Couldn't we get rid of our non-recyclable waste by sending it up to space in a giant net?

Question

And this business about global flooding, can't we just build a giant hose that sends the excess water into space too?

Answer 1

We could build a big catapult and send you into space as well! More useless junk got rid of.

Answer 2

Please tell me you're trolling...
Well, ok I'll bite.
All the life, material, AND waste on or in this planet is a part of this planet. While flushing a few scraps at a time into space may seem harmless enough, it sets a precedent that all waste can eventually be just tossed away. That's the mentality that got us that garbage your talking about in the first place! We need to change our thought process: There is no waste. There are only some materials we haven't figured out how to handle yet; but we will. Waste material was once useful material, so if we eject it into space, we in turn eject the useful stuff too, ... everything. Now THAT would be a waste.

Answer 3

A brilliant idea. You should start a new political party and call it "couldn't we get rid of our non-recyclable waste by sending it up to space in a giant net". It's a much better policy than the present lot have come up with.

Answer 4

They're in the process of building a giant escalator that will transfer our garbage off of the planet. If I remember right, they're also working on a method of sending water into space as well. Scientists believe that the water will freeze and form rings around our planet like Saturn, and the garbage re-entering our atmosphere will burn up and look like a continuous meteor shower. It's going to be so beautiful...

Answer 5

Global flooding is caused by global warming, so we need to turn earth's thermostat down. We can't send out junk into space because there is too much; if every rocket on earth was used, it would not even begin to make a dent.
What we need is for people to quit creating so much junk; be responsible, be green.

Answer 6

Yeah sure, why not. How much does a space shuttle cost, probably about a billion or so. Oh well, for a few trillion dollars we could have a fleet of garbage shuttles to put all our rubbish into orbit, then when we found a way to recycle it, we could go back into space and bring it all back.

Answer 7

It's from ideas like this that some of humanities greatest achievements have come about.

These particular ideas aren't practical due to the issues of scale and economy. Based on the costs of launching payload from the Shuttle, the cost of disposing of our garbage into space would run to $23 million per person per year.

It's probable that mass transport into space wouldn't rely on the Shuttle but would use electromagnetic propulsion, even if costs were reduced by a factor of 100 you're still looking at a scheme that is prohibitively expensive. Not to mention of course, the consequences of filling space with our garbage, undoubtedly all we'd be doing is creating an even bigger problem for future generations to deal with.

The issue with water is again one of scale and economy. To raise the sea level by one millimetre requires the addition of 3.5 trillion tons of water. Sea levels are presently rising at the rate of 3.1mm a year, that's the equivalent of adding a million tons of water to them every 3 seconds.

A couple of years ago I was asked to conduct a viability study into a scheme along similar lines. It was never intended as a viable solution to rising sea levels but as a potential future emergency measure. That scheme involved using powerful motors to pump sea water from the oceans deep into the Antarctic Interior, temperatures here are approx -45°C and water freezes immediately. The dollar coast alone ran into hundreds of billions of dollars a year and that's not to mention the environmental cost. Further it doesn't resolve the problem and only addresses one of the many consequences.

Develop your ideas and stick at it, you never know where it may lead to.

Answer 8

No the idea is just not practicable. Anyway even if we could it would have a negligible effect on future global warming! So the potential exhorbitant cost from our taxation of such an idea can be much so much more wisely deployed elsewhere for the benefit of mankind..

Answer 9

The cost of sending anything into space is measured in thousands of dollars per ounce so sending trash is not going to be economically feasible.

Why not just use less and have fewer things to throw away?

Answer 10

We produce so much waste, it would cost way too much. They considered this for removal of radioactive material, but then saw the risks of the rockets exploding in our atmosphere, contamination a whole seaboard or country. Plus, we'd be sending many resources out that may take 100's of years to replace.

Answer 11

No. That's not practical. Just think of how much money it costs just to send a small amount of really valuable stuff into space. How could we afford all that money to send garbage into space?