Hitting the sun

[nibb31]

The engineers question brings up a (probably silly) question: have any man-made objects ever hit the Sun? I seem to remember that some Saturn IVB stages or a LEM ended up in a solar orbit. Are there any others ? Will they eventually decay and fall into the Sun ?

 

[mikejz]

AFAIK, No.<br /><br />There was a proposal to build a probe to 'impact' the sun. It would of required a gravity assist by Jupiter.

 

[vogon13]

You would have to cancel out the earth's 18+ mile per second solar orbital velocity.<br /><br />Big manuver for a spacecraft.<br /><br />Craft would get zorched prior to impact too.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Now here is another good question!<br /><br /><br />If we send our stash of nuclear waste towards the sun at what distance would it like technically like burst and would it its radioactive materials be comsumed or would they venture back out into space?<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I would think they would stay pretty much in the same area and being so light they would decay pretty quick. <br /><br />I think we should use the waste to reduce the cost of providing electricity. Breeder reactors are the means to the future. Fussion would be good, but we've waited way too long, we have to drastically alter course, oil is a dead-end addiction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

I concurr:<br /><br />Especially with Pebble Bed type of reactors.....<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[scottb50]

Once they become mass producable. Until then a G.E. or any other reactor currently available would work. How much would 1200 or more identical reactors cost? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

NASA is considering sending a probe to the sun. When asked how they plan to keep it from burning up before it even gets there a NASA spokesperson replied "Simple, we'll just send it at night."<br /><br />Sorry! I couldn't resist! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

*laughs*<br /><br />Actually, there was a planned mission to the corona, called Solar Probe. It would've been shielded by a big sunshade. Alas, the mission was cancelled when the "Fire and Ice" trio was cancelled. (The others were Europa Orbiter and Pluto/Kuiper Express. The latter mission was revived as the scaled-down New Horizons, but the others are pretty much dead now.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Breeder reactors sound great. However, can they produce weapons grade material? If so, many 3rd world countries -- and Russia -- would like to get their hands on one. I added Russia because things like nukes leave their borders so readily. That is either with or without government help. In the later case, the item in question is probably stolen from the military. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[john_316]

Well you figure 2 billion for each reactor and another 2-4 billion for all the redtape and associated equipment and supply chain. Thats would be close to 8 billion with a modest budget I would assume. <br /><br />However 1200 reactors couldn't be built in 10 years even if we went full steam ahead.<br /><br />Your cost would probably approach 9.6+ trillion dollars. The US should build at least 35-50 new reactors to replace retiring ones and while some others are converted and down for maintenance and repairs.<br /><br />We can shell 2-3 trillion for all that in a 10-20 year span. If we could even cut the coal producing plants in half with nuclear plants we would save billions on tons of coal for other uses. <br /><br />Coal could be used for alternate uses such as makeshift fuels and whatever else is needed for a short span say 15-20 years after we all went nuclear.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I would say get rid of oil and gas fired plants first as well as add capacity. Coal is the lesser of all evils though, it needs to be replaced too.<br /><br />I also think if you use a standard reactor and construction for each plant costs could be kept more in control. Four or five production lines, hundreds of companies building the plants themselves. Like the Interstate highway system. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[skyone]

[q]Breeder reactors sound great. However, can they produce weapons grade material?[/q]<br />Thats precisely why they arn't in more common use...

 

[qso1]

AFAIK no manmade object ever hit the sun. The Saturn stages would not collide with the sun because they entered a solar orbit. This is actually an orbit that is very similar to the Earths orbit around the sun. I don't know the specifics but hypothetically speaking. A Saturn stage or LM could be in an orbit that takes 328 days to complete...or 368... an orbit similar to Earths. The distance from the sun would be similar, about 1 au plus or minus a couple million miles. No chance of hitting the sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Gas in clean in the sense that there is no particulate matter and that gas makes combined cycle generation possible (turbine and then use the exhaust to boil water). It still releases CO2. Coal is dirty due to particulate matter, which while not good for quality of life, does have the benefit of creating 'global dimming' which helps to counteract the effect of global warming. <br /><br />Of course you could also turn coal into Syngas and burn that.

 

[henryhallam]

Also we have plenty of coal to burn but much less oil, maybe we should be saving the oil for petrochemical uses.

 

[mikejz]

Actually, there is already a move in the petrochemical industry to start to use coal as a feedstock---not sure how much of it that can coal can replace.

 

[scottb50]

To convert a Gas plant to Hydrogen would take a couple of hours. Your still pulled in by the addiction to hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are like the Dark Side, they get thing done but their slimmy and end up costing you in the long run. <br /><br />Hydrogen, on the other side is eternally abundant, easily obtainable and infinitely recyclable, in a closed system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

It could replace all of it with current technology. The Germans used Coal distilates to power their fighters in the later part of WWII. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[brandbll]

Yeah, and did they win that war?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I think it needs another trilogy, though I'm sure I'm not the first one to say that. There is life after Cheney after all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The sun itself puts out far more radiation in less than one second than all of the human efforts in histroy have! Any amount of nuclear waste that we could send towards the sun sould merely become "noise" in comparison!

 

[willpittenger]

Not really. It takes a lot of energy to get the hydrogen. Unless you are going to use it in a portable manner (vehicles) or for fusion, you will consume more energy than you create. Besides, when you burn hydrogen, you get temperatures that are high enough to force Nitrogen to bond with Oxygen. Nitrous Oxides are the result. As I understand it, most internal combustion engines that burn hydrogen inject water to keep those temperatures too low to involve the Nitrogen. (Before you object, fuel cells do get around the Nitrogen problem, but drive the cost of the vehicle up.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I think eventually it will all be fuel cells and electric motors. What I am talking about is the short term way to quit using oil and eventually get to that point. Realistically ten years down the road and the 2006 is getting pretty ratty. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Hydrogen basically has to overcome the problems with better storage and dramatically lower catalyst costs.<br /><br />If the storage option is developed well enough, we can skip the fuel cell and go with an ICE.<br /><br />To be honest, i'm starting to warm to cellulosic ethanol, with it's liquid advantage.