it wont hurt the sun cuz its so hot, but wouldnt that be nice if we could do that?
2007-11-26 15:05:59 · 28 answers · asked by canyou-feelit 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
its just a crazy idea but still interesting ;-)
2007-11-26 15:24:21 · update #1
We would only deplete our earth even more. There is only waste if we waste it. Have u ever heard of RECYCLING??? WE are already starting to run out of precious metals and minerals. We consume WAAYYY to much crap in the first place. We could start by using and consuming less and in a better way. Then we could recycle just about everything. The substances that are in the earth and soil has to be replenished. We don't need to put most of what's put in landfills in landfill, but we are a lazy and irreponsible race, and one day our whole world will probaly start to look like one big ugly wastedump. You need to see the movie "IDIOCRAZY". Our sorry civilization in a nutshell. Watch it and weep!
2007-11-26 15:18:43 · answer #1 · answered by irene k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL that's a nice and interesting thought xD
we could but doesnt it cost a lot for the spaceship...haha why would someone spend millions of $ to dump landfill waste >__<
it wouldnt hurt the sun of course...but but lol not a good idea ^__^
2007-11-26 23:10:09 · answer #2 · answered by Oorangy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that would create more waste in air pollution than it is worth so NO I don't think that would be a great idea. I think cutting down on waste here is better. Also I do like that at many landfills they capture the methane gas and we are able to use the waste as an energy source. Also if you were to send the waste to the sun you would have to build a new vessel each time and those vessels that burn hydrogen gas and other gases leave lots of air pollution behind.
2007-11-26 23:10:18 · answer #3 · answered by Sara M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Uhh you never know. It could hurt the sun. It may be hot, but that doesn't mean it's heat can't be difused by something. Maybe we just have not found a way to kill off the sun yet. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen in the future. Heck were already killing the Ozone layer now, and running out of fresh water sources al over the world.
2007-11-26 23:11:37 · answer #4 · answered by chicata25 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Similar question was asked 2 days ago.
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 remaining lateral speed of 1 km/s relative to the Sun, 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 rocket fails once in Earth orbit, leaving the garbage in orbit around Earth...
risk that the spacescow gets hit by a meteorite or collides 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 solar system body...
Better wait for teleportation (beam up the garbage, Scotty)
2007-11-26 23:13:38 · answer #5 · answered by Raymond 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your main problem would be the amount of fuel needed to get that much weight away from Earth's gravity. Most waste material is too heavy for this to be practical. Another problem would be what happened if the rocket didn't make it and scattered this waste over a wide area.
2007-11-26 23:10:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes great idea, but pigs dont fly. Do you have any idea how heavy all of earths landfills waste weights? Do you know how much fuel it will take to lift that extreme heavy load? What if one of the engines fail and it falls to earth, dont you think that will have some consequences?
2007-11-26 23:09:14 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No matter how hard I try, I can't find a single thing wrong with this idea...Judging from our government's track record, it should only take about 50 years to get this program off the ground....in the meantime, let's all keep recycling!
2007-11-26 23:12:11 · answer #8 · answered by sunshine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a good idea. Simply eject that much mass on a continuous schedule would cause an overall reduction in the earth's mass. (bad thing)
2007-11-26 23:10:47 · answer #9 · answered by Ricky J. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
lets see.. how many hundreds of million does it cost to launch a shuttle into space. Cost of shuttle 1.7 billion. Payload 22 tonnes. Only 8 million tonnes to go, and America is cleaned up
2007-11-26 23:16:16 · answer #10 · answered by james b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋