3 ms·

It's probably a bad idea, but has anyone thought of sending nuclear waste into space? I've always thought that it might be possible to launch it into space usi

It's probably a bad idea, but has anyone thought of sending nuclear waste into space? I've always thought that it might be possible to launch it into space using a space elevator (if that is even feasible), but then I can also see the disaster if something bad happened during the launch, resulting in cataclysmic event.

867-5309 7y ago
I'd imagine it would not have to leave just this planet, but also the whole solar system not to pose any future threat
- NopeNotToday 7y ago
  We can make anything leave the solar system, with an escape velocity and the proper orientation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_leaving_the_Solar_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_lea...
- RunningDroid 7y ago
  Some of the nuclear material may be valuable in the future, so it's probably better to set it in a stable orbit between Jupiter and Saturn.
hinkley 7y ago
Some earlier spacecraft used thermoelectric generators powered by isotopic decay. More recently there have been some vigorous protests of this design, even though the modern versions apparently encase the radioactive material in a ceramic matrix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge... If a well designed, low yield nuclear reactor can't be launched then firing random waste into space will surely draw many more protestors. Also I'm often surprised by the volume of waste we're talking about here. Under this umbrella you have not only fuel rods but also contaminated materials (eg, building materials, soil), and the launch costs per pound are very, very high. I think I heard at one point someone was trying to work out if they could safely evaporate water (heat of vaporization of water being much lower than most isotopes?) and just store the residuals but even that got pushback. Hanford, if memory serves, has a rather substantial volume of liquid waste to deal with, and some of the containment vessels are past their expected lifespan.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Also I can't believe I spaced on this, but we are trained by movies to ignore the fact that we are in orbit around the Sun, and you can't just 'drop' things into the Sun. From the numbers I can find, the delta-v to achieve escape velocity from the Earth is just over half the delta-v needed to crash into the Sun. To "get rid" of something you need a big rocket. To get rid of it forever, the rocket equation means you need a rocket many times bigger to go 90% faster.
nkrisc 7y ago
Putting a bunch of nuclear waste onto a rocket (basically a dirty-bomb ICBM) doesn't seem like the best idea. Look at how many rockets, to this day, blow up on launch. If, however, this is contingent upon a space elevator, I wouldn't give it much thought at this time.

867-5309 7y ago

I'd imagine it would not have to leave just this planet, but also the whole solar system not to pose any future threat

NopeNotToday 7y ago
We can make anything leave the solar system, with an escape velocity and the proper orientation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_leaving_the_Solar_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_lea...
RunningDroid 7y ago
Some of the nuclear material may be valuable in the future, so it's probably better to set it in a stable orbit between Jupiter and Saturn.

hinkley 7y ago

Some earlier spacecraft used thermoelectric generators powered by isotopic decay. More recently there have been some vigorous protests of this design, even though the modern versions apparently encase the radioactive material in a ceramic matrix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge... If a well designed, low yield nuclear reactor can't be launched then firing random waste into space will surely draw many more protestors. Also I'm often surprised by the volume of waste we're talking about here. Under this umbrella you have not only fuel rods but also contaminated materials (eg, building materials, soil), and the launch costs per pound are very, very high. I think I heard at one point someone was trying to work out if they could safely evaporate water (heat of vaporization of water being much lower than most isotopes?) and just store the residuals but even that got pushback. Hanford, if memory serves, has a rather substantial volume of liquid waste to deal with, and some of the containment vessels are past their expected lifespan.

hinkley 7y ago
Also I can't believe I spaced on this, but we are trained by movies to ignore the fact that we are in orbit around the Sun, and you can't just 'drop' things into the Sun. From the numbers I can find, the delta-v to achieve escape velocity from the Earth is just over half the delta-v needed to crash into the Sun. To "get rid" of something you need a big rocket. To get rid of it forever, the rocket equation means you need a rocket many times bigger to go 90% faster.

nkrisc 7y ago

Putting a bunch of nuclear waste onto a rocket (basically a dirty-bomb ICBM) doesn't seem like the best idea. Look at how many rockets, to this day, blow up on launch. If, however, this is contingent upon a space elevator, I wouldn't give it much thought at this time.