Moon Seen As Nuclear Waste Repository

space.com ^ | 07:00 am ET, 22 August 2002 | By Leonard David

[Momaw Nadon]

FYI and discussion

[FreeTheHostages]

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

Of course, any liftoff problems could cause big problems for our biosphere.

[weikel]

Mass driver it into the sun.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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.

[Fighter@heart]

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.

[areafiftyone]

The moon would be a huge mistake. It is not ours to play with. IMHO

[Frank_Discussion]

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.)

[lexington minuteman 1775]

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!

[OXENinFLA]

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)?

[Orangedog]

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.

[Mark was here]

If they did this would the moon glow green?

[Junior]

Space 1999 bump...

[LibWhacker]

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?

[Charles Martel]

Yes, there *was* a series like that...

Kablooey!

[Tallguy]

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?

[Lokibob]

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.

[Frank_Discussion]

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?

[kellynla]

Nuclear waste depository...Iran or Iraq you choose...

[Frank_Discussion]

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!

[Frank_Discussion]

Interestingly enough, if your store certain types and quantities of radioactive materials near enough to each other, it can detonate without much help.