PDA

View Full Version : Launching Garbage into space...



Jet_Master
09-25-2002, 07:17 PM
Hey guys,

I need this for a persuasive essay we are doing at school. so pick a side and argue for it... it will be something to talk about and it will really help me too...

by the way, i am on the pro side of launching trash into space...
i am not presenting any arguements now, but i will wait to see if anyone is interested.

i hope this will be good.

kermi3
09-25-2002, 07:32 PM
bah...I have plenty of reasons but do your own homework heh. Think.

(oh and I said no)

MethodMan
09-25-2002, 07:35 PM
The polls are working!

I wouldnt dump in space, instead we should recycle more, and think of ways to reduce the amount of garbage at landfills.

Hammer
09-25-2002, 07:38 PM
I'd like to hear how you'd argue for launching it.... can't think of any good reasons myself :rolleyes:

Jet_Master
09-25-2002, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Hammer
I'd like to hear how you'd argue for launching it.... can't think of any good reasons myself :rolleyes:

Well to put my arguements into points:
1. By launching garbage into space, we will not be accumulating garbage on the earth.
2. There are somethings that are non-recyclable... these would have to be dealt with somehow... burning it would cause pollution... so we would have to bury them.
3. Not all waste are organic or decomposable... so by burying them, we are just wasting time, resources and polluting the ground...
4. We dont have a lot of "space traffic", so we dont haveto worry too much about people crashing into floating barrels of trash...
5. We could launch the garbage DEEEEEP into space or even towards the sun... (i should have put an option for that...) i think that is the best thing to do - the sun will take care of it.

those are my points so far... hope someone will argue against it - i can be sure of it...

and kermi3, i am not making you do my homework... i am just making a place to absorb ideas, because i didnt find another place to get them...
and if anyone knows a direct link to a website related to this, i would be grateful...
(i said if you know it... dont search or anything cause i already got some by searching...)

Hammer
09-25-2002, 08:13 PM
>>1. By launching garbage into space, we will not be accumulating garbage on the earth.
So we make it someone elses problem, and deny all knowledge?

>>4. We dont have a lot of "space traffic", so we dont haveto worry too much about people crashing into floating barrels of trash...
Now that made me laugh, I must admit :D oh, what, you were serious??

>>5. We could launch the garbage DEEEEEP into space
As per item 1
>>or even towards the sun...
and how will the sun take to many years of polution? What affects will it have on it? Remember, if the sun goes, so do we.

kermi3
09-25-2002, 08:16 PM
ok then allow me to bring the garbage back to earth....



1. By launching garbage into space, we will not be accumulating garbage on the earth.

True, can't argue with that.


2. There are somethings that are non-recyclable... these would have to be dealt with somehow... burning it would cause pollution... so we would have to bury them.

This is very true. A better solution would be not to make that kind of garbage...



3. Not all waste are organic or decomposable... so by burying them, we are just wasting time, resources and polluting the ground...

Can't leave them on the surface (and I'm getting to why space is bad, I promise)


4. We dont have a lot of "space traffic", so we dont haveto worry too much about people crashing into floating barrels of trash...

Every day our space traffic grows. There is so much space junk there now...rumble, dead satallites etc that it already causes issues. This makes it especially hard to launch. Putting trash in low orbit doesn't help because then we have to go through it to get up. Putting it high is much more expensive, and if we ever want to get off the planet we have to go through it. A piece of garbage in space is very dangerous if it hits something, it is after all traveling at insanely high speeds. (I don't remember the number, but i know it's atleast hundreds of miles a seconds. oh i looked some up, the fastest I can find is 17,500 mph, though it doesn't say it's the fastest)

Our space traffic isn't going to decrease...hopefully it will continue to increase.


5. We could launch the garbage DEEEEEP into space or even towards the sun... (i should have put an option for that...) i think that is the best thing to do - the sun will take care of it.

Can you say EXPENSIVE (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11782.html) ??? sure it cost resources to bury stuff...but it also takes a lot of resourses to put it into space. You have to get a craft travelling at 5mi/second. That's very expensive and risky.


Lets say for example you were putting radioactive or hazordous material up into space and the craft blew up. Or the material didn't go into just the right orbit and trajectory and it starts falling down to earth. Congradualtions you have just covered the earth with an air burst of nuclear waste. Fun for all!

Anyway I'm sure that I can think of more...but my mind is tired. How's that for a start?

I still feel like I'm helping you on a homework assignment you should think about yourself. Don't use a website, think. But I'm too tired to defend your work/honor code now.

xds4lx
09-25-2002, 08:21 PM
why not just launch it all into the sun? then there will be no more problems of trash on earth or in space!

Cheeze-It
09-25-2002, 09:10 PM
Throw it in space. Jeez, it's space, nothing is there. I'd rather
have it floating towards Pluto than stinking up my air.

There'll always be garbage. There'll always be a lot of it. We
should launch every current landfill towards Pluto right now.




Lets say for example you were putting radioactive or hazordous material up into space and the craft blew up. Or the material didn't go into just the right orbit and trajectory and it starts falling down to earth. Congradualtions you have just covered the earth with an air burst of nuclear waste. Fun for all!


When was the last time anything blew up going into Orbit. Challenger?
That was back in the 80's. We've perfected the process.

Space is a big place. Plenty of space for our waste.

BMJ
09-25-2002, 09:31 PM
Aim for a black hole ;)

No more problem :p

kermi3
09-25-2002, 09:42 PM
When was the last time anything blew up going into Orbit. Challenger?


Just like we're perfected the airplane? Yet those still crash. How bout the car? And space launches dont happen nearly as often as planes. And they still go wrong. I site:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/boosterwoes.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/1999/yearinrev/99com.html

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/2001/launch01.html

http://www76.pair.com/tjohnson/slr0901.html

There are many more nasa sites from 2000, 98, and I'm sure many other years, but they're down right now.

Do you want to risk it? It seems to me more likely that something would go wrong with constant space launches with hazardous materials than a terrorist getting a bomb on a plane these days but we're still all worried.

Launches that often would start to become routine, much like truck drivers today. Trucks are "perfected" yet they still get in wrecks don't they? Human error is always there.


Space is a big place. Plenty of space for our waste.

We once said the same thing about earth. There's still plenty of space, the trash just messes things up.

And once again I come back to expense. I'll note http://www.nyc.gov/html/dos/html/dosfact.html which points out that New York alone produces 13,000 tons of trash/day. That's 26,000,000 if i did my math correctly. With the cheapest system (accodring to nasa web site: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11782.html), the Energia launch system, that's just into orbit where it messed up other launches and blocks the sun (in quanity it would start to effect weather I bet) that's 9.36 billion dollars a day.

Not my tax dollars thank you.


Oh and I added Deep Space/Sun for you.

novacain
09-25-2002, 11:20 PM
I think we should be concentrating more on stopping pollution rather than 'sweeping under the carpet'.

Sending the trash into space would just encourage corporations NOT to convert to newer clearer technologies.

(as Kermi has covered the cost and risk, not to mention annoying all those aliens)

Also the last space launch accident I saw was last month when the Japanese SCRAM rocket crashed near Woomera (in Aust).

muttski
09-26-2002, 11:51 AM
Do you have any idea how expansive it would be!!! No, its the dumbest thing and it would be like 8000 shuttle launches per day!!! god, what a dumb idea!

[edited by mod - keep the language nice please]

Cheeze-It
09-26-2002, 12:34 PM
It wouldn't be that expensive. Launching multiple, unmanned
rockets into space would be like buying in bulk. The more you
do it, the cheaper it would be per launch.

>I think we should be concentrating more on stopping pollution
>rather than 'sweeping under the carpet'.

>Sending the trash into space would just encourage corporations
>NOT to convert to newer clearer technologies.

I don't consider garbage to be pollution. There'll always be garbage.
There'll always be containers that surround my hamburgers. Something
needs to happen to this stuff.

Besides, nobody said it had to be every scrap of garbage ever
produced. Just get rid of the hazardous, radioactive, green stuff
that is kept in barrels and buried in the desert... Yeah, that
and diapers. Definately the diapers. Those are gross.

Jet_Master
09-26-2002, 01:12 PM
everybody has good points (well, almost) and i am not really supporting the space launch... in fact, i am NOT in favour of it. but working against the majority would be a much better challenge.
anyway, here goes:

I cannot argue against the expensive part... and the danger part... but keeping it in barrels on the earth and dumping it into lakes, oceans and public parks is equally harmful ... we cannot keep storing garbage forever. someday, we will definitely run out of space to dump garbage on earth...


A better solution would be not to make that kind of garbage...
now we all know that is impossible... well maybe not impossible, but impractical and improbable... how can everyone in the world be convinced to stop using plastic and polythene and all the various forms of indispensable garbage? unrealistic...
and we cannot stop the production and circulation of it either... it is practically impossible to live without plastic or any such forms of plastic in todays world. it is just so useful...

also the nuclear waste... now this stuff is terrible and we all know that. there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. it will be polluting and harming us in some way whatever we do with it...

and about launching it onto the sun... (dont tell me the expensive story again - i said that i cannot argue against that), look at the size of the sun... how much garbage can it take before somthing happens? i'd say a long long long time...by the way, the stuff would never reach the sun. it would melt and disintegrate and vapourize way before it actually gets to the sun.

And space traffic... i dont think that the garbage would just lie there - we could launch it so that it breaks though the earth's orbit. i dont think it will be any problem for aliens... because we have no proof of intelligent life in space - even if aliens do exist, it will take them a long time to realize that we are launching the trash. basides, all of space does not belong to them!

well, more points later... my computer tech class is almost over...

Jet_Master
09-26-2002, 01:13 PM
and i dont remember putting the option "launch it into deep space/sun" in my poll.
is my memmory betraying me, or did someone else do it???

Eibro
09-26-2002, 01:21 PM
There's talk about a space elevator, we could put the garbage on that!
http://www.techtv.com/news/scitech/story/0,24195,3370398,00.html

I'm all for shooting it into the sun... the sun would probably enjoy a couple billion more pounds of **** to burn.

kermi3
09-26-2002, 02:55 PM
you said you should've added it...so i did it for you.

Fountain
09-26-2002, 03:25 PM
That's funny, somebody saying we will in effect DESTROY the sun or something by sending garbage into it. As the thread starter says, not much can be done to hurt the sun-a STAR for all that dont know.

Maybe the person that said it thinks that all the coke/ice left in the Mcdonalds cups will put the SUN 'out'. Who knows.


Maybe it would be cheaper to bury it on the moon-yes yes gravity issue but hey! we have been there before-and it is ours!




N.B Fountain back at UNI now, so its Mr nice guy for 9 months. Honest-no flaming from me now-just work!

xds4lx
09-26-2002, 03:38 PM
well considering the sun is a few millino degrees hot, everything launched at it would in effect be vaporized way before it even reached the surface. If i remember correctly from High School science, the suns corona (the damn thing sourounding the sun which extends a few hundred thousand miles into space) is even hotter than the surface of the sun so nothing would ever make it to the sun.

Hillbillie
09-26-2002, 03:44 PM
I don't see any reasons NOT to send the garbage to space. Landfills are filling up exponentially, and they're not getting bigger.

And the garbage production is not going to stop or slow down anytime soon. Sooner or later we will have to find a way to get rid of it.

Shooting it at the sun would be the most favorable option IMO. Like others have said previously, the garbage would be destroyed long before it actually got to the sun.

BTW, we already put garbage into space. We do it with the shuttle, and we did it during the Apollo program. (Yes, there's garbage on the moon right now...)

kermi3
09-26-2002, 05:54 PM
$9,360,000,000 EVERY DAY!!!

and that's just New York....


Moreover what are you going to do whne it crashes? You've just put toxic wast in a n air burst all over the planet.

-KEN-
09-26-2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by kermi3
$9,360,000,000 EVERY DAY!!!

and that's just New York....


Moreover what are you going to do whne it crashes? You've just put toxic wast in a n air burst all over the planet.

Oh, but didn't you hear them? We've perfected space flight so that it could NEVER, ever, EVER explode...:rolleyes:

kermi3
09-26-2002, 06:08 PM
ho ooooooof courrrrse that's right! I forgot.

*cough* carwrecks? airplane crashes? AMTRAK *cough* :) :rolleyes:

Eibro
09-26-2002, 06:27 PM
Maybe the explosion would destory the garbage :)

-KEN-
09-26-2002, 06:34 PM
>>Maybe the explosion would destory the garbage

maybe we'd get really lucky and the explosion would incinerate you, too.

Eibro
09-26-2002, 07:04 PM
And i've done what to offend you?

-KEN-
09-26-2002, 07:07 PM
Why, nothing at all. It was just too good of an opportunity to pass up.

Eibro
09-26-2002, 07:22 PM
Oh, do you do that to total strangers while walking down the street?

Cheeze-It
09-26-2002, 09:44 PM
>Moreover what are you going to do whne it crashes? You've just
>put toxic wast in a n air burst all over the planet.

What are you going to do when there is no more planet? When
everything is covered in garbage, and all of that toxic waste starts
seeping into the ground water? There're only so many acres of
Earth.

That price you keep quoting is... That's how much it would cost
currenty. Nobody ever said that we're going to start launching
trash into space today. By the time an actual plan is developed,
the cost would go down. NASA is already working on cheaper
ways to launch things into space.

http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/03/maglev.launches/
$10,000/pound -> $1,000/pound. That's a big difference.

Oh, and also about that price -- that's Nasa's price. Open up the
doors to private competition and that'll bring the price down
more.

Before a plan is even developed, they would have thought about
all potential disasters, and how to deal with them.

>AMTRAK

Are you actually comparing AMTRAK to NASA?

One NASA craft has exploded during launch. That was 20 years
ago. I think NASA has pretty much perfected the process of
getting things into space. And even if it's not perfect, it's still
a chance that's worth taking.

Hillbillie
09-26-2002, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by kermi3
$9,360,000,000 EVERY DAY!!!

and that's just New York....


Moreover what are you going to do whne it crashes? You've just put toxic wast in a n air burst all over the planet.

:rolleyes:

If you actually beleive anyone here is serious about launching all of the world's (or even just the States') garbage into space everyday, then well you're sadly mistaken...I hope.

>One NASA craft has exploded during launch. That was 20 years
ago. I think NASA has pretty much perfected the process of
getting things into space. And even if it's not perfect, it's still
a chance that's worth taking.<

Ditto. I think the argument that it's too dangerous is rubbish. Sure, it's not perfect but no mode of transporation is perfect. Cars will crash, airplanes will fall, trains will derail, shuttles will explode. No news to me...

xds4lx
09-26-2002, 10:38 PM
I think that sending it towards the sun is the way to go, but the cost of it is just way too much right now. Maybe 10 years from now when space has been comerciallized (hopefully) then maybe it will be feasable, by then we should be using some very high tech propulsion methods.

kermi3
09-26-2002, 10:56 PM
Oh I absolutly agree....I just think the money would be better spen developing new ways to produce things nad better sorts of energy os such things are burned for fuel, recycled, or never produced in the first place. Moreover, there would be just as many problems putting it into space, you make it much more dangerous for satalites, and future space launches, and I'd also like to point out that earth's weather is very delicate, mass trash in orbit would effect weather patterns I bet.


[quote]
That price you keep quoting is... That's how much it would cost
currenty. Nobody ever said that we're going to start launching
trash into space today. By the time an actual plan is developed,
the cost would go down. NASA is already working on cheaper
ways to launch things into space.

http://fyi.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/...aglev.launches/
$10,000/pound -> $1,000/pound. That's a big difference.


That price I keep quoting if you read the link i gave to Nasa is only $360/pound.



>AMTRAK

Are you actually comparing AMTRAK to NASA?

One NASA craft has exploded during launch. That was 20 years
ago. I think NASA has pretty much perfected the process of
getting things into space. And even if it's not perfect, it's still
a chance that's worth taking.

Ok amtrak was a joke ;).

Now I give you this...and I didn't look hard:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/launch/98-08-05.htm



If you actually beleive anyone here is serious about launching all of the world's (or even just the States') garbage into space everyday, then well you're sadly mistaken...I hope.
Absolutly not, but that price I've given is just for one city. It would be much more expensive even if if you just take the toxic waste from the world. Especially since you have tyo be MUCH more careful even thinking about toxic waste!


Ditto. I think the argument that it's too dangerous is rubbish. Sure, it's not perfect but no mode of transporation is perfect. Cars will crash, airplanes will fall, trains will derail, shuttles will explode. No news to me...

You're right all these things happen, however think of this:

Car crashes - maybe 4 people die
Plane's crash - maybe 300 worst case (assuming non-terrorist)
A Spacecraft carrying nuclear waste explodes, or the orbital container leaks:

Raddiation spreads over the entire planet, probobly not concentrated enough to caus radiation poisoning but it would increase rates of cancer I'm sure. Plus there are many other creatures in the world that are much more sensitive to radiation taht we are and that would mess up ecosystems all over the place.

Toxic waste could be just as bad, and you think acid rain is bad? What about strieght up chemical rain? Or radioactive rain?

novacain
09-27-2002, 01:03 AM
And when the junk falls back from the sky where do they land? The last two hit here, in Western Australia (skylab was the biggest and brightest).

>>I think NASA has pretty much perfected the process of getting things into space.

And converting between Imperial and Metric measurements.

How many do they launch a year? (calculate a failure rate ect)


Hey, don't pick on AMTRAK.

We are going to sell them our automated train safety system and make a squillion. Then who will be laughing?

Hillbillie
09-27-2002, 05:05 PM
>And when the junk falls back from the sky where do they land? The last two hit here, in Western Australia (skylab was the biggest and brightest).<

It will only fall back to earth if we put it in orbit. I think most here that think it should be launched into space would not want to simply launch it into orbit.

>And converting between Imperial and Metric measurements.<

Heh...a simple mistake. C'mon, really, that's a low blow. Still funny though...

Shadow12345
09-27-2002, 07:56 PM
I didn't read this entire thread but remember we have to actually launch it into space, meaning using up energy (launching things out of the atmosphere requires a great deal of it, whether it be fossil fuels or whatever we are using).

Plus, how do you know that this unusable garbage won't be usabe later on as technology increases. Once you start getting rid of matter from Earth, it cannot come back (although we may one day be able to grab asteroids from orbits and use matter we find in them).

How do you know that there wont' be a lot of space traffic one day? I mean yes, we are probably a ways away from actually using space extensively, but I also doubt the first proto humans ever imagined cars, or buildings, or guns, or any of that cool **** we have today.

And lastly what if we DO ........ of a lot of aliens? That can't be good!

EDIT:
woot my 400th post!

icarus
09-28-2002, 12:23 AM
Personally, I think it is a decent way of getting rid of the byproducts of fission, which is really nice, wonderful, etc for everyone who has been lied to by Ralph Nader. If handled properly, accidents like Chernobyl and 3M Island are very rare. It does produce some nasty byproducts, but its cleaner than pretty much any other practical alternative...until some smart guy manages to get fusion right, which will be make everything all better.

Jet_Master
09-28-2002, 05:56 AM
what if we DO ........ of a lot of aliens? That can't be good!
I dont know why we would be ........ing off aliens. We are not littering space with paper and plastic stuff randomly scattered or stinky wet garbage bags... all the garbage will be inside a space shuttle. And so far, there are already many space shuttles in space - and we dont see any ........ed off aliens trying to sue us or blow up our planet.
And like i said, space doesnt belong to them anyway - they cannot go saying that we littered up their residence...

If any aliens show up, we can sop putting stuff up there, but until then, that is not a matter of concern...


How do you know that there wont' be a lot of space traffic one day? I mean yes, we are probably a ways away from actually using space extensively, but I also doubt the first proto humans ever imagined cars, or buildings, or guns, or any of that cool **** we have today.
True, but we have to get our priorities right. What is more important to us - to keep the earth clean and save some land, or keep space totally free of garbage so that maybe in a couple hundred or more years it will be much easier to put ONE MORE shuttle into space...

it is also true that people long ago didnt imagine cars or buildings or stuff. but now we have all that - which shows that technology is evolving and advancing at a faster rate.
I know someone will comment on my above statement that it will not take as long as a couple hundred years to fill up our orbit if we keep launching garbaeg... but that's not my point. we should not launch every bit we got. We should keep recycling and finding ways of making recyclable stuff. but what about all the non-recyclable stuff we made already? we cannot just burn everything in one big fire... what will that do to the air...?
So as i was saying.... technology is evolving and advancing at a faster rate. so if we start planning now, by the time we will actually be launching something, we will have developed better technology - afterall, necessity is the mother of invention!

Fountain
10-06-2002, 01:58 PM
hey, the aliens may be interested in our garbage-maybe we can sell it to them.

Or we could just blast it into the sun as described, and every1 is happy.

Jet_Master
10-09-2002, 04:02 PM
thanx guys, i finished my essay and handed it in... this poll and thread did help.

Note to kermi3: i didn't "copy" or "plageurize" anything here, so dont go saying you were doing my homework... lol

kermi3
10-09-2002, 04:07 PM
lol good, I'd love to see a copy of it if you don't mind....:) but hey, if you want to quote me anytime feel free....just site me :D

Jet_Master
10-10-2002, 06:09 AM
well, i would love to quote you, but you know there is a kind of a rule (or falacy) while writing an essay:
it is called "misplaced authourity"
it says that by quoting someone who is not in any place of power or great knowledge about a topic, you will just weaken your essay. so i would rather quote some nasa scientists or people rather... no offense...

lol

kermi3
10-10-2002, 06:48 AM
lol How do you know I'm not in some place of great knowlage etc? I am a Moderator at CProgramming.com! hehe

correlcj
10-11-2002, 07:10 PM
lol How do you know I'm not in some place of great knowlage etc? I am a Moderator at CProgramming.com! hehe
I think that would be a great idea. First off it would never make it anywhere near the sun and second shooting trash into outerspace is a fantastic idea. It would solve our pollution dillema and if it tried to come back to the earth it would only burn up in hyperspace or re-entry.
it would cost us tax payers probably a billion dollars but i've seen them literally spend money like it was nothing so might as well use it for something good.
GREAT IDEA!:
D

kevinalm
10-11-2002, 09:47 PM
Conceptually, launching into the sun isn't a bad idea, it just won't work. Orbital mechanics. Energy cost way too high. Earth orbit is a bad idea. Hazard to navigation. About the only thing you might want to get off planet is radioactive waste. On the moon perhaps.

The best solution under current technology is incineration for the vast majority of solid waste. Recycle the valuable stuff, aluminum and the like. Burn the organics, plastic, paper. Use the heat to generate electricity. The CO2 might (if we're really lucky) get us through the next Maunder Minimum in spite of the Church of Global Warming.

Jet_Master
10-12-2002, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by kevinalm
The best solution under current technology is incineration for the vast majority of solid waste. Recycle the valuable stuff, aluminum and the like. Burn the organics, plastic, paper. Use the heat to generate electricity. The CO2 might (if we're really lucky) get us through the next Maunder Minimum in spite of the Church of Global Warming.
Great Ideas, except that when you burn trash the only gas produced is not CO2, there is CO, and sometimes NO2, NO3, SO2, CH4 and other stuff as well... those are not so good for the earth, as i gather...

anyway... let's catch rats and make them huge. Then these big mutant rats can eat all our trash...
how about it? good idea?

kevinalm
10-12-2002, 09:33 PM
CO is only produced in quantity when combustion occurs in oxygen deficient conditions. Since cogeneration requires fairly sophisticated chimney/draft system anyway, that shouldn't be a problem. Methane is just natural gas and will simply be used as fuel in a properly designed and operated facility.

NOx only gets made in internal combustion. You have to have a pressure/temperture spike followed by rapid cooling. Jet engines and gas turbines don't emit much in the way of nitrogen oxides. A cogeneration plant shouldn't have a problem.

SOx is routinely scrubbed in all types of fossil fuel plants. The technology is proven and readily available.

I do like the idea of giant rats. But I'd hate to meet up with the cat.

;)