From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<komarimf.718477945@craft.camp.clarkson.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:23:40 GMT

In article <komarimf.718477945@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski) writes:

   paul.nimmo@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Paul Nimmo) writes:

   >Original to: Hangfore@Spf.Trw.Com
   >Hi all, now someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but, isn't the fundamentl
   >problem with sending waste to the sun the energy requirements? If my
   >schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to
   >toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar
   >system. this being true it certainly does *not* present itself as a fesible
   >alternative.
   >see ya, paul.

   That shouldn't be a problem.  The sun's gravity will pull it towards the
   sun, saving energy.

In the same way that the sun's gravity pulls the Earth towards the
sun? Wrongo. Whatever we launch from Earth starts off in solar orbit
(because the Earth is in solar orbit), and has to dump all of its
orbital velocity (i.e. 30 km/sec) in order to fall into the sun. This
is much more expensive than launching to solar escape velocity and
leaving the solar system. Do the sums.

Similarly I can't believe that the poster claiming that the vaporized
waste will end up back here can have been serious. The Earth covers
about one billionth of the sun's sky. So one billionth can be expected
to end up somewhere on Earth (uniformly distributed over 400 million
square kilometres of the Earth's surface). If you think this is going
to send us all into fallout shelters you must be completely insane.
Someone even suggested that we might turn the sun _out_. Good grief,
go get some education, why don't you?

			  The problem is getting the radioactive crap into
   space.  If one of these rockets blows up, there will be mucho radiation
   all over the place and the world will soon be glowing in the dark.

This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose'
of nuclear waste by sending it into space are:

(1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in
	a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd),
(2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper
	to get to if it's on Earth,
(3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll
	fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble.

Any one of these reasons is more than enough. Three together shows
that it's crazy.

Again, _please_ think about doing some sums, or at least thinking
about physics, before posting to sci.space. These sums are _very_
easy. If you can't do them, don't try to answer questions that other
people post.

   P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like dumping it
   in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

There are two fundamental differences between the ocean and
interstellar space: (1) the ocean supports life.  (2) the ocean is
tiny.  There is nowhere `else' (i.e. another solar system) that any
probe we can launch will reach within a span of tens of thousands of
years. We can choose a trajectory that will extend this timespan to
billions (or trillions...) of years if we want.

That statement betrays a complete lack of understanding of the scale
of space, so I'll post some basic numbers and ideas to help the
clueless.

radius of the earth: 6.4e3 km
		(if you don't understand this notation, please go away
			and take basic maths classes until you do).
surface area of the earth: 4e8 km^2
volume of the oceans: about 3e8 km^3
distance from the earth to the sun: 1.5e8 km
Pluto's orbit (characteristic size of the solar system): 6e9 km
`volume' of the solar system (within 1e9km of ecliptic): 4e27 km^3
	(this is therefore ten billion billion times the volume of
	 earth's oceans)
other lifeforms within this space: none (best guess)
	(so we won't affect anyone)
distance to the nearest star: 4 light years = 4e13 km
time to reach this at 10 km/sec (typical probe velocity): more than 10000 years
volume of "our" interstellar space (i.e. that which has the sun as the
	closest star) : ~1e41 km^3 (i.e. about a million billion times the
	volume of the solar system)
characteristic size of the galaxy: 1e19 km

There are a lot more numbers like this in the FAQ. I can't be bothered
typing in any more.

If the Earth were an apple, the whole biosphere shebang, including the
oceans, would be thinner than the skin on the apple. The sun would be
a 10-foot sphere about a mile away. The solar system would be forty
miles across. The nearest star would be on the moon (if you see what I
mean). And in all this space, there's _nothing_ except a few
basketballs (the gas giants), assorted small fruit (the other planets)
and a bit of dust. We can't pollute something that large.

_Please_, if you're going to post here, recognize that the Earth is
_tiny_. We could hide the whole damn _planet_ (never mind the tiny
fraction of the outermost skin which we might consider `waste') in
interstellar space and _nobody_ else (if there is anyone else) would
_ever_ notice.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu