Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Moon Seen As Nuclear Waste Repository
space.com ^ | 07:00 am ET, 22 August 2002 | By Leonard David

Posted on 08/22/2002 8:08:04 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon

As the debate rages over using the Yucca Mountain as a burial ground for thousands of tons of radioactive material, a better site for unwanted nuclear waste holds its mute vigil in the skies above the Nevada desert: the Moon.

After 20 years of study, last July President Bush signed a bill making Yucca Mountain the planned site to house 77,000 tons of nuclear refuse. The site is to be open for business by 2010, located in Nevada desert, 90 miles (150 kilometers) from that gambling Mecca, Las Vegas.

Since its approval, politicians, scientists, lawyers, environmental activists, and protesting citizens have been locked in heated dispute over the $58 billion project.

Advocates of the plan say the repository site is safe. Radioactive materials can be responsibly and securely tucked away in the mountain for some 10,000 years.

However, others fear, among a list of worries, that transporting nuclear waste over city streets and state highways is asking for trouble, as well as being a tempting target for terrorists.

"No site for a long term, nuclear waste repository within Earth's biome or accessible to low-tech terrorist threat is acceptable," argues Sherwin Gormly, an environmental engineer for Tetra Tech EM Incorporated in Reno, Nevada.

Gormly contends that the waste issue is the single most important problem limiting nuclear power development. A revolutionary change, he said, is required to break the impasse.

"We need to seriously reconsider more advanced concepts, including repository options on the Moon," Gormly said.

MIRVing the Moon

In the past, thoughts about a lunar nuclear waste repository have come and gone.

A new twist in the Gormly plan is using off-the-shelf intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), warhead targeting technology, and a reusable suborbital launch vehicle. It's an idea whose time may have returned, he said, broaching the notion last month at a Return to the Moon workshop held in Houston, Texas, held by the Space Frontier Foundation.

The concept employs a low-cost, highly reliable suborbital space plane. Flying to high altitude, the piloted plane then dispatches an ICBM upper stage assembly. Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) hardware, guidance equipment, and modified reentry vehicles carrying a casks of plutonium or waste material top this stage, which ignites and speeds into space.

An internal targeting system within the reentry vehicles precisely places the casks of waste headlong onto an outbound lunar trajectory.

The target would be a small lunar crater with steep sides. In later years, the flight path of the casks could be aided by final guidance equipment installed on the crater rim. That will assure an even more accurate bulls-eye impact of the incoming waste-carrying containers.

One by one, the casks smack into the Moon. The soft deep lunar regolith in the impact area should ensure proper waste burial. Plowing into the lunar surface at high speed, the waste would be buried under several feet of glassified regolith, Gormly said.

The impact area would be highly contaminated, the environmental engineer said, so a clearly delineated repository area would be needed. "However, the problem of waste migration would be eliminated because the lunar surface has no hydrosphere."

Retrieval, reuse, reprocessing

The situation in Nevada is a classic case of the "Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) syndrome," Gormly said. Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that waste streams from medical sources and weapons grade plutonium production are also of concern.

"A solution outside of the biome and out of casual reach must be found," Gormly said.

"The lunar surface is a sterile, hard radiation environment with great geological stability and no potential to pollute the Earth biome…a potential that is inevitable to all Earth sites due to groundwater," Gormly said. "NIMBY politics don't apply to the lunar surface at this time and can be avoided in the future by good planning and negotiation of beneficial use agreements," he added.

Once deposited on the Moon, nuclear materials would be of potential value. Access to the lunar repository site by future Moon dwellers could be regulated. Retrieval, reuse, even reprocessing of the nuclear material can enhance both lunar operations and further deep space commerce, Gormly speculated.

"The reality of the situation is that this material is a political liability today and a resource tomorrow," Gormly told SPACE.com.

The development of a lunar waste repository is an off-world opportunity to develop positive political and social momentum. This proposal is simple, safe, and uses current off-the-shelf technology, Gormly concluded.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Technical; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: moon; nuclearwaste; repository; yuccamountain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
FYI and discussion
1 posted on 08/22/2002 8:08:04 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
wow, interesting. why not just send it off into deep space?

Of course, any liftoff problems could cause big problems for our biosphere.
2 posted on 08/22/2002 8:13:48 AM PDT by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Mass driver it into the sun.
3 posted on 08/22/2002 8:15:11 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Instead of putting it on the moon, can't they just let it travel into space and let it detonate a few million miles away, or send it Jupiter? I mean, think of those senior citizens who were planning on making a vacation home on the moon one day.
4 posted on 08/22/2002 8:15:30 AM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
I don't think this is such a great idea, as just ONE accident could have catastrophic results. I understand the NIMBY factor and agree that if the material was to be deposited in my area I would be in an up-roar. However when transporting material like this, EXTREME caution should be paramount and given the current world situation (I.E. terrorism) this would be a great target of opportunity with MAXIMUM results for a disgruntled "religion of peace" fanitic.
5 posted on 08/22/2002 8:15:51 AM PDT by Fighter@heart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
The moon would be a huge mistake. It is not ours to play with. IMHO
6 posted on 08/22/2002 8:15:58 AM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Space Tourism and Development, especially on the Moon, is one my big enthusiams, and I think that nuclear waste storage on the Moon is no better than Yucca Mountain. As a matter of fact, I think that intentionally slamming them into the regolith invites container ruputures. Trucking containers to Yucca Mountain and fork lifting them into a holding area sounds smarter to me.

However, I have thought that nuclear waste desposal in space is the eventual final goal, assuming we aren't wanting to find ways to re-use the material. If we can send it to the Moon, why not send it to the Sun? (I don't think it would notice.)
7 posted on 08/22/2002 8:18:10 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
As a member of NIMLBY (Not in my Lunar Back Yard) I feel I must strongly object to this plan.It will never fly Orville.BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
8 posted on 08/22/2002 8:18:23 AM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
wow, interesting. why not just send it off into deep space?

I think we are to afraid something may bring it back to us and complain to us about sending it to their planet and destroying some endangered speics that has a bad reaction to radioactive material.

And some reasons not to send it "To the Moon"( One of these day, Alice.) is lets see the tides. Have any of you seen "The Time Machine"(2001)?

9 posted on 08/22/2002 8:20:24 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Didn't they do this on the old 1970's sci-fi series Space: 1999? That storyline was a bit less than scientifically possible. An accident at a nuclear waste storage area set off an exploision that knocked the moon out of Earth orbit and into deep space. I guess they didn't consider that nuclear bombs explode, but nuclear waste by itself does not.
10 posted on 08/22/2002 8:23:42 AM PDT by Orangedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
If they did this would the moon glow green?
11 posted on 08/22/2002 8:24:10 AM PDT by Mark was here
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Space 1999 bump...
12 posted on 08/22/2002 8:24:38 AM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Envirowackos would NEVER permit the launching of thousands and thousands of rockets loaded to the gills with radioactive waste when those rockets have a known failure rate of what?, 0.5%, say? Lots of Freepers probably wouldn't be too happy with such a plan, either. Otherwise, if we can develop more reliable launch vehicles, and get the costs way down, I'm all for it. But I wonder, mightn't the Sun be a cheaper destination? Or at least a "low" orbit about the Sun, part way between here and Venus?
13 posted on 08/22/2002 8:27:42 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Yes, there *was* a series like that...

Kablooey!

14 posted on 08/22/2002 8:27:56 AM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
These same environmentalists get their panties in a wad every time NASA or the USAF launches a nuclear-powered satellite. Imagine sending much larger quantities on regularly scheduled ballistic missile flights with a known, albeit exceedingly small, failure rate. Sooner or later rocket go boom, radioactivity come down! Anybody want to "host" the launch facility?
15 posted on 08/22/2002 8:29:58 AM PDT by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
I like the "send it to deep space or the sun" option.

Quick and dirty economic analysis:

Assume the shuttle can haul 50 tons of stuff (prob high):
that means we need 1540 shuttle missions (77,000 tons divided by 50 tons/missions)

Estimated cost of Yucca Mt. project: $58 Billion

So 1540 missions divided into $53 billion would give us $37.7 million a shuttle mission.

If NASA can't put 50 tons of material up for $37.7 million, I'd bet a contractor could do it.

16 posted on 08/22/2002 8:30:32 AM PDT by Lokibob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Well, a mistake, yes. But precisely because it is ours. "Ours" meaning inhabitants of Earth. Why take a dump in your living room when you've got a bathroom in the house?
17 posted on 08/22/2002 8:33:17 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Nuclear waste depository...Iran or Iraq you choose...
18 posted on 08/22/2002 8:33:48 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
If you screw up the launch bad enough, it could come back. Then again, from a capitalist viewpoint, I'd love to own the salvage and re-launch sevice to fix that sort of thing!
19 posted on 08/22/2002 8:34:51 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Interestingly enough, if your store certain types and quantities of radioactive materials near enough to each other, it can detonate without much help.
20 posted on 08/22/2002 8:36:58 AM PDT by Frank_Discussion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson