Why don't we just throw all our nuclear waste into the sun?
>>7684330
Cant afford it.
/thread
>>7684330
Delete this.
>>7684339
Yeah. Or if it blows up on the way out. Nuclear waste spread over hundreds of square miles. Fun fun.
>>7684330
Because it isn't easy to get to the sun. Thinking of it as "getting out of earths orbit and falling into the sun" is misleading. It is more like "having enough energy to stop going 30km/s"
>>7684338
Stop posting my waifu
>>7684330
wouldn't the waste contaminate the Sun
>>7684406
yeah it's be radioactive for hundreds o thousands of years
>>7684330
>Why don't we just throw all our nuclear waste into the sun?
Sure.
Do you think throwing it under-arm or over-arm is more likely to hit the 150,000 km/h velocity needed?
>>7684330
why dont we store nuclear waste on the moon?
Expensive, and rockets blow occasionally.
>>7684330
It takes a lot of energy to make things fall into the sun. If you don't understand this you probably believe that onece you get to zero G, you can gently "float" objects into the sun.
The most basic school level physics will tell you this would not work.
>>7684330
Because the sun will turn into the Hulk.Have you ever seen a sun to hulk transformation that shit ain't pretty
because this would destroy the sun, r u dumb
>>7684330
let's not waste our waste
maybe it's all useful stuff, we're just too retarded to find applications
>>7685650
>>7686238
A true classic.
High grade waste can be recycled into more fuel.
>>7684406
Yeah and then sunlight would have all sorts of harmful radiation.
>>7686570
You wouldn't be able to step foot on it for thousands of years the radiation would be so high.
>>7685650
What if we dumped all our trash on the moon with it? That sounds like a pretty swell idea. Opinions?
>>7684330
it would cost a fuckton of fuel to make a highly elliptical orbit from earths orbit to the sun just to make a trash dump
Take much less fuel to launch from the top of a skyscraper?
>>7684330
I have a dumber Idea guys!!
Why not dump into the core of the earth using the mantle subduction Systems?
When if finally cycles to the nearest volcano again, it will no longer be radioactive.
Win win.
I await my retard award!!!
>>7686712
this guy
>>7684330
Current rocket engines are quite ineficient and expensive. It wouldn't be cost-effective to haul lots of materials to outer space.
I know of only two feasible options for nowadays. Orion nuclear rockets, which are literally powered by nuclear shaped charges exploding beneath them, making them very ecologically and politically impossible.
A variant of it would be to use such charges as to propel the cargo inside a giant barrel, a nuclear-powered cannon. The aceleration would kill living beings, but would should be safe for nuclear waste. A "Nuclear Verne Gun".
Even if one ignores the treaty against nuclear bombs on space, good luck convincing people to get rid of nuclear waste exploding more nuclear bombs.
>>7687041
How about using fusion bombs?
>>7686752
dude lol yes
out of sight out of mind amiright!!? lol!~
but I have 1 up on u, that all sounds really complicated. u could just dump it in the cracks in antarctic ice! it'll be gone like literally forever, how could it ever cause problems frozen way down there? I mean the ocean is so big anyway that why even not. i just dump all my trash in a local river and it works fine so far. but could we just burn nuclear waste neway?
u guys are all thinking too complx. the rel genious makes up the simplest solution.
>>7687066
We don't have pure fusion bombs yet, they start with a fission process to ignite the fusion itself, so, they remain radioactive.
>>7686712
Ooh, even better! From the top of a mountain! Because either place is a feasible location to drag a rocket to for launch!
