| March 20, 1999
T+ 520 Days
Dear Citizens of Earth
4:43 AM EDT, on Wednesday, October 15, 1997, from launch complex
# 40 at The Cape Canaveral Air Station, in Florida, a spacecraft
called Cassini is scheduled to liftoff. On board Cassini will
be 72.3 pounds of the deadliest substance known, Plutonium (Pu).
This is by far the most Pu ever attempted to be launched in a
space mission. Inhaling less then 27 millionths of a gram of Pu
will give you lung cancer and also causes long term genetic damage.
(The Pu's %'s and 1/2 life's are Pu 238 @ 70.8% 1/2 life 87.74
years, Pu 239 @ 12.86% 1/2 life 24,110 years, Pu 240 @ 1.79% 1/2
life 6537 years, Pu 241 @ .17% 1/2 life 14.4 years, Pu 242 @ .11%
1/2 life 376,000 years, Pu 236 @ .000001%, Oxygen @ 11.85% Antinides
and Impurities @ 2.41% and of course the Missing @ .00999%.)
PLUTONIUM Vs. SOLAR
is to use the 72.3 lbs. of Pu not as a fuel to propel it, but
to power (by the heat given off during radioactive decay) 3 Lockheed-Martin
(LM) built, radioisotope thermal generators (RTG's) that will
create the modest 745 watts of electricity, to run all of the
onboard instruments and experiments. A small part (.77 lb.) of
the Pu will also be used in 130 Radioisotope Heater Units (RHU's).
The RHU's provide heat for controlling the thermal environment
of the spacecraft and several of its instruments. This modest
generation of 745 watts of electricity, can now be done in deep
space conditions, by using a combination of advanced photovoltaics
(solar power) and long lived fuel cells. The National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) has been using both solar and
fuel cell technologies since the days of the Gemini missions back
in the mid 1960's. NASA, however has denied that the Cassini mission
can use the solar fuel cell process, stating that Saturn's solar
insolation is only about 1% (it's 1.087%) compared to the Earth's.
Well thanks to the European Space Agency (ESA) announcing back
on 4/29/94, "a technology milestone, the development of new,
low-intensity, low-temperature (LILT) solar cells that are capable
of 25% efficiency, the highest efficiency ever reached, and could
be used in deep space missions. If given the contract to do the
work, within 5 years ESA could have solar cells ready to power
a space mission to Saturn," said Dr. Carla Signorini, a ESA
physicist in Noorwijk, Holland.
NASA SELLS ITS SOUL
background info to show where NASA is coming from: For the 1989
Galileo mission to Jupiter, a NASA witness swore in court that
it could only be completed by getting its electricity from the
49.25 lbs. of Pu in its RTG's. Yet, two weeks after the launch,
in response to a Freedom Of Information Act requested by Professor
Karl Grossman of the State University of N.Y. at Old Westbury
and the narrator of the award winning film Nukes In Space (Call
800 ECO TV46 and buy this video - then get your local cable access
channel to show it - and/or show it to a group of friends - do
this right now) (A request that was filed two years earlier
with NASA and the Department of Energy (DoE) ) The Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) acknowledged that solar energy could substitute
for nuclear power. "Based on the current study, it appears
that the Galileo Jupiter orbiting mission could be performed with
a concentrated photovoltaic solar array power source without changing
the mission sequence or impacting science objectives" so
stated one of the reports. A year later when the Ulysses mission
was launched, NASA actually admitted in its pre-launch Final Impact
Statement "that solar could substitute for nuclear power
but would require a redesign." When are we going to find
out from NASA that the Cassini mission could have had a solar
fuel cell redesign, just before the launch, or just after?
JPL study showed it would take 5,380 sq. ft. of solar power, or
2, 30' x 105' solar arrays (but that = 6,300 sq. ft. ?) (it should
be 2, 30' x 90' = 5,400 sq. ft.) to produce the 745 watts of electricity
in deep space. This, they said would make Cassini too massive
for launching. (But not with a booster rocket with a little
more thrust) I have cautiously calculated the solar #'s out myself,
and found it's more like 3,900 sq. ft. or 2, 30' x 65' solar arrays
to produce the 745 watts. ESA has evaluated (strong armed) this
JPL study and concluded that "our LILT solar cells aren't
a viable power source alternative for the presently defined Cassini
mission of NASA." The key words here are, "Presently
Defined", NASA and the ESA are playing Orwellian word games,
knowing all to well that the Cassini mission can be redesigned
to use solar fuel cells, but that's not what is "Presently
Defined" by NASA. Cutting edge technology in clean renewable
solar hydrogen fuel cell energy is what is needed to be funded,
not nuclear. If funded, Cassini could be redesigned to use solar
fuel cell technology and launched within 3 years. Fund Clean Renewable
JPL, the DoE's national nuclear laboratories, and the corporations
that have been involved in the producing of nuclear hardware for
the space missions insist on sticking with nuclear on Cassini.
NASA has been in bed with the DoE and its laboratories, the Department
of Defense (DoD), the National Security Agency (NSA), The Pentagon,
and all the military industrial complex corporations from the
start. Then, near the end of the Apollo days, NASA sold their
souls to the military for new contracts. Just take a look at the
Space Shuttle missions, many of them are top secret military missions.
is a 3.4 billion dollar, 11 year, unmanned mission to explore
Saturn and one of its satellites, Titan. Cassini plans call for
an arrival at Saturn on July 1, 2004. The Cassini mission consists
of delivering a probe (called Huygens, provided by ESA) to Titan.
It is then expected to make at least 30 loose elliptical orbits
of the planet, each optimized for a different set of detailed
observations of the planet and its rings and satellites. The principal
objectives are to: 1) determine the three-dimensional structure
and dynamical behavior of the rings; 2) determine the composition
of the satellite surfaces and the geological history of each object;
3) determine the nature and origin of the dark material on Iapetus'
leading hemisphere; 4) measure the three-dimensional structure
and dynamical behavior of the magnetosphere; 5) study the dynamical
behavior of Saturn's atmosphere at cloud level; 6) study the time
variability of Titan's clouds and hazes; and, 7) characterize
Titan's surface on a regional scale.
GRAVITY ASSIST SWINGBY
launch vehicle (booster rocket), the Titan 4 B (SRMU)/Centaur,
built by LM, does not have the thrust to propel it at 10 Kilometers
Per Second (KPS), which is the speed that is needed to send it
directly out to Saturn. So in order to achieve the 10 KPS to reach
Saturn, which is on average 794 million miles from Earth, Cassini
will be utilizing 4 gravity assist swingby maneuvers. This GAS
maneuver is accomplished by flying very close to a large mass
such as a planet and using that planets gravitational field to
transfer some of its energy to the spacecraft, which then enables
the spacecraft to increase its velocity tremendously.
after a hopefully successful launch, Cassini will first head to
Venus. The first 2 swingbys will be around Venus, with the first
occurring on 4/21/98. Then there is a huge swing taking it all
the way out between the Earth and Mars, where a maneuver on 12/2/98
will then turn it back to Venus. On 6/20/99 the 2nd Venus swingby
will occur. Cassini then slingshots back out toward Saturn. The
3rd swingby will be of the Earth on 8/16/99, at an altitude of
only 310 miles (as of 4/11/97 the new altitude is now 496.8 miles,
this is a little safer - is NASA beginning to listen? - it leaves
35.56 seconds which is 15.75 seconds more then 310 mile high trajectory
window before entering our atmosphere), and traveling at 42,699.96
MPH. This leaves as little as 19.81 seconds for a trajectory window
before a fiery inadvertent reentry into our atmosphere. The 4th
swingby will be of Jupiter on December 30, 2000.
BOOSTER ROCKETS FAIL
Michio Kaku, Professor of theoretical physics at the City University
of New York and the author of the wonderful books Beyond Einstein
and Hyperspace notes "The American people don't realize that
on the very next mission after the 1/28/86 Challenger accident,
the Ulysses spacecraft, was supposed to be sent into outer space
with 25 lbs. of Plutonium. Now imagine that very same Challenger
carrying the Ulysses spacecraft exploding on our television screens."
Every living creature that was to be unluckily downwind breathing
in the lethal Pu fallout would now be developing cancer. Booster
rockets fail. Before the Challenger accident, NASA's #'s on a
Space Shuttle's booster rockets' failure rate was 1 in 100,000.
After the accident, the failure rate was revised to 1 in 76 (1.316%).
for Cassini, NASA's #'s for the Titan 4 B (SRMU)/Centaur booster
rocket that is to be used to lift Cassini to reach escape velocity:
It has been used only once so far, on 2/23/97 a successful launch
was completed. Its predecessor the Titan 4/Centaur had been used
19 times. On 8/2/93, at Vandenberg A.F.B. in California, a 1.1
billion dollar, secret NSA mission with 3 spy satellites, blew
up during its liftoff. This equals a 1 in 20 failure rate, a 5%
chance for a possible Cassini disaster, just on the liftoff. Incidentally,
each of the Titan's earlier models, the Titan, Titan 2, Titan
3 - C,D,E, and Titan 34 D, have all had analogous failure rates.
Chemical booster rockets by nature are all quite volatile. In
April of 1986 at the Vandenberg A.F.B a launch blew up using a
Titan 34 D, destroying the launch pad completely. Just this year,
on January 17th, a Delta rocket blew up 13 seconds into its liftoff
at Cape Canaveral. spewing its highly noxious chemical fuel South
along the coast for up to 73 miles. These people where told to
stay indoors with the windows closed.
the Cassini mission fails during its liftoff and releases its
Pu, the potential clean up costs associated with land contamination
run upwards of 1 million dollars per acre. The 6 county region
surrounding the Cape Canaveral Air station consists of Volusia,
Seminole, Lake, Orange, Osceola and Brevard Countries. This region
contains 4.1 million acres, if this region were contaminated it
would cost upwards of 4.1 trillion dollars to try to "decontaminate".
NASA would have to relocate the 2.3 million affected people permanently,
as well as ban all future agricultural land uses. This region
could be rendered useless for about 12,000 generations, or
240,000 years because of the Pu 239's long 1/2 life of 24,110
years. Cassini is carring 9.3 pounds of Pu 239.
Horst Poehler, a scientist, who for over two decades worked with
NASA contractors told me "at the very least NASA should move
the Cassini launch to a remote location such as the Russian site
at Kazakhstan or perhaps the ESA site at The Guiana Space Center
at Kourou. There are over 2 million people within the 6 counties
surrounding the Cape Canaveral launch site and the prevailing
winds there in October blow right back over all of these people.
NASA is immoral, they are mad scientists willing to poison the
people of Florida on the launch and the whole world during the
WILL NASA ARROGANTLY
PLUTONIUM INTO THE WIND?
NASA wait till the wind blows out toward the Atlantic Ocean, away
from land and the 2.3 million people in the 6 county region surrounding
the Cape before trying to launch Cassini? The Cassini mission
has a 41 day launch window from October 6th through November 15th,
with each day the launch window being 2 hours and 20 minutes.
NASA says the earliest time for a launching would be the best
for mission sequences, but only 19% of the time, or 8 days, the
wind blows away from land (NW, WNW, W, WSW, SW). Out of these
8 days, approximately half, or 4 days, which is less then 10%
of the time, the winds will be blowing with the best direction
and speed in case of a failure during liftoff with the Pu possibly
If Cassini does liftoff, will NASA wait for this best 8 to 10%
of the time, with the winds blowing away from all these humans,
before trying to launch? The answer to that lies in the recent
history of NASA nuclear missions and the wind direction and speed
at liftoff. For the Galileo mission with 49.25 pounds of Pu on
board, the winds were from the South at 8 knots. This would have
blown a possible Pu release right up the coast to Daytona Beach
and the Jacksonville area. For the Ulysses mission with 25 pounds
of Pu on board, the winds were from the East at 14 knots. This
is about as bad as it gets, a release would go right back over
everyone on land. If there were a high enough release, maybe even
Mickey Mouse himself would be reached 50 miles due West in Orlando.
Will NASA wait for the best wind direction and speed for the liftoff
of the Cassini mission? No they won't... This is utter arrogance...
ONE IN SEVEN
November 16, the Russian Mars 96 spaceprobe with .44 lb. of Pu
238 malfunctioned, sending it crashing back to Earth. According
to the U.S. Space Command: "The area where any debris surviving
the heat of reentry would have fallen was a 200 mile long portion
of the Pacific Ocean, Chile and Bolivia." This is not an
isolated incident. Six of the 39 (15.38%) space missions with
nuclear material on board that the former Soviet Union has launched,
have failed. Including the 1/24/78 Cosmos 954 carrying 68 lbs.
Uranium 235 (U 235) which burned apart as it fell back to Earth.
It scattered 25% of its radiation over a 124,000 square kilometer
area of northwestern Canada, and the remaining 75% of the lethal
radiation vaporized in our atmosphere.
concedes, 3 of the 24 (12.5%) U.S. missions involving spacecraft
with nuclear material have met with accidents, including the TRANSIT
5BN-3. It fell back to Earth on 4/21/64, disintegrating as it
came down. Its RTG with 2.1 lbs. of Pu vaporized and dispersed
worldwide. Dr. John Gofman, professor emeritus of medical physics
at the University of California at Berkeley, an M.D. and Ph.D.
and a co-discoverer of isotopes of Plutonium and Uranium as a
member of the Manhattan Project, has long attributed the increased
rate of lung cancer to the TRANSIT 5BN-3 accident. So between
the 2 countries folly with nuclear space missions, it's 9 accidents
in 63 tries, 1 in 7, a 14.286% failure rate.
CANCER THE PEOPLE
back to Cassini's 310 mile high, 42,699.96 MPH, Earth flyby with
as little as 19.81 seconds for a trajectory window (as of 4/11/97
it is a 496.8 mile high and 35.56 seconds). Dr. Michio Kaku explains
the catastrophic consequences of such a flyby accident: "If
there is a small misfire of Cassini's rocket system, it will mean
that Cassini will penetrate into the Earth's atmosphere. This
thing coming into the Earth's atmosphere, will vaporize, releasing
the payload and then particles of plutonium dioxide will begin
to rain down on populated areas, if that is where the system is
going to be hitting. Pulverized plutonium dust will rain down
on people's hair, people's clothing, get into people's bodies.
And because it is not water soluble, there is a very good chance
that it could be inhaled and stay in the body causing cancer over
a number of decades."
Arjun Makhijani a nuclear engineer from The Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research has stated to me "the total radiation
fallout from all the open air nuclear explosions from July 16,1945
till the present is 440,000 curies. Now, if Cassini had an inadvertent
reentry with the 3 RTG's and the 130 RHU's vaporized in our atmosphere,
approximately 406,000 curies of radiation would be released."
There have been more then 900 open air nuclear explosions, a single
accident of Cassini could possibly emit more radiation then all
of these 900 put together. The International Committee on
Radiological Protection has set the maximum permissible level
of Pu in the human body at .00000004 curies. Cassini is carring
406,000 curies. This is not good.
NASA's Final Environmental
Impact Statement On Cassini States:
an inadvertent reentry during the gravity assist flyby of Earth
on 8/16/99, with the 72.3 lbs. of Pu vaporized throughout our
atmosphere, approximately 5 billion of the 7 to 8 billion humans
on Earth could receive 99% or more of the radiation exposure."
(On 8/16/99, there will be 6.07 billion humans inhabiting the
Earth, not the 7 to 8 billion that NASA states) By the way, the
Cassini spacecraft has no heat shield for protection against a
possible inadvertent reentry into our atmosphere.
Ernest Sternglass, professor emeritus of radiological physics
at the University of Pittsburgh, has warned that if Cassini disintegrated
it would present a great danger and "that the death toll
from the plutonium exposure of a Cassini inadvertent reentry may
be as high as 30 to 40 million people." The International
Committee on Radiological Protection states "that inhalation
of 1/10,000 of a gram of Pu causes lung cancer." There are
453.59 grams to a lb. so, 10,000 x 453.59 = 4,535,900 x 72.3 lbs.
= 327,945,570 people. Dr. Arjun Mahhijani says inhalation of less
then 27 millionths of a gram of Plutonium, (this = 1,215,443,333
people) will give you lung cancer and also causes long term genetic
damage. Dr. Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social
Responsibility, writes in her book Nuclear Madness: "Plutonium
is so toxic that less than one-millionth of a gram, an invisible
particle, is a carcinogenic dose. One pound, if uniformly distributed,
could hypothetically induce lung cancer in every person on Earth."
So, an inadvertent reentry of Cassini would cause lung cancer
in up to 30 to 40 million people, up to 328 million people, or
up to 1,215,433,333 people, or hypothetically everyone on Earth.
This potential down side does seems quite the price to pay to
states the 72.3 lbs. of Pu in the 3 RTG's and 130 RHU's is in
a heat resistant, ceramic form, which "reduces its chance
of vaporizing" in fire or inadvertent reentry. In each of
the 3 RTG's the Pu is also divided among 18 small independent
units, each with its own .022" thin iridium heat shield and
a graphite carbon impact shell. The Iridium casing and graphite
carbon blocks that protect the Pu, only "reduces its chance
of vaporizing" in a fire or in the extreme temperatures of
the 3000 plus degrees Fahrenheit conditions during an inadvertent
reentry. General Electric, the original manufacture of the RTG's,
Stated in its Final Safety Analysis Report On The RTG's For The
Galileo Mission: We have conducted tests which "resulted
in the complete destruction of the RTG's." NASA has chosen
to ignore these results in their safety evaluation, stating "they
could not be replicated under real conditions." It makes
one wonder, why does NASA bother with final safety analysis reports,
only to ignore them?
PURE ABSOLUTE INSANITY
original estimate for a release of Pu on the Cassini mission were
1 in 1500, then they were lowered to 1 in 900. The statistical
odds for a Titan 4 B (SRMU)/Centaur rocket failure on the Cassini
liftoff is 1 in 20. NASA's estimates are that about 1 in 25 (probably
another overly optimistic NASA #) liftoff failures will result
in a breaching of the RTG's releasing the lethal Pu. By NASA's
own #'s this = a 1 in 500 gamble that Pu will be a released, just
on liftoff. Let me repeat this, using NASA's own #'s there is
a 1 in 500 gamble for Pu to be released, causing a disaster, just
on the liftoff. (Hot off the presses... NASA's new lowered odds,
as of 4/11/97, for a Pu release on the Cassini mission are now
1 in 345, just 1 horrendous catastrophe in 345) So, NASA's first
odds were 1 in 1500, then 1 in 900, then 1 in 500 and now it is
1 in 345. What do you think they will be tomorrow?
I happen to personally think it is more like 1 in 158 gamble for
a Pu release on the Cassini mission. The first 11 minutes and
29 seconds (from liftoff at T- 0 till Cassini leaves the orbit
of the Earth at T+ 689 seconds) is the most likely for a failure.
I believe the most dangerous time being from T+ 206 seconds till
T+ 689. At T+ 206 Cassini will already be at an altitude of 68.56
miles, if somethings happens from here on up till T+ 689, Cassini
will inadverently reenter our atmosphere and release some, most
or all its 72.3 lbs. of Pu. Best case scenario: Everything works,
no Pu release. Worst case scenario: From tens of thousands to
tens of millions of premature deaths over just the next 50 years.
And of course all the long term genetic damage to ourselves
and all the others in the web of life that makes Earth.
As for NASA's #'s for an inadvertent reentry during the 8/16/99
GAS of Earth, it = 7.6 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 1,315,789.4. Remember
that the odds before the Challenger's accident were 1 in 100,000,
then after the Challenger's accident, they were 1 in 76. If the
same proportional ratio is used 100,000/76 = 1315.7894 for a more
realistic inadvertent reentry #, 1,315,789.4/1315.7894, it = exactly
a 1 in 1000 gamble. (this same exact "scientific" NASA
# is quite an unbelievable coincidence? a smoking gun) This is
pure absolute insanity, for no reason, none at all. Unless You
Like, Gambling With The Devil...
JUDGEMENT WAS NOT THE JUDGEMENT OF ITS ENGINEERS"
- Dr. Richard P. Feynman
late Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. Richard P. Feynman, a member
of the Presidential Commission that investigated the Challenger
disaster, criticized NASA sharply in his 13 page report, "Personal
Observations on the Reliability of the Shuttle." In the June
11, 1986 edition of the New York Times, Dr. Feynman said that
NASA managers "exaggerated the reliability of the Shuttle
to the point of fantasy." He offered a detailed picture of
NASA officials who "fooled themselves" into believing
that the Shuttle was safe and that the probability of catastrophe
was particularly critical of the space agency's method of calculating
probabilities of catastrophes. Commenting on NASA's official testimony
that the probability of catastrophic failure of a solid-fueled
booster rocket was 1 in 100,000. He said, "I saw considerable
flaws in their logic. I found that they were making up numbers
not based on experience. NASA's engineering judgment was not the
judgment of its engineers." He said the most competent engineers
in and out of NASA estimated the probability of catastrophe as
1 in a 100. The fact that the Shuttle flew many times without
failure was accepted as an argument that it would fly safely again.
"Because of this reasoning," he said, "obvious
weaknesses were accepted again and again."
& NUCLEARIZATION OF SPACE
Cassini mission, if it wins its gamble (in late April, a Freedom
of Information Act reply disclosed the United States now has a
dozen more nuclear missions scheduled over the next 12 years),
will help to develop support for the nuclear militarization of
space. The U.S. Space Command is already preparing itself for
a future of U.S. military control of space, which would depend
upon the ability to use nuclear reactors in space as a power source
for hypervelocity guns, particle beams and laser weapons on battle
platforms. As Lt. General James Abrahamson, former head of the
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization stated, "Failure
to develop nuclear power in space could cripple efforts to deploy
anti-missile sensors and weapons in orbit." This prospect
of nuclear powered weapons stations in space is anathema to those
who wish to preserve human life and create a peaceful society.
Outer space, the military's new ultimate high ground...
energy in outer space" says Dr. Kaku, "is the linchpin
of the U.S. space program and the key to the militarization of
space. We have nuclear weapons on the land. We have nuclear weapons
in the ocean. We have nuclear weapons in the air." And now,
Dr. Kaku warns: "What we are headed for is a nuclear propelled
rocket with nuclear propelled lasers in outer space. And ultimately
what they would like to do is have nuclear powered battle stations
in outer space. That's what all this is leading up to." Dr.
Kaku says "it is up to environmentalists, activists and concerned
citizens, to stop this now before it reaches the point of the
militarization of outer space. We have to stop these Cassini's,
send a signal to NASA, and a signal to the United States Pentagon
that we're not going to tolerate the nuclearization of outer space,
and it stops now."
Gagnon Co-Coordinator of The Global Network Against Weapons and
Nuclear Power in Space and State Coordinator of the Florida Coalition
for Peace and Justice declares: "Our concern is that the
U.S. military and major weapons corporations view space as a new
market, ultimately to profit from. They are using taxpayers dollars
to put a new round of the arms race in space. At the same time
the nuclear power industry views space as its new market, a place
where they can put plutonium and other radioactive sources, whether
it's military missions or civilian inter-planetary missions...
What is needed now is for the American public to speak out to
this sheer and utter madness."
COVERING YOUR FINANCIAL
1991 NASA, DoD, DoE and The Pentagon, signed the "Space Nuclear
Power Agreement" restricting death or damage benefits from
an accident caused by a U.S. space nuclear device to the limits
of the Price-Anderson Act. That law, passed in 1957, supposedly
on a temporary basis, now caps U.S. payouts at 7.3 billion and
assigned a mere 100 million for all damage to other countries
and their people. This is called covering your financial ass,
they know it's only a matter of time before the gamble again fails
on a nuclear space mission.
CONTAMINATION JUMPS 75%
the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the number of
documented incidents of radioactive contamination across the laboratory
rose 22% according to a July 12, 1996 study obtained by The New
Mexican in Santa Fe. The report also said the number of reports
of contamination's at the laboratory's Plutonium facility jumped
by 75% between 1993 and 1995, from 139 to 244. Lab officials say
the increase has one primary cause: the Cassini project.
been telling myself that the Cassini mission was gambling with
the devil starting on 4/7/97. Serendipitously, on 4/11/97, while
on the Internet I noticed a discrepancy on the exact Earth flyby
speed among 2 JPL documents. Fun Facts says 19.1 Kilometers Per
Second (KPS) or 45,040 MPH. Amazing Facts says 19.1 KPS or 42,725
MPH. (This MPH speed error is only one of many errors I have found
among NASA and JPL documents) Both used 19.1 KPS so I used that
# to figure it out for myself. 19.1 KPS x .621 (Kilometer to Mile
Ratio) = 11.8611 Miles Per Second x 60 seconds = And this is Cassini's
exact Earth flyby speed, and you are not going to believe this,
it is 711.666 Miles Per Minute. x 60 minutes = 42,699.96 MPH.
711 = gambling/craps, 666 = the devil, 711.666, I couldn't believe
it... Gambling With The Devil... If there was ever an ominous
sign for the Cassini Mission Vs. Earth, this 711.666 Earth flyby
speed must be it, Feeling Lucky?
TO HELL WITH PROPAGANDA
why the hell are we playing nuclear roulette, and gambling with
the devil with 72.3 pounds of Plutonium, when there is no reason
to? And why the hell does the entire press have a total blackout
on this utmost issue of importance to all of humanity? Could it
be the US's propaganda machine makes that of Germany under Joseph
Goebbels in 1937 look like a bunch of girl scouts? Wake up American
people, start to care, we can stop this...
letter was written to make you aware of the probability of this
horrendous nightmare and its impact on all life on Earth. This
letter was written because there are detailed plans to stop the
launch, by creating an awareness throughout our country. This
letter was written for your help is now needed. Only by working
together we will postpone the launch of Cassini for the inherent
safety of a solar fuel cell redesign. LOVEARTH