why can't we dump waste into holes on the dark side of the moon?

Question

yes, i know about the treaties and rules created by us about polluting any object in space. but the moon is dead, will remain dead forever. it never rotates. the dark side of the moon is good for nothing. if we are going to spend so much money on exploration of outer space without receiving benefits for us yet, why don't we benefit ourselves by putting all waste, including toxic, into deep holes on the dark side of the moon?

MORE: if we have $ to put anything into space, why not stop off at the moon, dumping garbage? we do not, INSTEAD of spending $ to learn all we can abt eliminating waste, as well as abt how to cure horrid diseases (T cell research), medicinal qualities of plants; medicinal qualities of 10 BRAND NEW species of deep sea creatures discovered each day on a handfull of deepsea craft? i.e., why do we not spend $ on our own planet before we even allow ourselves to dump waste onto the far side of the moon? you see what i am asking/saying? who cares abt living elsewhere than on our beautiful Terra, the place from whence we came?

Answer 1

Instead of coming up with ultra-expensive ideas like sending waste into space, why not figure out a way to recycle garbage dumps? There would be an almost unending supply of material to "mine". With Earth's growing population we will need those resources sometime. Why get rid of them?
If someone could just come up with a way to create a new product from old newspaper.....

Answer 2

Here's two bad astronomy.

Bad Astronomy 1: The dark side of the moon is good for nothing.

Good Astronomy 1: The *far* side of the moon is good for nothing.

I'm going to assume that you've seen the moon for more than once in your lifetime. And there are phases, sometimes, the moon is full, sometimes it is only half-full. The dark side is called, well, you guessed it, the dark side of the moon. The dark side is the part of the moon you don't see but has to be there to complete a full circle. So it's not that a dog ate the moon, the moon is still there, it's just that the Sun is not lighting that part up. We as humans, are able to "see" (it's not always on the other side) the dark side of the moon. I'm pretty sure what you mean is the far side, the side we never see.

Bad Astronomy 2: The moon never rotates.

Good Astronomy 2: If the moon didn't rotate in the frame of reference of an outside observer, then we would eventually see all sides of the moon.

Imagine if the moon didn't rotate, but it would still revolve around the Earth. Think about this: get two people (you being one of them), you are the Earth, and the other person is the Moon. Ask that person to walk around you, but tell him/her not to change the direction he/she is facing. Now, while he/she is doing that, observe the "moon". Did you only see one side of that person? Surprise, you saw all sides of the person after he/she walked around you once. Now try the same experiment, but tell he/she to always face you when shuffling around you. Now, you only see one side of him/her. How many times did he/she rotate when she shuffled around you once? Once is the answer. The reason why the moon only show one side to us is because it rotates, once every time it revolves around Earth to the frame of reference of an outside observer.

Now, to the question. It would cost a lot to dump all that waste into the Moon. And the drilling process is just extremely expensive, just not worth it.

Answer 3

1. There is no 'dark side' of the moon. There is an 'other' side of the moon that we never see from Earth, but it gets sunlight about 15 days each month.

2. The moon does rotate, about once a month.

3. How do you know the 'other' side of the moon is good for nothing? For one thing, it's great for astronomy, because it would shield radio telescopes from all the man-made noise from Earth.

4. 'An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. Why don't we just learn not to produce so much 'trash' in the first place?

Answer 4

As the first poster said, explosions on takeoff would not be good, which is why nobody will get rid of atomic waste that way. Now if we did have a completely error proof system for getting to space, the most likely target would be the sun. Obviously whatever we send there will be destroyed and no risk of further polluting someplace we might go someday.

Though the real answer to this question is simply to stop creating so much waste.

Answer 5

Why not eliminate the waste in the first place by recycling? I'm not a big fan of the eco-whackos- and I have no problems with lowering the mountains, filling in the oceans, nukeing the whales, pave the oppossims and I would like to set up a MR&D labratory to see if Spotted Owl tastes like chicken (Early tests show its a cross between American Bald Eagle and Seagulls- both are protected species, however)

Just kidding,,,mostly. I do believe in "Earth First- We'll log the other planets later" however

However, to recycle waste is good business sense- why dispose of something if you can reuse it then sell it?

Answer 6

Bombs. Weapons!

We create nuclear waste so we can make bombs and other nuclear based weapons.

Why would we need to plug in products that once worked fine with springs and batteries. Your use of these products is an excuse to make more electricity. In turn more waste.

Who needs an electric water faucet? What good would it be in a blackout? They worked fine without electricity for years.

Have you noticed your cell is useless in a blackout too. Those towers are using electricity to wait for your call. The older land system only used electricity when you made a call.

Madness.

Because the moon is so close to the earth, changing its mass could potentially be a bad idea. Have you seen "Armageddon"?

Electricity was once produced with passing water through dams.
It created no waste I have ever heard of.

We are the creatures in the cage of our own making, can we get out? I hope so.

Good Luck!

Answer 7

Too expensive! Besides, the EPA and GreenPeace had a cow when NASA wanted to send up the latest satellite to Pluto because it had 50 pounds of nuclear fuel on board. The said that it would take 10 billion dollars to clean up the mess if the rocket exploded on the pad. If that was the case, they'd never let a rocket carrying 100 tons of crap leave the drawing board.

Answer 8

Because building a rocket capable of putting one ton of trash on the Moon costs at least several millions of dollars and can only be used once. Do you want to pay millions to dump one ton of trash instead of $10? Also, I bet the trash generated by constructing such a rocket is more than a ton. Heck, I bet the paperwork alone weights more than a ton.

Answer 9

Why do we keep on producing toxic waste? The idea of the moon being dead is just a theory, evidence of planets change all the time. I think people should stop producing toxic waste.

Answer 10

There would be a huge waste of money with space flights just going to dump rubbish off on the moon, besides why should astronauts risk their lives to dump rubbish in space.