3 ms·

They're certainly safe enough that the primary risk is not of them exploding. Hell, the most current iteration of Falcon 9 has only ever had one failure, which

They're certainly safe enough that the primary risk is not of them exploding. Hell, the most current iteration of Falcon 9 has only ever had one failure, which was early in its lifetime before it was crew rated. In general, the vast majority of rocket explosions in the US ever since we got past the phase of having to build two of everything in-case one launch failed have been ones which were either still in active development or weren't anywhere near nuclear rated at the time anyway. The media loves to report on exploding rockets, but by and far that is not the norm and if you're flying on a rocket that is allowed to carry even nuclear material, you're essentially guaranteed to be safe (if not necessarily guaranteed to make it to orbit).

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
even assuming the percentages have improved significantly since 2014 when this was written https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/if-planes-failed-like-space-shuttles-272-would-crash-daily/ https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/if-planes-failed-li... I would expect it is still probably high enough you wouldn't want it carrying nuclear waste.
- mcv 3y ago
  Lets see if we can go a couple of decades without any rocket explosions at all before we risk burning up radioactive waste in the upper atmosphere. I don't want to trust this on mere claims of safety, I want to trust statistics on large, non-cherry-picked numbers of launches.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    Have we gone decades without plane crashes? What's with this insanity that seems to grip even supposedly educated science-minded people whenever something involves nuclear technology?
    - mcv 3y ago
      > Have we gone decades without plane crashes? Do you think we should be using planes to send nuclear waste into the upper atmosphere? > What's with this insanity that seems to grip even supposedly educated science-minded people whenever something involves nuclear technology? Maybe the educated science-minded people have a better understanding of some of the risks involved. I once heard that 1 kg of plutonium burning up in the upper atmosphere would be enough to wipe out humanity. Now I don't know the math behind that claim, and of course I know that most nuclear waste is not plutonium, but I would much rather be safe than sorry with things like burning up radioactive waste in the upper atmosphere. Especially in the face of superior alternatives like putting it deep underground.
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        What you're probably thinking of is the statistic that a pound of plutonium oxide would cause cancer in 2 million people. A more detailed look into the matter shows that even that is very likely overblown: http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/answers/llnl.html http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/answers/llnl.html You simply couldn't possibly spread it enough with enough density to be both inhalable and common enough to measurably increase cancer risk. While I agree that just putting it in the ground is the superior solution, my point is that fears of putting nuclear material on modern American rockets are very exaggerated.
        mcv 3y ago
        It's entirely possible it's overblown, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about larger amounts than that if we're using this to get rid of our nuclear waste. But even apart from the launch risk, shooting stuff into space is not cheap, and shooting stuff into the sun is a lot more expensive than that. To justify that, it has to be not only safer, but also cheaper than putting it underground. The only real advantage I see to shooting it into the sun is that if our civilisation ever collapses and nobody can read anymore, there's less risk of the people then running into our waste in the sun than finding it buried.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  You might as well be searching for articles on how climate models predict a total collapse of all life bearing capability in 6 months... They misrepresent the culture that led to the space shuttle disasters to push a catchy statistic and somehow try to compare that with a 35 year old rocket design that isn't even supposed to carry crew, let alone nuclear material, and that's supposed to reflect on rockets that are rated for nuclear material?
nonethewiser 3y ago
> They're certainly safe enough that the primary risk is not of them exploding. The primary risk does not need to be explosion for explosion to be too risky.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

even assuming the percentages have improved significantly since 2014 when this was written https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/if-planes-failed-like-space-shuttles-272-would-crash-daily/ https://www.seattletimes.com/life/travel/if-planes-failed-li... I would expect it is still probably high enough you wouldn't want it carrying nuclear waste.

mcv 3y ago
Lets see if we can go a couple of decades without any rocket explosions at all before we risk burning up radioactive waste in the upper atmosphere. I don't want to trust this on mere claims of safety, I want to trust statistics on large, non-cherry-picked numbers of launches.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  Have we gone decades without plane crashes? What's with this insanity that seems to grip even supposedly educated science-minded people whenever something involves nuclear technology?
  - mcv 3y ago
    > Have we gone decades without plane crashes? Do you think we should be using planes to send nuclear waste into the upper atmosphere? > What's with this insanity that seems to grip even supposedly educated science-minded people whenever something involves nuclear technology? Maybe the educated science-minded people have a better understanding of some of the risks involved. I once heard that 1 kg of plutonium burning up in the upper atmosphere would be enough to wipe out humanity. Now I don't know the math behind that claim, and of course I know that most nuclear waste is not plutonium, but I would much rather be safe than sorry with things like burning up radioactive waste in the upper atmosphere. Especially in the face of superior alternatives like putting it deep underground.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      What you're probably thinking of is the statistic that a pound of plutonium oxide would cause cancer in 2 million people. A more detailed look into the matter shows that even that is very likely overblown: http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/answers/llnl.html http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/answers/llnl.html You simply couldn't possibly spread it enough with enough density to be both inhalable and common enough to measurably increase cancer risk. While I agree that just putting it in the ground is the superior solution, my point is that fears of putting nuclear material on modern American rockets are very exaggerated.
      - mcv 3y ago
        It's entirely possible it's overblown, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about larger amounts than that if we're using this to get rid of our nuclear waste. But even apart from the launch risk, shooting stuff into space is not cheap, and shooting stuff into the sun is a lot more expensive than that. To justify that, it has to be not only safer, but also cheaper than putting it underground. The only real advantage I see to shooting it into the sun is that if our civilisation ever collapses and nobody can read anymore, there's less risk of the people then running into our waste in the sun than finding it buried.
dotnet00 3y ago
You might as well be searching for articles on how climate models predict a total collapse of all life bearing capability in 6 months... They misrepresent the culture that led to the space shuttle disasters to push a catchy statistic and somehow try to compare that with a 35 year old rocket design that isn't even supposed to carry crew, let alone nuclear material, and that's supposed to reflect on rockets that are rated for nuclear material?

nonethewiser 3y ago

> They're certainly safe enough that the primary risk is not of them exploding. The primary risk does not need to be explosion for explosion to be too risky.