sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) (03/30/89)
1. I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids towards earth was really neat. Question: won't it be awfully hard to get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct? Even if we're going to be satisfied with getting it within (say) 15k km. from the center of the earth (assume we can easily recover anything in this range), isn't it going to be awfully hard to give the asteroid the correct velocity vector? Especially when you consider the awkward shape, distribution of mass of the critter (i'm thinking engineering here). 2. If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a merrily burning fusion reaction? Alternatively, shoot it into the center of the sun. Alternatively, shoot it at the stars. Why have we only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far? -ajay
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (03/31/89)
In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu>, sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes: > > 1. I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids > towards earth was really neat. [...] Nudging them towards the Earth is one thing, getting them to match the Earth's velocity is quite another! The alternative is to send them in a Hohman (sp?) transfer orbit to the Earth, this requires the minimum ammount of energy up front and at arrival. Still, we are talking about (for current technology) staggering ammounts of energy (for an asteroid worth mining). Stabilisation should not be a problem; it is made easier by good choice of propulsive site and automatic attitude control. > 2. If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't > it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a > merrily burning fusion reaction? Alternatively, shoot it into the > center of the sun. Alternatively, shoot it at the stars. Why have we > only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far? The Sun wouldn't notice, sending it into "empty" space is perhaps short-sighted. Anyway, no-one will get away with actually launching the stuff in the first place, for fear of an accident... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT | Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE" ("WHAT'S NEW") | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw) -----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------
ap10+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anand Patwardan) (03/31/89)
To: Outbound News <outnews+ext.nn.sci.space@andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Re: Two questions, Radioactive waste disposal The option of disposing radioactive waste into space has been thought of - off and on. The problem seems to be one of volume and weight; there is just an enormous amount of the waste lying around. If you consider that even getting 2000 Kg satellites into geo stationary orbits is a non-trivial task and all our planetary space probes are very light and compact; even getting a small part of the stuff out into space and ensuring that it does get into the sun(which seems the most feasible alt- ernative) will probably be very difficult. Perhaps when(or if) the space station is built, it will be easier to send packets of the "hottest" wastes into the sun ( or into orbits around other planets).... by launching them from space. Anand Patwardhan EPP, CMU ----------------
johnson@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Wayne D. T. Johnson) (04/01/89)
In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu () writes: > >1. I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids >towards earth was really neat. Question: won't it be awfully hard to >get the exact trajectory of the asteroid correct? Good thought, kind of like playing intergalactic billards with egg shaped balls. >2. If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't >it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a >merrily burning fusion reaction? Alternatively, shoot it into the >center of the sun. Alternatively, shoot it at the stars. Why have we >only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far? The only easy hot fusion that I know of (given my admittedly limited knowlage on the subject) is that in an H-Bomb, the side effects of this would be a bit dramatic (as well as noisy). The idea of launching the wastes into space has been thought of by others, but can you imagine what would have happened if the Challenger was carrying up a load of spent fuel cores. There would be radioactive pellets scattered about most of the eastern seaboard. Does anyone know how far away from the Cape that pieces of the Challenger were found? Even with the use of a rail launcher the risks would be high. There is still a chance that a structural failure or failure on the part of the power supply that could dump the load in the middle of someones lap. The idea is good but the risks make it unusable. -- Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665 NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or Roseville MN 55113 johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (04/05/89)
In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu () writes: >merrily burning fusion reaction? Alternatively, shoot it into the >center of the sun. Alternatively, shoot it at the stars. Why have we >only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far? "Shoot it" how? On a shuttle flight? There would be a lot more red faces if one of these babies blew up than there were over a few humans getting blown up on Challenger. Can you say "world wide atmospheric contamination"? Can you say "Environmental impact statement"? -- Jim Benz jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu If a modem University of Pittsburgh answers, UCIR (412) 648-5930 hang up!