Why dont they send garbage into space instead of polluting our planet?

Answer 1

The cost. It is incredibly expensive to send each kg of stuff into space. If it ever drops in price then they might.

Answer 2

In space where? In orbit? Anything in low earth orbit (400 to 500 km, the altitude of the space station) will eventually come back down. Put it in higher orbit, and it will be a potential threat for any satellite orbiting there.

But there is more to it. Firing a rocket into space require huge amount of fuel. For instance, if you want to put one tonne in orbit, you need a rocket that weight almost 100 tonnes at lift off, 80 to 90% of that mass being fuel. And the spent rocket, weighting about 15 tonnes, what happens to it? It mostly falls back on earth as more garbage?

Pollution is not about what, it is about where. Mercury, for instance, is a valuable commodity, so spent mercury should not be disposed of carlessly in the environment, it should be captured, reclaimed and recycled. Garbage is a valuable ressource, it is richer in some metal than the best raw ores.

Answer 3

no one elses garbege has ever lkanded on earth so we dont know

and we dont want to be the first to pollute someone elses planet until its the last resort

but what it really is is people act like that garbage isnt the same stuff they thought was reverse gabage before they got it

so if we trew away our planet wed have to follow it because we wouldnt have a planet any more

let me say that clearwer

if we didnt have a planet wed have to follow the trash

so that still is a good idea

Answer 4

WHAT???!!! and polluting our space???
shame on you!!
just kidding
it cost alot of money to send anything in space
NASA is poised to relax rules governing the disposal of waste generated by space station operations. Objects deemed safe for release will be jettisoned into space, with most failing back towards Earth to eventually burn up in the upper layers of the atmosphere.

Most discarded items will burn up in the atmosphere. But until they do they pose an extra headache for NASA, already tracking 13,000 of the largest items to ensure they do not hit the space station.

Answer 5

When they figure out how to get off the earth without having to use very expensive fuels to blast off with, like for example anti gravity devices or the such.

Until that time, the cost would be too prohibitive to ship garbage out there.

So for now, we're stuck with the problem of what to do with all our garbage.

Answer 6

Lets send MAN into space instead of him polluting YA.

Answer 7

What people said about the expense is probably the biggest factor.

But let's think about something else for a second.

Garbage is a natural resource too. This is all stuff that we took out of the environment, processed, packaged, bought, used and threw away. This is all part of the same system.

It's the 'garbage' corpses of things that died millions of years ago that you're putting in your car everytime you fill up.

I think it would be incredibly short sighted to just chuck it all because it's not in a form we currently find useful or because it's a nussiance. Today's dirty diapers could very well be tomorrow's super-fuel.

The causes of many of out problems are rooted in lazyness and desire for one step solutions to complex problems. These almost always come back to haunt us in ways we never expected.

The answer to lazyness is not more lazyness.

Answer 8

because it costs super amounts of money to send anything into space and there isnt enough room to put much garbage into a space shuttle to be worth anything. but if it was a possibility it would be nice just to shoot it towards the sun or something like that.

Answer 9

"Why won't be able to we only deliver all this extra garbage into area?" *) this is too intense priced *) this is totally likely that any approach we've of doing so would fairly generate more desirable waste in the approach "isn't the linked fee of our planet properly worth more desirable than the linked fee of a dollar?" No. this is not "the dollar" it is properly worth some thing, this is the alternative use of that funds. it is more desirable ideal, spending a dollar attempting to launch some kg into area, or spending a dollar attempting to cut back the production of the waste in the first position? "there is not any room for more desirable landfills." fairly, there is. Many areas would fee more desirable to operate properly, yet there is numerous area accessible. "If area is countless I see no more desirable ideal selection than to deliver it accessible" which will be your opinion, although this is rather a lot easily no longer authentic. modern-day recommendations to garbage are chosen because they are decrease priced. the alternative is not only between modern-day strategies and shooting them into area. there are ways that are very different yet a lot less intense priced than area launches. you ought to carry out intense-grade incineration followed by using metal series and disposal at a fragment of the fee of area launch. it must be safer, and it may require a lot less potential. although, this is more desirable intense priced than dumping, so isn't used.

Answer 10

Just building one space ship and sending it to space costs billions of dollars. Filling it with trash and sending it to space would be a waste of money, plus it might just speed up, gaining velocity and come hurling towards earth like meteors. Big flaming balls of trash raining down would be a very bad thing.