MCGRATH@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU ("Jim McGrath") (01/03/86)
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mit-mc.arpa> > The Orion program was canceled largely due to environmental concerns. > The Orion program proposed launches to be made by detonating hundreds > of nuclear bombs. Had this program continued, we would probably have > the solar system in our grasp today. We would also have several > thousand extra fatal cancers. It was decided that it was not worth > it. I agree with that decision. Though it should be pointed out that > smoking causes about 100 times the deaths that Orion would have. Why do you agree? In 1981 Diabetes Mellitus killed 34,750 Americans; heart disease 758,100; Atherosclerosis 28,750; Pneumonia 51,230; automobiles 52,300. The Korean War killed over 54,000 Americans, the Vietnam War over 57,000. While some of this data is useful only for comparison purposes (auto deaths), others give some indication of how many lives could have been saved if space had been developed in the 70's, resulting in massive advances in medicine (such as large scale orbital vaccine production, research on heart disease in zero-g, etc...), while the rest indicates that we placed more importance on two indecisive small wars than the exploration and exploitation of space. A more concrete example, over 6,000 American deaths every year are attributable to the burning of coal (mining, lung disease, etc...). A significant reliance on Solar Power Satellites would save thousands of lives a year and result in massive environmental wins. While some may have died from the development of Orion, many more would have been saved. People simply have to realize that NOTHING in the world is safe. Every act entails some risk, which can ultimately be expressed in expected deaths. You HAVE to look at cost/benefit ratios to decide anything. Orion clearly had a very low ratio, but only if you took space development seriously - which people were apparently not able to do 25 years ago. > But if environmentalists object to everything, they quickly lose their > credibility. Expansion into space is necessary for the future of our > species. Without space, we are all doomed. Blind opposition to all > forms of space travel is counter-survival. Total agreement here. But in light of my previous comment, how many deaths WOULD you accept for space? Jim -------