Cost vs. Benefit
Chris Ferenzi sent me an article about Project Orion. I was completely unaware of its existence, and I find it extremely intriguing. I'm still reading the Wikipedia entry.
Basically, Orion is a spacecraft that uses nuclear explosions as propulsion. I'm not talking about another space shuttle, either. I'm talking thousands of tons. Maybe even millions of tons. One of the original designs was 8,000,000 tons. This was when nukes weighed a ton each. With advances in that area, 8 million tons is almost feasible. That's like putting a city in orbit. And we're not stopping at just orbit. Orion was designed for interplanetary travel. The top cruise velocity that can be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship is about 8% to 10% of light velocity. In the future, a nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity of from 50% to 80% of the speed of light.
We have the technology to launch an Orion. We have the ability to reach Mars and beyond. Not just get humans there, but to almost immediately colonize. So what's the catch? Firing nukes in quick succession (sometimes as short as every quarter second) during launch. Orion was canceled in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. One of the head researchers calculated that there would be enough fallout to kill one to ten people globally with each launch. So at first I'm thinking, yeah, that would be a pretty good reason to stop. This is where the article gets really good.
"The morality of this is too simplistic: It kills people so let’s not do it. That would rule out just about every human transportation type. How can we balance the books?
If something is worth a lot, then it is worth doing even if it kills people. We agree to a steady flux of deaths from the particulates and radiation released by coal-fired power plants because we want our homes heated and our refrigerators to run. One rough estimate is 100,000 deaths a year from coal-fired power plants.
Suppose we simultaneously enact a policy to cut the coal contribution to global radiation by more than we added radiation to the atmosphere with the Orion launches (for example, by taxing Orion launches and using the money to buy coal emission permits)? Well, we would be saving lives on balance. The absolute moralist nevertheless would say, “No! Just save the lives and forget the Orion launch.”
Here are a few of many reasons why to embrace the risk:
Seriously, people. Our parents watched Apollo missions on TV when they were kids! Why aren't we taking vacations to a resort on the moon? One of my dreams is to set foot on another planet. It frustrates me that we have the ability to do so much, but we're going nowhere. What do you guys think about this? I want to hear your opinions on this subject.
Basically, Orion is a spacecraft that uses nuclear explosions as propulsion. I'm not talking about another space shuttle, either. I'm talking thousands of tons. Maybe even millions of tons. One of the original designs was 8,000,000 tons. This was when nukes weighed a ton each. With advances in that area, 8 million tons is almost feasible. That's like putting a city in orbit. And we're not stopping at just orbit. Orion was designed for interplanetary travel. The top cruise velocity that can be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship is about 8% to 10% of light velocity. In the future, a nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity of from 50% to 80% of the speed of light.
We have the technology to launch an Orion. We have the ability to reach Mars and beyond. Not just get humans there, but to almost immediately colonize. So what's the catch? Firing nukes in quick succession (sometimes as short as every quarter second) during launch. Orion was canceled in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. One of the head researchers calculated that there would be enough fallout to kill one to ten people globally with each launch. So at first I'm thinking, yeah, that would be a pretty good reason to stop. This is where the article gets really good.
"The morality of this is too simplistic: It kills people so let’s not do it. That would rule out just about every human transportation type. How can we balance the books?
If something is worth a lot, then it is worth doing even if it kills people. We agree to a steady flux of deaths from the particulates and radiation released by coal-fired power plants because we want our homes heated and our refrigerators to run. One rough estimate is 100,000 deaths a year from coal-fired power plants.
Suppose we simultaneously enact a policy to cut the coal contribution to global radiation by more than we added radiation to the atmosphere with the Orion launches (for example, by taxing Orion launches and using the money to buy coal emission permits)? Well, we would be saving lives on balance. The absolute moralist nevertheless would say, “No! Just save the lives and forget the Orion launch.”
Here are a few of many reasons why to embrace the risk:
- Orion can lead to anti-asteroid operational capability decades ahead of anything else. That results in a flux of 200 fewer dead a year from the chance of the Earth population being destroyed by asteroids. Richard Posner says we should count extra because we would be saving the species.
- There are people willing to pay a lot of money to take a trip on Orion or use it to found a colony. Those people won’t pay for it (and any pollution- or flu-reducing taxes associated with using it) unless they get something in exchange. An analogy is that if you set the fines for speeding in a sports car high enough, you can use the money collected to make the roads safer and reduce the overall death rate from highway accidents, versus electronic switches that prevent each car from exceeding the speed limit.
- A trip on Orion will generate economic growth, scientific advancement, and wonder that will extend and enrich many lives in the future.
- Like a firing squad where there is a chance that everyone has a blank, it is possible that no one will die due to the Orion launch. How would the diffuse benefit of hundreds-or billions-of lives saved or improved due to success of Orion stack up to a diffuse risk? "
Seriously, people. Our parents watched Apollo missions on TV when they were kids! Why aren't we taking vacations to a resort on the moon? One of my dreams is to set foot on another planet. It frustrates me that we have the ability to do so much, but we're going nowhere. What do you guys think about this? I want to hear your opinions on this subject.