cassini flyby -Reply

[Michael S Ford <MFORD@pantex.com>]

The issue here is that the "fly-by" speed of the Cassini probe (42,300
mph) is well above the assumed reentry velocity that the Pu heat
source was designed to (25,000 mph).  'Appears to be a valid issue.

Perhaps Tad could comment as to whether NASA increased the
fly-by distance because of this?

See two-month old articles below for background.  It's got all the
radio-phobia you could ever hope for.

My own personal/non-corporate thoughts,
v/r
Michael
mford@pantex.com
TX Radiation Advisory Board

[Articles]

Protesters Are Wary of Space Probe

KNIGHTRIDDER NEWS SERVICE, June 30, 1999 
http://www.sltrib.com/1999/jun/06301999/nation_w/4905.htm

PASADENA, Calif. -- A space probe powered by 72.3 pounds of
plutonium, one of the deadliest substances on Earth, is hurtling
back toward our planet and reawakening the vigorous controversy
that accompanied its launch two years ago. 

Bound for Saturn after a journey that slingshots it around several
planets, the Cassini probe will carry its radioactive and highly toxic
fuel to within 723 miles of Earth -- at 42,300 mph. 

Not much room for error there. 

Scientists are fine-tuning the route now. They say they have
everything under control. Scheduled time for Cassini's closest
approach to Earth: 11:30 p.m. MDT on Aug. 18.

"There is no chance it will cross Earth's trajectory," said Ralph Miles,
an engineer and hazardous-materials expert at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which controls Cassini.
"None." 

Nevertheless, anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists are
gearing up their protests. They say hundreds, thousands, even
millions of people could die if the probe crashes into Earth's
atmosphere, explodes and spews its cancer-causing plutonium fuel.

Send it to the Sun: "This is a chance for us to alert the world," said
Bruce Gagnon, a coordinator in Gainesville, Fla., for the Global
Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, which
claims 55 chapters around the world. "We want NASA to send
Cassini into the sun." 

Even Gagnon doesn't think that's possible. The Cassini project
costs $3.5 billion. 

Launched from Cape Canaveral on Oct. 15, 1997, amid sit-ins, fence
climbing, unsuccessful court actions and other protests, Cassini is
due to arrive at Saturn in 2004. 

It is designed to conduct 27 scientific investigations of the planet, its
mysterious rings and some of its 18 moons, including Titan, which
bears some resemblance to Earth. 

"It's possible we can get clues as to how Earth was born," said Bob
Mitchell, NASA's program manager for Cassini. 

The 2,500-pound probe requires fly-bys of Earth, Venus and Jupiter.
By the time it reaches Saturn, it will have traveled 2.2 billion miles.
NASA says plutonium is the only practical power source because
Cassini is traveling too far from the sun to employ solar power. 

Powered by Plutonium: Other unmanned spacecraft have been
fueled by small amounts of plutonium, but never as much as sits on
board Cassini. Some deep-space probes now being prepared for
launch also will be powered by plutonium. 

"It's clear to us that there's a major move within the Department of
Energy to push nuclear power into space," Gagnon said, "and NASA
and the Air Force are very willing partners." 

Experts say that just one-millionth of a gram of plutonium -- an
invisible particle -- could cause lung or bone cancer if inhaled or
otherwise introduced into the body. 

NASA's worst-case scenario if the fly-by goes awry: 120 to 2,300
people develop lung or bone cancer and die prematurely. 

Opponents say many more people could be endangered. But NASA
says the dangers are minimal. 

---

[Gagnon quotes himself a lot here... that must be weird]

U.S. SHIRKS LIABILITY ISSUE ON CASSINI

Contact: Bruce Gagnon (352) 337-9274 <globenet@afn.org>, July
1, 1999

The "double standard" that the U.S. has created to deal with its
liability in  the event of a space nuclear accident  including the
current plutonium-fueled Cassini space probe mission  is being
described as an "outright violation of the Outer Space Treaty" by the
Global Network Against  Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the fundamental international law on
space, states that "each state party to the treaty that launches or
procures the launching of an object into outer space*is
internationally liable for damage  to another state party."

Nevertheless, the U.S. in 1991 initiated a "Space Nuclear Power
Agreement" between NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy
which restricts U.S. liability  in the event of a mishap on a mission
involving a nuclear power system to the  limits of the U.S.
Price-Anderson Act. The act limits U.S. liability in the  event of a
nuclear accident to $100 million for all other nations and $8.9  billion
for the U.S. itself.

"This is an outrageous double standard," declared Bruce Gagnon,
coordinator  of the Global Network. "The U.S. is not, as the Outer
Space Treaty requires,  agreeing to be *internationally liable for
damage.* It is the height of  international arrogance."

Meanwhile, this coming August 18, NASA intends to have Cassini,
with 72.3 pounds of deadly plutonium, perform a dangerous fly-by of
Earth. Cassini will buzz Earth at 42,300 mph at just 729 high in what
NASA calls a "slingshot" maneuver so it can gain speed for its trip to
Saturn.

If a malfunction occurs NASA admits in its Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) that Cassini, with no heat shield, could reenter the
Earth*s 75-mile atmosphere disintegrating and releasing the
plutonium globally.

In an "Safety Evaluation Report" prepared for NASA just prior to the
October  1997 launch of Cassini the "Interagency Nuclear Safety
Review Panel"  concluded that, "the aeroshells have not been
designed for the high speed  reentry characteristic of this fly-by
maneuver. Much of the plutonium is  vaporized and over a 50-year
period provides a collective dose to the world*s  population*it is
possible, using the linear non-threshold dose hypothesis, to 
postulate up to several tens of thousands of latent cancer fatalities 
worldwide over the next to years."

Independent scientists say the death toll could be much higher. Dr.
Ernest Sternglass, professor emeritus of radiological physics at the
University of  Pittsburgh School of Medicine, says 20 million to 40
million people could die.

As for clean-up costs, NASA in its EIS says costs could be as high
as $200 million per square kilometer and also says that a "reentry
footprint" of dispersed plutonium "could range to about 50,000
square kilometers" bringing the cost to $10 trillion.

NASA claims that the "likelihood" of a Cassini Earth fly-by accident
is "one-in-a-million", but Dr. Stephen Edberg of NASA*s Jet
Propulsion Laboratory admits in the award-winning investigative TV
documentary "Nukes in  Space 2: Unacceptable Risks" that this
estimate was "pulled out of a hat" by  NASA scientists.

Meanwhile, noted Gagnon, even if the Cassini fly-by is not diverted
from Earth NASA is planning at least eight more nuclear-fueled
space shots in coming years.

"With an accident rate of 12% in its space nuclear program already,
additional accidents are inevitable and the U.S. is thumbing its nose
at the  rest of the world when it comes to covering the liability
question," said  Gagnon.

Gagnon stated that the Global Network, with affiliates throughout the
world,  is seeking to have nations challenge the U.S.*s "Space
Nuclear Power  Agreement" in the United Nations and through the
International Court of  Justice at The Hague as a violation of
international law.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html