(2 of 2)
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.