alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) (08/27/88)
This is a reply to a posting someone left here some hours before (lost the origional message, sorry) He said, he heard from one of his friends (dunno exactly), that it would be better to dump all the dangerous Plutonium into the sun to 'catch two birds with only one stone'. On one hand, his friend said, you would get rid of all the Pt on Earth in a clean way, on the other hand, you could send out some signs of live (Pt isn't normal in the Sun's spectrum, I guess) because of emissions caused by ionisized Pt. He replied, that it wouldn't be possible to leave terrestial orbit (if I understood right), because spacecrafts would be too slow to do the job, and all the Pt wouldn't be enough to send recognizable signals. In my eyes the idea to dump Plutonium into the sun could become reality. If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system, I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the sun, or not ? But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive) garbage to the sun ? Here in Germany, they don't know where to go with it. At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles 'cause they are (thankgod !) no longer needed to respond the 'threat from the other side'. Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ... Sending recognizable signals to other civilizations with those few tons of Plutonium we have on Earth isn't possible, I think. You won't find enough Pt in the whole solar system. And if you would dump so much of this stuff into the sun that there would be a possible success, this should affect the Sun's physics in a negative way, I guess. -- alderaan OP RKOpdp (RSTS/E) FB Mathematik/Informatik RKO Berlin Dieffenbachstrasze 60-61 1000 Berlin 61
dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) (08/28/88)
In article <1255@netmbx.UUCP> alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes: >.... >In my eyes the idea to dump Plutonium into the sun could become reality. >If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system, >I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the >sun, or not ? >But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive) >garbage to the sun ? Here in Germany, they don't know where to go with >it. >At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles >'cause they are (thankgod !) no longer needed to respond the 'threat from >the other side'. >Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity >field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ... >.... Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus. Someone mentioned that the required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second. Even ignoring this problem, though, there are other problems with dumping nuclear waste into space. The IRBM's (Pershing II's & SS-20's) simply don't have enough power to reach a nice stable orbit. You also have a problem in that you have to consider the possibility of a booster failing. 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? -- David Pugh ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep
jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) (08/29/88)
In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than >is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus. Someone mentioned that the >required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second. I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe Venus). You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_). >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! --Joe --
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (08/29/88)
Actually, I don't think we HAVE to get the dangerous stuff all the way to the sun. An orbital radius of maybe .7 AU (just inside Venus) should be plenty far enough away. Of course any orbital decay would be gratefully accepted. Still prohibitively expensive to launch the stuff on chemical rockets, I suspect; and I'd hate to be the Range Safety Officer if a launch went awry.... How about an electromagnetic launch and a fission motor to boost to "final orbit"? Let the waste be its own propellant. Southern Indiana and the Love Canal in Albany, New York could contribute some toxic payload, as well. -- -- bob,mon (bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) -- "Aristotle was not Belgian..." - Wanda
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/29/88)
In article <1255@netmbx.UUCP> alderaan@netmbx.UUCP (Thomas Cervera) writes: >If we can send spacecrafts to the inner planets of our solar system, >I think, it must be possible to let something like that crash into the >sun, or not ? Getting to the Sun is harder than getting to the inner planets. The problem is velocity, not distance. It is necessary to nearly cancel Earth's orbital velocity to put a payload into an orbit that intersects the Sun. This is beyond the capabilities of current Western rockets for any useful payload. Energia might be able to put perhaps 100 kg into the Sun, with suitable upper stages. [This is a very rough guess based on some recollections of Saturn V performance examples.] So it is marginally possible but ruinously expensive. >But if it's possible, why don't we send all our dangerous (radioactive) >garbage to the sun ? ... It's too expensive and the quantities are beyond current launch systems. Current launch systems also are not reliable enough for such dangerous cargo. Actually, if one must get the stuff off Earth, a better approach might be to crash it into some selected crater on the Moon. This would be a good deal cheaper and easier, and would permit recovery if the stuff later turned out to be useful. >At this time, U.S.A. and USSR destroy their expensive short range missles >Why don't they modify them to be able to leave the earth's gravity >field ? The payload could be Pt or other dangerous stuff ... [Two nits: these are medium-range missiles, not short-range ones, and the chemical symbol for plutonium is Pu, not Pt.] The payloads would be very limited, since these are not large missiles. In addition, the current treaty does not permit this use, and requires destruction of the missiles quite soon. In theory the treaty could be amended, but nobody wants to mess with what is (correctly) seen as a major triumph of arms control. The idea of using missiles as space launchers will be considerably more interesting if agreement is reached on major reductions in ICBM forces. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dave@viper.Lynx.MN.Org (David Messer) (08/29/88)
In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >In article <2818@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dep@cat.cmu.edu (David Pugh) writes: >>Unfortunately, it is much harder to drop something into the sun than >>is it have it orbit Mercury or Venus. Someone mentioned that the >>required delta-V was about 18 kilometers per second. > >I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to >send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe >Venus). You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this >is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_). Actually, the easiest way (the minimal delta-v orbit) is to do a flyby past Jupiter (you can get some boost from Mars on the way if you really want the minimum). Jupiter has enough mass to totally cancel the payloads heliocentric momentum and let it fall right in. Of course, if you are going to go all the way to Jupiter, why not let it drop right into the planet? -- If you can't convince | David Messer - (dave@Lynx.MN.Org) them, confuse them. | Lynx Data Systems -- Harry S Truman | | amdahl --!bungia!viper!dave | hpda / Copyright 1988 David Messer -- All Rights Reserved This work may be freely copied. Any restrictions on redistribution of this work are prohibited.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/30/88)
In article <2821@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) writes: >I don't have the necessary data handy, but it should be possible to >send something to the sun by shooting it near Mercury (or maybe >Venus). You might have to do some boosting near the planet, but this >is much more efficient than trying to do a drop (like in _Aliens_). Actually it has to be Venus, because our current boosters can't reach Mercury directly. (Mariner 10 got to Mercury via Venus.) I suspect it doesn't help enough. The best way to get really close to the Sun, in fact, is a Jupiter flyby (!). Remember, velocity is what counts, and Jupiter's gravitational field is so hefty that it does a much better job on velocity changes than Venus would. The problem with any such scheme, though, is that suddenly our trashcans can't be just inert lumps of metal. Now they need precision navigation equipment, plus power, plus communications, plus a propulsion system for course corrections. New failure modes also appear: what happens if you lose guidance on a trashcan before Jupiter flyby? >>The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste would probably be to >>use hard land it on the moon... > >Please don't do this! Why not? Assuming you have enough control to put them down within, say, 50 km of a specific aiming point, of course. -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu