99

I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why we haven't done this yet. Too expensive? Would launching it into the sun cause the smoke (if there is even smoke in space) to find its way back to Earth, therefore polluting the air?

This is an incredibly stupid question.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 86 points 1 month ago

First - The major problem with trash isn't the getting rid of it part, it's the gathering it up part. If we could do that, it wouldn't be a problem.

Second - Launching things on a rocket is kinda dangerous still, there's a risk the rocket will blow up on launch, scattering the material across a large area. This is a big reason why things like nuclear waste is a problem to transport in general, much less flying it somewhere.

Third - Launching something into the SUN is really hard, it would be easier to send something out of the solar system than back into the sun.
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/43694

Fourth - Someday we'll figure out a use for everything, wall-e style. If we dump everything into a centralized landfill, we'll eventually be able to collect/sort/recycle it into something useful. Throwing it into the sun (or off-planet) would make that stuff unavailable forever.

Finally - Throwing stuff into the sun would actually get rid of it forever, yes. It would be completely decomposed into the atoms it was made from. If we threw ENOUGH heavy metals into the sun, we could actually poison the sun making it not able to fuse hydrogen anymore, but even if we threw the entire earth into the sun, it wouldn't be enough.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

Another problem is that each item we throw into the Sun is comprised of atoms. We would literally be taking the atoms that makes up earth and throwing them away to a place where the atoms would no longer be part of earth. While a McDonalds cup isn’t going to catastrophically change earth, do it enough times and we could see a problem.

[-] Doombot1@lemmy.one 21 points 1 month ago

What you also forgot to mention is just how much trash we generate… that would be a massive limiting factor as well. It’s hard enough to get a few tons of stuff on a rocket going to space. I couldn’t get an exact figure on a quick google search but humanity generates somewhere on the order of tens of thousands of metric tons of trash per day

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

First - The major problem with trash isn't the getting rid of it part, it's the gathering it up part. If we could do that, it wouldn't be a problem.

The frustrating part is that this could be the easiest to solve. Require boats to weigh in and out, and account for everything on board. Minus fuel, plus fish, but those old, broken nets and plastic waste need to return to port to be properly disposed of. Throwing even a soda can overboard should result in significant fines.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 month ago

How do you weigh a boat precisely enough to detect a soda can missing?

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Fair question. You're not going to catch a soda can, but a boat should be a closed system. The thresholds should be as low as is practically enforceable.

load more comments (2 replies)

A lot of ocean trash comes by river from poor countries.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Ocean trash comes from plastic manufacturers. Responsible wealthy countries ship their dutiful recyclables to garbage pits in poor countries.

Most poor people don't even have the education or resources to polymerize crude into poly-vinyl, it's harder than you'd think.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Also, sending things to space is way, way, way worse for our planet per kg of stuff, because of the fuel and parts that it takes

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Prohibitively expensive.

First the cleanup is gonna take forever and cost billions.

Then building a rocket is gonna be even more billions and time.

And then actually shooting something into the sun is harder than just blasting it out of the solar system.

You could save a bit by shooting it into another star, and not our own. But you still gotta clean it up and make a rocket. I don't think we have even launched a rocket that big or heavy ever. It may require multiple rockets. Planet Express barely was able to make it happen, and they are in the future, only needed to clean NYC, and is also from a cartoon.

[-] figjam@midwest.social 6 points 1 month ago

And then actually shooting something into the sun is harder than just blasting it out of the solar system.

Why is this true? Wouldn`t gravity do most of the work if we just kinda shove it in that direction?

[-] Bimfred@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because if you launch something from Earth, you inherit the Earth's orbital speed around the Sun. At that point, whatever you launched will just continue to orbit the Sun. It takes less energy to accelerate to a solar system exit trajectory than it does to scrub off all of the excess velocity and end up on a trajectory that intersects the Sun.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] neidu2@feddit.nl 23 points 1 month ago

Because incineration or proper disposal is not the problem. Gathering and segregation is. Plus, launching that sort of payload is going to be insanely costly.

The sheer volume is manageable as it currentlyis, but it's spread out so much that collecting it properly is going to take a lot of time an effort.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a bit of a misnomer, as it's more of a vague area in which trash tends to collect. It's not like an actual continuous patch that you can easily attack with a net.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

Plus, launching that sort of payload is going to be insanely costly.

And causes its own additional air pollution as part of the launch.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  1. Just gathering all the trash would be tricky (and, rocket aside, if we could do it easily, we'd probably have done it already; and just put it in a big garbage dump or something). Think about a swimming pool with a bunch of fallen leaves in it; it's moving around constantly, and if you swim toward one it'll kind of move away from you or break up when you try to pull it out.

  2. Ok, let's handwave getting the trash out of the ocean. It's probably a solvable problem. First we need to sort it; all of the recyclables need to stay and be recycled, because we still need that material and because we need to reduce the weight. Compostable stuff can probably also just stay and be composted. Corrosive stuff probably shouldn't go on a rocket. All of the wet trash (it came from the ocean, it's all wet) needs to be dried out first; partially because we need the water, and partially because water is really heavy. And once we've done all of that...well, trying to figure out something productive to do with that big pile of dry trash is almost certainly going to be cheaper than launching it into space.

  3. Ok, let's handwave that problem too; let's imagine we're just going to grab it out of the water, compress it, and get it onto a rocket. Except we're going to need a whole lot more than one rocket; a decent guess says that we've launched 18,003,266 kg into space ever—over our entire history in space—but the Pacific Garbage Patch alone is estimated to be at least 45,000,000 kg, meaning we'd need to launch more than twice the number of rockets we've ever launched before. More than 60,000 rockets have been launched since 1957, so that's substantial. It would take a while; even if we turned the entire space industry's output toward the project, they're "only" launching about 1,000 rockets a year nowadays, so it'd take at least 120 years of NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Roscosmos, the ESA, the Chinese Space Agency, etc. doing nothing but trash full-time.

  4. Ok fine. Again, we're handwaving; let's imagine we have everything loaded up on rockets on the launch pad. Just getting it into orbit is tough for the simple reason that we have to take not just the payload (the trash) but also the fuel we need to get it there, and to get that fuel off the ground we need fuel, and to get that fuel off the ground, we need— you get the picture. The Tsiolkovsky equations govern how much, and thankfully the number isn't exponential. But we will still need a lot of rocket fuel. Good thing we're devoting the entire space industry's output toward this for the next 120 years.

  5. Now it's all in space. Great! That was actually the easy part. We could just leave it in orbit around Earth; that would be a really really bad idea for a lot of reasons (but it's what we're already doing with our space junk, so...), and you said "into the sun," so let's talk about getting it there. Believe it or not, getting it into the sun is actually way harder than getting it out of the solar system entirely. If you were on a rocket, and you pointed it toward the sun, and you burned and burned and burned and burned until you ran out of fuel, you would counterintuitively end up somewhere out past the Earth's orbit on the other side of the sun. This is because you have to actually cancel out your (very fast) orbital rotation, which you inherited from the Earth when you launched, before you can get pulled into the sun; otherwise you just end up going around the sun in a very elliptical orbit. It takes a lot of fuel to cancel out Earth's substantial orbital rotation. So we have to get that up there too.

  6. The good news is, once you get it to the sun, you're good. It won't cause any noticeable change to the sun (the entire Earth could fall into the sun and it wouldn't care). And while the trash would initially melt and then burn due to all the heat, smoke is entirely a product of atmosphere and gravity; so no smoke would be generated and it would not make it back to Earth. But once all the ash made it to the sun, it wouldn't continue burning per se; the sun doesn't produce heat by burning, but by fusing lighter elements into heavier ones. The Garbage Patch is mostly plastic, so carbon polymers. But the sun isn't big enough to fuse carbon into magnesium, which means all of those carbon atoms would just kinda...sink into the sun, hanging out under all the hydrogen and helium and lithium and beryllium and boron, but on top of the nitrogen and oxygen and such, for the next ten billion years until the sun turns into a red giant. Then, the sun will expand outward, potentially to engulf the Earth's orbit; at which point it will reclaim all the atoms of the trash we didn't send up there.

  7. Eventually, after a bunch of different cycles and drama, the constituent atoms of our trash and everything else would become part of the white dwarf that our sun will become; a small, slowly-cooling stellar remnant. After that...we don't know! The time it takes for a white dwarf to cool completely is longer than the life of the universe so far, so we have to speculate. It's possible that the remnants of our sun and our trash and everything else might end up becoming a black dwarf, which might look like a shiny spherical mirror the size of the Earth.

All of that seems like a lot of work. I think we should try something else.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Oh, also: I don't think it's a stupid question. It's a fun question. It might not be a workable plan, but I love thinking about this stuff.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Just to add to this: rockets use a lot of fuel. And with "a lot" I mean that a rocket typically is 90% fuel, 7% rocket, 3% cargo (my numbers may be off a bit, but not by much). The further you want to go the more fuel you need, the heavier you get,the more fuel you need, and so on.

So to move out 100 tonnes of cargo, were going to waste, say 3000 tonnes of fuel, and that is just to get it into orbit. Getting enough speed to get it to the sun would probably literally require exponential amounts of extra fuel, which would require extra fuel rockets to come up, rockets just carrying "a little bit of" fuel for another rocket.

Then on going to the sun: the earth moves at about 30km/s around the sun. To cancel that out, you'd need a rocket capable of reaching 30km/s, which we currently -afaik- cannot. We can't get rocket engines that can eject the burning gasses out at those soeeds, hence we can't reach that speed, hence we can't cancel out 30km/s. We'd need entirely new technology to be able to do that

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ledivin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

The short answer is just that doing so would be ridiculously difficult and expensive. Funnily enough, "launch it into the sun" is actually the easy part at this point. If we could collect all of the ocean's trash, we probably would have done so and compressed it by now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] spittingimage@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

It costs about $10,000 US to get a kilo of payload as far as Low Earth Orbit. I'm not sure this is going to scale up.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Launching stuff into the sun takes a shitton of delta-V. We should just launch it into the moon.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

I'm fairly certain there's a Futurama episode on this topic

[-] jared@mander.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah let's make our trash New New York's problem.

[-] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Or better yet, New New New York's!

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Gathering all the trash to launch it into the sun isn't easy, as many comments have pointed out. Not only do you have to counteract the velocity of Earth, but I'd expect you'd need a way to keep them alive on the trip there as well. I mean, I'm assuming you want them to be cognizant until the end, yeah?

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

I think you wildly underestimate the amount of trash we're be talking about here. This wouldn't be a rocket, this would be thousands, or hundreds of thousands of rockets. And that's just the start.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Even if you could do this, it would be more effective to just do the "collect all the garbage" part and then store it in a heavily lined container forever.

[-] reksas@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 month ago

putting anything on orbit costs A LOT, per kg. Not worth it

[-] trd@feddit.nu 9 points 1 month ago

Just drill a hole to the core of the earth and dump it there. And you would just put a restart on all the materials.

[-] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So wait - why don't we dump our garbage into active volcanoes though? (I'm imagining an assembly line to the fires of Mt. Doom)

[-] Cagi@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Just dig a hole in a subduction zone and let tectonics reclaim the materials.

[-] Boozilla@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Orbital mechanics makes launching stuff at the sun extremely difficult.

The earth has a gigantic a molten layer under our feet, and we couldn't even dump it down there. Too expensive and difficult.

Long term, my guess is engineered super bacteria and/or robotics may clean up the trash in the future, if we don't extinct ourselves first.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is an incredibly stupid question.

OP:

[-] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

First steep, gather all the ocean's trash.

Good luck with that !

[-] fubarx@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

And the one time the rocket goes kablooey on its way up, everyone down the flight path will get a shower of used hypodermic needles, disposable vapes, and old appliances.

[-] Hart_of_Grei@lemmy.one 5 points 1 month ago

You got it: it's expensive/ "not financially viable," so it won't happen

[-] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

There is "not financially viable" and than there is spending 12 times the gdp of earth each year.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago
[-] scytale@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

I also have this incredibly stupid idea to build a very long pipe that goes all the way outside earth's gravity pull, then launch all the garbage through it with a mechanism similar to a railgun. It doesn't have to be thrown directly at the sun, just enough to launch stuff out of orbit.

[-] LostXOR@fedia.io 5 points 1 month ago

That's basically a space elevator (though space elevators are shorter and held up by centripetal forces). Unfortunately they're quite outside our technological capabilities at the moment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

They touch on some relevant points of crossover in this interesting video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us2Z-WC9rao

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
99 points (93.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35868 readers
402 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS