🚀 go-pugleaf

> ... So far the station has survived, at the
> expense of major cuts to CSTI, Pathfinder, NASA expendables, and the
> Commercially Developed Space Facility.  [Those are lousy places for cuts.]

*Now* you see why the Space Station isn't such a good idea. If it
competed solely with, say, SDI for funding I'd be 110% for it. But it
instead competes, rightly or wrongly, mostly with other NASA projects,
and with the possible exception of the Shuttle they are all far more
cost-effective than the Space Station.

> Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Federation of American Scientists
> jointly propose a ban on nuclear reactors in Earth orbit.  This would
> hamper SDI and shut down the Soviet nuclear radarsats.

Agreed. We really need some enlightened self-interest on both sides. An
excellent start would be the following:

1. Ban the use of nuclear power sources in low earth orbit, "low" being
defined as anything with a lifetime less than a thousand years or so.
Deep space missions would be fine.

2. Ban any mission that involves the explosion of a warhead in orbit or
the deliberate collision of objects unless the expected lifetime of the
resulting fragments is less than a year.

These two provisions would have the following highly beneficial effects:

1. The seemingly regular series of Soviet nuclear-powered radarsats
re-entering the atmosphere would stop.

2. The increasing pollution of orbital space by ASAT and SDI tests would
stop.

3. Taken together, the two provisions would effectively prohibit many,
if not most, nuclear powered SDI tests.

We urgently needed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, and we urgently
need a treaty like this now.

Phil