4 ms·

Why Don't We Shoot Nuclear Waste into Space?

1 points by IdealeZahlen 4y ago

trifit 4y ago
Grippin’ question, could result in radioactive Martian microorganisms.
josefresco 4y ago
Expensive, hard and dangerous - got it.
jqpabc123 4y ago
Because it will eventually come back to earth.
- SideQuark 4y ago
  So you think the interstellar probes NASA launched are returning to earth too?
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    Interstellar probes aren't cargo vessels. It would take a rocket larger than any yet imagined to propel tons of nuclear waste completely beyond the gravitational influence of the solar system. The USA alone has 85,000 tons of the stuff. Simply not practical. Slightly more reasonable might be to launch it into the Sun --- and hope that nothing goes wrong in the process. Note that the historical failure rate of rocket launches are pretty high. What better way to spread highly radioative debris over the entire planet?
    - SideQuark 4y ago
      Ah, but that's not what you said. Moving the goal posts again? >Interstellar probes aren't cargo vessels. They already carry a payload, and there's no reason the payload could not be anything we decided to put on them. In fact, their payloads are called exactly cargo: Voyager I famously had the golden record as cargo (among other things), both in design documents and press releases. >It would take a rocket larger than any yet imagined to propel tons of nuclear waste completely beyond the gravitational influence of the solar system. The Interstellar Voyager probes in the 1970s were nearly a ton (1820 lbs), on 1970 tech Titan IIIEs, which are vastly surpassed in size now. This part is nonsense. Do you just make stuff up? >The USA alone has 85,000 tons of the stuff. There's no need to send it all at once. > What better way to spread highly radioative debris over the entire planet? Which rocket failures, ever, spread stuff over the entire planet? Fear-mongering much? Your statements as usual are hyperbole, like your other thread claiming your numerics were ok (even when demonstrated they fail at every range simple or not), and when called on it you first made up imaginary languages using imaginary compilers using made up, non-existent Intel instructions, and when called on that, you would not admit or reply. Not a great track record for accurate analysis. Everything you mention here is doable if someone wants to bad enough. There is no technical impossibility, only financial cost, to doing it.

1 points by IdealeZahlen 4y ago

trifit 4y ago

Grippin’ question, could result in radioactive Martian microorganisms.

josefresco 4y ago

Expensive, hard and dangerous - got it.

jqpabc123 4y ago

Because it will eventually come back to earth.

SideQuark 4y ago
So you think the interstellar probes NASA launched are returning to earth too?
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  Interstellar probes aren't cargo vessels. It would take a rocket larger than any yet imagined to propel tons of nuclear waste completely beyond the gravitational influence of the solar system. The USA alone has 85,000 tons of the stuff. Simply not practical. Slightly more reasonable might be to launch it into the Sun --- and hope that nothing goes wrong in the process. Note that the historical failure rate of rocket launches are pretty high. What better way to spread highly radioative debris over the entire planet?
  - SideQuark 4y ago
    Ah, but that's not what you said. Moving the goal posts again? >Interstellar probes aren't cargo vessels. They already carry a payload, and there's no reason the payload could not be anything we decided to put on them. In fact, their payloads are called exactly cargo: Voyager I famously had the golden record as cargo (among other things), both in design documents and press releases. >It would take a rocket larger than any yet imagined to propel tons of nuclear waste completely beyond the gravitational influence of the solar system. The Interstellar Voyager probes in the 1970s were nearly a ton (1820 lbs), on 1970 tech Titan IIIEs, which are vastly surpassed in size now. This part is nonsense. Do you just make stuff up? >The USA alone has 85,000 tons of the stuff. There's no need to send it all at once. > What better way to spread highly radioative debris over the entire planet? Which rocket failures, ever, spread stuff over the entire planet? Fear-mongering much? Your statements as usual are hyperbole, like your other thread claiming your numerics were ok (even when demonstrated they fail at every range simple or not), and when called on it you first made up imaginary languages using imaginary compilers using made up, non-existent Intel instructions, and when called on that, you would not admit or reply. Not a great track record for accurate analysis. Everything you mention here is doable if someone wants to bad enough. There is no technical impossibility, only financial cost, to doing it.