If we want to liberate of the Nuclear Waste, we can shoot it to the space with a mass driver.
A Mass Driver build in Alaska, in the north of the mountains of the MacKinley Mountain, with 5 Km of long and the extreme pointing to the South. We can convert the nuclear waste in bricks of sand mixed with radiactive materials and a powder that flame with the Sun Light.
This brick, wrapped on a bag of plastic that degrade too with the Sun Light in 2 or 3 monts.
Then, the cost of Throw the Nuclear Waste to Space will be very cheap.
I Thing that the best source of energy will be the Solar Power Stations, in the future, but meanwhile, there is many nuclear centrals and the nuclear waste is a very important problem.
This is, in my opinion, the only reason for building a mass driver in the Heart.
I just have read the book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, of Robert A. Heinlein, where he write about Mass Drivers for the transportation of PERSONS and Goods to the Moon.
Wath do you thing about this?
Last I read, mass drivers had some problems in speeds over 2km/s due to the intertia of the magnetic fields. The power required to overcome this delay is sizeable and the amount of thrust you get at higher speeds diminishes. Lunar tethers in my view look to have some real potential for getting to and from the lunar surface. This removes the need for mass driversand expensive rocket fuel.
If we want to liberate of the Nuclear Waste, we can shoot it to the space with a mass driver. A Mass Driver build in Alaska, in the north of the mountains of the MacKinley Mountain, with 5 Km of long and the extreme pointing to the South. We can convert the nuclear waste in bricks of sand mixed with radiactive materials and a powder that flame with the Sun Light.
This brick, wrapped on a bag of plastic that degrade too with the Sun Light in 2 or 3 monts.
The brick, shooted out at 11 Km/s, go away, far, arround the Sun and when the Sun Light degrades the Bag, the brick is dissolved by the Sun Light and the powder go away, to the limits of the Solar System. Then, the cost of Throw the Nuclear Waste to Space will be very cheap. I Thing that the best source of energy will be the Solar Power Stations, in the future, but meanwhile, there is many nuclear centrals and the nuclear waste is a very important problem. This is, in my opinion, the only reason for building a mass driver in the Heart. I just have read the book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, of Robert A. Heinlein, where he write about Mass Drivers for the transportation of PERSONS and Goods to the Moon. Wath do you thing about this?
> Last I read, mass drivers had some problems in speeds over 2km/s due to the > intertia of the magnetic fields. The power required to overcome this delay is > sizeable and the amount of thrust you get at higher speeds diminishes. Could you tell us where you read this? Was it someplace other than Usenet? The reason why I ask is because a few year back I got into a controversy with some Usenet posters who were making similar claims. I even wrote about it here: Building Dreams From Moondust http://writings.mike-combs.com/moondust.htm
Mike Combs
Hi
>
> Last I read, mass drivers had some problems in speeds over 2km/s
due to the intertia of the magnetic fields. The power required to
overcome this delay is sizeable and the amount of thrust you get at
higher speeds diminishes.
>
> Lunar tethers in my view look to have some real potential for
getting to and from the lunar surface. This removes the need for
mass driversand expensive rocket fuel.
>
Article wrote by Mike Combs, and I see that it is an important
problem, but I'm not depressed, no.
If a way is not possible, another way is possible.
Superconductores, nanotubos, superfluidos.
As Conan, the barbarian, says (in The Elefant Tower):
Siempre hay un medio si el valor va unido a la inteligencia.
Allways there're a way, if you have courage and intelligence.
We will found the way that the mass driver run, in the Moon and in
the Earth.
Have confidence.
This was awhile ago and second hand in some of the details. From my work on big projects that brush up against physical limits, I know that people are looking to burnish their careers and keep the details nearly completely secret if the project fails.
I learned there were a couple of teams that quietly built prototype mass drivers for one reason or another and started getting into some serious power issues with the inductance. Thisrequired exotic low permiability materials, giant capacitors, and superconducting wires. Getting going and aligning things was easy though the incremental push at higher speeds got exponentially expensive. In theory O'Neil may be right that single turn loops will solve the problem and give you near infinite thrust. Unfortunately I have seen nothing to suggest cost is anything but exponential and you do not get much thrust at widely spaced single loops. Mass Driverswould bereally really useful in the military and elsewhere if they worked as well as hoped for and this has caused some people to spend some serious money. The fact that you have not heard much aboutthis indicates to me they were not successful. To me this just means you have to look closely at other technologies and does not discourage me at all.
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2008, 10:44 AM
Regards, Mike Combs
>
> If we want to liberate of the Nuclear Waste, we can shoot it to the
> space with a mass driver.
>
(snip)
>
> I just have read the book /The Moon is a Harsh Mistress/, of *Robert A.
> Heinlein*, where he write about Mass Drivers for the transportation of
> PERSONS and Goods to the Moon.
>
> Wath do you thing about this?
I think that anyone who attempts to shoot nuclear waste into orbit is
going to need to hire a lot of expensive lawyers. And at that they
might be litigated out of existence, leaving only a smoky crater in the
ground where their offices used to be.
It's not that the idea doesn't make sense so much as that people who are
rabidly anti-nuclear anything are really pesky and will litigate
endlessly to stop you.
That's if it's a private business, and leaving aside the matter of 'is
there enough' waste to make such a solution cost effective.
If we try to make this a government operation it will never get off the
ground. The same anti-nuclear people will pester, bully and champion
with their legislators and dry up funding before the first study is out
the door.
Brian Dunbar
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
GMT -6
this email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
Meaningful Work or Death.
Any other form of existence doesn't interest me.
Hugh Macleod
> As Conan, the barbarian, says (in The Elefant Tower):
> Siempre hay un medio si el valor va unido a la inteligencia.
> Allways there're a way, if you have courage and intelligence.
a space group, the quotation is an apt one.
--- In ssi_list@... Brian Dunbar
> I think that anyone who attempts to shoot nuclear waste into orbit
is
> going to need to hire a lot of expensive lawyers. And at that they
> might be litigated out of existence, leaving only a smoky crater in
the
> ground where their offices used to be.
Pacific Ocean.
Each brick of Soil mixed with radiactive materials weight 1 Kg.
Is shooted over the Pacific Ocean and the only danger is that a
blackout of energy in the middle of a shoot can abort the shoot of
ONE Brick. The probabilities of damage a boat in Haway is less than
die under a lightning in Kansas.
> It's not that the idea doesn't make sense so much as that people
who are
> rabidly anti-nuclear anything are really pesky and will litigate
> endlessly to stop you.
The nuclear waste has two possible ends:
- Bury it in the underground, whit the danger that a earthquake can
destroy the bunker and the radiation contaminate subterranean waters
during the next 10.000 years, or...
- Launch into space, not in orbit around the Earth!, but long away
to the limits of solar system. The bricks, under the Light of the
Sun, transforms in dust and, pushed by Solar Wind, travel to the
border of Solar System, without going near the planets.
Arrive at 10000 years and by then will have lost its radioactivity.
What's better?
> That's if it's a private business, and leaving aside the matter
of 'is
> there enough' waste to make such a solution cost effective.
The cost of underground the nuclear waste is very expensive in the
begining of building and in the maintenance every year.
The Cost of a Mass-Driver (when the problem with the inertia of
magnetic fields have solve) will be expensive (less than one bunker,
I thing) but after the mass-driver was build, each launch will be
very cheap.
> If we try to make this a government operation it will never get off
the
> ground. The same anti-nuclear people will pester, bully and
champion
> with their legislators and dry up funding before the first study is
out
> the door.
This is politics, and I don't believe in politics.
Pleased to talking to you.
Juan Polaino
http://www.maslibertad.com
The best place to throw the nuclear waste where it will be diluted and do no harm is directly into the Sun. Radiation will not be a problem and the amount of waste we ever could create would never effect our closest star.
BestRegards,
Pete
--- In ssi_list@... ForDutyAndHumanity IAmSpacebearAICDA
>
> The best place to throw the nuclear waste where it will be diluted
and do no harm is directly into the Sun. Radiation will not be a
problem and the amount of waste we ever could create would never effect
our closest star.
> BestRegards,
> Pete
>
First: to launch the bricks into the Sun, we must shoot the bricks to
30 Km/s and with a precisely very exact to the target.
A Shoot from the Earth Surface is impossible. We Must shoot from
Ecuador and capture the radiactive Bricks in orbit and send to Sun in a
ionic ship. Much more dificult and expensive, I think.
Second: If spitting against the wind, the wind will return the spitt.
If we send the radiactive waste against the solar wind and, by any
reason the bricks not right in the Sun, we will under risk that the
nuclear waste return to sender.
Brrrrr!!
No, thanks.
I still think that the best solution is to launch to space, in two
months the bricks are dissolved in powder and the solar wind drag to
the border of Solar System where no man will go never.
Could this be a SETI concept? Assuming that some advanced civilization
decided to toss bricks into space. Could their radioactive garbage be
detected?
Mitchell James
>
> Could this be a SETI concept? Assuming that some advanced
> civilization
> decided to toss bricks into space. Could their radioactive
> garbage be detected?
> Mitchell James
We shoot the bricks towards the south of the ecliptic, to the south
pole of the solar system.
As the Earth is spin, every brick is shooted in a diferent direction
along the day an along the year, but allways in the south of ecliptic.
The bricks takes two months in begin to disolve and converts in dust,
because the bag is fotodegradable and the mix contain Mg or even a
little detonator that explode the brick, making the brick converts in
dust.
Then, the solar wind push the radiactive dust into space, towards the
limit of the solar system, but spread by the entire southern
hemisphere of the sky.
The quantity is spread in a extension so big that I don't believe
that this will be detected.
After, the dust take 5.000 or 10.000 years in arrive to the border of
solar system, and another 5.000 years in fall in a stardust-sink.
In 10.000 or 15.000 years the radiactivity will be almost missing.
If in the future we trip to the stars, we can travel the south
hemisfere of the Solar System and we not detect any radiactivity.
However, when traveling to other stars we must avoid the stardust-
sinks. They are very dangerous to starships, but the radiactivity
will have no importance.
It would make just as much sense to launch the bricks retrograde to earths orbit, such that they will fall into the sun. What began there can return there.
--- In ssi_list@... GARY ANSORGE
>
> It would make just as much sense to launch
> the bricks retrograde to earths orbit, such that
> they will fall into the sun.
> What began there can return there.
First: shoot back the move of the Earth is possible only if the Mass-
Driver is in the ecuador, point to East and shooting only at high noon,
one shoot each day. Another way is launch the bricks to a geosincronic
orbit and, when we have much bricks sends to the Sun in a ionic ship.
Too much presition, too much accuracy in calculation of trayectories,
too much expensive.
Moreover, if we shoot the bricks 30 Km/s back the move of the Earth,
the brick will fall into the Sun but, along 150 MM Km, if there is a
little, little diversion, the brick will fails the Sun, pass around it
and return to the point of origin in a orbit with afelion in the orbit
of the earth.
The Time of orbit is not equal to Earth but is possible that in many
orbits maybe return to Earth.
Probabilityes very small, but risk greather than shoot almost without
pointing to south hemisfere of solar system and let the Solar-Wind do
the work.
And this idea is more simple, more accuracy, more cheap.
You are in a boat in the middle of the sea and you want throw a bucket
by overboard. You throw the bucket to windward or to leeward?.
Regards
Juan Polaino
http://www.maslibertad.com
Isn't the whole concept of shooting bricks of radioactive fuel into
space a little crazy. Wouldn't it be easier to return the
radioactives to the place they came from - Earth? Find a nice
accessible area were the continental plates are subducting and the
waste gets drawn back into the Earth.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
http://potentiatenebrasrepellendi.blogspot.com/
Nec Aspera Terrent!
>
> > Could this be a SETI concept? Assuming that some advanced
> > civilization
> > decided to toss bricks into space. Could their radioactive
> > garbage be detected?
> > Mitchell James
>
> I don't believe so.
> We shoot the bricks towards the south of the ecliptic, to the south
> pole of the solar system.
> As the Earth is spin, every brick is shooted in a diferent
direction
> along the day an along the year, but allways in the south of
ecliptic.
> The bricks takes two months in begin to disolve and converts in
dust,
> because the bag is fotodegradable and the mix contain Mg or even a
> little detonator that explode the brick, making the brick converts
in
> dust.
> Then, the solar wind push the radiactive dust into space, towards
the
> limit of the solar system, but spread by the entire southern
> hemisphere of the sky.
>
> The quantity is spread in a extension so big that I don't believe
> that this will be detected.
>
> After, the dust take 5.000 or 10.000 years in arrive to the border
of
That idea is a good suggestion. One technological impediment, however, is that they must be BURIED in a subduction zone and as far as I know, those are mostly in deep ocean. Those under large land masses are buried too deep for easy access. If there are any readily accessible subduction zones, I'd like to hear about them.
> That idea is a good suggestion. One technological impediment,
> however, is that they must be BURIED in a subduction zone and as far
> as I know, those are mostly in deep ocean. Those under large land
> masses are buried too deep for easy access. If there are any readily
> accessible subduction zones, I'd like to hear about them.
>
ROVs, though. Let's see, the Atacama trench (off the coast of Chile
and Peru) is about 8 km deep at maximum, and is subducting at a rate
of 10 cm/year or so. Hmm, never mind, the current limit for ROVs is
about 3 km. Still, that's less than a factor of 3 -- I'd be surprised
if we couldn't conquer that depth in ten years or so.
A bigger obstacle would be overcoming the (possibly valid) objections
that waste disposal there could disrupt unique ecosystems --
subduction zones almost certainly host the highest-pressure biospheres
on Earth. It might also be hard to prove that material couldn't leach
out into the open ocean before it was fully sucked under.
Best,
- Joe
--- In ssi_list@... "Alexander DeClama"
>
> Isn't the whole concept of shooting bricks of radioactive fuel into
> space a little crazy. Wouldn't it be easier to return the
> radioactives to the place they came from - Earth? Find a nice
> accessible area were the continental plates are subducting and the
> waste gets drawn back into the Earth.
>
> Are there any holes in the plan?
>
that can "return to sender" the radiactive materials.
And What is cheaper? think that the first year the perforation can be
cheaper but in the next years is much more cheap the Mass-Driver than
the perforation.
My point was that waste disposal via the sun is currently a pipe
dream. Threre are hurdles on top of hurdles on top of hurdles. I
can see only ecosystem disuption, rupture and deep water access as
the only hurdles. It's good for our reach to exceed our grasp but
not so much that we miss the things that we can do.
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
http://potentiatenebrasrepellendi.blogspot.com/
Nec Aspera Terrent!
>
> --- In ssi_list@... "Alexander DeClama"
> >
> > Isn't the whole concept of shooting bricks of radioactive fuel
into
> > space a little crazy. Wouldn't it be easier to return the
> > radioactives to the place they came from - Earth? Find a nice
> > accessible area were the continental plates are subducting and
the
> > waste gets drawn back into the Earth.
> >
> > Are there any holes in the plan?
> >
> Where the continental plates are subducting, there are many volcans
> that can "return to sender" the radiactive materials.
>
> And What is cheaper? think that the first year the perforation
can be
> cheaper but in the next years is much more cheap the Mass-Driver
than