You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to be a problem?
You don't send it into orbit like all the other junk that is up there, you go for a close by star which BTW would consume the waste in the blink of an eye.
No state police? No weights and measures inspectors? No health inspectors? No public universities?
All better done by the public.
Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously, the sun would make a great trash burner, but it's something often discussed but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some practical reasons for that otherwise I'm guessing it would have been done already.
Sounds more like the problem was wetware at several stages of the decision making process.
Cause rockets blow up
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:50:36 -0500, Markem
Very good point. Even if it was one rocket in a thousand, it would be an environment disaster beyond catastrophic.
It would be like a famous land mark. If you permit the tourist to take part of it with every visit, eventually it no longer exist.
If we call all of the earth potential energy, waste, and shoot it into the sun it no longer exist on earth. When we give our scientist the go ahead to develop methods to recover, it will no longer be available.
It took a little over four years to separate uranium in the Manhattan Project, what could we have done in the last 50 years if our scientist had been encouraged to develop methods to reuse our nuclear waste.
Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above and you have your answer.
The cargo could be secured in a safe container, even the shuttles had parts that survived the crashes and blow ups.
Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it takes too much fuel. To eject something from the solar system completely, you need to speed it up only a little bit, but to make it fall into the sun, you have to slow it down A LOT. (I used to work with a guy who was a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer -- and once asked him exactly the same question: why don't we dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the sun? and that was his answer.)
But it would be containment built by the lowest bidder, cutting cost increase profits.
Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how much would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think that maintenance of the materials forever might be more expensive than sending some one to the moon. I am talking on a 1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might be the real number and in that instance I totally agree that would probably be way too much trouble and expensive.
To eject
little bit, but to
I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the waste in that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct shot at the sun.
(I used to work with a guy who was
it into the
Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL
Well, for one practical reason, how about the fact that a certain percentage of space craft launches fail and return their payload to the ground?
Leon wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
That takes even more fuel. (I asked about that, too.)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.