TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 022089 / 02208900.006 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-04-15 | 5.9 KB | 125 lines

<text id=89TT0479> <link 93HT0620> <title> Feb. 20, 1989: A Flap Over Reactors In Orbit </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989 Feb. 20, 1989 Betrayal:Marine Spy Scandal </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> SPACE, Page 80 A Flap over Reactors in Orbit </hdr><body> Activists want to ban nuclear power but the Pentagon favors it Ever since a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite broke apart over a remote region of northern Canada in 1978, the use of atomic reactors in space has been highly controversial. Once again the debate over nukes in orbit has heated up. Last April the Soviets lost control of another nuclear satellite, raising fears that it would fall to earth before they managed to boost the reactor into a safer, high-altitude orbit. Then, at a scientific conference in New Mexico last month, the Soviets said they had begun putting a new generation of powerful reactors in space and were even interested in selling them to the West. The news has upset antinuclear activists and raised questions about American plans for nukes in space. The U.S. has not launched a nuclear satellite since 1977, relying instead mostly on solar-powered models. But Pentagon officials are planning the eventual use of atomic spacecraft in the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Government's proposed space-based defense system. To prevent that idea from going any further, U.S. Representative George Brown, a California Democrat, introduced a bill in Congress last week that would bar American nuclear-power sources from space -- on the unlikely condition that the Soviets do so first. The only exceptions: projects like moon bases or trips to other planets. The Soviets have launched some three dozen nuclear satellites over the past two decades. Altogether they contain almost 3,500 lbs. of radioactive fuel. The only way to halt that proliferation would be to make space nukes an issue in U.S.-Soviet arms-control talks. Warns Brown: "If we don't stop the use of nuclear-power sources traveling over our heads, we're likely to wake up one day with a nuclear reactor landing on our heads." That nearly happened in 1978, when the Soviets' Cosmos 954 fell from orbit and burned on re-entry, showering northern Canada with radioactive debris. The only reason no one was hurt was that the impact site was virtually unpopulated. The incident persuaded the Soviets to design more effective safety devices into their nuclear satellites. Those safeguards were put to a test last September, when the nuclear-powered Cosmos 1900, containing about 70 lbs. of radioactive fuel, began falling out of orbit. But before the satellite re-entered the atmosphere, an automated safety system kicked in. The reactor was separated from the satellite and shot into a higher orbit. If, however, the reactor should collide with a defunct satellite or some other piece of debris left from more than 30 years of human activity in space, it could be knocked out of orbit anyway. Says Daniel Hirsch, director of the Stevenson Program on Nuclear Policy at the University of California at Santa Cruz: "The probability of a collision with space debris is unacceptably high." While not admitting that any of their nuclear satellites are dangerous, the Soviets boast that their new type of space reactor, called Topaz, is especially safe. Topaz can produce up to 10,000 watts of power, about ten times as much as previous models. That enables Topaz-powered satellites to fly at such high altitudes, say Soviet scientists, that they will remain safely in orbit for up to 350 years, long enough to lose most of their radioactivity. The Pentagon is less worried about Moscow's new satellites falling out of orbit than about their mission in space. The Topaz reactors are likely to power a new generation of reconnaissance satellites that could track the movements of American ships more accurately than ever and target them for destruction in time of war. Eventually nuclear reactors could be used to power space-based weapons. That is why the development of antisatellite technology is a central part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Since George Bush became President, the status of SDI has grown murky. John Tower, Bush's choice for Secretary of Defense, has conceded that a complete shield against Soviet missiles is unattainable, but he still favors partial deployment of SDI as soon as it is feasible. The Reagan Administration's farewell budget for 1990 proposes a 50% increase in SDI funding, to about $6 billion. Bush may trim the increase, but he is not expected to eliminate it. Star Wars strategists envision putting up a network of satellites with the capability of knocking out enemy spacecraft and missiles. In the early years of the program, the SDI satellites would probably be conventional solar-powered models. But later on, new satellites may be increasingly loaded down with exotic, power-hungry weapons, such as high-energy lasers, particle beams and electromagnetic rail guns to launch projectiles. Such equipment would almost surely require nuclear reactors. General Electric, with funding from the Pentagon, is already at work on the SP-100, the first American space reactor developed since the U.S. abandoned the technology in the 1970s. A Government audit has suggested that the GE design would produce a reactor too heavy to lift into space, but the company thinks the SP-100 will be ready for testing in the mid-1990s. That prospect seems ominous to Congressman Brown and other opponents of nuclear-powered satellites. If the purpose of SDI is to make the world safer, they contend, then the proliferation of nukes in space will be dangerously counterproductive. </body></article> </text>