<<I don't want to leave you with the impression that I'm pro-Cassini -- I'm
very much <<opposed to nukes in space OR on earth, but it's reassuring to not
be shut out -- <<even if you may be "spin control," and yourself perhaps not
completely in the <<loop?
It would be interesting to ask if all anti-nuclear types hate "Star Trek" --
since the (fictional) use of matter/anti-matter for "Warp 7", and "photon
torpedos" for "self-defense when provoked" are nuclear-based in theory.
Seriously though -- I understand your position and concern. But nukes in
space DON'T have to be a weapon; If we ever plan to send crews to Mars,
nuclear is faster (200 days vs. 600 days roundtrip), lighter and more
efficient than chemical fuels (Liquid Oxygen and Hydrogen, whose byproduct is
water vapor), batteries, fuel cells or solar panels.
<< BTW -- if Cassini is safe, why did Alan Kohn need to equip the launch
employees <<with radiation suits and cleanup equipment, and why are school
children being <<taught what to "do" in case of an accident? >>
You answered your own question -- "In case of an accident." NASA realizes
that there is no such thing as 100% absolute risk-free (Life itself is a
series of risks and percentages).
As Dr. Kaku is fond of saying, "a chain is only as strong as its weakest
link." Anytime you put a human being into the equation (with all their
fallacies), you're going to introduce an element of risk. Even NOT doing
anything invites risk.
The key is to reduce it to the lowest possible chance for failure -- with the
current technology that's available -- and then take your chances. . .before
somebody else does and beats you at your own game (Like the Brits beating
USA's Craig Breedlove [the former World Land Speedholder] today on Black Rock
Desert in breaking the sound barrier).
+ + + + +
Something I spotted in one of your own "links" that I really appreciated:
(Source: Miami Herald Editorial)
". . ."Nobody at NASA wants to poison the whole planet,'' astronomer and
Cassini project scientist Stephen J. Edberg told me this week. "The science
is not as important as risking people's lives. We on the project feel that
all the testing that has gone into this says the risk is so small that this
is a good thing to be doing. . .''
". . .It's curious that activists who trust scientists warning of global
warming, acid rain, rain forest degradation and the dangers of pesticide
ingestion now are afraid to trust the scientists launching Cassini. Besides,
you'd think they'd be happy to rid the world of 72 pounds of nasty plutonium.
. ."
[Good Point: Cancel Cassini and take the stuff off the bird. Now what do
*you* propose to do with the stuff? Bury it? Burn it? Sink it? Hide it
under a rug (All of which could contaminate the ecosystem)? ~JS~].
". . .Logic suggests NASA isn't inclined to take a foolish gamble with
Cassini: If the
agency blows this launch, a whole lot of aerospace scientists are going to
find
themselves selling used cars.
In any case, fear is like water: It's good as long as you have the right
amount of it.
A lack of fear invites recklessness and poor judgment; too much leads to
paralysis
and paranoia. A healthy fear -- of the sort I believe NASA is demonstrating
-- leads to prudence, attention to detail, conservative estimates, and redundant safety protocols. . ."
ADDENDUM:
I misspoke in an earlier posting on the residency of nuclear weapons at Vandenberg. Upon further, in-depth research today, I came up with the following:
(Source: Lompoc Record "Welcome to the Central Coast" Special Insert; Article titled "Vandenberg a result of what Sputnik started" by Matt Carter)
". . .On Sept. 9, 1959 the Atlas became the first ICBM to be test-launched from Vandenberg. By the end of October, the base had three Atlas launch sites, ready to deliver nuclear weapons on 15-minutes notice. Vandenberg's Atlas missiles were the nation's first ICBMs and stood alert at the base until May 1964 (Kennedy's "Ace in the Hole" during the Cuban Missile Crisis ~JS~]
Armed Titan IIs would also be deployed at Vandenberg from 1967 to 1969. The Cold War has since thawed and armed missiles are no longer deployed on the base. . ."
+ + + + +
During the time I was stationed at VAFB (Oct 14, 1983 - August 30, 1991), there were no nuclear weapons based there (Nor are there any there now). None were flown or tested on launch vehicles to the best of my knowledge.
Sorry for the earlier misunderstanding.
Regards,
~JS~