3 ms·

Since it seems we could have had viable colonies outside the atmosphere by now, this should have implications for Fermi's Paradox. If Fermi's Paradox comes fro

by berntb 17y ago

Since it seems we could have had viable colonies outside the atmosphere by now, this should have implications for Fermi's Paradox. If Fermi's Paradox comes from a limiting factor "removing" civilizations (a physics experiment, etc), it should need to destroy a whole solar system and not only a planet. Otherwise it would only remove the fraction of civilizations that didn't develop an Orion before that experiment. IIRC, NASA killed Orion politically? They might have exterminated humanity -- for job security...

tphyahoo 17y ago
wasn't it the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? basicaly, after that, you could only detonate nukes during peacetime underground, right? and orion would have been detonating them not-too-distant from earth when ramping up for interstellar voyages.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  No. Kennedy was shown a design for an Orion well before that, and was freaked out by the possibility of one hovering over an enemy city, per Ted Taylor, the project leader. The test ban treaty signing might have actually been partially a result of Orion, rather than an unrelated activity that shut it down.
rbanffy 17y ago
Actually, it's good they killed the Orion. Can you imagine a streak of detonating nukes all the way to LEO?
- berntb 17y ago
  >>Actually, it's good they killed the Orion. Extreme, world changing (in more than one way) and mind blowing (also in more than one way!) technological marvels might not be your cup of tea? Edit: I might add -- if you can't handle tea, stay with the boiled water... >>Can you imagine a streak of detonating nukes all the way to LEO? I can imagine it -- all the way to Saturn's moons, by way of the asteroid belt. What a beautiful dream. But certainly, a careful analysis of the failure modes might be considered prudent. An infrastructure outside the atmosphere would easily arguably be worth at least a small increase in cancer risk. (Today is a different matter of course, since it would be detrimental to lots of very expensive satellites' health.)
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    Don't get me wrong. I would love the aircraft-carrier sized spacecraft and the sheer demonstration of power of it reaching orbit and leaving to deep space. What I don't like is the huge EMP destroying electronics across half a planet and the fallout making three-eyed fish. Orion is great, but we would have to find cleaner propellants if we really want to build a lot of them ;-) It's also unclear how many we could propel with the amount of fissiles we have on Earth.
    - berntb 17y ago
      >>It's also unclear how many we could propel with the amount of fissiles we have on Earth. Was that a joke? Can you give a reference which discusses how many thousands ton of nukes that are limiting...? (Hint, not that much uranium is needed for those bombs. Also, from what I've read -- if the Uranium prices go up a bit, there will be much more mined.)
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        Each Orion mission would require a couple dozen explosions to reach LEO, plus several (according to the delta-v you require for the specific journeys) for propelling them. Don't forget the technology is not ready yet - it would be a lot harder than following the blueprints and building it naval ship style. Specific nukes would have to be developed for this project, nuclear fuel to be diverted from military uses, the environmental risks be measured and, possibly, an acceptable death toll would have to be determined. An astronaut blown to pieces is a very different thing than a mutant boy half a planet away whose lack of luck can be somewhat blamed on increased environmental radiation. Orion is a great idea. Perhaps some aspects of it could be salvaged, but I seriously doubt we will see one ground-launched unless we develop pure fusion bombs. OTOH, if we are to bang our heads developing pure fusion bombs (which we can agree are a very bad idea), we could as well develop some other form of propulsion, nuclear fusion or not. As for the number of nukes, just imagine how many a small fleet of them would require to haul itself around the solar system and other uses. Launching them (and their nukes) would be the easy part. Orion is insanely cool and I am a bit ashamed we cannot build one, but I am not attached to it in any special way. This is not the way to go. It was not practical in the 50's and it's not practical now. We still must find a better way.
hugh_ 17y ago
I'm guessing that civilizations on some other planets probably have a much easier time of colonizing space than we do. We have the misfortune of finding ourselves in the only vaguely-habitable rock in our own solar system, but some other systems must have multiple habitable planets, even multiple life-supporting ones. Imagine if the moon had been several times bigger -- it would have an atmosphere, and thanks to panspermia might even have picked up enough life from Earth to give it a breathable atmosphere. The Apollo Project would have immediately been followed by a project to kill and eat the local wildlife to see what it tastes like. Or suppose we'd evolved on a moon of a Jupiter-like planet in the habitable zone -- there'd be a whole bunch of other equally habitable moons just a short flight away. Instead we're stuck on a big rock, looking at a bunch of other rocks which are fairly useless to us. Sigh.
- coderdude 17y ago
  I'm fuzzy on this so I may be wrong, but wouldn't the moon require a metal core to create a magnetic field to hold the atmosphere (or protect it from being bombarded by radiation)?
  - hugh_ 17y ago
    Quite likely, yes.
stcredzero 17y ago
If Fermi's Paradox comes from a limiting factor "removing" civilizations (a physics experiment, etc), it should need to destroy a whole solar system and not only a planet. Maybe the economic hurdles are the limiting factors? Economics seems to be closely related to game theory. I bet a lot of the principles apply to all civilizations.
- berntb 17y ago
  Space access can be much cheaper, even without nuclear launch. They talked of building the Orion the same way as submarines, iirc. I've read Henry Spencer argue that modern rockets and payloads are so expensive to make because they have to save on every gram.

by berntb 17y ago

tphyahoo 17y ago

wasn't it the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? basicaly, after that, you could only detonate nukes during peacetime underground, right? and orion would have been detonating them not-too-distant from earth when ramping up for interstellar voyages.

randallsquared 17y ago
No. Kennedy was shown a design for an Orion well before that, and was freaked out by the possibility of one hovering over an enemy city, per Ted Taylor, the project leader. The test ban treaty signing might have actually been partially a result of Orion, rather than an unrelated activity that shut it down.

rbanffy 17y ago

Actually, it's good they killed the Orion. Can you imagine a streak of detonating nukes all the way to LEO?

berntb 17y ago
>>Actually, it's good they killed the Orion. Extreme, world changing (in more than one way) and mind blowing (also in more than one way!) technological marvels might not be your cup of tea? Edit: I might add -- if you can't handle tea, stay with the boiled water... >>Can you imagine a streak of detonating nukes all the way to LEO? I can imagine it -- all the way to Saturn's moons, by way of the asteroid belt. What a beautiful dream. But certainly, a careful analysis of the failure modes might be considered prudent. An infrastructure outside the atmosphere would easily arguably be worth at least a small increase in cancer risk. (Today is a different matter of course, since it would be detrimental to lots of very expensive satellites' health.)
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Don't get me wrong. I would love the aircraft-carrier sized spacecraft and the sheer demonstration of power of it reaching orbit and leaving to deep space. What I don't like is the huge EMP destroying electronics across half a planet and the fallout making three-eyed fish. Orion is great, but we would have to find cleaner propellants if we really want to build a lot of them ;-) It's also unclear how many we could propel with the amount of fissiles we have on Earth.
  - berntb 17y ago
    >>It's also unclear how many we could propel with the amount of fissiles we have on Earth. Was that a joke? Can you give a reference which discusses how many thousands ton of nukes that are limiting...? (Hint, not that much uranium is needed for those bombs. Also, from what I've read -- if the Uranium prices go up a bit, there will be much more mined.)
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      Each Orion mission would require a couple dozen explosions to reach LEO, plus several (according to the delta-v you require for the specific journeys) for propelling them. Don't forget the technology is not ready yet - it would be a lot harder than following the blueprints and building it naval ship style. Specific nukes would have to be developed for this project, nuclear fuel to be diverted from military uses, the environmental risks be measured and, possibly, an acceptable death toll would have to be determined. An astronaut blown to pieces is a very different thing than a mutant boy half a planet away whose lack of luck can be somewhat blamed on increased environmental radiation. Orion is a great idea. Perhaps some aspects of it could be salvaged, but I seriously doubt we will see one ground-launched unless we develop pure fusion bombs. OTOH, if we are to bang our heads developing pure fusion bombs (which we can agree are a very bad idea), we could as well develop some other form of propulsion, nuclear fusion or not. As for the number of nukes, just imagine how many a small fleet of them would require to haul itself around the solar system and other uses. Launching them (and their nukes) would be the easy part. Orion is insanely cool and I am a bit ashamed we cannot build one, but I am not attached to it in any special way. This is not the way to go. It was not practical in the 50's and it's not practical now. We still must find a better way.

hugh_ 17y ago

I'm guessing that civilizations on some other planets probably have a much easier time of colonizing space than we do. We have the misfortune of finding ourselves in the only vaguely-habitable rock in our own solar system, but some other systems must have multiple habitable planets, even multiple life-supporting ones. Imagine if the moon had been several times bigger -- it would have an atmosphere, and thanks to panspermia might even have picked up enough life from Earth to give it a breathable atmosphere. The Apollo Project would have immediately been followed by a project to kill and eat the local wildlife to see what it tastes like. Or suppose we'd evolved on a moon of a Jupiter-like planet in the habitable zone -- there'd be a whole bunch of other equally habitable moons just a short flight away. Instead we're stuck on a big rock, looking at a bunch of other rocks which are fairly useless to us. Sigh.

coderdude 17y ago
I'm fuzzy on this so I may be wrong, but wouldn't the moon require a metal core to create a magnetic field to hold the atmosphere (or protect it from being bombarded by radiation)?
- hugh_ 17y ago
  Quite likely, yes.

stcredzero 17y ago

If Fermi's Paradox comes from a limiting factor "removing" civilizations (a physics experiment, etc), it should need to destroy a whole solar system and not only a planet. Maybe the economic hurdles are the limiting factors? Economics seems to be closely related to game theory. I bet a lot of the principles apply to all civilizations.

berntb 17y ago
Space access can be much cheaper, even without nuclear launch. They talked of building the Orion the same way as submarines, iirc. I've read Henry Spencer argue that modern rockets and payloads are so expensive to make because they have to save on every gram.