Why Don't We Send Nuclear Waste To The Sun?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Could we just send all our nuclear waste to the sun? It would sure solve a lot of problems! Trace looks at whether or not this crazy plan has any possibility of happening.
Read More:
What are nuclear wastes and how are they managed?
www.world-nucle...
"The most significant high-level waste from a nuclear reactor is the used nuclear fuel left after it has spent three years in the reactor generating heat for electricity. "
Radioactive waste: Where to put it?
www.eurekalert....
"As the U.S. makes new plans for disposing of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste deep underground, geologists are key to identifying safe burial sites and techniques."
FYI: Why Not Just Dispose of Nuclear Waste in the Sun?
www.popsci.com/...
"After FYI answered why dumping the world's nuclear waste into a volcano would be a bad idea in March, our inbox was flooded with readers wondering, "Well, how about shooting it into the sun?"
DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE IN SPACE
www.nss.org/set...
"This paper discusses the key technological and non-technological issues involved in disposing of high-level nuclear waste by launching it into space. Space disposal has two major benefits."
Use Sun to dispose of radioactive waste?
www.physicsforu...
"Just from the stand-point of the Sun itself and it's environment, is it possible or not to utilize the Sun to safely dispose of spent radioactive waste fuel from reactors and what would be the possible ramafications (positive or negative) for the Earth and it's environment as a result, if any?"
Storage and Disposal Options
www.world-nucle...
"Most low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is typically sent to land-based disposal immediately following its packaging for long-term management. This means that for the majority (~90% by volume) of all of the waste types, a satisfactory disposal means has been developed and is being implemented around the world."
Watch More:
Turn Nuke Waste Into Glass
• The New Solution To Ou...
TestTube Wild Card
testtube.com/dn...
Nuclear Power Saves Lives
• How Nuclear Power Save...
____________________
DNews is dedicated to satisfying your curiosity and to bringing you mind-bending stories & perspectives you won't find anywhere else! New videos twice daily.
Watch More DNews on TestTube testtube.com/dnews
Subscribe now! www.youtube.com...
DNews on Twitter / dnews
Anthony Carboni on Twitter / acarboni
Laci Green on Twitter / gogreen18
Trace Dominguez on Twitter / trace501
DNews on Facebook / dnews
DNews on Google+ gplus.to/dnews
Discovery News discoverynews.com
bro just kick it under the fridge.
Your comment deserves more likes.
I think we already do
🤣
I'm a nuclear engineer specialized in nuclear waste so I'll put my two cents in. The type high level waste with the most scrutiny and politics is spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors (what is used in the US, France, etc.). These are the fuel rods mentioned in the video. Spent fuel is really nasty stuff, if you were to run at a spent fuel assembly at full speed you would receive a lethal dose of radiation before you got to it (although you might live another few days). So unless a rocket has a success rate of 100% we would never seriously consider putting spent fuel onboard. The risk is far too high. Besides, if the spent fuel is under about 8 feet of water you'll be completely shielded from the radiation.
The other reason we don't want to send spent fuel to the sun is because we don't actually consider it waste. Spent fuel contains still contains an amazing amount of energy, it's just that fission products in the fuel greatly reduces its effectiveness. In France (probably the gold standard of nuclear power), they reprocess their spent fuel and are able to produce Mixed Oxide (Uranium/Plutonium) fuel assemblies that can be used for another 3 fuel cycles (about 4.5 years). This reduces the need for Uranium mining, producing yellow cake, enriching, and other activities on the front end of the fuel cycle. The argument could easily be made that the front end of the fuel cycle is more harmful to the environment than the back end.
Wow, 7 years ago. Do you mind me asking, why countries are having such a problem storing the nuclear waste?
Problem with you is that you complicated the matter. Try to solve it.
Wouldn't a space elevator potentially be a solution to this?
8ft of water. So if a rocket fail.. It will crash in the ocean under 20,000 ft of water. It wont be a threat to human then. I don't think it will be a problem if thr fuel rod are incase in a titanium coffin. Even went it crash it will still be inside the coffin.
Why dont we just get all the nuclear waste, *AND PUSH IT* somewhere else?
*A FEW HOURS LATER*
alright, guys. PUUUSSH!!
Like Canada
Hmm buriing it?
I believe Ben is on to something here...
Ben Schell lol
I felt like he said:
"We can't because it's too hard and therefore there is no point in even trying."
why do we have to shoot it into the sun?why dont we just shoot it randomly into space?
Or send it to mars who knows we might create aliens from radiation
Mars has no magnetic field and so is already radioactive enough from the sun. The world's nuclear waste stockpile is too valuable, and should be burned in GenIV reactors to save us from climate change.
+DarkshadowXD63 radiation causes mutations in dna. so it itself cannot generate life. but if there is maybe some bacteria... you could mutate them, but sadly, they will die too quickly. forced mutation is 99.9% harmful to life
How much radiation? How bad? The reality is, radiation is everywhere as we live on a radioactive planet in a radioactive universe. Most of Fukushima and Chernobyl could be resettled NOW.
+Max Green (Eclipse) While true radiation is everywhere, however it is dispersed and at a tolerable level to organic life. However places that have had meltdowns or high concentrations of radiation can be devastating, parts of Chernobyl still see plant life and animal life(mostly insects) mutating because of it. While it may be possible to resettle in those areas prior to the half life, its not worth the risk, especially with how relatively little we know about long term exposure to high or moderate levels of radiation.
I think I can answer this in 8 seconds
It's expensive
It's impractical
Space travel isn't even very safe
Count 2 more seconds
Good job
HEY! I paid for 8 seconds of answer! I want to speak to your supervisor...
JoeyRuns XC 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
I counted 6 seconds WHERE MI MUNZ???!!!
Why send it to the sun, we can send it to Venus
I mean we have no actual plan to go there or anything
We may have plans,no one knows the future
We might go to venus after mars, we know what to expect
The liberals would never let that happen.
sarcasm world if you can go to Venus, why not sun. The question is not sun or Venus, the problem is expensive space travel and high possibility of mishaps, that can happen. Think, you launched a rocket carrying nuclear material and it bursted.
No Need of North Korea, you yourself have nailed your Life.
Quack ER yea but we can just bombard all the waste from favourable distance,wont it work?
So, it sounds like the answer is "not yet" instead of "no".
+Shelton Burnadeski Not yet is also stupid.
1.We could just shoot it into space.
2. We could still use that nuclear wasted, we just need to develop and build those kinds of reactors.
MegaKosan I think you're missing the smaller picture here. If we start dumping nuclear waste in the sun, that means that, when I die, I can have my relatives sneak my body into a drum of nuclear waste and un-live my dream of being shot into the sun when I die.
***** Interesting.
But I´d rather orbit Saturn or Jupiter.
Mercury would be cool too.
Fonald Dafaqu wat
Fonald Dafaqu wat
If the sun is a star, why isn't it shaped like one?
+Darth Sieberius ?
*You're
rrralf, Thanks for pointing that out (no sarcasm).
I'm assuming when you mean star shaped you mean like - www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1309&bih=712&q=Star&oq=Star&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1061.1516.0.2195.4.4.0.0.0.0.377.377.3-1.1.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..3.1.376.LX7ShYC2ato#imgrc=CBTfvAemN2nmZM%3A
+Darth Sieberius Yeah!
We would be very fucked if that rocket blows up. That's a real reason why we don't dared it.
We'd only be fucked because we'd have to clean it all up afterwards.
It wouldn't be some sort of nuclear explosion, it's waste, not bombs.
+deaftodd im sure we could incase the waste material into some sort of failsafe box that way if the rocket did explode, it would be unaffected
+г-н зонт If it exploded it would rain radioactive material down on us. That' stuff is highly dangerous. When Chernobyl blew up the radioactive material got shot into the atmosphere, and caused birth defects, and so on in people that were miles away from the reactor. There were traces of material in a different country to the north. That's why if it exploded we would be fucked. It would also mix with the clouds causing high levels of acid rain.
*****
First, nuclear power does not cause acid rain. It would be dangerous, but that's not how acid rain works at all.
But yes, if the waste were to fling everywhere, it would be radioactive, and a nuisance.
However, it wouldn't spontaneously make everything radioactive for thousands of miles. Like I said before, it's waste. It's very different from Chernobyl exploding, because this would be _only_ waste.
It will still be dangerous to be close to the waste though, and would take a while to clean up. But afterwards, it'd be okay.
My main point, was that waste doesn't explode like a bomb. It is still dangerous though.
It would cause nuclear fallout.
"but how much do u trust a guy who wears underwear outside of his pants''
lol
Crazy Movie box well then how much would you trust a guy who wears pants outside of his underwear
Crazy Movie box It's not underwear
It is a super dense multi matrix graphene 35 weave tensile compound
And it protects his Vleffium glands
: )
Saying "we can't aim at the sun because the Earth is spinning too fast" is like saying "we can't send spacecraft to pluto because Earth is spinning too fast". Except, we did. And the sun is a much larger target.
and is closed than Pluto.
You have to cancel out of Suns orbit and force yourself directly towards the sun. It is not simple as aim and go. As they said, the amount of energy required to do this you would be better off just burning the waste to nothing.
+Brandon Smith To "aim" at the sun in a direct trajectory like "earth -> sun" without any swingby or something similar would be extremly hard, you'd need to "burn" for a couple of 10,000 m/s to slow down the rocket so it'll "fall" into the sun, and for every 1m/s you'd burn, you have to bring more fuel etc.
So the rockets would need to be truly gigantic even if you only want to deliver 1 ton of waste.
To get to another planet is way more easy as letting something fall into the sun, because you do not need to spend even close as much deltaV to increase the orbit (or decrease it lower for mercury), but the last couple of millions of kilometer to get really close to the sun are waaay harder, since the closer the orbit you get to the sun, the faster you need to move (if you want to keep a stable orbit) or, you might aswell cancel out all of your orbital momentum (from the earth about
29,78 km/s) ... so yeah, pluto is way more easy, since you'd only need about 5 km/s to get there, once you escaped earths sphere of influence.
+Artyom Korbut Still, you would have emissions from burning, which kinda might result radioactive, and, in air. Which is far off worse than fallout itself..
+Hartschteiler GER "The amount of energy it would take to cancel out the Earth's orbital velocity and then aim at the sun would be astronomically high" at 2:12.
I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not smart enough to figure all that stuff out. I was pointing out the absurdity of the statement.
before I watch the video, I'm guessing its the outrageous amount of money it would cost to send our garbage into the sun.
Nah it's just not physically possible at the moment (money reflect ressouces)
the only type of garbage we need to send away is nuclear waste, other normal non-radioactive/non-toxic would cost alot less if recycled and would be really efficient.
***** elaborate please
Are you a complete dumbass?
Of course it's possible.
We already have a satellite going towards the sun on a suicide mission.
LetoZeth what why
Why do we have to hit the sun though? Just throw it into space and mabye some alien race will discover nuclear energy some day!
Before or after succumbing to radiation poisoning. We wouldn't be delivering clean energy to them - hence nuclear waste!
Unclean to life as we know it.
Alien life may benefit from it, and thus we might find ourselves living in symbiotic relationship with said alien race.
Fredrik Carlén a lot could go wrong including it hits something in the atmosphere and explodes and breaks the ozone
Khizar Pasha ozone is a layer of gas, not a glass to broke into pieces.
Shumbath kumar if you chuck a bunch of nuclear gas at the atmosphere what happens
Bro just eat all the excess nuclear waste you shouldn't waste it.
PS:You might get superpowers 😅
If you consider vomiting your guts as beams then yes
PS: You would be gutman
Give it to starving kids in Africa. World Hunger and getting rid of nuclear waste SOLVED!! Killing two birds with one stone!
You'll get melting-skin like superpowers
Superman just got his shit roasted
Could a stormtrooper hit the sun?
+Kieran Matzky There are no stormtroopers in this galaxy. A galaxy far far away, remember?
yes ..of course:\
+Kieran Matzky they would be vaporized before they even got close
+Kieran Matzky No.
+Matt Matton The Blue One stormtroopers hits everything except the thing they're going to hit so just say hit the earth
AT $10,000 a pound, shooting tons and tons and tons of waste into space is ludicrously stupid.
Just mix it with glass and drop the barrels into tectonic plate subduction zones and send the radioactive waste back to the molten mantel of the earth.
Good idea !
Shit yo are smart
770 million dollars is not cost prohibitive for all the worlds high level waste. It would likely cost more to transport the waste to the launch site than to launch it. Not saying we should try it, lol.
Let's throw it in a volcano :p
Em how are we supposed to drill to the earths mantel/core
Why's it have to be the sun? Just chuck it in any direction!
Imagine a space craft crossing paths with nuclear waste in space..The impact would be legendary.
Med z0r Yeah true. Also, I just found out that it would be cheaper to send debris to another neighbouring star that our own.
***** Even better!
lol
+Bryan Fahnholz why mess up other parts of our galaxy..? whe need to clean our mess here on earth not send it where else
The issue isn't having nuclear material, the issue is that there are very rich people who make a lot of money charging you to use their power, from gas, too electricity. They won't allow any major competition or the replacement of these dependent sources for power because of the money it generates, they have a monopoly on it.
Are there ways to use nuclear material for our benefit? absolutely, will they want you to know about it? No, because knowledge is power and that is more then a fancy fun term, its functional & factual.
They treat people in large groups like cattle the way they think about it, as long as you're doing your routine, working ... for them, not questioning things to much, keeping you in the bubble, they don't care really, when someone strays and looks outside the box, they have the general population conditioned to abuse & jump on them (the news is great at pushing this mind set) and it goes on and on like this.
THAT is what is holding a lot of mankind back, its not that there isn't any solutions, there are, but they are being kept away from you and you're constantly being manipulated.
Just send the waste to space and let it literally float away.
Lol it's not that simple even if we could do that gravity would pull it back into earth or put it into orbit. Do you really want the threat of nuclear waste above your head?
Incredibly Undeniable that's why you take it far before you let it go. If you take it out of the gravitational pull of the Earth, it'll float away.
And nuclear waste is better than nuclear war.
When you take it out of the gravitational pull of Earth, it will immediately become in orbit around the Sun (The same orbit that Earth travels, since both Earth and the waste would be at the same distance from the Sun).
And even if you try speeding it up to change the orbit, the orbit will always have an intersection point at which Earth and the waste would meet again several years down the line.
And escaping the Sun's gravitational pull is way way harder than most of the things that NASA has done. It's really out of question
You guys... it takes WAY less energy to reach escape velocity of the sun than to reach a terminal orbit... Chucking it out in space to randomly float away isn't that bad of an idea...
+TheGamesforreal I'm sorry but how informed are you on the subject it takes money just to lift a small amount of commodities to the space station reaching the escape of the suns gravitational pull is more difficult than you think even comets moving fast as they do don't all shoot off in any direction most have orbits. It's not easy or cheap therefore not feasible.
What about Jupiter?
It would still take a...
Huh, actually that's not a bad idea. The deltaV (the amount of speed we have to put into the container for it to reach it's destination) to smash it into the sun is 29.8 km/s whereas a Jupiter encounter is only 8.8 km/s. Still prohibitively difficult, but more sensible than the sun.
It would probably be cheaper to drill a hole 10 km deep here on Earth and just isolate it under our crust.
Jupiter will blow up if that happened my brother told me XD
+PTNLemay If you did a Jupiter gravity assist to cancel the velocity of the sun, the Delta-v requirement would still be around 9 km/s
we can't send it there cos the Black Monolith wouldn't allow us.
I am so confused. So we can't land anything on the sun? I mean we sent a satellite to observe Saturn. Couldn't we just slowly descend the satellite onto Saturn's surface if we didn't want the satellite anymore?
Spent Nuclear Fuel is still 99% material that could be fissioned.
It's a result of not researching properly towards truly efficient nuclear reactors.
The US government refused to put money into truly peaceful only nuclear fission. So we got light water nuclear reactors which are great for nuclear subs, but let's just say, leave a LOT to be desired for peaceful, large scale usage.
The largest operational USA nuclear sub uses a 220MWt nuclear reactor, while a full scale light water reactor uses a 4000MWt (1350MWe) reactor, so the problem of not using all fuel on the subs is a much smaller one than on land (plus subs rarely run the reactor at full power).
There are proposed reactor designs that burn 99% of uranium and designs that burn 99% of Thorium fuels. They need funding (the Thorium seems to be far superior, the LFTR).
An actual reasonable and cheap solution to spent nuclear fuel (if we really wanted to just get rid of it), is to dump it into tectonic subduction areas (areas that are literally being sucked into the ground by earthquakes), just drill 100 meters deep and throw it in there, the next earthquakes will just suck it deeper and deeper until the raw internal pressure/temperature of the earth melts it and mixes with the earths mantle (not to be seen for a million years, by then its radiation is gone). But its fuel, and it's not anywhere nearly the radiation risk the nuclear opposition sees.
Another solution that is available and unused is to use spent fuel from regular reactors as fuel to CANDU reactors. CANDUs are more efficient, so they can continue to extract another 20-25% of energy from SNF.
What about sending nuclear waste to the moon, I mean, when was the last time we went there?
Just no..
What about Venus
No future generations will hate us
Imagine an astroid hitting it and it would get in an orbit around the earth than rain down on us:) chances are low but not zero.
Yet another problem that could be solved with a portal gun. Get on it, science.
yes, lets shot a portal in the ground and other one in the fucking sun, you sir are the most brilliant human being that ever existed...
AdolphX I cant thumb this up enough times to do it justice lol
AdolphX Portals will only appear on moon rock tiles. So you can't place one on the sun. You could place a portal on a tile in space and a tile on Earth and just drop it, but there would be a vacuum. I think it's you, that's the most brilliant human being that ever existed....
***** Halo? Nobody said anything about Halo.
AdolphX
Is that the extent of your imagination? In the hypothetical scenario that we could bend space that's the best you can come up with?
How about using portals to manipulate the momentum of nuclear waste, accelerating it, then redirecting it towards the sun from a safe distance, thus eliminating the tricky logistics of transport and wasting resources on rockets.
*****
Never played Halo in my life.
why not just shoot it out into space and let it drift for infinity...
Things don't drift away in space, think of objects in space like a magnet, everything is attractive. So if you just let it float in space it will eventually take orbit or plummet into another object, like the earth, the moon, another planet and more than likely an orbit around the sun not far from us. This is because Gravity is way stronger on a cosmic scale, you're not truly weightless in space.
Incredibly Undeniable Eh, fair enough. I'll take it. Thanks mate.
If we call just consume some nuclear waste with our cornflakes every morning we'd have no problem, and, gravestone manufacturers would make so much money! It's a win-win situation.
would our bodies purify it? or would we become nuclear waste ourselves and compound the problem. and just shooting it and letting it drift would PROBABLY be fine.....except if it somehow got intercepted by an asteroid or slingshots around a planet and comes back. Or the infinitesimally small chance of it reaching an alien race that either views it as an insult or a weapon......but not only would it have to encounter an alien race, it'd have to do it before we wipe ourselves out
That would solve the problem once and for all, once and for all.
Its a Futurama reference.
Why send it to the sun? Why not just shoot it in a general direction of oblivion?
Well, the only thing we currently have in interstellar space so far is the Voyager 1 probe. It has a golden gramophone/phonograph record and includes a method for finding our solar system. I wonder in the unlikely event that extraterrestrials come across it, interpret it, and then find our nuclear waste, if they'll believe us when we say we don't know where that came from.
Because it's still very cost prohibitive, you'd be more likely to put it in an orbit around the Sun rather than just into a random direction.
So let me get this straight. We can land vehicles on Mars and get a satellite to Pluto, but we can't shoot something at the Sun which is hundreds of times bigger?
yes
It's not that we can't do it we can but it would cost so much that it doesn't make sense. If you want to send something into the sun you have to launch it from Earth and get it into Earth orbit and then fire the engines and reach escape velocity from Earth. Once you do that you are still orbiting the Sun so you need to fire your engines again to deorbit and crash into the sun. You can't just fire the engine straight forward to go straight to the Sun because of how orbital mechanics works. If you were to do that It would take four times as much energy. There are much better ways to deal with nuclear waste for example you could just send it into a graveyard orbit around Earth or bury it deep underground. burying it deep underground is probably going to be a lot cheaper.
Because 95% of that "waste" can be recycled.
+Unbearable Pain I think how it can be is not a good thing though as it is like you can make plutonium again right? then make plutonium based nuclear reactors to make it into the next thing but a different thing from Lead will be needed I think but I didn't pay that much attention in the atoms part of science class
+Unbearable Pain That is pure rubbish. It can be recycled until what is left is only radioactive for about 300 yrs and can be stored away for that time.
+pobembe1958 The next generation of nuclear reactors are designed to reuse spent nuclear fuel. This recycling process is about 90% efficient actually but does result in a lot more energy being generated from the same amount of fuel and for a much longer time.
+Unbearable Pain Thats very interesting, That is why in Russia They bury the nuclear waste, even from other countries. Hungary pays much for Russia to take Its nuclear waste. Very nice recylcing.
+Unbearable Pain ok. Im game. What can we recycle it into? Im assuming there is a use BESIDES more nuclear weapons.
I find it very strange that it would 'miss the sun' .
If you send it in the general direction of the sun, shouldn't the sun's gravity take care of the rest ?
***** True but there wouldn't be enough fuel to take it all the way to/past the sun, so if it went a little bit (few thousand miles) off course it would still be brought towards the sun and sooner or later either hit mars, venus or merkur or it would come close enough to burn up.
***** You are being wrong. TraviansLittleHelpe is more accurate. The fuel would be a problem from the economical point of view. Also, remember, the way we travel through space is by getting in orbit with other celestial bodies until we met our final destiny. It is not so trivial, you could actually missed. You could make the calculations to try to get the rocket on orbit with the sun in such a way that in some years it hits the sun. Nonetheless you will be exposing other planets to contamination and you will not be able to control the ship from some point forward since the temperatures will be so great that the ship navigating system will failed and it will would be able to take the next orbit to reach the sun. Or if put on the suns orbit to hit it on some years, as soon as it gets out of the earth magnetic field, any sun storm will damage your ship and get it out of orbit, make it possible to hit the earth. Hence, it is not a good option to try and send it to the sun. It would be more suitable to send it away from the solar system and out of our galaxy. that would be possible from the physical point of view, but I do not know if it is financially possible.
***** and I forgot to tell you, it is not hardly for it to come back and hit the planet. It could get on orbit, navigation system gets damage because of the high temperatures and it gets into orbit, goes around the sun and hit us later. It is possible.
***** I know my physics, believe me I know what I am talking about. I am a physicist.
And we seem to have been able to get solar observatories there so its not like we haven't done it already
Too often people forget to ask themselves "What if it goes wrong?".
To quote the great philosopher Winnie the Pooh, "what if it doesn't?"
Get high and watch it glow.
yeah and what if there is a launch failure and the rocket explodes sprinkling nuclear waste over the entire state.
Do it in China.
The real reason is it would be too expensive to send *anything* into space, at least today. Though even if we launched it towards the sun, there is the possibility of the solar winds burning up the materials and actually sending them back to Earth, and we wouldn't want that. A better alternative would be to send the waste AWAY from the sun into space. And no, you wouldn't have to stop the Earth from spinning. We have these things called *computers* that can accurately calculate projectile motion and plot out when and where it should be launched and at what angle/velocity in order to reach its relative target.
I suspect the radiation from burnt-up materials, blown from solar winds would be insignificant compared to gamma and cosmic rays. Then there is the Earth's magnetosphere which helps to protect us from baking to a crisp wafer
*****
Yes but remember the Sun's cosmic rays are in the form of electromagnetic radiation. If solid fizzle particles of nuclear waste were to enter the atmosphere, this would be a problem.
greg77389 cosmic rays are not "in the form of electromagnetic radiation" - that's gamma rays, cosmic rays are particles. This is all academic, the cost to take into orbit and place on trajectory towards the Sun would be too expensive.
*****
Yes but the particles the Sun emits themselves are what is dangerous. With the solid fizzle materials, the particles are not dangerous, but the radiation they emit is. For example, unstable Uranium is not dangerous, but the the alpha particles it emits is.
haa finally a clever guy, obviously to sent thousands of tons in the sun firstly we would have to build a huge spaceship or additionally a lot of small ones, which a clever guy like greg77389 understand how expensive is and that with the methods that we use now are much cheaper
Just dump it all in a place where nobody would notice the difference...
I suggest Jersey.
***** It's already a barren desert planet. When we get to terraform it, it'll accelerate the evolution of native 'new' species. :D
Peusterokos1 We wont be terraforming it for a long time, we might not even do it... we don't even know how to do it yet. We don't even have the technology to do it either.. and there chance of life being there is slim to none so i'm sorry to burst your bubble but it's the truth...
*****
Exactly and we don't know how to create a new force there to hold in the atmosphere so if we went there and made are own it would be a waste of effort because it would simply get blown off by solar wind.
Kevin Price How fast would the process be of solar winds blowing away the atmosphere? All you need to do is replenish gasses as they are blown into space.
NJ is a lot nicer than you think. Seriously though, Bury it under a mountain.
Would just dumping it into space really be a bad idea? It is pretty much endless..
The main concern is the presence of the radioactive waste, not the particles it produces, so if we were were somehow able to get all high level nuclear waste launched out of the atmosphere at a distance where Earth's magnetic field is negligible, it would be fine for us living withing the protective properties of the Earth's magnetic field, but there would be concern for astronauts.
***** Aah okay, I see :/
What would the problem be if we missed the sun?
***** I don't even know where to begin.
- Elements don't "mutate", not even in space.
- Space is vast. It's really big. If you imagine our planet was the size of an apple, all of our satellites would be within millimeters above its surface. Accidentally hitting ourselves with an errant rocket aimed at the sun would be -about as- *way less* likely -as- *than* hitting yourself in the back of the head by launching a ball at the horizon.
check how Ison fared, and it MISSED the sun
RBuckminsterFuller he just made a reference to the film: iron invader.
The nuclear waste would simply continue on in a highly elliptical orbit around the sun. Due to it's size, it would be incredibly unlikely for it ever impact Earth, and even if it were to, the material would likely burn up in the atmosphere. So basically, nothing of any considerable risk would happen.
lol
Stop using uranium and start using thorium.
Yeah please do :) We Norwegians have filthy amounts of thorium in the ground, ripe for the taking :) I think they need more efficient reactors to really take advantage of thorium though?
Magnus Svensen
Thorium is four times as common as uranium. But yes, we do need to do more research in this field.
***** That will probably never happen, big brother and corporations don't like things that are common, efficient and affordable.
***** Im holding out hope that the internet will slowly make people smart enough to realize whats going on around them. So far so good, we have been getting smarter on average. Now I just wonder how long it will take until we wake up and take action.
I'm from saturns, I was born in there. So I know a little bit about Sun.
First.. The sun is not a glare, which makes the glare is a layer of the sky (atmosphere) in the earth;
1.Troposphere,
2.Stratosphere,
3. Ozoneosphere,
4.Mesosphere,
5.Termosfer,
6.Ionosfer,
7.Exosphere,
The occurrence by refraction of light, like the light that bounces from the mirror.
If you don't believe that you can go to space and see the sun directly, you will not feel the glare.
Second.. the sun is hot on the outside, but cold on the shaft or center of the sun.
That's why the sun has a lot of Hydrogen and Radiation Elecktromagnetics Waves on the sun orbit that is surrounded by electromagnetic waves (ring of planet).
The sun is also like saturn (my place), only the difference is rings on saturn is visible so you can see my ring because created by giant rocks, whereas the sun created by elecktromagnetic waves therefore you cannot see ring of sun.
Third.. If America / Russia trying to nukes the Sun, not yet coming in to Sun your Nuclear is not working (malfunction) because the ring of elecktromagnetic waves by Sun.
And the sun will not be easily crushed because it is made by solid material.
The hard rock sun is 1 million times the hardest thing on earth.
Nuclear Weapons are created from Hydrogen material which is integrated by Uranium material, and neutralized by sea water. That's why the Nuclear lodge is not far from the sea water.
Hydrogen meets with Hydrogen what will hapening ??
It is will make the sun getting stronger and hot because it absorbs hydrogen energy from the Nuclear.
The impact is earth will getting hot within 10 years, the north pole and the south pole will melt entirely. i'm not joking.
You can try..
In May 2011 the NASA team recorded a comet / meteor ever through a solar orbit and hit the sun but nothing happened just a small eruption on the surface of the sun.
And in August of the same year.
Meteor with a speed of 1.3 million Miles per hour has also hit the sun.
If the sun is not of solid material, maybe a fraction of the Stone from sun is already crush and flying into space, but this is not happening.
The news was not published, but it was true.
So.. please dont try it..
if it blows up during launch we will die
Lol
+Anderson Max the fuck is so funny
I don't think you know how atom bombs work?
Your lack of understanding Nuclear Fission
oml
Of the spent nuclear fuel, its only about 1% that is actual waste. About 95% is U238 (the same thing we put in) and U235 (also stuff we put in). About 1% is Plutonium witch can be used for weapons, but also for new nuclear fuel. About 1% is useful stuff as Molybdenum and Neodymium. About 1 % or so have a somewhat short lifespan of weeks to months that we can simply wait for (and do so in the intermediate pools). Also additionally about 1% is different kinds of other semi stable uranium isotopes.
The last 1% is the really nasty stuff like strontium an cesium. Actually Cesium is about half cesium 134 with a somewhat short lifespan of 2 year. Waiting 10-20 years virtually remove this part to. So left is less than 1 procent that is actual waste.
Also, launching nuclear waste in to space is not so much of a problem that most people might thing. Nucleate space reactors have been used for decades without someone complain about it. There have actually been some crashes of nuclear satellites with some degree of contamination.
Designing containers so no contamination is made if the satellite craches is really no big problem. A nuclear powered Ion or Plasma rocket can be used to feulefficently bring the fuel to intercept the sun. The rocket can make a 8 month or so burn, than drop the cargo and make a additional 8 month burn to catch up with the earth for refuling and a additional load.
In contrary to what they tell you in the clip, you cant burn the spent nuclear fuel with a rocket....
Also, low level of radioactive waste is already today burnt in incinerators where there is special ceramic filter catching all the radioactive bi products, letting out things like water and CO2.
What is "Plutonium witch"?
Cynthia Avishegnath Its like a uranium witch, but one unit heavier.
Cynthia Avishegnath
It's a witch made of pure plutonium, very dangerous, very fizzle.
She can cast nuclear spells on you.
At least there is one other person on the internet that actually knows how nuclear reactors work.
I think the issue is more the weight. And high grade nuclear waste in large quantities, falling back to earth is a bit different than a smallish reactor. The thing is, like you said, new reactors have stuff with shorter half life. There is also some talk of trying to repurpose waste to be a seed reactor for fusion. Using the latent heat to basically start the fusion reaction. Bill Gates has a challenge up for that.
Pretty intreasting stuff.
I came here only for the comments
Pink Ribbon ha same
Same
No one cares
Soul breaker 234 Then go away
To point out something - you kinda ignored orbital mechanics. Sure, if you point directly towards the sun it will take a ton of energy. Thing is, interplanetary transfers aren't made like that. The idea is to burn retrograde (against your direction of travel) in relation to the object the target is orbiting. This will slow your orbital velocity and as a result reduce your perihelion. While it still takes a lot of fuel to lower your perihelion by burning retrograde, it's a lot more viable than burning straight towards your target.
It would take 4 times less fuel,but still,it would take a lot of fuel
ze62948
Interesting that you mention an exact amount.
I'm running this experiment in Kerbal Space Program, so the individual values won't directly match. Anyway...
In KSP, it takes 53199 m/s of DeltaV (a 53199 m/s change in velocity) to reach the sun by burning directly towards it. Burning prograde on the day side of Kerbin (retrograde in relation to the Earth-analog's direction of travel), it takes 5441 m/s DeltaV, about one tenth of the change in velocity. If two identical spacecraft were launched and one burned directly towards the sun while the other executed the retrograde burn, the spacecraft executing the retrograde burn would use about one tenth the fuel of the one thrusting directly towards the sun.
1/10 ? Well,that kinda changes it,but still,it would be much more cost efficient to just bury the nuclear waste,i said 4 times just because Scott Manley mentioned it,i thought it was a "universal" number.
ze62948
The problem with burying it is that it doesn't contain the radiation, plus it's a waste of perfectly good actinides. A better long-term solution is to reprocess it.
Taking into consideration orbital mechanics, did you know it takes more energy to get a mass into an orbit close to the Sun than to send it out of the solar system? We'll never dispose of anything in that manner for that reason. Anyway, our so-called "spent nuclear fuel" can be bred into fissionable fuel by advanced reactor designs, to get seven or more times the energy out of it than we've been able to get thus far. But as we know nuclear power carries risk, even with proposed new designs that supposedly "can't melt down" as our current Gen I and Gen II reactors sometimes do.
Also, nuclear waste may not be "waste" forever, we may find a way to effectively recycle it, reduce it down to a less dangerous form.
Throughout history we have found that what previous generations thought was a useless liability, to next generation found so valuable they couldn't imagine anyone wanting to get rid of it.
yeah totally, turn radioactive waste into fertilizer? or some plastic bottle? no it does not work that way. I understand what you are trying to say but... the universe does not work this way unfortunately. Radioactivity does not just go away. 100,000 years at least is what it takes for it to become some what safe. Although the second part was alright. But it will not be valuable until humans lose their knowledge of what nuclear waste and radioactivity is. Because "almost"
no one today would want it.
***** "turn radioactive waste into fertilizer?"
Don't be dense, find a way to use it as nuclear fuel. Have you any idea how much radioactive isotopes are used in medical imaging?
You don't understand what you are saying, you don't understand how prompt fission may greatly shorten the period of radioactivity... or we may find a way to usefully extract the energy of low temperature radioactive waste so it isn't a waste, it can be used as a fuel.
Treblaine
There are types of reactors than can use dense nuclear wastes, the transuranic elements can be burnt in breeder reactors, though many of them were shut down due to their creation of plutonium, which they fissioned for fuel.
I get this ad every time and it won't load it's so fucking annoying
Same! Must be hacks
Use uBlock Orgin, much better.
Why do people not have it?
Loads faster, smoother and altogether, BETTER.
K sounds convicing
Clorox Bleach Yea, the people who make the ads should drink you!
WHY DO I KEEP SEEING YOU
Ok so why don't we solve the problem of rockets blowing up by launching it from a point that is alredy radioactive? I mean, like the islands where they tested the nukes back then, or other places where nuclear explosions alredy happened?
if the rocket were to explode, it would release all of the radioactive dust into the atmosphere, thus spreading the radiation very far
I think ppl live there now
Nuclear waste is mostly usable stuff, plutonium and uranium 238, plus some fission products(useless, but also not very long lived) and some other transuranics(possibly useful). It should be used in fast reactors, like the one Russia is operating(BN 800).
CANDUs were able to burn off the "waste" from either the American BWRs or Soviet RBMKs for like 40 years now.
Only problem is that they still produce highly radioactive waste after burning off U238 and Plutonium.
Except that much of it is. It's called reprocessing and there is ongoing research as to how it can be utilized. Thus is one of the many reasons that deep repository storage facilities are still considered our best option.
+Deraken I also might add that the long-life nuclear storage facilities are safer for workers (as in Bq exposure) than working outside in the sun. Geiger counter FTW!!!
So why the sun then? Can't we just shoot it off into space in some other direction?
***** Or it ends up destroying an alien civilization
Dovahchief9075 /)(\ Or until we lose mars.
I would have the feeling that it would become like the episode of Futurama, where the trash ball is on an orbit back into the earth.
+Benjamin Hershey
Darth Vader and Captain Kirk may disagree.
***** i can see it hundreds of years from now thousands of kgs of nuclear waste rain down on the Earth… not a pretty sight haha
We just need to use LFTRs instead of the current type of nuclear power plant. With LFTR they give out less waste and can actually reduce the current amount of waste we have by quite a bit.
or we could just use an LFTR, that form of reactor has virtually no waste, can't melt down since it's already liquid, it's not put under pressure, is easily cleaned up, does not cost large sums to build. an LFTR is the best energy source on earth. contrary to popular belief we have actually built one. the LFTR that was operated at oak ridge ran flawlessly, never needed man based intervention. made virtually no waste. The waste it produces is used to restart the reactor resulting in zero waste. if something happens it takes man to keep it going. if power is lost the room temperature salt plug heats up, melts and the reactor drains into separation tanks and shuts down. The worst accident possible is a salt leak,this is and can be contained. the danger is from heat not radiation.
why do we not use this design, because you can't make bombs with Thorium. Thorium is not a good source of boom. It's safe at room temperature to hold in your hand and a bucket of dirt from your yard contains enough to power your life from start to finish.
True, probably a bad idea to strap nuclear material to the front of a rocket. That's what we call a "nuclear missile".
What I don't get though, is why we would have that much harder time hitting the sun than we do hitting Mars or any other planet. Don't we already have to cancel out our orbital velocity to launch rockets at other planets? Relatively speaking, the sun is stable compared to us. It's not moving independent of the Earth like the other planets are, and we've managed to hit them just fine. Also, it's a significantly larger target than all of the other planets combined.
A nuclear missile is tipped with a bomb. The material in nuclear waste is not nearly fissile enough to explode. The problem is the radiation from it.
As for getting it to the sun, the real problem is angular momentum. Any material leaving Earth has about 4.5 x 10^15 Nm/kg of angular momentum, pretty much all of which must be shed to get to the sun. Other planets in the solar system orbit the sun in the same direction we do; so, the necessary change in angular momentum to get to them is actually smaller than that necessary to get to the sun.
Nuclear waste can be reacted down in Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors. While generating useful electricity.
yep. i love thorium.
yep. i love thor...
Exactly
Forget nuclear waste! What about our pollution!
um... nuclear waste IS our pollution. 100% of nuclear waste is created by people.
lets throw the pollution at the sun!!!!
technically not true... there are plenty of radioactive materials created in nature.
SK N Bye bye pollution!!!
Louis Suguitan agreed
I have one question for you. Could we build a rocket that uses light frequencies that continuously hit the bottom of the rocket to push it upwards?
No
Why waste the "waste"? Those "spent" fuel rods have only had a small percentage of their Nuclear Material consumed in current reactor designs... that high level waste is like the charcoal left after partially burning a piece of firewood...
WHY DON'T WE JUST USE THORIUM AND NOT WORRY ABOUT NUCLEAR WASTE
exactly stupid military back then. should have used thorium all along.
The idea was actually pitched back then, but due to the fact that Uranium could promise a nuclear bomb, that is why they go for it. We could use it today, but we would need to build new or adapt current nuclear power plants for thorium and that cost money, and we all know that when money is in the game nothing is getting done.
thumps up for trusting man who has underpants top of his pants
Every step of sending waste into sun is impossuible but still however imagine if you able to send nuclear waste in to sun and what if sun expload or extinguish? then we fucked up.
I agree, as only one chance to find out. 😁
Hide the stuff in a disused mine in an area with low amounts of seismic activity. Cover it in a concrete coffin. Forget about it for a couple of centuries. Problem solved.
Are you stupid?
TheLarryStudios hmmmm.... possible... but i think its a great idea!
So... Exactly what they're already doing..?
Jakub Hasil Yup.
mason water TheLarryStudios they're already doing that
We really need a video to explain how unrealistic this idea is?
Evidently
James Monahan It's not, stupid bitch
DevPitcher the stupid bitch is the one that insults someone for no reasonable reason
He just explained it. The cost of calculating how the rocket will fly to the sun is no joke. plus if there's any screw ups and the waste ends up crashing into the ocean, it's gonna be worse than the lost of a few human lives.
Space elevator. Until we develop one in a hundred or so years space travel will always have a high cost. Until then sending waste into space is not cost effective.
It stands for grammar.
The year before the Wright brother's first flight a newspapper stated that the technology needed for such an aircraft wouldn't be available for ten billion years. I understand how it may seem like it'll take a long time for the technology necessary for a space elevator to be developed & for the funding for it the be gathered however I believe that it can be done in less then fifty. Only time will tell who is right.
You wouldn't necessarily have to cancel the Earth's orbital velocity, you'd just have to send it into a decaying orbit around the sun. Which, yes, would still require quite a lot of energy, but as long as it was sent in a sun-ish direction, away from the direction of the Earth's travel, it would eventually fall into the sun's gravity well. In order to maintain a stable orbit an object has to continuously travel at a speed determined by the object's distance from the center of gravity. In this case, in order to achieve a stable orbit closer to the sun than the Earth is, you would have to travel faster than the Earth. So as long as it travels slower than the Earth, it'll eventually fall into the sun.
You're still right about how much energy/how expensive it is to actually escape the Earth's gravity though. All the more reason to get to work on that space elevator!
Even if we do miss it, it is no longer our responsibility. Let what ever aliens worry about it when it burns up in their atmosphere. lol
thats what aliens are planing to do to
Except then you've just sent it on an orbit around the sun, which is probably not good...
AV3NG3R00 Burns up eventually.
Sunny Wu "Burns up eventually" yer probably in Earths atmosphere, when it slingshots around the sun and straight back at us.
Toad Roach Lmfaooo I had the same thoughts + rockets accidents
Build an elevator to space and put all the waste in space.
It has to clear orbit. If it falls back to Earth, it will spread on reentry and pollute our homes. Use a magnetic coaster to launch it out of orbit.
I throut about this. If there is a space elevator it is much safer and easier to get things into space and easier to launch it to the sun. But space elevator now is only a concept not sure when it will acturly buid. and by that time we may find a better way to clean those wast
even if you had a elevator that went way out past our atmosphere. when you pushed off the waste, it would fall directly back to earth because it is not in orbit. You are not weightless in space...you are continually falling.
yes, but the space elevator is fix on the surface of Earth and rotating with Earth so if the Elevator is high enouph certanly the rotating speed on the end will excess escape velocity
Interesting thought. I wonder if that is true. I guess that the elevator could go high enough so that the moons gravity would have more pull that the Earths so problem solved. you would just have to time the push off.
Beware folks, I like my own comments.
Launch my shit at the sun
Spinster Jones did u know that your poop (Shit) is being recycled into a useful thing for plants and that they use it for free? It means even your shit is useful my friend specially for plants growth!
XD didn’t think it was possible to ROAST the SUN
Perhaps, before we consider dumping more crap in space, we should think about cleaning up the worrying amount of high velocity space junk that the ISS and many other satellites are forced to avoid frequently.
+Darph Bobo The US, clean up their messes? Blasphemy!
What would putin do?
+Darph Bobo Throw his at the USA.
Yep, Jupiter is good at sweeping up stuff that might hit us,
+Kyle Dixon I'm no expert so what I'm saying is probably wrong, but since jupiters Gravity is so high I have a feeling that it might slingshot the waste around itself aiming back towards us. (Giving it a dangerous velocity of it hits us)
i'd toss the waste at venus, allot closer, and we will never be able to make much use of venus. regardless though it is prohibitively expensive even it you just shoot it at venus when we are closest.
Prince Valiant Thor would not like that. lol
one problem, he doesn't exist.
kght222
another problem, venus doesn't exist. lol
screamengine
ehh? second planet from the sun is named venus right? i suppose i must be trans dimensional and you happen to be in a universe where earth is the second planet from the sun.
screamengine if you're talking about the planet Venus. Then you have a problem....
For starters, the concept of launching that much stuff into space is, at present, laughable, and if it exploded on it's way up, we'd be absolutely screwed. However, if we look past these problems, my question is this; why is everyone so fixated on shooting it at the sun? Just shoot it off into space. As long as we get it well out of our orbit, there is nothing and no one it could harm while it is radioactive. It doesn't matter where it goes, as even in the incredibly unlikely event that the waste somehow makes its way to a star system with life in it, it will have taken thousands, perhaps millions, of years to get there. At that point it would be nothing but a worthless pile of space junk to confound its finders.
I think the general reason is because people would complain we are polluting space. but who's to say that it may find a 1 in a billion chance and get ricochet right back at us while its still toxic.
You did not mention that the cost of launching things to space might drastically reduce if we have the space elevator.
The future will hopefully be fusion so we don't have to deal with this all together.
*****
You are castrated so I bet my money on the contrary.
ManicMindTrick
The future looks bright.
solar will take over first its already happening in country's like Germany. fusion will take a lot longer to really get going most likely the kind of reaction with fast protons released will be used to allow very efficient conversion of the energy to electricity and negate other problems.
This dude's hair...
Electrifyer809 Look at The top of his head
yeah!
It looks better than yours dumb ass
The #1 reason is because it's too risky. A rocket could explode at any point, and often did. It would blast fallout over a large area.
Rocket too dangerous? Yet we transport it on our highways, trains, and airplanes?
Do we really need to bring out statistics here?
Knight Mason Hey, you're talking about the rockets inside the earth. I'm agree with David Lafleche . Just imagine when the rocket full of radioactive thing explode in earth's orbit or atmosphere.
faris ekananda Kind of like what China does with testing nukes in orbit?
Communists are homicidal maniacs. They are brilliant at designing weapons and murdering people, but are clueless about everything else. They think they're playing "King of the Mountain," and in the process don't care who dies or how many.
Knight Mason Absolutely not. Nuclear weapons detonated high in the atmosphere have very little to no radioactive fallout. Fallout is the dust, rock, ash, and other materials that are thrown into the atmosphere by the nuclear explosion itself. When detonated high in the atmosphere or in space, the radioactive particles dissipate very quickly.
Of course, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are incredibly different processes that share very little in common. We need better nuclear education in America!
yeah, but it's only the 3% you talked about that is the most interesting to throw to space. the rest has lower decay time and its the least radioactive. also, that part specifically might be reused with new reactors, and made into nuclear waste with lower radioactive life. you also said it is expensive to launch, but how does it compare to the initial cost and running costs over time of storing it? don't think that comparison is very unfavorable to launching it. all in all is only the safety that is an issue, and that is also improving. it'd be nice to know exactly how catastrophic a failed launch would be, in comparison to a storage site suffering and earthquake, and if the launc were to be made from ie a desert (not like there are launch pads there, yet, but maybe soon) or a dying lake or other mass water for the purpose.
Let's use SCP-1543-J!
Why would we have to cancel Earth's orbital velocity? As was said in the video it would only have to get close to the sun so it doesn't have to go in a straight line directly at the sun. We could put it in a small orbit around the sun instead.
To even get close to the sun, you would also have to cancel out the majority of earth's orbital velocity, it would be easier to just send it out of our solar system
Have you ever heard the term "it's not rocket science"? Well, this stuff is rocket science. It isn't as simple as launching an item straight to the sun.
Try Kerbal Space Program. After a while you'll understand why you don't understand it.
Because to get the nuclear waste towards the sun you need to de-orbit it, which involves cancelling out the angular velocity of the earth, getting it into a small orbit only uses a little bit less fuel than getting it into a collision course.
HAVE YOU NOT PLAYED KSP?
Polypoly06
Actually, rocket science isn't all that complicated, it's all the gravitational physics that's tricky.
We could miss the sun... That says it all.
How'd you like it if a satellite from an Alien race came floatin' by and we got all excited about it only to find that it was filled with deadly diapers and underwear?
Space is so mind-boggingly large and mind-boggingly EMPTY--so very, very EMPTY--that I don't think this would be a concern. At all. Lesso given nuclear halflife and the fact that the nuclear waste would be traveling far, far slower than the speed of light, if/when it happened to stumble upon a planet outside our own solar system, statistically it'll be... well a rather long, long time away and many halflifes should have passed by, rendering the material(s) safe.
About 20 years ago
A Big Ass asteroid hit Jupiter
Jupiter just ABSORBED it !
It is so MASSIVE it just Took The Hit !
There was only a dark spot left
Yea , the Sun is MUCH larger and it would be the same effect
I for one Love the idea
Why don't we just send it to the Flanders?
why the hell is everything about pollution happening in 2020?!
Sushi Kimchi it's just common to use 2020 as a snapshot date when talking about long-term activities or phenomena.
Surely instead of cancelling the earth orbital velocity you could just account for it, launching before the rocket is pointed at the sun
play KSP a bit and you'll see how that doesn't work
KSP is a miracle in teaching how orbits work. I recommend it to all science teachers.
On topic: launching before the rocket is pointed at the sun would cancel the earth's orbital velocity, so you basically just rephrased the problem.
chsxtian And if you cancel the velocity of earth the earth will not be in orbit any more and then we will crash into the sun and die...
AirealAce2
What the heck are you rambling on about?
AirealAce2 with canceling the velocity of the earth i didn't mean that you should stop the earth itself; If you escape the earth with a rocket, you travel about 11 km/s *relative to the earth*, since the earth travels at around 30 km/s around the sun, you'd still travel at least at 19 km/s relative to the sun. In order to reach the sun, you'd have to slow down to a speed that allows you to fall back to the sun.
I honestly never thought what would happen if the rocket was unable to get into orbit, let alone make a sling shot for the sun. Good video.
Why throw it towards the sun? Kids in Africa could eat that nuclear waste.
srsly, stop that fucking joke
+Francis Velasco Lol, yeah it's pretty annoying.
+Francis Velasco. kids in africa can eat those jokez
+Lua Education I never laugh on these jokes, but this one made my day xD I thought something serious will come and then this xD
I don't get the jokes anymore I mean I went to Nigeria plenty of foods.
I was always wondering why we didn't just take our garbage from dumps and launch at the sun. Sigh.
i agree, but only for the non recyclable materials only
coz we could re use like... lots of that garbage.. I think? Right? Wouldn't that be a huge waste? :(
I was following all of this and some good points where made until he said Hitting the Sun Aiming and Hitting the Sun wouldn't really be that hard. First off, The Sun is Huge. Im no Planetary expert or anything but last time I checked You could fit at least 1.3 Million "Earth's" inside the Sun, and the Diameter is about 100X the size of earth. with that being said.... Mars is about 1/2 the size of Earth and we were able to successfully launch and land a Rover on Mars. Mars is further away from us (140 million miles) and the Sun is closer (92 Million miles or so) So what would make aiming and hitting the Sun so hard??? oh, and so much energy and time to "Cancel Earth's Orbital Velocity" are you really serious? It's called a Trajectory, that's something the Nasa guys and Rocket scientist are paid to figure out. They do it in there sleep.
Orbital mechanics is weird if you've never worked with it. you can't just fire straight at anything in space because it is all moving extremely fast and you'd be going huge distances over long periods of time.
Even the moon is far enough away that if you aimed straight for it, by the time you got there it would be millions of miles away from where it was. Imagine someone spinning a ball on a string as fast as they can and you try to shoot it with a dart gun. Then add in gravity and it gets much worse.
The absolute lowest energy way of hitting the sun is to fire the rocket in the opposite direction of Earth's orbit and cancel out the orbital velocity then let the sun's gravity pull it straight down. There are videos out there explaining why this is.
As for the sun's size:
The sun may be huge but it's a speck of dust in comparison to Earth's orbit and the distances the waste would be traveling.
One more thing. Mars is much closer or much further depending on our relative positions. Both the Earth and Mars move around the sun but at different speeds so the distances between us and Mars change constantly. Sometimes it is right next to us and sometimes it is on the other side of the sun.
It takes less energy to get to Mars than the sun even when Mars can be further away because of the nature of orbital mechanics.
everything moving around the sun travels in an oval shape or a circle shape. to get to any other point you have to change the shape of that oval orbit to match the orbit of wherever you are going.
Energy needed does not depend on actual distances but rather the differences in orbital shapes. As such Mars is much closer to Earth than the sun for a rocket scientist eve. when it is 2 times further away tj the rest of us.
it is big but it is also millions of miles away. it's not like firing an arrow at a target.
"How much do you a guy whose underwear is outside of his pants?" I laughed so hard😂😂
Because it is cheaper to bury them than strap to the rocket. Simple economics.
and safer. Rockets are still not very reliable, and if it explodes it creates an even bigger problem.
i completely trust a guy who wears underwear on the outside of his pants. he always knows if he's got a clean pair on.
lol
he's never got clean underwear on lol
+fleece johnson his mother died on Krypton before she could show him how to do laundry. lol
I shudder at the truth lol
You mean like mormons
Why don't we just send all of our nuclear waste to Idaho. Like, who the hell lives there?
mormon cults
Ko Kaine see, it's a win-win
Ko Kaine I take offense to this seeing as I live in Idaho and know that there are a lot of people that are not mormon. I'm not even mormon.
It's not like it hasn't happened before, the Magic Valley has a high rate of cancer and Parkinson's disease and other stuff compared to the rest of the U.S. Due, in part, to radioactive waste being buried above our main water supply.
Thomas Collins Well I feel sorry for you and the 6 other people that live in your great state then.
Hi, since we recently shot a probe to the sun, could you make an update on this topic?
we wont throw it to the sun cas it will create nuclear man XD
wtf? typo? Did you mean : A nuclear man - Im feeling lucky.
If you meant that it would create nuclear waste, believed it would explode, make the sun radioactive or sm shit
The sun is a giant nuke.
Pretty sure u can throw alot of shit in there before it even slightly changes. Try throwing a moon sized comet into it, maybe that could fuck it up
otherwise men do not currently possess the power to kill a star, i believe.
+wargarkaz opps typo XD and I totally agree with you
just crash a missile into it, wait a thousand years, it'll explode like the giant self-contained nuke it is
People ought to start building thorium nuclear reactors. That wouldn't solve everything, but it would help.
They are working on them. The major reason we are using uranium is because roughly 90% of all funding for science exploration some 60 years ago was funded by governments looking for military applications. Hence why uranium ws used as the bi-product could be weaponized. At the time thorium was even suggested as it is more common that uranium but given that there was no military applications it was not found as a viable use.
Phillip Watson I think it was plutonium that was the product that was the main thing they looked at and not uranium. They still use uranium in Thorium reactors but not plutonium which was the material that could be weaponized
We should build a space elevator to throw that stuff at the sun !
I have a question, why not try to find a process much like they have with uranium rods? finding new ways to essentially recycle radioactive material into a renewable source of energy until the radioactive material is completely depleted?
Pretty sure hitting the sun wouldn't be a problem. Haven't we sent multiple craft to mars? We also sent one to one of saturns moons right? That seems a bit harder to do than hitting the sun. I may be wrong.
But if it DID fail it would be a WAY bigger problem.
evangod3 so, we can build atomic bombs, that don't detonate when they drop "accedently" out of a plane and hit the ground after 4 minutes of flight and dont emite lethal or enviorment dangerous radtion but we can't build containments to keep radioactive waste safe in case that the rocket comes down on us again? i get the point of concern but I don't like the "plague or cholera" of whats lets harmfull.
As he said it's very hard to counter the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun. This is quite a task as the rocket would have to accelerate to a wopping 108000 km/h to counter the orbital velocity. Around 15 times more delta velocity than required to go into orbit.
If we just pointed the rocket towards the sun it would just cause the rocket to go into a different orbtial parth, probably getting even farther away than earth.
Mars is quite much easier as it is also in an orbit around the sun and we can therefore just alter our orbit to hit mars, this requires way less speed.
well yes. but we have done it before. ot'S no impossable task. and on the other hand, would it be bad if the rocket would miss the sund and fly off into space? I mean, yeah, you could argue it's the same thing as discard your paperbag into the desert, who would care but still, would i matter to the galactic enviorment ?
Skoogy Dan
yep and i've been wondering if we could use it to help warm the planet up by dropping it down one hole till it go's critical and starts melting it's way to the core an ative volcano on mars should help thicken it's atomphere a treat
Don't allow Russia to launch waste. We all know how well their launches go lol.
Well at least they launch something.
www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2012/12/19/astronaut-chris-hadfield-reliability-soyuz/ 1700 launches
Rok Adamlje I agree that there are increasingly reliable rockets and such but even a very small chance of failure is very concerning. For example imagine if it exploded between stages while it was still in our atmosphere. That could essentially rain down high level radioactive material on a large region. Not really a pleasant thought.
They are launching and safely retrieving our American astronauts...look up Soyuz rockets.
jetiff88
Well since it would surely be in some sort of cask, the explosion itself wouldnt be a problem. Reentry maybe, and if it doesnt fall apart it has 90% chance of falling into deep ocean (equatiorial launch).
Nuclear energy is the best option for energy we have as far as clean energy vs efficiency & output ability goes. We could probably find tons of ways to use the waste, the problem is no one wants to allow the plants to even be built because of a lack of understanding about how nuclear energy & radiation works.
You obviously have no idea, thats for sure. For a start it's not clean, very inefficient when you look at waste etc. No one wants to build them because unlike you, they know what a disaster it is. What a stupid nothing comment you printed.
B5az5 It seems like you need to do some research & not just talk out your ass. See France get over 50% of their energy from Nuclear power. May I reiterate, FRANCE, the super eco-friendly country in Europe. Also if their such a disaster than why can people walk through Chernobyl without getting any more radiation than you would in a commercial flight? Japan has had more incidents with nuclear than any other country, yet they don't have too many wide-spread problems, pockets of deformities here & there, but nothing on a mass scale & only in the people who were right in the radius of the bomb blasts, which just so happen to be completely different than forms of releasing energy than what happens at nuclear reactors. We have uranium all over the place, dig deep enough under your house & I'm sure you'll find some. Why not just throw the east in the holes we dug it up from? There's less waste post-use than ore pre-use, so what do we stand to loose? Filling up holes we left in the ground with stuff that is as radioactive as it was when we dug it up? Also nuclear reactors produce more energy over a longer time than any type of energy I know of. Tell me a fuel that is financially viable that works in all regions that doesn't pollute that is better than nuclear energy & I'll concede the point after researching the power source, but until then coal, oil, natural gas pollute horribly & run out very quickly & are extremely volatile, solar still has issues with long-term diminishing returns, wind costs too much to maintain, no one has financially backed ocean-based-hydro because its harder to maintain than wind, river-based-hydro can go bankrupt if you have a year where the river dries up. I would love to back something that wasn't nuclear, but it is our only financially viable option that works in all regions, is safe & environmentally responsible.
SturFriedBrains RUBBISH......... Fukushima is a disaster and the only reason you say what you do is because the real information is totally suppressed, as it is with all this type of stuff. Throw it in the East, I'm presuming your talking about the Middle East and that's exactly what the U.S has done, using depleted uranium in small munitions etc. Look at what is happening to the people of Falujah and the birth defects etc and the U.S troops, shows how much uncle sam cares about its own. Yeah right, clean, safe, reliable. What a fucking joke. Everything you talk about comes from the perspective of economics, in the scheme of things economics should come a distant last down the scale of humanities needs with safety and protecting the environment high. France is anything but eco-friendly actually, they are using it because that's what they've got and sunk so much money into R&D etc they have to try and recoup that using the same economics model as you. Leave the shit in the ground.
B5az5 Yes the people of Falujah are being shot with depleted uranium, same result with lead bullets, but this way you get the benefit of RECYCLING! YAY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!
p.s. birth defects aren't caused by depleted uranium bullets as the receivers of these are dead.
JohniiWalkaUltraHypeness Someone's on a paranoia kick... Please tell me how long it takes for uranium to be "depleted", what % of the worlds original deposites of uranium are depleted, & finally tell me the difference between "depleted" & the waste product of reactors. Also uranium doesn't kill just by being handled, you'd have to be completely naked & cover yourself in Yellow Cake & stay there for a few days to ensure death years from now... Or ingest a desolved solution, and even then the chemical properties of uranium would kill you LONG before the radiation.
The only way to make the idea even worth considering would be two things we need. A larger orbital presence in space, meaning a larger space station. And an orbital elevator to cheaply get things into orbit. If we had those throwing nuclear waste at the sun would be a whole lot more feasible. But we aren't even close to having them at this point.
If not the sun, why not into a volcano? We don't even need to go to space for that. Why don't we put all garbage in volcanoes? It would just melt in the lava.
Sir, you get a +1 for being smarter than other idiots for not thinking this!
***** Many volanoes are dorment, also the majority of them aren't even near civilization. And what about non-radioactive garbage? Why don't we put that in volcanoes?