6 ms·
By the way, it's worth pointing out, to those who want to make a judgement on the reasons project Orion could not be implemented nowadays, that nuclear detonati
by opminion 14y ago
By the way, it's worth pointing out, to those who want to make a judgement on the reasons project Orion could not be implemented nowadays, that nuclear detonations are effectively a modern tabu.
This tabu is effective, has proven extremely useful (no detonations of nukes in a war since 1945) and thus cannot be considered the sign of a scientifically ignorant society.
Having said that, Orion would be quite cool.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- panacea 14y agoDo you mean 'taboo', as in something that's considered off-limits due to cultural sensitivities? (Wondering out loud if the etymology is similar to voodoo and related suspicious stuff)
- rdl 14y agoWe've had hundreds (or thousands, if you count sub-design-yield) detonations since 1945, including several in space (Hardtack Teak and Orange, and USSR equivalents). And lots of them were for purely posturing purposes, with little scientific or direct weapons-testing value. The US probably could have pulled off something like Orion in the 1990s or maybe even today, since there's not a direct cold war threat. Domestic politics probably kill it, though, but if it were branded as "nuclear pulse drive" with sub-10kT pulses, it might be possible.
- btilly 14y agoYou can't launch an Orion spaceship without violating the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treat.... Also given the estimated 0.1 to 1 human deaths from cancer per launch (I am using Freeman Dyson's estimate here), it is hardly a politically viable vehicle.
- berntb 14y agoDidn't Dyson's son write in the book that part of the reason for the treaty's signing was internal politics to kill a competitor to NASA? 1. Those 0.1-1 dead is from a period of much worse cancer treatments than will be available a few decades after an Orion launch. 2. It is bad risk counting. The cost per life is a factor whenever e.g. roads are built and speed limits are set. ("We will get ~ X less deaths/decade if we build the motorway differently, but it would cost over our limit for $/life".) Also, just transporting materials/people when designing/building an Orion ought to be a lot more than one dead.
- rdl 14y agoThe cancer increase would be for launching from the ground/atmospheric use, which is a non-starter. I'm talking about use to run an orbital shuttle/tug/etc. between Earth and Mars. It would never enter atmosphere, and probably be constructed in space. The US has enough weapons that it could comfortably withdraw from the treaty, or claim that these launches are not "tests" but rather some other use.
- btilly 14y agoThe cancer increase was from fallout. If you use it within Earth orbit, you still have significant fallout.
- ars 14y agoYou don't really get fallout in the space. The fallout is from neutron radiation of the ground, which doesn't happen in space. The amount of direct radiation from the uranium that is used is actually quite small. And it would be trivial to point the exhaust away from earth. Space is full of radiation anyway, from the sun.