This is why I came up with my "two birds with one stone" plan. We can solve the energy crisis and the obesity crisis simultaneously by rigging up all the exercise equipment in all the health clubs to winding a giant spring, which will power a catapult to ballistically launch nuclear waste into the sun. Then you take your waste disposal budget and use it to pay people to work out.The biggest hurdle to “toss it into the sun” is risk of failure in the rocket. If shit goes wrong with your rocket, congrats, you’ve just created a radioactive death plume
It's not about the risks, it's about the opportunity.Nuclear waste is such a shit show. Taking it to space would be way more risky than just keeping it on earth, even if it's not very risky. The shit isn't really even dangerous unless you sleep next to it or something. All we need is somewhere that it's safe from terrorists and then keep everyone a couple hundred yards away from it. Burying it in the middle of the desert in Nevada was a pretty great plan.
Even under the most optimistic scenario thats still 800+ launches to remove the current waste. That would take a few decades so the cost savings wouldnt be reaped for a very long time.It's not about the risks, it's about the opportunity.
The DOE already has around $58 billion dollars for managing the estimated 80,000 tons of nuclear waste that already exists. That's money being spent every year, as we speak, even after decades of budget cuts. The proposition of yeeting it into the sun is as old (probably even older) than NASA precisely because it would eliminate those expenses permanently. Even back when the costs of boosting a kilogram of mass was extreme, that proposition of a permanent solution was enticing enough to be entertained.
Once Starship is operational and routinely boosting 150 tons of mass to orbit at a cost of $10m per launch, it becomes profitable.
Already been done before. Soviets sent up numerous surveillance satellites powered by nuclear reactors. One of them ended up deorbiting over Canada and releasing all of its nuclear materials over Canada.That cost is from reusability, though. If you’re just yeeting ships into the sun, that drives up costs
And no country is going to let you launch nuclear waste into orbit. Ignore failure above your own country, if it fails over another country now you suddenly have an international incident
Even under the most optimistic scenario thats still 800+ launches to remove the current waste. That would take a few decades so the cost savings wouldnt be reaped for a very long time.
Its certainly the most ideal means of disposing of hazardous waste, but the cost to do so even with a perfect starship platform is extreme.
There are about 250,000 tons of nuclear water globally. The mass of the sun is ~2,190,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons spread over the volume of 1.3 million Earths. I don't think it'll change much.Putting heavy elements into the sun will be seen through spectral lines from very far out. Might not be a good idea, assuming anyone is out there to see it.
(Yes I have read the three body problem)
NASA says adding more SpaceX satellites to orbit would increase the number of items with that kind of perigee exponentially. The risk here is that NASA missions (and missions by other agencies) may have to shift course to avoid hitting SpaceX satellites.
This is absolutely pathetic and grasping at straws.“NASA estimates that there would be a Starlink in every single asteroid survey image taken for planetary defense against hazardous asteroid impacts, decreasing asteroid survey effectiveness by rendering portions of images unusable,” the agency wrote in the letter.