It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Sun as a "trash incinerator"?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
We need to send a international hit squad, he admitted he plots to attack the sun. He must be stopped. We will slip some happy flowers into his luggage when he travels to Indonesia, he will be bathed in love.

[edit- to express proper language procedure towards fellows]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by ADVISOR]




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Then I won't carry any luggage.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
First thing you have to consider is "where does the garbage come from?"

When you answered that with "from earth" would you really want to send pieces of the eart to the sun, bit by bit, untill there is nothing left?

In 5 or 6 billion years, when the sun goes kaboom, it'll take the earth in whole. You really want to speed that up?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Exactly, we'll be using up even more of our planet's resources, without even reusing them.

Though I don't see how adding our garbage to the Sun (if it even gets that far) would shorten it's lifespan?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xar Ke Zeth
Exactly, we'll be using up even more of our planet's resources, without even reusing them.

Though I don't see how adding our garbage to the Sun (if it even gets that far) would shorten it's lifespan?


I didn't say it would shorten the suns lifespan.

What I ment with "You really want to speed that up?" is that instead of all at once, in 5 or 6 billion years, we'll be sending bits and pieces of earth to the sun NOW.

Mostly bits and pieces that are resources for mankind.

If you start doing that, before long, there will be nothing left then stuff we can't use.

[edit on 5/9/05 by thematrix]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
There should be a secret society of the worlds nations leaders that punish's anyone who ever mentions to launch anything into the sun. Especially natural resources from Earth.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I get you now. Frankly, if it were feasible, I'd say yes to the stuff we can't recycle; like radioactive waste. That's not going to become useful or recyclable anytime soon, though stuff that can be recycled, instead of it withering away in trash pits; something should be done.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I just imagine all of the nuclear waste crunched into a big ol rocket, it launches up, pulls a Discovery, and blows apart in our atmosphere. bad.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Perhaps you people didnt grasp the extent of space and our star.
(Disregarding the cost and risk of accident during launch)

#1 That amount of matter doesnt matter. In space, something the size of the shuttle doesnt matter at all inn terms of chemistry, physics, or
biological means.

#2 Space is already dirty. Simply being in space gives you thousands of times more radiation than being on earth. Iridium, uranium, and other harazdous elements are plentiful in space, and anything that enters the atmosphere will be incinerated and dispersed to the effect you couldnt detect it.

#3 You people are too scared of garbage. Radiation increases the risk of cancer, it also, in high levels, will cause burns. It will not kill you where you stand and will not be a death sentence to inhale a few particles of it.
The sun will produce millions of tons of radioactive material when it detonates, several billion years in the future.

Like he said, you wont influence anything with radiation or garbage, its no worse than anything else out there.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Money and accidents are NOT the biggest problem. The problem is the erosion of the Earth!

All of our stuff is made from other stuff. If you take a bag of trash that weighs 10 pounds and blast it into the Sun, then the Earth weighs 10 pounds less.

What if every week the Intergalactic Garbage Man took 10 pounds of trash from every human on Earth and blasted it into the Sun? With 6 billion people on the Earth, that would be 60 billion pounds (6x10^10) lost each week. The Earth weighs 1.32x10^25 pounds. That would mean that the Earth would be the size of a golf ball after 2.2x10^14 weeks, or 4.23x10^12 years.

Sure, that's over 4 trillion years to whittle away the ENTIRE planet, but really, only the thin outer shell of the planet is of any material worth to us. After a few centuries things would really be FUBAR.



posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
...

odd, but he supported it so its fair game.

Besides, how do you haul 60 billion tons of material into orbit...?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by trinitrotoluene
Money and accidents are NOT the biggest problem. The problem is the erosion of the Earth!

All of our stuff is made from other stuff. If you take a bag of trash that weighs 10 pounds and blast it into the Sun, then the Earth weighs 10 pounds less.

What if every week the Intergalactic Garbage Man took 10 pounds of trash from every human on Earth and blasted it into the Sun? With 6 billion people on the Earth, that would be 60 billion pounds (6x10^10) lost each week. The Earth weighs 1.32x10^25 pounds. That would mean that the Earth would be the size of a golf ball after 2.2x10^14 weeks, or 4.23x10^12 years.

Sure, that's over 4 trillion years to whittle away the ENTIRE planet, but really, only the thin outer shell of the planet is of any material worth to us. After a few centuries things would really be FUBAR.


If I understand the little that I have been taught about orbital mechanics, isn't the Earth's orbit around the Sun determined by its mass? If we were to go sending massive quantities of trash into the Sun that would over a period of time reduce the mass of the Earth allowing it to be pulled closer to the Sun by the Sun's gravity. Talk about Global Warming.

Unless the amount of space debris that the Earth attracts daily out masses the amount that we launch into the Sun. Yes all of the meteors that burn up in the earth's atmosphere do eventually make their way to the surface although in the form of fine dust and ash. This still adds to the earth's mass.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Ok, so you guys are saying we shouldnt throw stuff into the sun because it'll offset the gravitation balances or whatever..

1) We've already been sending stuff to space for a long time. Voyage, all the other sats/probs/landers... Are made up of earth material.

2) Everytime a booster ignites it's burning up hundreds of lbs of fuel which also decreases the amount of earth mass (most of it is changed into heat).

3) I don't think you guys understand the magnitude of the earth in relation to the sun. If the balance was this delicate, we'd already be screwed from astroids and comets flying through our solar system.

4) The only thing that should be sent to the sun are radioactive materials and petroleum products that cant be recycled.

5) To answer the concern about a possible "chain reaction". The sun IS a chain reaction. Chances are when the space craft (with old uranium or whatever) gets close enough to the sun, it will be bombarded by neutrinos potentially igniting the used uranium. In which case, oh well. The galaxy is full of things EXTREMELY more powerful/dangerous than radioactive wastes.

(the sun emits the same radioactive wastes btw)

Do some research on what scientists believe to happen when a cosmic wave hits a planet, or other object (completely vaporizes it). Cosmic waves are caused by hypernovas and are a fairly (relativly speaking) common occurance in the galaxy.

6) As for cost, nasa is currently working on an electromagnetic launch system (similiar to a coil gun, or rail gun). This would dramaticly reduce the cost of launch (by an estimated 70-80%).


..


Some miniscule amounts of trash leaving the earth should be the least of our concerns.


[edit on 8-9-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04

2) Everytime a booster ignites it's burning up hundreds of lbs of fuel which also decreases the amount of earth mass (most of it is changed into heat).

3) I don't think you guys understand the magnitude of the earth in relation to the sun. If the balance was this delicate, we'd already be screwed from astroids and comets flying through our solar system.

6) As for cost, nasa is currently working on an electromagnetic launch system (similiar to a coil gun, or rail gun). This would dramaticly reduce the cost of launch (by an estimated 70-80%).

[edit on 8-9-2005 by senseless04]


The only items that currently leave the Earth are the probes and landers that we send out. The mass of all of these objects combined is probably less than that of an aircraft carrier. As far as boosters, satellites and burned fuel is concerned their mass eventually makes it back to Earth.

If NASA perfects tha railgun launch system and it becomes economically viable then you would see quantities of waste leaving the Earth that makes everything sent up so far look like nothing. It is only then that we will be sending enough of the Earth's mass out into space that it could become an issue in the distant future.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
My thoughts on this is that yes its a very creative thought but the risk sounds very stressful to say the least but keep up the good thinking its thoughts like this that someday put great things in motion and make great changes.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The only items that currently leave the Earth are the probes and landers that we send out. The mass of all of these objects combined is probably less than that of an aircraft carrier. As far as boosters, satellites and burned fuel is concerned their mass eventually makes it back to Earth.


But aircraft carriers dont leave the planet =p. There are aprox 3000-4000 sats that are currently in use around the planet. An estimated number of 6000 pieces of space debris (large pieces, small pieces arent tracked, mostly old dead sats) also trapped by earths magnetic field. Aprox 1000-2000 tons of debris in earth's field alone. I think you're underestimating the number of launches there are per day. Recently (past 5 years) there have been at least 3 corporate space companies (which launch sats up using old russian ICBMS) that have opened up shop.

Aircraft carrier is about 95000tons.. Not quite there but we're getting closer =)



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by trinitrotoluene
Sure, that's over 4 trillion years to whittle away the ENTIRE planet, but really, only the thin outer shell of the planet is of any material worth to us. After a few centuries things would really be FUBAR.


The Sun's life will only go on for roughly 4-5 billion years anyway before we cark it.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
This idea of launching trash into the sun has been around for a while. It really would be the perfect solution if not for the cost of launching payloads and the danger of explosions. All of these problems stem from the fact that we still use primitive chemical rockets to launch things into space instead of developing new, safer, faster propulsion methods. I swear it's like we're retarded...


Anyway, if we had something could lift huge loads into space safely and cheaply, we might be able to do it. But that's probably not going to happen because there's no money being put into space travel. Heh, just imagine if we could build wormholes. Just put one end at the trash dump and the other in orbit around the sun.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
As a consultant engineer, I have worked at a lot of places over the years. The last place I was at used plasma to burn radioactive material into ash and infuse it with glass, pour the mixture into barrels and burried.


What I learned while I worked there, is that many places use plasma to burn garbage into teeny bits.

www.exn.ca...

scholar.lib.vt.edu...

www.memagazine.org...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
That's a pretty nifty way of removing radioactive waste. Does it eliminate the risks associated with radioactivity, or does it just make the waste easier to contain?

The plasma-arc technology is pretty spiffy, also. According to that first article, the burning garbage released four times as much heat energy as was required to actually run the torch.

If only someone with a lot of starting capital formed a company which uses plasma-arc technology to remove waste, and subsequently cashed in on the released gases, the only reason others shouldn't follow is simply a lack of money.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join