duh. i hate this idea but my classmate is pushing it through. i think it will just create an even more serious waste problem. what do you think? it's for our 'solid and hazardous waste' documentation. he wants to include this 'throw-in-the-outer-space' thing as a possible solution. i need your help. what do you think? thanks. :)
2007-12-26 12:32:19 · 9 answers · asked by rhågMÖ 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
Sure it's possible, but only if you create
more mass in pollution than you lift into space.
(The energy must come from somewhere, and
even if the fuel used is nonpolluting, the energy
required to create it is not.)
You're right, - your classmate is an idiot.
2007-12-27 10:21:10 · answer #1 · answered by Irv S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have thought about this one before and have even seen it addressed on Discovery channel...
The biggest issue I have seen is how to get it there. Even the biggest rocket would not hold more than a few garbage truck loads. One small city alone would make this not work. Plus you have the environmental damage of the exhaust from the rocket. What if it explodes. Then you have the waste falling back to earth.
If you have to calculate it out. Look up the waste per year for your city and then look up how much payload the larger rocket could carry. The Saturn V could put a 120-ton payload into Earth orbit or a 45-ton payload near the moon.
As bad as it sounds recycling, burying, and incineration will do the best.
2007-12-26 12:49:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
From the standpoint of energy consumption and resource reutilization this is an option for waste that isn't even considerable.
It takes a fantastic sum of energy to move a given quantity of mass to Earth escape velocity (we definitely don't want it cluttering up orbital space, it's a hazard there in even the tiniest of pieces).
Now, if you're talking about the waste generated from facilities in space, it doesn't make any sense even in those instances to "dispose" of it. Materials brought to orbit are subsequently to valuable a potential resource at some point in the future to be "disposed of". Currently, I believe most, if not all is brought back but personally i'd prefer to see it tethered to the source in something like used shuttle hydrogen tanks or booster stages.
2007-12-26 12:48:48 · answer #3 · answered by Deep Iffy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well i say we don't do that because then we would have problems like what if the big pile of waste and garbage come to our earth as a meteorite because of our earths gravity, then we would be in trouble. And one more thing that we already know that there are millions of objects in space that are just there for no purpose, just because of carelessness of humans, and if we put more waste and toxic stuff up there, we can have a serious problem, like what if they launch a space shuttle up in space and there are alrady objects there that are not suppose to be there, we can have a tragic incident, just because of the carelessness of humans.
I suggest that we just burn the waste and just keep doing the same thing. Thank you and hope it helped you.
2007-12-26 13:51:06 · answer #4 · answered by Mandalorian 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem you will have there is the cost of fuel to eject the material from Earth, along with the risk of a Challenger-type accident spewing toxic waste all over a populated area... I'd vote no, too...
2007-12-26 12:40:13 · answer #5 · answered by alyosha_snow_crash 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if i've got been to throw a baseball in area it may save going because of the fact there is no air rigidity or significant: friction in area. Friction is once you attempt to head some thing and a few thing else which contain air rigidity and gravity and extremely tough flooring make it provide up because of the fact it takes away power. In area there is no friction because of the fact there's no longer something in area, subsequently referred to as "area" and the only component it quite is in area is probable some thing like Helium atoms, yet there is no rigidity that prevents the baseball from moving. The baseball doesnt strengthen up the two, because of the fact no rigidity is pushing it. without rigidity pushing it, it in no way circulate swifter. If it gets caught interior the gravitational field of a planet then it may get captured and in simple terms circulate in circles yet it quite is not going because of the fact it quite is small and area is particularly large with alot of vacuum.
2016-10-09 05:29:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I definitely agree that you could throw stuff into space, but I'm not so sure that its going to solve our waste problem. I mean, one day, scientists are probably going to find out how to evacuate into space to escape the Sun's super nova, but how are we going to evacuate if there's tons of garbage out there? They could create like another asteroid belt right in front of earth! I know this sounds ironic and dumb, so its your choice if you want to put this in your documentation....
2007-12-26 12:42:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It costs about $100,000 to launch 1 kg, about 2.2 lb into space so if you can afford to pay $200,000-$300,000 per day to remove your garbage, go ahead.
2007-12-26 15:57:49 · answer #8 · answered by cimra 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You could...but it's not cost effective.
Or safe...what if the rockets blew up when being lauched?
2007-12-28 09:52:22 · answer #9 · answered by Wayner 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋