/sci/ - Science & Math

the danger of the rocket exploding in our atmosphere.

major problem: expensive

cost.

It costs billions to launch a single rocket into space.

Another challenger happens, spray nuclear waste all over Texas. Also the cost. Spent nuclear fuel is denser than lead.

As mentioned above, cost.

That and the density of nuclear waste is massive.

not OP, but what's stopping governments from just dropping the waste into a subduction zone?

>>3577705
>Spray nuclear waste all over Texas

And the problem is what exactly?

actually, it would be cheaper in the long run. Look at yucca mountain. How much will it cost to maintain that facility FOREVER? How much will it cost if there is contamination and leakage? It would, in the long term, be cheaper to shoot it in to the sun, but the danger of that rocket laden with nuclear waste going challenger on us is far too great to even consider such a plan. Imagine the effects of a cloud of highly nasty, highly toxic radioactive waste forming a cloud around the globe. Imagine the cost, if not the impossibility, of dealing with four billion cases of cancer.

Just interested, why NOT dump nuclear waste into a drilled hole that reaches magma?

>>3577723
cost

>>3577726
Are you saying we can't afford a single drill?

>>3577723

two words: radioactive volcano.

>>3577726

>>3577723

How about just dumping it into an active volcano?

>>3577731

1 word: Fucking awesome.

That would seriously be the greatest way to die.

>>3577731
Well, since it's nuclear waste I would assume that it is heavier than most of the molten rock stuff, so wouldn't it slowly sink? Not to mention lava already has some amounts of radioactive stuff in it; thorium and uranium deposits didn't permeate from an inter-dimensional membrane.

>>3577723
>>3577726
>>3577730
>>3577731
>>3577732

>completely miss >>3577713

>>3577723

I'm thinking it would make a volcano before we even got the chance to dig it up due to the pressure. It's not like there's anywhere the earth's mantle is actually sucking down, just places where crust gets pushed down by other crust.

>>3577713

Not sure, but I think it would be too slow and prone to bursting open before it gets covered sufficiently due to all the earthquakes, as well as how if you don't bury it, the containers of the waste will end up being squeezed like toothpaste tubes.

>>3577731

Maybe I just don't know enough geophysics, but I'm sure that with proper placement, plate subduction could work its entropic magic and take care of the nuclear waste.

>>3577692

>Would there be any major problems with just launching nuclear waste into the sun instead of having to keep it on earth?

Yes, the deltaV required.

When launched the thing is going to be moving at the Earth's speed relative to the Sun, and that's a whopping 30 kilometers per second. So your nuclear waste is going to have to be packed with enough thrust to kill all of its orbital momentum and have it fall into the Sun, not to mention verniering around orbit and what not.

>>3577692
that looks so delicious

1.Launch rocket into space with a rope attached to it
2.Attack rope to moon using a simple pulley system
3.Still holding onto the rope fly back to earth
4.Rope has been previously attached to a mountain
5.Attack buckets to rope
6.Fill buckets with waste
7.Use a small motor to power the pulley
8.Dump waste on the moon using infinite bucket snake

>>3577776
You realise the planet rotates, right?

>>3577783
So does the moon.

>>3577789
That makes it even worse.

>>3577794
How so? The moon follows the earth's orbit. We can always see the moon, if it went the opposite way we wouldn't be able to see it sometimes.

>>3577794
That doesn't make sense. He does have a point, however: The rope is just going to wind around the earth.

1. Costs way too fucking much to launch anything into the sun.
2. If anything happens to the rocket on the pad or during ascent holy shit are we fucked.
3. Heavy radiation fucking with the rocket systems and fuel will make #2 rather likely even without sabotage.
4. Advances in reactor technology allow us to reuse what was once considered waste as fuel.

>>3577713
1. Not enough shielding to protect the local environment.
2. Your containment vessels are going to get damaged and contaminate areas far beyond the subduction zone.
3. Subduction takes about as long as the waste takes to decay to manageable levels anyway.

>>3577723
>a drilled hole that reaches magma

Also expensive, plus magma under the crust is under pressure and will explode magma and radioactive waste everywhere if we try to drill radioactive waste into it.

>>3577751
>wouldn't it slowly sink

That's not going to help much when it's also very rapidly exploding into the air.

>>3577804
I don't follow you.

>>3577794
There is a reason we never see the dark side.

>>3577799 We can always see the moon

No we can't.

The moon is tidally locked with the Earth. The Earth is not tidally locked with the moon.

Fuck the sun. Just launch that shit into orbit like all our other space garbage

>>3577910

>Radioactive Kessler syndrome

The sun would just ionize it, no harm done.

PROBLEM SOLVED, give me a million NO two million dollars.

Launch the nuclear waste + rocket into space with a big fucking cable attached to it, the cable wrapped around a turbine. Once the nuclear waste
is outside of the atmosphere it should experience very little drag, but the spinning of the turbine generates a fuckton of energy.

yes, it would be difficult to make a cable like that, but worth it?? (yes)

Problem solved.

>>3578451

Let me get this straight...

Problem solved?