till@didsgn.UUCP (didsgn) (08/29/88)
In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes:
] >The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to
] >use hard land it on the moon. Would it be possible to build a
] >railgun/mass-driver/etc. which could launch small (1kg) payloads
] >to crash land on the moon?
]
] Please don't do this!
Seriously, the idea doesn't seem that stupid.
Is your objection one of principle, or do you have specific reasons?
(I am not flaming- honestly! Just would like to know your opinion...)link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (08/30/88)
In article <387@didsgn.UUCP> till@didsgn.UUCP (didsgn) writes: >In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >] >The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >] >use hard land it on the moon. > >Seriously, the idea doesn't seem that stupid. The idea is SILLY! since: (1) it would cost WAY! too much (2) nobody in their right mind would allow hazardous! launches of very hazardous waste. Doesn't anyone out there remember the Challenger? It is much less costly and much less dangerous to bury the stuff in the arctic. ...Dr. Richard Link Space Sciences Laboratory University of California, Berkeley link@ssl.berkeley.edu