this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
44 points (92.3% liked)

Videos

13620 readers
291 users here now

For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!

Rules

  1. Videos only

  2. Follow the global rules as laid out here while posting and commenting.

  3. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Article if you'd rather read about it.

A common joke is "just launch X into the sun and be done with it". Turns out, that's actually a really difficult thing to do.

From Earth, we would have to accelerate a spacecraft to 33 m/s in the opposite direction of our orbit in order to get it to fall into the sun (without entering an elliptical orbit) For reference, we only need to launch a spacecraft at 11 km/s in the same direction of our orbit to cause the spacecraft to escape our solar system.

This means that it would take less energy to launch a spacecraft to another star than our own sun.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Also, nuclear fuel is not renewable. There is a finite amount.

Imagine future generations hearing about the idiots who wanted to throw the barely used uranium into the sun.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The "what" gets shot into the sun is less important, lol. I just found it interesting that shooting anything into our sun is more difficult than sending it to another sun.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I know and it's an interesting video. It's just that I've seen that suggestion posted seriously more often than it should be.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or you just let it be elliptical for a while and that shit will burn up before very long.

You don't need to hit the center of the sun to be incinerated by it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You occasionally hear of houses being hit by fragments of deorbited space stations or things like that. I'm wondering how much of our trash would survive a shallow reentry.

And also how bad spreading its aerosolized forms across hundreds of miles would be in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

In case you want to watch it from the beginning, took out the time stamp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvR1fRTW8g

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Thanks for that. I was watching it via the embed in the article and didn't realize the YT link I copied had the timestamp from my current position.

Updated the post.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

thanks for the written article as I don't like videos for information (great for entertainment purposes and that includes the occasional edutainment but I have to be in the mood for it). The written article im a bit unsure of though. It sounds like its talking about a direct crash into the sun. technically you would be looking at just making an orbit that would degrade and not hit anything else along the way. So that it would eventually crash into the sun. That being said I don't think we should treat the sun as a garbage disposal and all the dangers about launch are way valid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Yeah the article is a bit lackluster, barely digs into all the science

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Haha, as soon as they said "pluto only needs 4.8km/s [dV]" I was like "great, let's sun-dive our waste from pluto, then"... Like, glossing over the whole "getting the waste to pluto" part.
Which they then went on to discuss.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It just makes sense if you think about it. It also takes some 50%+ more velocity to go to the sun from Mercury than from Earth, due to Mercury orbiting sun at the speed of 47km/s