Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 6/10/2013 9:22 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 6/10/2013 2:02 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 21:09:07 -0500, Leon
wrote:

You uh believe that sending it towards the Sun is going to
be a problem?

Only a financial one and maybe a technical one. Obviously,
the sun would make a great trash burner, but it's something
often discussed but not acted on ~ yet. There must be some
practical reasons for that otherwise I'm guessing it would
have been done already.



Substitute political for practical in your last sentence above
and you have your answer.

Actually, there is a practical reason for not doing so: it
takes too much fuel.

Not arguing here but as an example, and I am clueless as to how
much would have to disposed of in this manner, I would think
that maintenance of the materials forever might be more
expensive than sending some one to the moon. I am talking on a
1 to 1 comparison, maybe 50 to 1 might be the real number and in
that instance I totally agree that would probably be way too
much trouble and expensive.


To eject
something from the solar system completely, you need to speed
it up only a little bit, but to make it fall into the sun, you
have to slow it down A LOT.

I suppose if you are depending on the suns gravity to pull the
waste in that would be true. I was thinking more of a direct
shot at the sun.

That takes even more fuel. (I asked about that, too.)


(I used to work with a guy who was
a for-real rocket scientist -- former NASA aerospace engineer
-- and once asked him exactly the same question: why don't we
dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into the sun? and that
was his answer.)


Hummmm we had the same thought. LOL