, dann würden nukleare
Weltraumflüge sofort gestoppt." Hagen und Schlupp-Hauck fordern die
deutsche Bundesregierung, das deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrtzentrum
sowie die ESA auf, den nuklearen Kurs der NASA nicht durch Beteiligung
an entsprechenden Missionen zu unterstützen.

Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck und Regina Hagen sind von Freitag bis
Sonntagabend wegen einer Tagungsteilnahme nur mobil erreichbar, und
zwar unter 0172/630 13 14 (Regina Hagen)und unter 0162/62 45 789
(Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck). Der internationale Koordinator des Global
Network,Bruce Gagnon, ist in Brunswick/USA zu erreichen unter [001]
(207) 729-05 17 bzw. unter [001] (352) 871-7554 (mobil).


Chris
--
"War is the state's killer app" - Ken MacLeod
[peacetime .sig will return when apposite]

What a bunch of idiots.
I am ashamed that these people speak the same motherlanguage as I do.
I really had a good laugh at the bunch of fools who really believed that
Galileo could start a chain- reaction on Jupiter (they even believed it
could turn jupiter into a sun), was too funny.
Some of them also spread disinformation agaisnt better knowledge to get some
presence in the media.
In the end it is all simply driven by false idiologies.
CU
Elmar



"Chris Williams" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:37:11 GMT, "dinges"
wrote:

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet
with
evil plutonium?

I don't read German, but the context of this article implies that the
answer to your question is 'in Germany'.:


http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/index.htm

Galileoabsturz erinnert an nukleare Gefahren
Presseerklärung - zur sofortigen Freigabe

18 September 2003




Die USI-amerikanische Weltraumbehörde NASA wird am 21. September die
mit 22 kg Plutonium-238 beladene Raumsonde Galileo gezielt auf den
Jupiter stürzen lassen, wobei die Sonde durch die Hitzeentwicklung
verglüht.

In zwei sogenannten RTGs (radioisotope thermoelektrische Generatoren)
wird das hochgiftige und radioaktive Plutonium verwendet, um Strom für
die Bordinstrumente zu erzeugen. Die NASA will durch den geplanten
Absturz verhindern, dass Galileo mangels Treibstoff außer Kontrolle
gerät und unbeabsichtigt auf dem Jupitermond Europa zerschellt. Dort
werden Spuren außeriridschen Lebens vermutet, und eine Kontamination
mit irdischen Bakterien soll daher unbedingt vermieden werden.

Zum Ende dieser nuklearen Weltraummission fordert das Global Network
Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space ein Ende des Einsatzes von
Nuklearenergie in der Weltraumfahrt. Im jetzigen Moment sei die
Entscheidung der NASA für die treibstofflose Sonde möglicherweise
richtig, aber die Gefahren beim Start und fehlende Pläne für die
ordentliche Entsorgung von nuklearen Weltraumsonden nennt das deutsche
Vorstandsmitglied Regina Hagen "höchst unverantwortlich."

Schon vor dem Start von Galileo 1989 wollten besorgte US-Bürger die
Mission stoppen. Die NASA mußte in späteren
Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien für die ebenfalls mit RTGs bestückte
Saturnsonde Cassini einräumen, dass bei einem Startunfall soviel
Radioaktivität in die Erdatmosphäre entweichen könnte, dass mit 1.300
Toten zu rechnen wäre.

"Deutschland hat Mitverantwortung für die Gefahren aus den beiden
nuklearen Raumflügen." beklagt Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck von der
Pressehütte Mutlangen und Beirat im Global Network. Bei Galileo war
die deutsche Regierung der wichtigste internationale
Kooperationspartner der NASA, weil sie das Antriebssystem der
Raumsonde und zwei wissenschaftliche Instrumente lieferte. Der Antrieb
wurde von MBB (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, heute Teil von EADS)
entwickelt und gebaut. Zur Cassini-Mission steuerte die europäische
Weltraumagentur ESA die Schwestersonde Huygens bei.

Aus früheren russischen und US-amerikanischen Raumfahrtmissionen
umkreisen heute Hunderte von Kilogramm Plutonium-238 und etwa eine
Tonne hochangereichertes Uran-235 die Erde und stellen aufgrund ihrer
Umlaufbahnen auf lange Sicht eine Gefährdung der Erdatmosphäre durch
nukleare Verseuchung dar. Bei solchen Missionen wurden in der
Vergangenheit durch den unbeabsichtigten Wiedereintritt in die
Erdatmosphäre bereits beträchtliche Mengen von Plutonium freigesetzt,
die weltweit zu Krebstoten führten.

Hagen verweist darauf, daß Alternativen bestehen. Bereits vor dem
Start von Galileo kam eine NASA-Studie zu dem Schluß, dass Galileo mit
Solarenergie zu betreiben wäre. Dennoch verfolgte die
US-Raumfahrtbehörde die nukleare Option, und in Deutschland wurde das
hingenommen.

Der gefährliche Kurs wird fortgesetzt. Zur Zeit verfolgt die NASA das
Projekt Prometheus, mit dem u.a. für den Flug zum Mars nukleare
Antriebs- und Energiesysteme erforscht und entwickelt werden sollen.
Mehr als drei Milliarden US-Dollar werden in den nächsten Jahren in
diese Forschung gesteckt.

"Wenn die Sorge um das Leben auf der Erde ebenso groß wäre wie um
mögliche Lebensspuren auf dem Jupitermond Europa, dann würden nukleare
Weltraumflüge sofort gestoppt." Hagen und Schlupp-Hauck fordern die
deutsche Bundesregierung, das deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrtzentrum
sowie die ESA auf, den nuklearen Kurs der NASA nicht durch Beteiligung
an entsprechenden Missionen zu unterstützen.

Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck und Regina Hagen sind von Freitag bis
Sonntagabend wegen einer Tagungsteilnahme nur mobil erreichbar, und
zwar unter 0172/630 13 14 (Regina Hagen)und unter 0162/62 45 789
(Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck). Der internationale Koordinator des Global
Network,Bruce Gagnon, ist in Brunswick/USA zu erreichen unter [001]
(207) 729-05 17 bzw. unter [001] (352) 871-7554 (mobil).


Chris
--
"War is the state's killer app" - Ken MacLeod
[peacetime .sig will return when apposite]

(Chris Williams) writes:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:37:11 GMT, "dinges"
wrote:

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with
evil plutonium?

I don't read German, but the context of this article implies that the
answer to your question is 'in Germany'.:

http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/index.htm

This article just starts with Galileo as a recent event. It actually
deals with nuclear powered satellites and spacecraft (PROMETHEUS) and
fears of radioactive pollution hitting earth's atmosphere.

As in most cases I think that pointing at problems is in no way wrong.
There are lots of people totally uninterested in spaceflight, but mainly
concerned with their physical health and this is totally legitimate,
too. Most of these people are dealt with properly by building safe
crafts, the remaining idiots can be safely ignored. By treating all
people who just happen to be more concerned with earthly problems as
idiots, one makes easily an idiot out of oneself.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote in message ...
(Chris Williams) writes:

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:37:11 GMT, "dinges"
wrote:

Where were the screeds bewailing the contamination of a pristine planet with
evil plutonium?

I don't read German, but the context of this article implies that the
answer to your question is 'in Germany'.:

http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/index.htm

This article just starts with Galileo as a recent event. It actually
deals with nuclear powered satellites and spacecraft (PROMETHEUS) and
fears of radioactive pollution hitting earth's atmosphere.

As in most cases I think that pointing at problems is in no way wrong.
There are lots of people totally uninterested in spaceflight, but mainly
concerned with their physical health and this is totally legitimate,
too. Most of these people are dealt with properly by building safe
crafts, the remaining idiots can be safely ignored. By treating all
people who just happen to be more concerned with earthly problems as
idiots, one makes easily an idiot out of oneself.


Jochem


I actually worked(albeit briefly) on space based RTG's for NASA while
I was employed by Teledyne Energy Systems. We were working on
radioisotope power supplies for the Pluto Kuiper Express. Lacking a
full 4 year engineering degree, I was a lowly technician, but most of
the engineers there were veterans of 60's and 70's NASA RTG packages.
I was told that the heat source had to be designed to " if necessary,
land on the steps of the White House and not split open, leak, or
otherwise make people sick". I think that was a tall order and frankly
I think our engineers rose to the challenge rather well. I've never
thought these guys had a "devil may care" attitude about their work.
After all, they had a vested interest in a safe RTG too.

Gene

(Parallax) wrote in message . com...

Regarding the potential contamination of earth by the Pu on
spacecraft. Did it ever occur to oponents of Pu on spacecraft that
huge amounts of Pu have already contaminated out atmosphere in
scenarios worse than a spacecraft re-entry? In the 50s and early 60s,
there were many atmospheric nuclear tests at varying altitudes ranginf
from over 600 km down to ground level. Each one of these contained at
least 5 Kg of Pu and ussually more and most of it was not consummed in
the explosion (a nuke is maybe up to 20% efficient, Cary Sublette pls
comment). The French did atmospheric tests until the mid 80s as did
the Chinese. In a few cases, such as the Fishbowl test series in
early 60s, rockets carrying nukes exploded in flight due to a
malfunction. Would a single accidental re-entry of a Pu RTG cause any
real problems compared to this previous release of Pu?

RTG's use Pu-238, fission explosives use Pu-239. Pu-238 decay is
predominantly alpha but rate is much higher than Pu-239 (~80 yr vs.
~25K yr half-life). Ionizing effect of alpha is short-range; some
inches of air or a sheet of paper would block it. A solid chunk of
Pu-238 is a low hazard. The problem comes if it gets vaporized (as in
a re-entry accident that exceeds the RTG designed protection
parameters), and the resulting condensate gets to the ground as minute
dust particles that can be inhaled and lodged in the lungs. Then, the
short range ionizing effects at high decay rate of Pu-238 is a much
more serious health hazard than that of Pu-239. The mass of Pu-238 in
RTG's is a very small fraction of the total mass of Pu-239 in the
atmosphere from test fallout, but the potential radiation danger of
Pu-238 is significant fraction of the danger from the existing Pu-239
in old fallout. I don't recall a number for the case of the ~80 kg of
Pu-238 in the Cassini GPHS RTG, but think the radiation potential due
to natural decay is in the 5% to 50% range of the existing Pu-239 in
atmosphere.

RTG's are designed to prevent radiation release in a launch accident
and in re-entry from LEO. Not too much concern with that. It was
accidental re-entry from an Earth flyby that was more worrisome. To
protect against that high speed entry would require adding mass to the
RTG beyond the payload capability of existing launch vehicles. For
Galileo/Cassini, the 1 and 2 Venus flybys were good as trial runs
before the Earth flyby(s), so things like metric-English unit errors
in the trajectory calculations would have been caught. The trajectory
correction maneuvers to target the Earth flyby were biased so that a
failure to execute would increase, not decrease, the flyby distance.
It would require the final TCM burn to go past its cutoff to put the
spacecraft on an entry course and then for ground control to be unable
to get another TCM burn to fix the course before a re-entry accident
can happen. The probability of the last scenario occurring is
extremely low.

It was the magnitude of the danger posed by the scenario vs the
probability of the scenario vs the benefits of benefits that generated
the heated discussions on this NG and elsewhere before the Cassini
launch. The probability of injury / death to a single person from an
accidental Cassini re-entry was stated to be magnitudes lower than a
plane falling from the sky and hitting a person. The limited effects
of a single plane accident vs the broader effects of a Cassini
re-entry was debated. The tangible benefits that can be assigned to
air travel making the risk worthwhile vs tangible benefits from
Cassini was debated. In the end, Cassini launched safely, and flew by
Earth safely. For future RTG powered spacecraft, NASA has chosen to
avoid the hi-speed re-entry risk by designing Europa Orbiter (before
it was cancelled) and Pluto missions to not use an Earth flyby.

The Galileo/Cassini anti-nuke crowd held that Galileo/Cassini were
public relations openings by NASA as a front for military use of
nuclear power in space. RTG's can be designed to survive launch
explosions and re-entry from LEO; direct risks from RTG's in these
types of accidents are insignificant. RTG's have not been used in
LEO, because solar energy works well and is plentiful and cheaper in
Earth orbit (kilowatts with lower cost solar arrays vs hundreds of
watts electrical for an expensive RTG). This goes even for the
military. Nuclear power does have have a lower volume / cross
sectional area than a solar array; this might get some play in better
survivability from a conventional ASAT near miss. If the military
wanted to go nuclear in space, they would do it without regard to
Galileo/Cassini.

The Nuclear Space Initiative / Prometheus is directed towards fission
reactor development for space. In one respect, this should please the
anti-nuke crowd in that it has lower direct accident risks than RTG's.
The nuclear fuel in a reactor does not have a fast decay like Pu-238,
and radiation from fission products don't come about until after the
reactor is started. The fission start can be delayed (unlike an RTG)
until the the reactor is in a higher earth orbit such that if there
were an accident, re-entry would not occur for hundreds to thousands
of years by which time most of the high intensity emitters would have
decayed.

For outer solar system and high-powered Mars surface missions, fission
reactors are a practial energy source. The development costs (at
several billion, a significant fraction of OSP development costs) vs.
benefits vs. alternatives are and will continue to be good discussion
fodder here on ssp.

"Mike Sabo" wrote ...
The activists miss the fact that billions of grams of material DO fall
to Earth every single day. If you assume crustal abundences are
representative, then about 50 kg of Th (12ppm) and U (2 ppm) are
vaporized in the atmosphere daily.

While I'm by no means on the side of the 'activists' your argument is
slightly disingenuous in that the 'dangers' involved depend on the
distribution as well as the amount. The material used in Cassini would
be lost in the background noise if spread world wide - but at the other
extreme would be 100% fatal to one person
..
..
..
..
if it landed on their head. :-P

Paul Blay wrote:
"Mike Sabo" wrote ...

The activists miss the fact that billions of grams of material DO fall
to Earth every single day. If you assume crustal abundences are
representative, then about 50 kg of Th (12ppm) and U (2 ppm) are
vaporized in the atmosphere daily.


While I'm by no means on the side of the 'activists' your argument is
slightly disingenuous in that the 'dangers' involved depend on the
distribution as well as the amount. The material used in Cassini would
be lost in the background noise if spread world wide - but at the other
extreme would be 100% fatal to one person

Sorry Paul. In the interest of bandwidth I didn't relate the story well
enough. The point I was trying to make is that Mr. Gagnon was making his
case to the students that only a single decay within a particle (lodged
in the lungs) could lead to lung cancer. This was prefaced by a scenario
where the entire volume of RTG material is completely vaporized in the
upper atmosphere and then be more or less distibuted evenly by mixing
before reaching the ground. Ergo (his logic) millions WOULD get lung
cancer if Cassinin re-entered the atmosphere.

I hope this make my post less confusing.

.
.
.
.
if it landed on their head. :-P