Nuclear Waste on the Moon

>
> > The report I read mentioned that they proposed using retiring
ICBM
> > missiles and launching the radioactive waste to CRASH on the
moon.
> > There would be no guidance system, let alone a controlled
landing.
>
> It would be quite simple to add a guidance system. ICBM's
already have
> an
> accurate guidance system which would suffice.

I agree.

>
> > This would make it affordable. The critics who raised the
radiation
> > issue were pointing out to the advocates of this approach that
the
> > radioactive waste would litter the entire surface of the moon
> > because the kinetic energy of the impact would eject the
radioactive
> > waste along with the crater ejecta from the force of the impact.
>
> It would be fairly simply to perform a minimum energy grazing
impact,
> with a
> perilune near the center of the far side of the Moon. This would
result
> in
> the lowest energy impact, the amount of ejecta would be fairly low
and
> confined to a well defined debris zone.

Good idea. How come these "experts" at these conferences get this
press coverage and we here at this site can come up with better
ideas and more refined ideas. Huh?
>
> > Those were the criticism's of the proposal as it was put
forward. I
> > was very surprised that no one had brought up the issue of
missiles
> > exploding and raining nuclear waste onto the earth.
>
> That is the most difficult part.
>
> Surface transportation of the waste for its present location to the
> launch
> site would represent a significant safety/security problem. Then
the
> launch
> system has to be reliable enough to make sure launch aborts never
> contaminate
> habited areas. Difficult.
>
> > Now, if the proposal was changed to allow for a controlled
> > landing . . .
> >
> I presume you mean soft landing. This is probably not necessary
if a
> minimum energy grazing impact is used. Soft landing adds
considerably
> to
> the cost.

Yes, I meant soft landing.