Honestly putting nuclear waste on the moon is probably the best option for it. I wonder how they would hope to cool it though? Maybe just run it when the sun isn’t hitting it?
Would this be efficient enough without air circulation? I am not a physicist. I get that it radiates rather than making use of convection but surely radiative heat loss isn’t so efficient? Radiators on earth make use of airflow right?
Basically, yeah it works. One aspect that makes it easier is that the hotter something is, the more effective radiative cooling methods are. A nuclear reactor like this is designed to run in the area of 1000 F, and it turns out that you can pump liquid salt through a radiator that size, and it can take the salt from 1200F to 700F.
Your right though, convection does make radiators far more effective, air or water just work a whole lot better than relying on radiative cooling. But regardless, you can still make radiative methods work. Every satellite in orbit has to do it, the ISS has to do it (and you can see the big grey radiators on it). And every space base will probably need to do it too.
But we do, we do a lot. Russia does it more. It’s why the Voyager probes are still working and sending back data. It’s why the curiosity and perseverance rovers persevere to this day.
I’m sorry, it seems like you think anybody is suggesting that launching nuclear waste to space should be a means of disposal for it. Clearly that’s not a workable solution for a dozen reasons.
A common (and reasonable) objection to nuclear powered spacecraft is the question of “what happens if the rocket explodes?” That’s really what I was responding to.
The solution for nuclear waste is frustratingly simple, bury it. It’s only a political problem because of misguided nimbyism.
I agree with burying it as the best solution. I found the articles of how we mark those locations interesting as well. You need some marking that will outlive common languages. There’s even talks about breeding cats that change color when exposed to radiation.
I mean, the surface of the moon, Mars, or any other body in the solar system without an atmosphere and magnetic field is already heavily irradiated. So ya know, dump some radioactive waste there and really it’s no worse than it was before.
The moon blew up without warning and for no apparent reason. It was waxing, only one day short of full. The time was 05:03:12 UTC. Later it would be designated A+0.0.0, or simply Zero.
Honestly putting nuclear waste on the moon is probably the best option for it. I wonder how they would hope to cool it though? Maybe just run it when the sun isn’t hitting it?
A big radiator, that’s all.
Would this be efficient enough without air circulation? I am not a physicist. I get that it radiates rather than making use of convection but surely radiative heat loss isn’t so efficient? Radiators on earth make use of airflow right?
Basically, yeah it works. One aspect that makes it easier is that the hotter something is, the more effective radiative cooling methods are. A nuclear reactor like this is designed to run in the area of 1000 F, and it turns out that you can pump liquid salt through a radiator that size, and it can take the salt from 1200F to 700F.
Your right though, convection does make radiators far more effective, air or water just work a whole lot better than relying on radiative cooling. But regardless, you can still make radiative methods work. Every satellite in orbit has to do it, the ISS has to do it (and you can see the big grey radiators on it). And every space base will probably need to do it too.
That’s rad as hell wtf
The problem with launching nuclear materials into space is sometimes space ships blow up and that would scatter nuclear material everywhere.
That’s why we don’t do that already.
But we do, we do a lot. Russia does it more. It’s why the Voyager probes are still working and sending back data. It’s why the curiosity and perseverance rovers persevere to this day.
I’ve read about those too. It’s a solution for fully utilizing a here materials. Progress.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (ten being best)
How do you feel the voyager probes affected nuclear waste stockpiles?
There is uses buts it’s unfair to say we are anywhere close to a solution.
My argument is we don’t have a solid solution and “send it to space” isn’t a solution.
Do you disagree?
I’m sorry, it seems like you think anybody is suggesting that launching nuclear waste to space should be a means of disposal for it. Clearly that’s not a workable solution for a dozen reasons.
A common (and reasonable) objection to nuclear powered spacecraft is the question of “what happens if the rocket explodes?” That’s really what I was responding to.
The solution for nuclear waste is frustratingly simple, bury it. It’s only a political problem because of misguided nimbyism.
Oh I see. Sorry I was drinking.
I agree with burying it as the best solution. I found the articles of how we mark those locations interesting as well. You need some marking that will outlive common languages. There’s even talks about breeding cats that change color when exposed to radiation.
It’s fascinating stuff
USA and the USSR already did that in the 50’s and 60’s https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-altitude_nuclear_explosion&wprov=rarw1
Holy shit yeah that would be awful. Idk how I didn’t consider that
A lot of people don’t think of that. I didn’t think of it until I listened to a podcast about nuclear waste.
[Citation needed]
I mean, the surface of the moon, Mars, or any other body in the solar system without an atmosphere and magnetic field is already heavily irradiated. So ya know, dump some radioactive waste there and really it’s no worse than it was before.
No humans or other animals around to eat it as long as the moon doesn’t come crashing down.
The moon, angered by our disrespect, changes course and velocity to impact earth, killing us all.
Moon: “damn right”
Or nothing hits the moon and sends said waste into space/our general direction.
I’m betting it would be underground