Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!rutgers!att!cbnewsl!sw
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Two questions.
Summary: orbits trash
Message-ID: <361@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 89 18:54:27 GMT
References: <3288@nunki.usc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Interface Systems at AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

In article <3288@nunki.usc.edu>, sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes:
> 
> 1.  I thought the idea of having spacecraft merely 'nudge' asteroids
> towards earth was really neat.  [...]

Nudging them towards the Earth is one thing, getting them to match the
Earth's velocity is quite another! The alternative is to send them in a 
Hohman (sp?) transfer orbit to the Earth, this requires the minimum ammount of
energy up front and at arrival. Still, we are talking about (for current
technology) staggering ammounts of energy (for an asteroid worth mining).

Stabilisation should not be a problem; it is made easier by good choice of
propulsive site and automatic attitude control.

> 2.  If it's not very hard getting some kind of hot fusion going, isn't
> it a easy solution to the radioactive waste problem to chuck it into a
> merrily burning fusion reaction?  Alternatively, shoot it into the
> center of the sun.  Alternatively, shoot it at the stars.  Why have we
> only thought of earth-based solutions to radioactive wastes so far?

The Sun wouldn't notice, sending it into "empty" space is perhaps
short-sighted. Anyway, no-one will get away with actually launching the 
stuff in the first place, for fear of an accident...
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"PENTAGON OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT  |  Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA
AN ANTIMATTER SHORTAGE"  ("WHAT'S NEW")  | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (att!cbnewsl!sw)
-----------> My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer <-----------