TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/022089/02208900.006

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 6KB | 98 lines

SPACE, Page 80

A Flap over Reactors in Orbit

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.