BF had a BRIGHT idea! Check it out!?

Question

Would it be smart to send all our toxins and garbage to the sun? Everything would burn up without even hurting the sun! Then at least we could clean up our poor Earth. Or do you think there has to be some kind of ramifications? If so, like what? Or is it true that we are all brilliant at least once a year?!

Answer 1

How do you propose we get it there in a way that is cost effective and reliable?

Answer 2

>BF had a BRIGHT idea!

Really?

>Would it be smart to send all our toxins and garbage to the sun? Everything would burn up without even hurting the sun! Then at least we could clean up our poor Earth.

This doesn't actually sound like a very bright idea to me.

>Or do you think there has to be some kind of ramifications? If so, like what?

Like the fact that it costs about $4000 to send just one kilogram of material into orbit. The United States makes approximately 220 million tonnes, or 220 billion kilograms, of garbage every year. This would cost 880 trillion dollars to launch into orbit at present costs, and if we assume a little over twice that cost to get it into the Sun, that comes to about two quadrillion dollars of garbage per year. By comparison, the United States has a GDP of only about 13 trillion dollars. This means that the United States is producing garbage approximately 154 times faster than its ENTIRE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT can pay for. Similarly, the average american household earns about $48000 and produces about 208 kilograms of garbage per year. This means that if you are an average person living in the United States, the cost of launching all your garbage into the Sun is over 35 times your annual income.

>Or is it true that we are all brilliant at least once a year?!

If it is, then I guess your boyfriend had better get moving so he can be brilliant within the remaining 37 days of the year, because the above calculations show that he sure wasn't very brilliant today.

Answer 3

Lots of good answers here. The main problem is the cost of doing so - it currently costs tens of thousands of dollars per pound to launch something on the space shuttle. This isn't because of 'government inefficiency' (although the cost could probably be lowered a good bit) but because of how much energy it takes to escape Earth's gravity.

The safety concerns raised would also be very true. Many groups protest each time NASA launches a probe to the outer solar system because these probes are equiped with a radioactive sample of material being used as a power source. They are worried that a catastrophic launch failure would spread radiation throughout the atmosphere. It's possible, but not highly likely (it's never happened yet).

The breaktrhrough technology for using outer space as a dumping ground (be it in the sun or anywhere else) is space elevators. These would be much safer and cheaper to use than rockets. Then we could launch garbage containers from Earth orbit on low-energy slingshot trajectories around Jupiter to divert their courses into the Sun.

Answer 4

This might be a good idea for the really dangerous stuff like plutonium but you would need a high reliability rocket to launch it.

A lot of other dangerous stuff is fairly easily handled by chemical treatment. Some of it will burn leaving carbon dioxide and water, or a little sulfuric or hydrochloric acid. These acids can be easily handled with limestone leaving harmless calcium chloride and calcium sulphate. In some cases you don't have to burn it, treatment with sodium hydroxide / lye / caustic soda is enough.

For many years there have been high temperature incinerators in some parts of the world where dangerous chemicals were burnt. There were even ships called the "Vulcanus I" and "Vulcanus II" which carried furnaces aboard, these picked up the chemicals in one port and while traveling to the next would burn off the wastes.

Answer 5

The 'burning everything in the Sun' thing would work. However, the 'getting it there' part would be difficult.

The Earth is in orbit around the Sun at a speed (relative to the Sun) of 29.78 km/s (= 107,200 km/h = 67,000 mph).

After spending energy to get the garbage up from Earth's surface (fighting Earth's gravity), we'd then have to spend enough energy to bring the garbage to a speed of more than 29 km/s (relative to Earth) so that its lateral speed (relative to the Sun) is close to zero.

Then (and only then) would the garbage be able to fall into the Sun without missing it. Even with a lateral speed of 1 km/s at Earth's distance, it would miss the Sun (like some comets do) and would come back to us (probably with its confinment compromised by the excess heat).

This speed differential of 29 km/s is MORE that the speed differential needed (in the other direction) to send anything (garbage or probe) outside the Solar system.

29.78 + 12.32 = 42.1 = escape speed from the solar system at Earth's orbit.

Sending 1 kg of anything into the Sun costs 2.4 times MORE energy than sending 1 kg towards the nearest stars. It is difficult to fall into the sun, once you are on a planetary orbit.

In addition to the costs, there would be risks, including:

risk that a rocket blows up at take off or during ascent (blowing the garbage throughout our atmosphere); we have so much garbage that more than one rocket would be involved...

risk that the de-orbiting rocket fails, leaving the garbage in orbit around Earth...

risk that the spacescow gets hit by a meteorite or colledes with another piece of satellite or space debris and spreads the garbage over an increasing larger volume of space...

risk that the calculation (or the firing timer) is off and the garbage misses the Sun, returning to our orbit (or hitting another soalr system body...

and so on.

Answer 6

Of course you realize how much toxins and pollutants would be produced when manufacturing and launching all those rockets, right? And if just one of those rockets failed during launch you will have a bigger problem than you had before as all those toxins would be spread out in the atmosphere. Maybe its time to go shopping for a brand new BF.

Answer 7

The energy required to collect it all together and send it into space would still pollute the planet and use up our resources. Also, it puts paid to any hope of recycling it. There is something called a plasma torch which can dispose of waste in a similar way to the Sun more efficiently.

Answer 8

its been proposed before. but think about it, it costs millions to get something into space, hell it costs thousands of dollars in gas just to get the shuttle to the launch platform. and then we would have to build a new shuttle every time we get a new load of garbage. and a shuttle cant carry an immense amount of weight, and we produce a lot of garbage a day, millions of tons im sure. so thats thousands of rockets going into space everyday. we dont have the time, technology, or money to build that many rockets.

Answer 9

Many people have thought of that, but it's simply impractical since you have to have a big spaceship that can be burned up. We already spend millions for a spaceship for a few people, now imagine doing that for tens of thousands of times as much garbage!

Answer 10

I had the same idea regarding nuclear waste. The only real problems would be if one (or more) of the rockets crashes, and the huge numbers of rockets required. All that rocket exhaust would not be very good for the atmosphere.

Answer 11

It's a great idea.

Until the big rubber band on the catapult breaks and toxic waste is strewn all over the countryside.

(Catapult because rocket power is not cost effective. and trash doesn't care too much about G-forces)