erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (02/02/88)
According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of the shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. He claims this is from _The_Nation_ and _Common_Cause_, who got it from NASA, who "conveniently forgot to tell us about it." What I'd like to know is: 1. Is this correct? 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear reactors into space. Can anyone confirm/deny/refuse to comment on any of this? [ FYI: J. Biafra's talk "Why I'm Glad the Space Shuttle Blew Up" is about 3 and half minutes long, and has to do with the 46 pounds of plutonium slated for the next shuttle mission. It can be found on _No_More_Cocoons_ (Alternative Tentacles virus 59) -- a double speach-only album by Jello Biafra; and also on The Birth of Tragedy Magazine's _Fear_Power_God_ Spoken Word/Graven Image Compilation album (CFY Records). ] -- J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 Just another journalist with too much computing power.| 'Hey, watch me ollie 'Girls play with toys. Real women skate.' --Powell Peralta ad.| this <whump>'
kit@athena.mit.edu (Chris D. Peterson) (02/02/88)
I am by no means an expert on the subject, but here is a bit of information on the subject, There are nuclear "reactors" in space. In fact the upcomming Galileo mission to Jupiter uses nuclear fission for its power systems. There is a good reason for this, as solar energy near Jupiter is pretty weak, and nothing else comes near the weight requirements for such a long mission. The fact is that when you are dealing with new things and new technology there is always some risk, it is a fact of life so live with it. Nothing in this world is free. Chris Peterson Project Athena Systems Development
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (02/03/88)
In article <347@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > > According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of the > shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. > > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear > reactors into space. There are any number of satellites zooming overhead with radioactive power components. Well, not *that* many, but several with very large power requirements, such as the Soviet RORSATs, which are radar platforms for oceanic surveys...which is another way of saying ones that look for ships and shallow-running subs. The radars on board need lots of power and solar cells aren't quite up to it. The treaty you're thinking of bans weapons of mass destruction from space, not the same thing as a power plant, exactly. The main drawback with these RORSATs and other nuclear-powered birds is that sometimes they came down in places like Canada. seh
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/03/88)
> According to activist and musician Jello Biafra, the next flight of the > shuttle was to carring a payload of 46 pounds of *plutonium*. He's misinformed in several ways. For one thing, it wasn't the next flight; two flights circa June were scheduled to carry isotope-powered planetary probes (Ulysses and Galileo). For another thing, he's using that great scare word "plutonium" without mentioning that it would go up in an armored canister designed to survive a launch failure. (There have been some doubts expressed about whether the canisters are in fact tough enough for all possible cases, but they definitely would have survived the Challenger disaster.) This is not just speculation: such a canister went into the ocean some years ago after an expendable launcher failed; it was recovered intact, wiped clean, and re-used. > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear > reactors into space. Nope. There is no such treaty. In any case it would probably exempt armored isotope canisters, because there is just no other satisfactory way of powering outer-planet missions -- there isn't enough sunlight out there for solar panels. The US has put one reactor into space, although not recently. The Soviet Union routinely uses small reactors to power its military radarsats. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/04/88)
in article <347@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) says: > 2. If so, I thought there was a law or treaty or something that we're > involved with that prohibits the launching of radioactive material > into space; and that this treaty was the reason we don't put nuclear > reactors into space. There is a treaty banning nuclear WEAPONS in space. But there is no treaty banning nuclear REACTORS in space. Remember that Russian satellite that broke up over Canada a few years back, spewing low-level radiation over a wide swath? It was powered by a nuclear reactor.... Your friend the nut case might have been thinking about the SDI payload that was recently sent up on a Delta(?) rocket... it was originally scheduled for the shuttle, back when the shuttle was planned to fly, well, now. -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (02/06/88)
In article <3212@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > > There is a treaty banning nuclear WEAPONS in space. But there is no treaty > banning nuclear REACTORS in space. Remember that Russian satellite that broke > up over Canada a few years back, spewing low-level radiation over a wide > swath? It was powered by a nuclear reactor.... Ok, so that's it. No nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors are just fine. If we're allowed to launch reactors into space, why not launch the waste, too? The 'what-if-it-blows-up?' answer could be applied to the launch of the reactor as well.... > Your friend the nut case might have been thinking about the SDI payload that > was recently sent up on a Delta(?) rocket... it was originally scheduled for > the shuttle, back when the shuttle was planned to fly, well, now. My 'friend the nut case' has a very good point. What if the rocket/shuttle /whatever that's carrying 46 pounds of plutonium goes blooie in lower atmosphere? You gonna be ready to live inside for the next few years? I'm not. I'd much rather spend money getting us a base on the moon, and just mine/manufacture all the reactor fuel there.. Where there *aren't* 5 billion people, at least 3 billion of which are just minding their own buisiness. > Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb > {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any > Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion > Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words. Hey, do you attend the University of Slow Learners, by any chance?? :-) (I used to live in La. too.... get out of the state while you still can! :-) -- "Occult symbols include ... the 'peace' symbol and the Jewish 'Star of David'" -- From the Back In Control Handbook "$20,000 a year is a small price to not have to talk to our kids" -- Jello Biafra, commenting on the "Back in Control" program Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
bird@kksys.UUCP (0000-Mike Bird) (02/06/88)
In article <1988Feb3.133415.12432@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > [stuff deleted ] ... there is just no other satisfactory >way of powering outer-planet missions -- there isn't enough sunlight out >there for solar panels. >The US has put one reactor into space, although not recently. The Soviet >Union routinely uses small reactors to power its military radarsats. >Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology I was under the impression that the experiment packages left up on the moon by the manned Apollo shots used a small Pu-powered nuclear reactor as their power source. I seem to remember a small, black, cylindrical device with radiating fins as the center imstrument deployments. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? -- ================================================================================ Mike Bird (These opinions are mine, dammit!) Mail paths: bird@kksys.UUCP -or- Void where prohibited by law. ...rutgers!meccts!kksys!bird
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (02/07/88)
In article <2728@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> kit@athena.mit.edu (Chris D. Peterson) writes: >In fact the upcomming >Galileo mission to Jupiter uses nuclear fission for its power systems. The power system for Galileo does NOT use fission - at least, not in the sense that is implied when you say "reactor". There is no chain reaction involved - the power is generated by thermovoltaic devices driven by the heat of Plutonium's natural breakdown processes. While this is, technically, a fission process, it's not one which requires any external control, and not one which poses any particular danger - the Pu is sealed inside VERY strong armored capsules, and the chance of it being released into the environment is minuscule. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (02/08/88)
in article <365@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) says: > My 'friend the nut case' has a very good point. What if the rocket/shuttle > /whatever that's carrying 46 pounds of plutonium goes blooie in lower > atmosphere? You gonna be ready to live inside for the next few years? 46 pounds of plutonium might irradiate a stretch of ocean pretty badly, but not much worse. It won't explode. You need very high pressures to compress plutonium to critical mass, and a shuttle explosion would tend to expand outwards (now you know why atomic bombs have heavy cases?). Even if it did explode, the global effects would be no worse than atmospheric testing in the 40's and 50's... > I'm not. I'd much rather spend money getting us a base on the moon, > and just mine/manufacture all the reactor fuel there.. The moon, like most other places in the solar system, is very short on fissionables. Be difficult to mine anything there in reasonable quantities. The moon doesn't have the seismic and tidal activities that have concentrated such materials here on Earth. There's little difference between carrying 46 pounds of plutonium and 4 tons of raw uranium ore, risk-wise, besides the costs involved... so processing it on the moon would be no help, either. > Hey, do you attend the University of Slow Learners, by any chance?? :-) No no, you got it all wrong! That's "U Stand in Line"! :-) > (I used to live in La. too.... get out of the state while you still can! :-) Believe me, I don't intend to hang around here one moment more than I have to... no smiley there. Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/08/88)
> ...It won't explode. You need very high pressures to compress > plutonium to critical mass... Besides which it is the wrong isotope anyway, and CANNOT explode. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/09/88)
> I was under the impression that the experiment packages left up on the > moon by the manned Apollo shots used a small Pu-powered nuclear > reactor as their power source. I seem to remember a small, black, > cylindrical device with radiating fins as the center imstrument > deployments. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? Sigh. I guess I had better explain all this from scratch; there are probably others with similar misunderstandings. Everyone who isn't sure what's going on, please listen -- I'm only gonna say this once! :-) There are two ways of getting power from nuclear energy. One is with a nuclear reactor: a complex piece of machinery that maintains a controlled chain reaction in a suitable fissionable isotope, usually Uranium 235 but sometimes Plutonium 239. Non-fissionable isotopes like Uranium 238 may be present but do not participate. Reactors can yield very high power outputs, but are relatively big, heavy, and complicated, and once in operation they emit lots of radiation and have a stew of nasty isotopes inside them. The other way is to use the natural decay of a radioactive isotope. To get useful amounts of power without troublesome radiation, one picks an isotope that decays rapidly by emitting non-penetrating radiation like alpha and beta particles. Plutonium 238 (note, 238, *not* 239) is one fairly good choice. Such isotopes do not have to be fissionable and in fact usually aren't. Small isotope generators can use thermoelectric devices for converting heat to electricity, which means no moving parts. It is difficult to get high power out of isotope generators, but they are simple and reliable and (unlike reactors) can be built in small sizes. It is relatively easy to package the isotope in such generators in an armored capsule that can survive a re-entry or a launch accident; this is routinely done, and such capsules *have* survived launch accidents. An isotope generator is *not* a nuclear reactor. The US has launched only one reactor, the SNAP-10A experimental reactor of the late 60s. The Soviets use reactors to power their military radarsats, which need lots of power. That is basically it for reactors in space. Isotope generators are used in some military satellites where the vulnerability of solar panels is undesirable, but see their main use in planetary missions. The Apollo surface experiments and the Viking landers used isotope generators to continue operations despite long periods of darkness. Outer-planet probes like the Voyagers and Galileo use isotope generators because the sunlight is pretty faint out there. The waste heat from isotope generators can also be useful to keep equipment warm in cold environments. -- Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry
bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (02/10/88)
in article <365@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) says: > Ok, so that's it. No nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors are just fine. > If we're allowed to launch reactors into space, why not launch the waste, > too? The 'what-if-it-blows-up?' answer could be applied to the launch > of the reactor as well.... Not really. A nuclear reactor that has not been operated is simply not that hot. Remember, you can build a reactor out of stuff you dig out of the ground. The high level nuclear waste produced by an operating nuclear reactor is a whole 'nuther matter. I would not like to see operating reactors being boosted into orbit. > My 'friend the nut case' has a very good point. What if the rocket/shuttle > /whatever that's carrying 46 pounds of plutonium goes blooie in lower > atmosphere? You gonna be ready to live inside for the next few years? > I'm not. I live in Utah, I'd be very surprised if less than 46 pounds of plutonium have been spread over the state. You see, we are the preferred fallout path for all the above ground, and more than a few of the below ground nuclear tests performed at the Nevada nuclear test range. The state is still quite habitable, it doesn't even glow in the dark. There are a few "statistical anomolies" in the cancer rate though. Assuming a worste case accident, parts of Florida would have to be evacuated and cleaned up. I'd be very surprised if anyone outside of the Indian River area would be affected. As for living inside for a couple of years, well I hope you have been very careful in your choice of construction materials, fuels, and so forth. If you haven't, your nice closed shelter can build up some nasty levels of Radon. Real nice for cooking your lungs. If you want to get upset about something real, look at the amounts of nuclear waste put into the atmosphere every year by coal fired power plants. Compare that to the amount released by all nuclear power plant accidents. You have to be careful with nuclear materials. But, you have to be reasonable about assesing risks. The word "plutonium" has you jumping out of your skin with fright. I'll bet the word "coal" doesn't frighten you at all. But I'll bet that the coal industry kills more people every year than the plutonium industry does. Bob Pendleton -- Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet I am solely responsible for what I say.
wex@banzai-inst.SW.MCC.COM (Alan Wexelblat) (02/11/88)
In article <1988Feb3.133415.12432@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > ...that great scare word "plutonium" without mentioning that it > would go up in an armored canister designed to survive a launch > failure. (There have been some doubts expressed about whether the > canisters are in fact tough enough for all possible cases, but they > definitely would have survived the Challenger disaster.) This is > not just speculation: such a canister went into the ocean some > years ago after an expendable launcher failed; it was recovered > intact, wiped clean, and re-used. Er, yes and no. Yes, the canister is designed to survive an explosion. Specifically, it can withstand forces up to 2,000 psi. This is (as Henry notes) clearly enough to withstand a spashdown after failure of an unmanned. However, NASA tests indicate that an exploding shuttle ET might generate forces as high as 20,000 psi. What's particularly troublesome are detonation-on-pad scenarios, which involve these higher pressures. If the cannister did explode, the resulting shower of material might contaminate the entire space center. The point is that while the risk is relatively low, the potential consequences of a failure are so high that alternatives should be given more serious consideration, including the alternative of hardening the cannister to withstand 20,000 psi. (Could such shielding be jettisoned after the space probe was free-flying?)
karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (02/15/88)
> alpha and beta particles. Plutonium 238 (note, 238, *not* 239) is one > fairly good choice. Such isotopes do not have to be fissionable and in > fact usually aren't. Small isotope generators can use thermoelectric From everything I've read about plutonium, all of its long-lived isotopes are fissionable. Pu-239 is favored for bombs because it is easy to make, and because its spontaneous fission rate is low enough to make bomb design simpler. (It was the high neutron levels caused by Pu-240 contamination that ruled out use of the gun-type bomb with plutonium during the Manhattan Project; implosion brings the fissionable material together faster than a gun can, avoiding a fizzle). Pu-238 is used in RTGs because its much shorter half-life (86 years vs 24,400 years for Pu-239) gives much more power per unit weight. It is the lack of a nonfissionable isotope of plutonium that would make the controlled destruction of the superpowers' plutonium stocks so difficult. Enriched uranium, on the other hand, can be effectively "denatured" by mixing it with depleted uranium (U-238). Refs: The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes; Stopping the Production of Fissile Materials for Weapons, by von Hippel et al, Scientific American, September 1985. Also see the CRC Handbook. Phil
erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) (02/24/88)
In article <713@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: > You have to be careful with nuclear materials. But, you have to be reasonable > about assesing risks. The word "plutonium" has you jumping out of your skin > with fright. I'll bet the word "coal" doesn't frighten you at all. But I'll > bet that the coal industry kills more people every year than the plutonium > industry does. My worries about the plutonium (at the time of the posting) were directly related to my misunderstanding of the isotope generaters and all the stuff that I've received so much email about... I am worried about coal. I think coal and hydrocarbon fuels in general are a really bad idea. I also wish solar powered everything would become economical... I've read a lot of stuff on alternative energy that leads me to beleive it'd be quite easy. Solar powered launch vehicles, anyone? > Bob Pendleton > Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland > UUCP Address: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet > Alternate: {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet > I am solely responsible for what I say. -- Just say NO to skate harassment. | Just another journalist with too much If I wish really hard, will IBM go away forever? | computing power.. Girls play with toys. Real women skate. -- Powell Peralta ad J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007
hansen@mips.COM (Craig Hansen) (02/26/88)
In article <442@flatline.UUCP>, erict@flatline.UUCP (eric townsend) writes: > I am worried about coal. I think coal and hydrocarbon fuels in general > are a really bad idea. I also wish solar powered everything would become > economical... I've read a lot of stuff on alternative energy that leads > me to beleive it'd be quite easy. We're getting a little off the subject, here, but don't forget that there are highly toxic materials in solar cells, too. Solar-power technology hasn't advanced much in the last ten years, and doesn't really promise to advance much in the next ten years - if it becomes "more economical" it is only because other sources are becoming "less economical." Why you would _wish_ that is beyond my comprehension. -- Craig Hansen Manager, Architecture Development MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. ...{ames,decwrl,prls}!mips!hansen or hansen@mips.com 408-991-0234
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/28/88)
> Solar powered launch vehicles, anyone?
Sure: a solar power satellite is the obvious power supply for a big laser
launcher!
--
Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry