Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site iwlc6.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo From: amigo@iwlc6.UUCP (John Hobson) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: nuclear waste products Message-ID: <151@iwlc6.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-May-84 16:19:07 EDT Article-I.D.: iwlc6.151 Posted: Fri May 4 16:19:07 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 5-May-84 02:24:09 EDT References: <454@burl.UUCP> <904@dciem.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 34 A couple of comments on Mark Brader's response to Bill Buie: >> Bill Buie asks why it is impractical to send nuclear waste >> into the sun. >> >> Finally, a direct trip from Earth to Sun with a payload of >> any size is infeasible. It requires a speed of about >> 70,000 mph*, as against only 18,000 to put a satellite into >> orbit around Earth or 25,000 to escape Earth, because you >> have to cancel the Earth's speed around the sun. However, I've >> read** that there is a way around this; by cleverly aiming >> the vehicle to pass near Jupiter, it can be made to fall >> into the sun from there. But the trip takes two years each >> way, and a failure on the way out would likely make the >> accurate aiming needed near Jupiter difficult. >> >> *Earth's speed in its orbit is 66,000 mph and escaping >> Earth needs 25,000. Square each, add, take the square >> root. At least, I think that's right. >> **Arthur C. Clarke, "The Promise of Space", citing a NASA study. >> They were talking about scientific probes, not garbage disposal. First of all, will someone please explain to me why the earth's orbital speed needs to be cancelled out. Sending it on some sort of parabolic or hyperbolic orbit into the sun should be do-able, without having it go outside the earth's orbit. One thing, however, that Mark did not mention, is the cost. Rockets capable of lifting appreciable masses to earth escape velocity are most decidedly NOT cheap. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!iwlc6!amigo