Categorized | Suffolk Close-up

Safety in Solar

Posted on 12 August 2011

By Karl Grossman

Long Islanders were justifiably proud that components of the Apollo program’s lunar module were built at the Grumman facility on Long Wharf in Sag Harbor, as well as at the main Grumman plant in Bethpage. Indeed, the space program has been a matter of pride for all Americans — including me.

In the early 1980’s I received a NASA application to be a “Journalist in Space” and considered submitting it and also discussed it with my journalism students at SUNY/Old Westbury as an example of how reporters can get involved in a story.

But, subsequently, I got involved in the space issue in a different, highly critical way.

Last week, there was an event that showed, I believe, that my criticism has been justified — NASA’s launching Friday of a space probe called Juno to Jupiter receiving all its on-board electricity and heat through solar power. That’s something NASA long insisted couldn’t be done.

My clashes with NASA began in 1985 when in a Department of Energy newsletter I read an article about two space shuttles — one the Challenger — being slated to loft plutonium-fueled space probes the following year. The article noted that the government did an analysis of the consequences if the plutonium was released in an accident. I filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for this analysis but was stonewalled by NASA and DOE for a year. Finally, I received data acknowledging the dangers if the plutonium, the deadliest radioactive substance, was discharged, but insisting this was highly unlikely because of the “high reliability inherent in the shuttle.” The chance of a catastrophic shuttle accident was put at 1-in-100,000.

Then the Challenger exploded on January 28, 1986, and I broke the story about how its next mission, in May, involved a plutonium-fueled space probe — and raising the issue of casualties if the accident happened then.

NASA rescheduled the two plutonium shots and also changed the odds of a catastrophic shuttle accident to 1-in-76. Also, it insisted there was no substitute for using plutonium on the missions, the first to Jupiter called Galileo. I filed a new FOIA request and this time — after more than two years — got a study done by eight scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory saying Galileo could be solar-powered. But NASA still insisted that beyond the orbit of Mars, space devices could not be energized by solar power. Well Juno, getting its energy with three solar panels, including when it makes 33 passes of Jupiter, showed that to be wrong.

However, NASA is still pushing for nuclear power in space. Between November 25 and December 15, in a $2.5 billion mission, it plans to launch a rover to be used on Mars fueled with 10.6 pounds of plutonium. In the past, NASA has used solar-powered rovers on Mars.

The costs — economically and to public health — if there is an accident before the rover is well on its way to Mars and plutonium released on Earth, could be huge. According to the NASA Final Environmental Impact Statement for this mission, if a discharge of plutonium occurs, the cost of decontamination could be as high as $1.5 billion for each square mile of “mixed-use urban areas.” The “probability of an accident with a release of plutonium” is put at just 1-in-220. The pathway of greatest health concern is people breathing in a plutonium particle. A millionth of a gram of plutonium can be a fatal dose.

I wrote a book, The Wrong Stuff, and have made TV documentaries on the issue. Accidents have happened in the U.S. space nuclear program. Of the 26 space missions that have used plutonium listed in the NASA statement, three underwent accidents, it admits. 

The worst occurred in 1964 and involved, it notes, the SNAP-9A plutonium system aboard a satellite that failed to achieve orbit and dropped to Earth, disintegrating as it fell. The 2.1 pounds of plutonium fuel dispersed widely over the Earth, and Dr. John Gofman, professor of medical physics at the University of California at Berkeley, long linked this accident to an increase in global lung cancer. With the SNAP-9A accident, NASA switched to solar energy on satellites. Now all satellites—and the International Space Station—are solar-powered.

Exploring space is considered part of human destiny. But it needs to be done safely, not threatening life on Earth. And last week’s Juno launch showed how this can be done.

Be Sociable, Share!

This post was written by:

- who has written 3068 posts on The Sag Harbor Express.


Contact the author

One Response to “Safety in Solar”

  1. MS3FGX says:

    It’s hard to imagine a more biased article. It is hard to imagine anyone with even a basic understanding of space science and technology could take this seriously.

    Saying that the Juno mission proves that something was possible 20+ years ago is illogical. It completely ignores the advancements in solar technology that has occurred between Galileo and Juno, to say nothing of ancillary technologies. It is like saying that since we now have smartphones, there is no reason that the first generation of cellular telephones in the 80′s had to be so large and simplistic.

    The article then goes on to talk about the Curiosity rover, insinuating that since the previous Mars rovers have used solar, so could Curiosity. It conveniently neglects to mention that Curiosity is much larger than any previous interplanetary rover that has ever been launched (and thus consumes considerably more energy); and that the low light in the Martian winter has killed hardware on Mars before (such as the Spirit rover). With on-board nuclear power, Curiosity doesn’t have to fear the Martian winter, which will greatly increase it’s useful lifespan, and the work it can do during that period.

    Is launching nuclear material into orbit risky? Absolutely. But these “arguments” against space-bound nuclear material simply don’t make sense. Stick to the environmental risks of launching nuclear material and ways to mitigate the problem, don’t dilute your point with clearly flawed ideas of why it shouldn’t be happening in the first place.


Leave a Reply

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off-topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Terms of Service