andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) (10/03/85)
In article <634@osu-eddie.UUCP> julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) writes: > > > > As far as the debris issue is concerned, why not condemn the Soviets > > > for their use of nuclear power plants in their spacecraft. Talk about > > > hot debris. > >Another case of OK for us, not OK for them? The USA uses nuclear power >plants. Take a look at the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft. But those >are deep space vehicles! you say? Until they get into deep space they >can still fall. That's even more of a problem in these days of shuttle >launch rather than booster launch. Now, where's my lighter . . . Say what? How is launching from the shuttle more of a problem than from a booster? Thanks guys, you can go back to the firehall now. If the satellite's booster fails in LEO, it can be repaired later, as we've all seen. If the shuttle buys the farm, then it's an argument against using nuclear reactors in space (which is justified for deep-space probes because RTG's are the only thing that can power them). Question #2. How many American satellites in Earth orbit are nuclear powered? I'm not too well informed on that, but I can't think of any. The Soviets use them fairly often in Earth orbit (as the world found out when Cosmos 954 spread itself across the Northwest Territories a few years back (they STILL haven't reimbursed the Canadian government the several million dollars it took to clean it all up). I believe the Soviet method is to boost the nuclear powerpack itself up into a higher orbit before the satellite itself re-enters, leaving a nice present for someone to find a few decades. (Maybe they figure that they'll be able to retrieve them then (I hope)). Back on the topic of ASAT's, there was an article a few months back (sorry, I can't remember the reference) about how to execute a sneak attack on GEO. The vehicle is launched toward the moon, but instead of landing or going into orbit, it loops around and goes into a RETROGRADE geosynchronous orbit (hmm, it's not synchronous then, is it . . .). All this thing has to do then is generously distribute some shotgun pellets, and, with impact velocities in the +50 kps range, GEO is reduced to a junkyard. The scary part is that this can be done with minimal warning, as, for most of it's flight, the ASAT will look like a lunar probe. -- Andrew Folkins ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew "Any statements to the effect that this parrot is still a going concern are hereby considered inoperative!"
julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (10/06/85)
> Say what? How is launching from the shuttle more of a problem than from > a booster? Because it's a two-step process, i.e. more things to go wrong. Yes, the Soviets use orbiting nuclear reactors much more than we do; Phil Karn <620@petrus.UUCP> says the USA has in fact flown only one nuclear reactor. He also mentions the plutonium that Apollo 13 left in the Pacific Ocean. However, something I was not aware of was how poorly the Soviet nuclear satellites are designed; see his posting for more. Henry Spencer <6015@utzoo.UUCP> says that the US uses encapsulated radioactive isotopes which can survive re-entry. That just shows that the USA is careful about its designs. My original point was that we can't condemn the USSR offhand for doing something that we also are doing. But we are doing it more responsibly. "Fail Safe" "Dr Strangelove ..." "Level 7" etc. -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University {ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian