GAMBLING
WITH THE DEVIL
Postponing The Launch Of Cassini
For The Safety Of A Solar Fuel Cell Redesign
End The Militarization And Nuclearization Of Space
|
March 20, 1999
T+ 520 Days
At 4:43 AM EDT, on Wednesday, October 15, 1997, from launch complex #
40 at The Cape Canaveral Air Station, in Florida, a spacecraft called Cassini is scheduled
to liftoff. On board Cassini will be 72.3 pounds of the deadliest substance known,
Plutonium (Pu). This is by far the most Pu ever attempted to be launched in a space
mission. Inhaling less then 27 millionths of a gram of Pu will give you lung cancer and
also causes long term genetic damage. (The Pu's %'s and 1/2 life's are Pu 238 @ 70.8% 1/2
life 87.74 years, Pu 239 @ 12.86% 1/2 life 24,110 years, Pu 240 @ 1.79% 1/2 life 6537
years, Pu 241 @ .17% 1/2 life 14.4 years, Pu 242 @ .11% 1/2 life 376,000 years, Pu 236 @
.000001%, Oxygen @ 11.85% Antinides and Impurities @ 2.41% and of course the Missing @
.00999%.)
Cassini is to use the 72.3 lbs. of Pu not as a fuel to propel it,
but to power (by the heat given off during radioactive decay) 3 Lockheed-Martin (LM)
built, radioisotope thermal generators (RTG's) that will create the modest 745 watts of
electricity, to run all of the onboard instruments and experiments. A small part (.77 lb.)
of the Pu will also be used in 130 Radioisotope Heater Units (RHU's). The RHU's provide
heat for controlling the thermal environment of the spacecraft and several of its
instruments. This modest generation of 745 watts of electricity, can now be done in deep
space conditions, by using a combination of advanced photovoltaics (solar power) and long
lived fuel cells. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been using
both solar and fuel cell technologies since the days of the Gemini missions back in the
mid 1960's. NASA, however has denied that the Cassini mission can use the solar fuel cell
process, stating that Saturn's solar insolation is only about 1% (it's 1.087%) compared to
the Earth's. Well thanks to the European Space Agency (ESA) announcing back on 4/29/94,
"a technology milestone, the development of new, low-intensity, low-temperature
(LILT) solar cells that are capable of 25% efficiency, the highest efficiency ever
reached, and could be used in deep space missions. If given the contract to do the work,
within 5 years ESA could have solar cells ready to power a space mission to Saturn,"
said Dr. Carla Signorini, a ESA physicist in Noorwijk, Holland.
Some background info to show where NASA is coming from: For the 1989
Galileo mission to Jupiter, a NASA witness swore in court that it could only be completed
by getting its electricity from the 49.25 lbs. of Pu in its RTG's. Yet, two weeks after
the launch, in response to a Freedom Of Information Act requested by Professor Karl
Grossman of the State University of N.Y. at Old Westbury and the narrator of the award
winning film Nukes In Space (Call 800 ECO TV46 and buy this video - then get your local
cable access channel to show it - and/or show it to a group of friends - do this right now)
(A request that was filed two years earlier with NASA and the Department of Energy (DoE) )
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) acknowledged that solar energy could substitute for
nuclear power. "Based on the current study, it appears that the Galileo Jupiter
orbiting mission could be performed with a concentrated photovoltaic solar array power
source without changing the mission sequence or impacting science objectives" so
stated one of the reports. A year later when the Ulysses mission was launched, NASA
actually admitted in its pre-launch Final Impact Statement "that solar could
substitute for nuclear power but would require a redesign." When are we going to find
out from NASA that the Cassini mission could have had a solar fuel cell redesign, just
before the launch, or just after?
A JPL study showed it would take 5,380 sq. ft. of solar power, or 2,
30' x 105' solar arrays (but that = 6,300 sq. ft. ?) (it should be 2, 30' x 90' = 5,400
sq. ft.) to produce the 745 watts of electricity in deep space. This, they said would make
Cassini too massive for launching. (But not with a booster rocket with a little more
thrust) I have cautiously calculated the solar #'s out myself, and found it's more like
3,900 sq. ft. or 2, 30' x 65' solar arrays to produce the 745 watts. ESA has evaluated
(strong armed) this JPL study and concluded that "our LILT solar cells aren't a
viable power source alternative for the presently defined Cassini mission of NASA."
The key words here are, "Presently Defined", NASA and the ESA are playing
Orwellian word games, knowing all to well that the Cassini mission can be redesigned to
use solar fuel cells, but that's not what is "Presently Defined" by NASA.
Cutting edge technology in clean renewable solar hydrogen fuel cell energy is what is
needed to be funded, not nuclear. If funded, Cassini could be redesigned to use solar fuel
cell technology and launched within 3 years. Fund Clean Renewable Energies.
NASA, JPL, the DoE's national nuclear laboratories, and the
corporations that have been involved in the producing of nuclear hardware for the space
missions insist on sticking with nuclear on Cassini. NASA has been in bed with the DoE and
its laboratories, the Department of Defense (DoD), the National Security Agency (NSA), The
Pentagon, and all the military industrial complex corporations from the start. Then, near
the end of the Apollo days, NASA sold their souls to the military for new contracts. Just
take a look at the Space Shuttle missions, many of them are top secret military missions.
Cassini is a 3.4 billion dollar, 11 year, unmanned mission to explore Saturn and one
of its satellites, Titan. Cassini plans call for an arrival at Saturn on July 1, 2004. The
Cassini mission consists of delivering a probe (called Huygens, provided by ESA) to Titan.
It is then expected to make at least 30 loose elliptical orbits of the planet, each
optimized for a different set of detailed observations of the planet and its rings and
satellites. The principal objectives are to: 1) determine the three-dimensional structure
and dynamical behavior of the rings; 2) determine the composition of the satellite
surfaces and the geological history of each object; 3) determine the nature and origin of
the dark material on Iapetus' leading hemisphere; 4) measure the three-dimensional
structure and dynamical behavior of the magnetosphere; 5) study the dynamical behavior of
Saturn's atmosphere at cloud level; 6) study the time variability of Titan's clouds and
hazes; and, 7) characterize Titan's surface on a regional scale. GRAVITY ASSIST SWINGBY (GAS) MANEUVER(S)
Cassini's launch vehicle (booster rocket), the Titan 4 B
(SRMU)/Centaur, built by LM, does not have the thrust to propel it at 10 Kilometers Per
Second (KPS), which is the speed that is needed to send it directly out to Saturn. So in
order to achieve the 10 KPS to reach Saturn, which is on average 794 million miles from
Earth, Cassini will be utilizing 4 gravity assist swingby maneuvers. This GAS maneuver is
accomplished by flying very close to a large mass such as a planet and using that planets
gravitational field to transfer some of its energy to the spacecraft, which then enables
the spacecraft to increase its velocity tremendously.
So, after a hopefully successful launch, Cassini will first head to
Venus. The first 2 swingbys will be around Venus, with the first occurring on 4/21/98.
Then there is a huge swing taking it all the way out between the Earth and Mars, where a
maneuver on 12/2/98 will then turn it back to Venus. On 6/20/99 the 2nd Venus swingby will
occur. Cassini then slingshots back out toward Saturn. The 3rd swingby will be of the
Earth on 8/16/99, at an altitude of only 310 miles (as of 4/11/97 the new altitude is now
496.8 miles, this is a little safer - is NASA beginning to listen? - it leaves 35.56
seconds which is 15.75 seconds more then 310 mile high trajectory window before entering
our atmosphere), and traveling at 42,699.96 MPH. This leaves as little as 19.81 seconds
for a trajectory window before a fiery inadvertent reentry into our atmosphere. The 4th
swingby will be of Jupiter on December 30, 2000.
Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of theoretical physics at the City
University of New York and the author of the wonderful books Beyond Einstein and
Hyperspace notes "The American people don't realize that on the very next mission
after the 1/28/86 Challenger accident, the Ulysses spacecraft, was supposed to be sent
into outer space with 25 lbs. of Plutonium. Now imagine that very same Challenger carrying
the Ulysses spacecraft exploding on our television screens." Every living creature
that was to be unluckily downwind breathing in the lethal Pu fallout would now be
developing cancer. Booster rockets fail. Before the Challenger accident, NASA's #'s on a
Space Shuttle's booster rockets' failure rate was 1 in 100,000. After the accident, the
failure rate was revised to 1 in 76 (1.316%).
As for Cassini, NASA's #'s for the Titan 4 B (SRMU)/Centaur booster
rocket that is to be used to lift Cassini to reach escape velocity: It has been used only
once so far, on 2/23/97 a successful launch was completed. Its predecessor the Titan
4/Centaur had been used 19 times. On 8/2/93, at Vandenberg A.F.B. in California, a 1.1
billion dollar, secret NSA mission with 3 spy satellites, blew up during its liftoff. This
equals a 1 in 20 failure rate, a 5% chance for a possible Cassini disaster, just on the
liftoff. Incidentally, each of the Titan's earlier models, the Titan, Titan 2, Titan 3 -
C,D,E, and Titan 34 D, have all had analogous failure rates. Chemical booster rockets by
nature are all quite volatile. In April of 1986 at the Vandenberg A.F.B a launch blew up
using a Titan 34 D, destroying the launch pad completely. Just this year, on January 17th,
a Delta rocket blew up 13 seconds into its liftoff at Cape Canaveral. spewing its highly
noxious chemical fuel South along the coast for up to 73 miles. These people where told to
stay indoors with the windows closed.
If the Cassini mission fails during its liftoff and releases its Pu,
the potential clean up costs associated with land contamination run upwards of 1 million
dollars per acre. The 6 county region surrounding the Cape Canaveral Air station consists
of Volusia, Seminole, Lake, Orange, Osceola and Brevard Countries. This region contains
4.1 million acres, if this region were contaminated it would cost upwards of 4.1 trillion
dollars to try to "decontaminate". NASA would have to relocate the 2.3 million
affected people permanently, as well as ban all future agricultural land uses. This region
could be rendered useless for about 12,000 generations, or 240,000 years because of
the Pu 239's long 1/2 life of 24,110 years. Cassini is carring 9.3 pounds of Pu 239.
Dr. Horst Poehler, a scientist, who for over two decades worked with
NASA contractors told me "at the very least NASA should move the Cassini launch to a
remote location such as the Russian site at Kazakhstan or perhaps the ESA site at The
Guiana Space Center at Kourou. There are over 2 million people within the 6 counties
surrounding the Cape Canaveral launch site and the prevailing winds there in October blow
right back over all of these people. NASA is immoral, they are mad scientists willing to
poison the people of Florida on the launch and the whole world during the Earth
flyby."
Will NASA wait till the wind blows out toward the Atlantic Ocean,
away from land and the 2.3 million people in the 6 county region surrounding the Cape
before trying to launch Cassini? The Cassini mission has a 41 day launch window from
October 6th through November 15th, with each day the launch window being 2 hours and 20
minutes. NASA says the earliest time for a launching would be the best for mission
sequences, but only 19% of the time, or 8 days, the wind blows away from land (NW, WNW, W,
WSW, SW). Out of these 8 days, approximately half, or 4 days, which is less then 10% of
the time, the winds will be blowing with the best direction and speed in case of a failure
during liftoff with the Pu possibly being released.
Last November 16, the Russian Mars 96 spaceprobe with .44 lb. of Pu
238 malfunctioned, sending it crashing back to Earth. According to the U.S. Space Command:
"The area where any debris surviving the heat of reentry would have fallen was a 200
mile long portion of the Pacific Ocean, Chile and Bolivia." This is not an isolated
incident. Six of the 39 (15.38%) space missions with nuclear material on board that the
former Soviet Union has launched, have failed. Including the 1/24/78 Cosmos 954 carrying
68 lbs. Uranium 235 (U 235) which burned apart as it fell back to Earth. It scattered 25%
of its radiation over a 124,000 square kilometer area of northwestern Canada, and the
remaining 75% of the lethal radiation vaporized in our atmosphere.
NASA concedes, 3 of the 24 (12.5%) U.S. missions involving
spacecraft with nuclear material have met with accidents, including the TRANSIT 5BN-3. It
fell back to Earth on 4/21/64, disintegrating as it came down. Its RTG with 2.1 lbs. of Pu
vaporized and dispersed worldwide. Dr. John Gofman, professor emeritus of medical physics
at the University of California at Berkeley, an M.D. and Ph.D. and a co-discoverer of
isotopes of Plutonium and Uranium as a member of the Manhattan Project, has long
attributed the increased rate of lung cancer to the TRANSIT 5BN-3 accident. So between the
2 countries folly with nuclear space missions, it's 9 accidents in 63 tries, 1 in 7, a
14.286% failure rate.
Now back to Cassini's 310 mile high, 42,699.96 MPH, Earth flyby with
as little as 19.81 seconds for a trajectory window (as of 4/11/97 it is a 496.8 mile high
and 35.56 seconds). Dr. Michio Kaku explains the catastrophic consequences of such a flyby
accident: "If there is a small misfire of Cassini's rocket system, it will mean that
Cassini will penetrate into the Earth's atmosphere. This thing coming into the Earth's
atmosphere, will vaporize, releasing the payload and then particles of plutonium dioxide
will begin to rain down on populated areas, if that is where the system is going to be
hitting. Pulverized plutonium dust will rain down on people's hair, people's clothing, get
into people's bodies. And because it is not water soluble, there is a very good chance
that it could be inhaled and stay in the body causing cancer over a number of
decades."
Dr. Arjun Makhijani a nuclear engineer from The Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research has stated to me "the total radiation fallout from all the
open air nuclear explosions from July 16,1945 till the present is 440,000 curies. Now, if
Cassini had an inadvertent reentry with the 3 RTG's and the 130 RHU's vaporized in our
atmosphere, approximately 406,000 curies of radiation would be released." There have
been more then 900 open air nuclear explosions, a single accident of Cassini could
possibly emit more radiation then all of these 900 put together. The International
Committee on Radiological Protection has set the maximum permissible level of Pu in the
human body at .00000004 curies. Cassini is carring 406,000 curies. This is not good. NASA's Final Environmental Impact Statement On Cassini States:
"In an inadvertent reentry during the gravity assist flyby of
Earth on 8/16/99, with the 72.3 lbs. of Pu vaporized throughout our atmosphere,
approximately 5 billion of the 7 to 8 billion humans on Earth could receive 99% or more of
the radiation exposure." (On 8/16/99, there will be 6.07 billion humans inhabiting
the Earth, not the 7 to 8 billion that NASA states) By the way, the Cassini spacecraft has
no heat shield for protection against a possible inadvertent reentry into our atmosphere.
Dr. Ernest Sternglass, professor emeritus of radiological physics at
the University of Pittsburgh, has warned that if Cassini disintegrated it would present a
great danger and "that the death toll from the plutonium exposure of a Cassini
inadvertent reentry may be as high as 30 to 40 million people." The International
Committee on Radiological Protection states "that inhalation of 1/10,000 of a gram of
Pu causes lung cancer." There are 453.59 grams to a lb. so, 10,000 x 453.59 =
4,535,900 x 72.3 lbs. = 327,945,570 people. Dr. Arjun Mahhijani says inhalation of less
then 27 millionths of a gram of Plutonium, (this = 1,215,443,333 people) will give you
lung cancer and also causes long term genetic damage. Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of
Physicians for Social Responsibility, writes in her book Nuclear Madness: "Plutonium
is so toxic that less than one-millionth of a gram, an invisible particle, is a
carcinogenic dose. One pound, if uniformly distributed, could hypothetically induce lung
cancer in every person on Earth." So, an inadvertent reentry of Cassini would cause
lung cancer in up to 30 to 40 million people, up to 328 million people, or up to
1,215,433,333 people, or hypothetically everyone on Earth. This potential down side does
seems quite the price to pay to explore Saturn...
NASA states the 72.3 lbs. of Pu in the 3 RTG's and 130 RHU's is in a
heat resistant, ceramic form, which "reduces its chance of vaporizing" in fire
or inadvertent reentry. In each of the 3 RTG's the Pu is also divided among 18 small
independent units, each with its own .022" thin iridium heat shield and a graphite
carbon impact shell. The Iridium casing and graphite carbon blocks that protect the Pu,
only "reduces its chance of vaporizing" in a fire or in the extreme temperatures
of the 3000 plus degrees Fahrenheit conditions during an inadvertent reentry. General
Electric, the original manufacture of the RTG's, Stated in its Final Safety Analysis
Report On The RTG's For The Galileo Mission: We have conducted tests which "resulted
in the complete destruction of the RTG's." NASA has chosen to ignore these results in
their safety evaluation, stating "they could not be replicated under real
conditions." It makes one wonder, why does NASA bother with final safety analysis
reports, only to ignore them?
NASA's original estimate for a release of Pu on the Cassini mission
were 1 in 1500, then they were lowered to 1 in 900. The statistical odds for a Titan 4 B
(SRMU)/Centaur rocket failure on the Cassini liftoff is 1 in 20. NASA's estimates are that
about 1 in 25 (probably another overly optimistic NASA #) liftoff failures will result in
a breaching of the RTG's releasing the lethal Pu. By NASA's own #'s this = a 1 in 500
gamble that Pu will be a released, just on liftoff. Let me repeat this, using NASA's own
#'s there is a 1 in 500 gamble for Pu to be released, causing a disaster, just on the
liftoff. (Hot off the presses... NASA's new lowered odds, as of 4/11/97, for a Pu release
on the Cassini mission are now 1 in 345, just 1 horrendous catastrophe in 345) So, NASA's
first odds were 1 in 1500, then 1 in 900, then 1 in 500 and now it is 1 in 345. What do
you think they will be tomorrow? "NASA's ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT WAS NOT THE JUDGEMENT OF ITS ENGINEERS"
The late Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Richard P. Feynman, a
member of the Presidential Commission that investigated the Challenger disaster,
criticized NASA sharply in his 13 page report, "Personal Observations on the
Reliability of the Shuttle." In the June 11, 1986 edition of the New York Times, Dr.
Feynman said that NASA managers "exaggerated the reliability of the Shuttle to the
point of fantasy." He offered a detailed picture of NASA officials who "fooled
themselves" into believing that the Shuttle was safe and that the probability of
catastrophe was low.
He was particularly critical of the space agency's method of
calculating probabilities of catastrophes. Commenting on NASA's official testimony that
the probability of catastrophic failure of a solid-fueled booster rocket was 1 in 100,000.
He said, "I saw considerable flaws in their logic. I found that they were making up
numbers not based on experience. NASA's engineering judgment was not the judgment of its
engineers." He said the most competent engineers in and out of NASA estimated the
probability of catastrophe as 1 in a 100. The fact that the Shuttle flew many times
without failure was accepted as an argument that it would fly safely again. "Because
of this reasoning," he said, "obvious weaknesses were accepted again and
again."
The Cassini mission, if it wins its gamble (in late April, a Freedom
of Information Act reply disclosed the United States now has a dozen more nuclear missions
scheduled over the next 12 years), will help to develop support for the nuclear
militarization of space. The U.S. Space Command is already preparing itself for a future
of U.S. military control of space, which would depend upon the ability to use nuclear
reactors in space as a power source for hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser
weapons on battle platforms. As Lt. General James Abrahamson, former head of the Strategic
Defense Initiative Organization stated, "Failure to develop nuclear power in space
could cripple efforts to deploy anti-missile sensors and weapons in orbit." This
prospect of nuclear powered weapons stations in space is anathema to those who wish to
preserve human life and create a peaceful society. Outer space, the military's new
ultimate high ground...
"Nuclear energy in outer space" says Dr. Kaku, "is
the linchpin of the U.S. space program and the key to the militarization of space. We have
nuclear weapons on the land. We have nuclear weapons in the ocean. We have nuclear weapons
in the air." And now, Dr. Kaku warns: "What we are headed for is a nuclear
propelled rocket with nuclear propelled lasers in outer space. And ultimately what they
would like to do is have nuclear powered battle stations in outer space. That's what all
this is leading up to." Dr. Kaku says "it is up to environmentalists, activists
and concerned citizens, to stop this now before it reaches the point of the militarization
of outer space. We have to stop these Cassini's, send a signal to NASA, and a signal to
the United States Pentagon that we're not going to tolerate the nuclearization of outer
space, and it stops now."
Bruce Gagnon Co-Coordinator of The Global Network Against Weapons
and Nuclear Power in Space and State Coordinator of the Florida Coalition for Peace and
Justice declares: "Our concern is that the U.S. military and major weapons
corporations view space as a new market, ultimately to profit from. They are using
taxpayers dollars to put a new round of the arms race in space. At the same time the
nuclear power industry views space as its new market, a place where they can put plutonium
and other radioactive sources, whether it's military missions or civilian inter-planetary
missions... What is needed now is for the American public to speak out to this sheer and
utter madness."
In 1991 NASA, DoD, DoE and The Pentagon, signed the "Space
Nuclear Power Agreement" restricting death or damage benefits from an accident caused
by a U.S. space nuclear device to the limits of the Price-Anderson Act. That law, passed
in 1957, supposedly on a temporary basis, now caps U.S. payouts at 7.3 billion and
assigned a mere 100 million for all damage to other countries and their people. This is
called covering your financial ass, they know it's only a matter of time before the gamble
again fails on a nuclear space mission.
At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the number of
documented incidents of radioactive contamination across the laboratory rose 22% according
to a July 12, 1996 study obtained by The New Mexican in Santa Fe. The report also said the
number of reports of contamination's at the laboratory's Plutonium facility jumped by 75%
between 1993 and 1995, from 139 to 244. Lab officials say the increase has one primary
cause: the Cassini project.
I've been telling myself that the Cassini mission was gambling with
the devil starting on 4/7/97. Serendipitously, on 4/11/97, while on the Internet I noticed
a discrepancy on the exact Earth flyby speed among 2 JPL documents. Fun Facts says 19.1
Kilometers Per Second (KPS) or 45,040 MPH. Amazing Facts says 19.1 KPS or 42,725 MPH.
(This MPH speed error is only one of many errors I have found among NASA and JPL
documents) Both used 19.1 KPS so I used that # to figure it out for myself. 19.1 KPS x
.621 (Kilometer to Mile Ratio) = 11.8611 Miles Per Second x 60 seconds = And this is
Cassini's exact Earth flyby speed, and you are not going to believe this, it is 711.666
Miles Per Minute. x 60 minutes = 42,699.96 MPH. 711 = gambling/craps, 666 = the devil,
711.666, I couldn't believe it... Gambling With The Devil... If there was ever an ominous
sign for the Cassini Mission Vs. Earth, this 711.666 Earth flyby speed must be it, Feeling
Lucky?
So why the hell are we playing nuclear roulette, and gambling with
the devil with 72.3 pounds of Plutonium, when there is no reason to? And why the hell does
the entire press have a total blackout on this utmost issue of importance to all of
humanity? Could it be the US's propaganda machine makes that of Germany under Joseph
Goebbels in 1937 look like a bunch of girl scouts? Wake up American people, start to care,
we can stop this...
This letter was written to make you aware of the probability of this
horrendous nightmare and its impact on all life on Earth. This letter was written because
there are detailed plans to stop the launch, by creating an awareness throughout our
country. This letter was written for your help is now needed. Only by working together we
will postpone the launch of Cassini for the inherent safety of a solar fuel cell redesign.
LOVEARTH |
-from Thrasher by Neil Young
Tinkering With Divine Creation
Playing with deadly radiation
Like a bunch of babbling babies
Tinkering with divine creation
Never caring about all the maybes
Trying to genetically engineer life
While your own species goes extinct
Lying to hide all inequitable strife
When to Earth you are forever linked
892 © ME
November 11, 1996
NEW YORK CITY:
84-10 53rd Avenue
Elmhurst NY 11373
Phone Toll Free: 1 877
LOVEARTH = 1 877 568.3278
Or Outside The United States: 1 941 349.9426
Fax Toll Free: 1 877
WEB OF LIFE = 1 877 932.6354
Or Outside The United States: 1 941 349.0295
E-mail: CreatingAwareness@LOVEARTH.net