Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Re: Debris from Upcomming ASAT Test
Message-ID: <394@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 10:47:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.394
Posted: Fri Oct  4 10:47:05 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 06:47:10 EDT
References: <385@aurora.UUCP> <15800003@uiucdcsp> <108@muscat.UUCP> <634@osu-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 22

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.

    Do you really not see the difference between a spacecraft that is intended
    for permanent earth orbit and one that simply needs to be spun up to reach 
    escape velocity?  Of course it is true that while one of the deep-space
    probes is in orbit it could fail.  A booster can also fail on the ground
    endangering thousands, it is all a question of risk.  Putting hot space-
    craft in permanent (or not so permanent, if you ask the Canadians) orbit
    is a huge risk compared to the American policy of just using that kind
    of power in deep-space probes.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com