Why It's Nearly Impossible to Hit the Sun

Why shouldn't we throw garbage into the sun? Find out in this return of our series 'Astrum Answers'. Let BetterHelp connect you to a therapist who can support you - all from the comfort of your own home. Visit betterhelp.com/astrum and enjoy a special discount on your first month (ad).
If you have any questions about the brand relating to how the therapists are licensed, their privacy policy, or therapist compensation model, check out this FAQ: www.betterhelp.com/your-quest...
Astrum Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/2250635/share
Displate Posters: displate.com/promo/astrum?art...
Astrum Merch! astrum-shop.fourthwall.com/
Join us on the Astrum discord: / discord
SUBSCRIBE for more videos about space and astronomy.
Subscribe! goo.gl/WX4iMN
Facebook! goo.gl/uaOlWW
Twitter! goo.gl/VCfejs
Astrum Spanish: / @astrumespanol
Astrum Portuguese: / @astrumbrasil
A huge thanks to our Patreons who help make these videos possible.
Sign-up here: bit.ly/4aiJZNF
Credits
Writer: Julia Masselos
Editor: Felix Dennis
Thumbnail Designer: Peter Sheppard
Animator: Peter Sheppard
Producer: Alex McColgan / Raquel Taylor
#Astrum #Astronomy #sun #oursolarsystem #Space #environment

[@astrumspace]

This most recent video was made possible thanks to everyone who has signed up on Patreon. To have your questions considered for the next Astrum Answers video sign-up and ask your questions here: bit.ly/4anEb5u

[@peterdanklege2904]

Nice video

[@thomassecurename3152]

Astrum future project task; Chernobyl X 100. Whereby a Carrington Event takes out worldwide electric grid leaving all nuclear reactors w/o long term power and cooling. A nightmare fun fact.

[@jayl5032]

Taking the Futurama route of launching all our trash into space lol.

[@danielgreen6302]

I was so passionate about this, in college i wrote a paper advocating it. still am I still think there is an economic answer. to a cost effective way of using space to an advantage especially dangerous elements. Does Not necessarily have to be a rocket, a modified artillery cannon?(the harp project comes to mind) a magnetic rail gun? I mean to say, if this wasn't all about money, anything is or could be possible. people are killing themselves and others over this proposition, at some point this insane mindset must be reconsidered or stopped.

[@iain4295]

The self help app looked stupid and appears to spread dangerous nonsense.

[@kylehill]

Keep in mind this question presupposes that nuclear waste is so dangerous and abundant that we need it off-world. It's not. All nuclear waste in the US. ALL OF IT could fit in the square footage of two Walmarts.

[@tiffanysjustcoloring]

I’m watching this now and was just thinking of your video on this topic, wondering why we would want to waste so much money to do what we already do safely here on Earth. Thanks for your informative content, @kylehill

[@benpietersen3723]

One thing which I think might contribute, but I seldom see mentioned in discussions around nuclear technology is just how ubiquitous and common nuclear processes are in nature. Most discussions (way too civil description) around the topic come from the line of "look how safe and useful and efficient this technology is" and very seldom from line of "look at how this occurs in nature and has always been part of our everyday existence". For the average person, one is a lot harder to trust than the other. Here are some interesting points which I would love to see mentioned in one of your videos: 1) The earth's mantle is hot. Why? Mostly due to naturally occurring nuclear decay. Geothermal is one of the absolute 'greenest' energy sources but yet it's still nuclear energy. 2) Cosmic background radiation. There's a brilliant video from Tech Ingredients wherein they show a visual demonstration of the radiation that's been ever present since the start of the universe. 3) Fusion as a nuclear process. When most people hear "nuclear" they think "bad", often overlooking that our sun (just like other stars) is a nuclear process. Any and all reactions undergone within the nucleus of an atom is a nuclear process and this is happening everywhere, all the time, even within our own bodies. The terminology should be normalised as it is a normal process. (within bounds obviously) I truly believe the hiccup people face with accepting nuclear energy isn't the technology or how safe it is, it's an understanding of the nature of nuclear processes. If someone can accept that nuclear (fission, fusion, radiation etc) is a normal part of our everyday life, that we are all swimming in the full spectrum of various forms of radiation then accepting the use of the technology will just come (scuze the pun) naturally.

[@The_Lucent_Archangel]

Rather surprised to see something logical and unlaced from poli sci meandering, which seems reasonable, out of you. Still not a fan, but kudos for that.

[@internalwarrior2410]

I'm glad you reacted to this nonsense of a video concept. Love your work Kyle Hill

[@Flesh_Wizard]

I'm gonna eat it all

[@YousufAhmad0]

Say no to BetterHelp

[@alveolate]

i downvote all videos that are sponsored by BH. if the creator doesn't drop BH, i unsub.

[@3komma141592653]

Yes, they are proven scammers. Maybe @astrum doesn't know about this. Stop it.

[@my3dviews]

@@3komma141592653 Never heard of them. How do they scam people?

[@peanuts2105]

Who cares?!? Show me the money

[@AustinSteingrube]

Stop with the Better Help ads. Seriously. A company that sells mental health data collected from its patients is beyond supportable.

[@RightsForZombies]

This! Nobody seems to know that they sell patient data to social media sites for targeted ads and are being invested by the FTC, that’s so much worse than them giving questionable mental health care.

[@andyroo3022]

Never heard of Better Help, I just delete the ads. The video is boring anyway.

[@hornetthehivewing6265]

Do you use Facebook, Twitter, or Google? They harvest and sell ALL your data. Your every action.

[@Orvieta]

I just have a plug in that skips those ads, problem solved.

[@Coretnor]

Oh so you've seen the data? Or are you just pretending to be outraged because of innuendo?

[@ellia.vagabond]

Yay, another youtuber i watch selling out for a betterhelp sponsorship.

[@FuckYoutubeCensorship]

Y'all some weirdos just skip the fucking sponsorship

[@lsudx479]

It's called earning revenue for the work you do. KZbinrs do this for a living. Do you get paid for your work? I would hope so.

[@tracym8952]

@@lsudx479 they don't have to take money from scams. That makes them grifters too

[@waynedarronwalls6468]

Can we just fire BetterHelp into the Sun...?

[@emmacavalier]

Why do you still have a betterhelp sponsorship? Do you not know how predatory they are?

[@_BullsEyeBob]

Can we launch BetterHelp into the sun instead?

[@sysbofh]

No, same problems of launching nuclear waste apply. :P

[@LichaelMewis]

Lol

[@daleleblanc8115]

"And then, there's the dangerous industrial waste" accompanied by videos of cooling tower steam...which has 0 pollution in it. I'm not saying there's no industrial waste, but it's frustrating to see clean steam when mentioning it.

[@davidarmillie4226]

It's not the steam, it's the nuclear waste in the core. That's the problem. We have no where to put spent nuclear waste.

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

​@@davidarmillie4226 We do, but they're not great. Whomever thought the Sun was an option, must have been high as a kite.

[@Pleiades721]

​@@davidarmillie4226 This is where I'm always baffled how uninformed the public is... We have generational reactors, and all the way to Gen 7 now, which take the waste of a previous reactor and make use of it. Tier 1 has roughly 95% of the radioactivity in it still - that should be called secondary fuel instead of waste. We can do this 7 times over, still harvesting energy from the material. It's the cleanest form of energy and even cleaner if not scrapped after one usage. Never heard of breeder reactors either? There's virtually no waste in nuclear energy nearly as much as making new designs to harvest such.

[@Knight_Kin]

Yes thank you for that. Many people still seem to think nuclear = fallout

[@iooi1181]

its against the law to tell the Truth... we should all have reactors in our houses by now.

[@Zacharyswansonchannel]

Noooo, Astrum! Why taking the BetterHelp sponsorship? Please, have some integrity. I am really disappointed to see you go down that path.

[@austinpatrick2682]

Came here to say this. They are a money grab. Super expensive and not helpful at all

[@nghermit4922]

I’ve heard it called better than no help.

[@kingofflames738]

​@@nghermit4922 Though it's not rare for it to be Worse than no Help

[@ellia.vagabond]

​@@nghermit4922that's a funny pun, I suppose, but the reality is that bad therapy can actually be damaging. They don't even properly vet their therapists. So it's more like, no help is better.

[@theshivelyshow5784]

@@ellia.vagabondbad therapy can be bad and you can find bad therapists anywhere. i know of two people who used betterhelp and loved their therapists. just because you dont like the company doesn’t mean the people who work for it are bad

[@arelissanchez9840]

The real waste was betterhelp all along

[@Embo_Marrok]

One problem I've learned is a lot of city controlled recycling, don't actually do much actual recycling. Most just ends up getting thrown away anyway.

[@BeersAndBeatsPDX]

What doesn't get thrown away gets shipped to China and burnt. Recycling is a scam

[@apocalyptica003]

ESPECIALLY with plastic recycling

[@firehorsewoman414]

@@apocalyptica003and medical waste. Son has a friend who has a trash hauling business. When takes stuff to the dump, there are lots of areas of syringes etc. on the ground.

[@3komma141592653]

Honestly in a developed country that's not true at all. Regular waste gets burned and turned into warm water and electricity fairly easy. It gives you good money to do so. And all metals, aluminium and stuff like that gives you good money too.

[@my3dviews]

A lot of the paper was taken by China, but they stopped doing that a couple of years ago. So, much of it now ends up in land fills along the the supposed recycled plastic.

[@BlackJeansxx]

Incredibly dissappointed by your choice of sponser. Please do as diligent research into your sponsers as the topic if your videos.

[@solandri69]

Nuclear "waste" is a problem in the U.S. because of a Carter-era policy prohibiting reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. Reprocessing is where the spent fuel is used in a different type of a reactor, which uses it as fuel, and converts it into materials which can be sent back to the original reactor to be used as fuel again. The entire process extracts about 90% of the energy in the uranium (versus the about 10% we currently extract). So the resulting waste is only dangerously "hot" for a few centuries, instead of tens of thousands of years. Most of the rest of the world transports their spent fuel to France or Russia for reprocessing. So why did Carter prohibit it? Because one of the byproducts of reprocessing is weapons-grade plutonium. He didn't want corrupt workers stealing some and selling it in the black market to terrorists. But with Iran and North Korea developing their own nuclear weapons program, it's a foregone conclusion that terrorists will eventually be able to buy materials to make nuclear weapons. And the reason for the reprocessing ban will cease to exist. When that happens, all that spent fuel in the U.S. will suddenly become a valuable energy source. We'll want to reprocess it and use it regular reactors both for the energy it provides, and to reduce the time it'll be dangerous from tens of thousands of years, to centuries. i.e. The last thing we want to do is to get rid of it.

[@setojurai]

The amount of MUF and Broken Arrows reported EVERY YEAR means terrorists could easily get ahold of enriched nuclear material. And that's been true SINCE Carter.

[@DanielWSonntag]

And with that Flux capacitor...

[@nghermit4922]

They refine to plutonium right? One plus to that is from what I’ve been told it is much harder and requires extreme precision to make a bomb vs uranium.

[@brown2889]

That’s very interesting. I didn’t know that and it makes sense that they put those materials inside of a mountain now. I wonder how much is in there now?

[@nghermit4922]

It makes me wonder. Do you think the US is actually saving it for later reprocessing and pretending it’s a problem?

[@redheadsilver8041]

"No" and "don't do it", nuclear waste is too valuable a resource, once it becomes viable to parcel aside the 5% that's useless. The remaining 95% can be repurposed for numerous uses.

[@stevewiles7132]

Yeah, can be recycled into glow in the dark furniture........

[@BabyMakR]

@@stevewiles7132 Can be put back into nuclear power plants to keep providing power without needing to mine more of it. The USA has banned anyone that uses US designed or any plant that uses even $1 of US money to build, from reprocessing spent fuel. If it wasn't for this ban, there would be almost no nuclear waste to store.

[@cherriberri8373]

​@@BabyMakR and even now, we handle the larger amounts pretty well. It just adds costs to nuclear which is not good.

[@GoldenSun3DS]

Please don't take BetterHelp sponsorships.

[@kylemilford8758]

why do we expect him to give up a paycheck?

[@cherriberri8373]

​@@kylemilford8758 why do you refuse to even Google a companies name? They sell their clients info. For a healthcare company, that should be illegal and morally is horrible. You do know about HIPAA laws, right?

[@hansdampfindengassen8564]

Your sponsor "better help" is a scam! There are numerous videos on youtube about this topic...

[@JakeStz]

Who cares?

[@CadenAstro]

@@JakeStz many of us do

[@snygg1993]

@@JakeStz It is one thing to sell some overpriced useless stuff or overpriced crappy meals, but selling mental health data of patients is just a step to far.

[@tracym8952]

@@JakeStz not you so why even say anything

[@TheAcogshot]

Would it be feasible to eject Better Help in to space?

[@TomClarke1995]

Yeah yeah yeah, I played kerbal space program.

[@pockpock6382]

best comment

[@Knight_Kin]

Jebediah Kerman nooooo (crash)

[@yaldabaoth2]

Ikr? Once you mastered KSP, you are already smarter than 99% of people.

[@prostreetbeetdhd4586]

Question: I seen some shots of Kerbal not too long ago. Seen some goofy stuff so I'm asking is it more a serious take or some type of goofy gimmicky game with good looking space?

[@yaldabaoth2]

@@prostreetbeetdhd4586 You can goof off if you want. You build all spaceships yourself. But the maths and science behind it is rock solid. If you build an unwieldy thing with too much drag, you won't even leave the atmosphere without exploding. If you don't bring enough delta-v, your mission fails. If you mess up angle of entry, you will burn up. Just getting to the moon is already something many people give up on and there is a whole solar system out there waiting to be visited. But to be clear: If you want to try, try KSP 1. KSP 2 is no longer being developed and given up on, do NOT buy that.

[@TrivettTurner-ee4rp]

Fukin betterhellp

[@Dionaea_floridensis]

For Christ's sake STOP taking better help sponsorships

[@PandoricaLost]

Why? (genuinely curious)

[@kevinbill9574]

@@PandoricaLost I think the suggestion is that this anti nuclear gobbledegook is the result of pressure from sponsors

[@JohnNorris411]

Sure thing, Feel free to send him money to cover his costs so he does not need sponsors.

[@kellscorner1130]

@@PandoricaLost well known scam company. Was hiring "professionals with literally not credentials, and some ended up being VERY bad people who ended up damaging some costumers, (can't say exact or my comment will be deleted). Basically anything advertised on KZbin is bad. other examples are the Heritage-"buy land in Scotland and be a lord"-foundation (they didnt own the land or have the rights grant titles, kimikomo knives authentic high grade Japanese kitchen knives(made of cheap steel in china), and Dealdash a Ebay alternative boosting 90%+ savings on high value items ( is literally a gambling site ). If its a sponsor, stay away.

[@RogueBeatsARG]

@@kevinbill9574 what has a Mental Health site has to do with Nuclear "Eco Fear"?

[@greenlodge]

Respectfully, please stop taking money from better help. We know you need to take sponsorships but they(better help) are unethical and have been exposed publicly as such. I don't want to unsubscribe but if I keep seeing better help sponsorships I will have to do just that. Unethical sponsors aside, thank you, and your team as well, for another wonderful video!

[@dajosh42069]

Bro... BetterHelp is not angreat service, and have a pretty vad reputation. You should really look further into sponsorships before you take them... :/

[@EgoChip]

If you ever watched Futurama, you will know they tried it with a big ball of rubbish, and it only ended up returning to earth about 1000 years later.

[@MattisProbably]

If you aren't locked into a contract with better help you should drop them as a sponsor...

[@Yezpahr]

He's locked in, definitely. His producer did him dirty, cuz I highly doubt this was his own signature. And the worst part of it all is, sponsors demand a certain performance before they pay and because it's specifically this sponsor it's not going to get a great performance.

[@D-B-Cooper]

Calling it waste is the first problem.

[@Ramdomwarthunderuser]

It really is though.

[@D-B-Cooper]

@@Ramdomwarthunderuser so is fluoride.

[@rocoe9019]

What should it be called

[@Ramdomwarthunderuser]

@@D-B-Cooper well it seems that we got a Sherlock here.

[@adamredwine774]

@@rocoe9019unreprocessed MOC fuel.

[@hiddentruth1982]

Nuclear waste of the type that doesn't degrade in months or even needs to degrade is about 1 % of the waste. The rest is harmless but is stored because it was used in nuclear methods.

[@tomservo5007]

'harmless', is wrong, it's VERY harmful. Downplaying the dangers is not going to help build more power plants.

[@hiddentruth1982]

@@tomservo5007 neither is up playing it .

[@fredhawken1112]

@@tomservo5007 that is relative. Most low activity nuclear waste decays to harmless isotopes before it has the time to do any damage because of very short half lives. Isotopes used in clinical imaging for example. This needs to be treated like nuclear waste, because it is, but after a day it already lost most of its activity so the real threat becomes biological in nature (gloves used by the radiologist, possibly contaminated with disease for example). Other radioactive waste could be a spent iridium 192 isotope from industrial radiography. This could harm a person if in contact with the source, but also has a half life of about 74 days. So it would be half as dangerous in two months. Given such a source is only discarded of if it is damaged or spent, which means it already is less active, there is not much real danger besides a slightly increased chance of cancer and only for the people working near it and even then they would need to be constantly irradiated. Which offcourse does not happen because it is radioactive waste and therefore is already treated cautiously.

[@tomservo5007]

@@fredhawken1112 it's people like you who downplay the dangers to biology that make people *distrust* nuclear energy

[@RogueBeatsARG]

bro let them be, these people still playing Chernobyl in their head

[@ElMoShApPiNeSs]

Research your sponsors.

[@0michelleki020]

We already have a way to deal with nuclear waste, it's called Fast Breeder Reactors or Fast Neutron Reactors they are so effecient that they there's over 10 times less waste than the older designs.

[@levislevitas]

why throw valuable fuel into the sun?

[@bluedragontoybash2463]

valuable AND recycleable fuel

[@patrivolta2484]

Because we can, right? R-right?????

[@bronymusiclover8891]

Video does not answer title question. It's more like what's the problem with shooting anything into the sun

[@Ilix42]

Answering why shooting things into the sun is a problem in general does answer the title question.

[@riverryan6216]

Yes it absolutely does. Watch the video again, and this time, wear your thinking cap and pay attention.

[@Flameblade69]

The nuclear waste storage issue was solved years ago. Politics will tell you otherwise, they ignore the science, facts, and the actual experts in this field. There is plenty of space on earth to safely store nuclear waste for a very very long time. United states alone could actually safely store all nuclear waste on earth that are far from volcanoes, earthquakes, and moving water. People don't really understand how safe and clean nuclear power really is. You could stand right next to a storage unit and nothing will happen to you, because storage is just that efficient these days. It's just sad that politics and the media has made everyone so afraid, everyone only ever thinks of the worst possible situations about nuclear power. So many things have to go wrong in order for a power plant to have a meltdown, but the politics will never let it go, which keeps people ignorant and scared of it. You have better chances of being struck by lightning or being in a plane crash than a nuclear power plant having a meltdown. The chances of a meltdown are 1 in 1,000,000,000 per year of operation.

[@user-un8tv1pp8m]

That why we already had several close calls? Those extremly long chanches you cite seem to crop up every few decades in reality. . Doesnt matter anyway. Because even if we take all you say about risks as a given - the price of fission energy is ridiculously high. Utterly noncompetitive, really. Only ever done by economic players if they get promises in taxpayer money. No single fission plant was ever built without earnings guarantees by governements. Its just - at current tech - not a viable way to make mass-use electricity. Too expensive, too dependent, too inflexible, loooong build times, massive initial investment burdens. That tech can only flourish in preservations free of economic pressures like the military or related state-guided industries. That might change with new tech like SMRs or LSRs, but for now those suffer the same basic problem. Its just too darn costly to make. Compared to literally every other mass-technology for eletricity production we use.

[@dereks1264]

"Why don't we just shoot it in the other direction and out of the solar system" was my first question, if off-world disposal were to be considered.

[@my3dviews]

That was mentioned in the video.

[@LookToWindward]

Or just get it into an orbit that doesn't intersect Earth's. Still impractical, but a lot less so.

[@my3dviews]

@@LookToWindward Much cheaper and safer just to store it on Earth. Like boring a tunnel into the side of a geologically stable mountain and filling it up, then capping it with concrete.

[@Decapodd]

Say No to Betterhelp

[@kalef1234]

better scam

[@levistoner]

Any guy who has tried pissing into the wind should understand why this won’t work.

[@newguy3588]

lol

[@jamespadilla7070]

Amazing explanation ngl

[@Xhopp3r]

I pee a straight jet into an F5 Hurricane wind, without issues. Sometimes I use the jet cut steel.

[@andymouse]

At last somebody who understands scale !

[@arsenii_yavorskyi]

Another KZbinr lost to the scum sponsor.

[@nox6438]

Great video as always, but It really sucks you took a betterhelp sponsor. They're no good

[@fifnaf7290]

Nuclear waste is a non-issue. Simply from the fact that there are so few byproducts to begin with, and the way we contain them is already extremely reliable.

[@glennquagmire1747]

That's not true, them 55 gallon drums has a short shelf life, stored nuclear waste barrels in caves or underground storage facilities are already.leaking n contaminating ancient underground water

[@scurvofpcp]

Considering how many of those byproducts have industrial uses, or could have industrial uses in the future, I'm not sure we should be just pitching them into the sun.

[@douglasdarling7606]

Not to mention which they figured out a way to sandwich it between sheets of diamond to create batteries that can last 10,000 years

[@GeoMeridium]

I wish the US president would make an executive order to resume work on Yucca Mountain. The feds have already spent over $15B on the facility, but the few hundred residents living near the facility have shut it down, even though the risk of groundwater contamination is extremely low.

[@tomservo5007]

"Nuclear waste is a non-issue" , because it's not in your backyard

[@UploaderGuy3000]

Boeing just launched some trash into space last week.

[@andymouse]

LMFAO!

[@my3dviews]

Boom. 😂

[@novanastalga]

Alex please stop using betterhelp sponsorships. They haven been sued for stealing from you!.

[@mikeshannon7886]

Dude, enough with the better help. Your content is great, they are not.

[@filipporiva1864]

Because there’s no point dealing with an already solved problem with a worse solution, easy

[@nassattack]

Better Help is not a good service. I get it, we all got bills to pay, I have no interest in starting a witch hunt here. But maybe choose your sponsors with a bit more care.

[@Flyingpapaya]

Ew. Betterhelp.

[@coronelkittycannon]

Can't Nuclear waste be recycled into making more nuclear fuel? Also, what's the problem with returning it to the depths of Earth were it was to begin with?

[@Cyclone243]

Finally you answered the question i been asking for 10 years!

[@monarchofrymden]

how many times do we have to tell you that better help has been proven multiple times to be selling patient data off. stop

[@shanent5793]

When was it "proven?" Why do the mainstream news sites say that it was "shared" and not "sold?" Why is sharing or selling the data even a problem?

[@shanent5793]

Whether it's de-orbiting into the sun, or escaping the system, each should be done very slowly in case we ever realize it's not really waste but a valuable resource.

[@my3dviews]

That's already the case. Spent fuel can be used in other reactors to reprocess it and extract more energy.

[@shanent5793]

@@my3dviews it won't be the common case until virgin fuel costs more than recovered fuel

[@Saucisse_Praxis]

I mean, we already solved nuclear waste storage.

[@jameslindley1564]

Have we?

[@setojurai]

@@jameslindley1564 we have. MOST spent nuclear fuel is recycled into various products, including more nuclear fuel for different Population II reactors. The "problem" is the US. Who doesn't do that. At all.

[@ConcernedMan]

Contrary to the video. Burying nuclear waste deep underground is actually very safe and effective. In fact we already do this in multiple sites around the world.

[@generalpenultimo6502]

So we haven't solved it, if only most of it can be recycled?

[@alok.01]

​@@generalpenultimo6502Wait for Thorium based reactors

[@ProbablyNotAChicken]

"what if i don't want to be a delivery boy?" "Then you'll be fired." ":D" "Out of a cannon, into the sun." "D:"

[@shanent5793]

Did Gerald Bull's head-in-a-jar design the cannon?

[@XOPOIIIO]

It's so non-intuitive that you need to get further from sun to be able to better fall to it.

[@tayaprince5316]

I can't believe my favourite channel put a betterhelp sponsorship in here... So disappointing.

[@jamesgrabatin5520]

Why is it disappointing?

[@tayaprince5316]

@@jamesgrabatin5520 Because Betterhelp is a terrible sponsor to support.

[@mangogo44]

​@@jamesgrabatin5520it's a scam and hurts people in need

[@ajns746]

Go up to the search bar and type better help and you will see. ​@@jamesgrabatin5520

[@umadbra]

Isn't better help a terrible company?

[@Tommy-he7dx]

Firing it into interstellar space isn't solving a problem, it;s just moving it elsewhere. The simple answer to "Can Shooting Our Nuclear Waste into the Sun Solve All Our Disposal Problems?" is Yes it can. The cost may prohibitive but it's not beyond our current tech level to achieve. Even with all the potential failure points it is possible and would solve the Nuclear waste issue. A better question is to ask, "Why don't we fire waste into the Sun"

[@outlawbillionairez9780]

Cost per pound, just for orbit.. $1200. Amount of US nuke waste each year.. 2,000 metric tons. I'll stop here. You get the math. 😉

[@demonhighwayman9403]

You mentioned recycling, why can't the spent fuel rods be re-enriched and used again ? or even used for a lower output generator, they are still radioactive and full of unused energy.

[@volvo09]

I hear it can be re used many times, but I'm no nuclear geek, I just wish we had more of it.

[@rossclutterbuck1060]

they are

[@brothergrimaldus3836]

Carter banned reprocessing in the U.S.

[@adamredwine774]

They can. The technology used for it is also useful for weapons tech though. The French have led development since Carter banned it but America picks up the idea every once in a while. Of course, there’s plenty of fission fuel easily mineable and we may well get fusion going before it runs out.

[@khumokwezimashapa2245]

Why don't we just go to a very high mountain, drop the waste onto a very big trampoline and let it bounce out of Earth's gravitational pull

[@volvo09]

I like the sound of that, you know your stuff.

[@shanent5793]

It can't bounce any higher than it's starting point. You have jump after it and do a double bounce for it to go higher, like my dad did when he jumped off the garage roof and sent my uncle flying into the firewood pile at the family BBQ

[@BussyBoyBonanza]

Yes think of all the employment we will bring to the sherpas

[@umadbra]

​@@shanent5793your science is bad. You just need to add the flux capacitor and it'll be fine.

[@RogueBeatsARG]

just build a very big Trebuche

[@danielbruin]

@7:26 as far as I know that record currently belongs to the spaceX Falcon 9 block 5 rocket.

[@danielbruin]

With basically 100% reliability from what I can find online

[@Original_Old_Farmer]

Based upon the way you are looking at things, you are right. But here is another way of thinking about things. First of all we can build containers that can handle a fall from low earth orbit. The Challenger accident proved that. Other than windows and doors it landed intact. So we can design containers that could be dropped from space and stay intact. I would suggest they should meet specs with a wide margin. Now about hitting the sun. All we have to do is slow the orbital speed so that the load would spiral into the sun. So what if it takes 30 years or so. The two things needed is enough energy to get the payload up and beyond the gravity well of earth, then slow the payload down enough so that it can spiral down into the the sun without hitting Venus and Mercury. We don't need to loose all of the 19 miles per second only enough to start the spiral towards the sun. Most of the difficulties of placing satellites in orbit around the sun or Mercury is the need to cancel most of the linear speed. We don't have to if we want to hit the sun. I had it figured back with the Mercury space program. Conversationally, to put a Volkswagen Beetle into orbit cost about $2 million dollars in 1960 money or about $20 million in today's dollars. Why did I say a Volkswagen Beetle? Because it was about the size and weight of a Mercury capsule. But maybe we might just want to park it in a Lagrange point. We may find a use in the future that use the nuclear and other waste material. So it may be best if we do not destroy it, but get it off the planet in a safe manner that makes it impossible to come back except by deliberate action.

[@my3dviews]

I think you are mixing up the Challenger accident and the Columbia accident. Challenger didn't make it to orbit, but exploded within a couple of minutes of the launch. Colombia was destroyed when it broke up during re-entry. Things don't "spiral into the sun". If you got out of Earth's orbit and slowed down, you would then be in a more elliptical orbit, would miss the sun and remain in orbit indefinitely like a comet. Unless an object hits the sun on its first pass, it will continue to orbit forever unless that orbit is affected by another body, such as a planet. Things only spiral down to Earth due to atmospheric drag. Otherwise they would just follow an elliptical path until they hit the surface. It would be much cheaper just to bore a tunnel into a geologically stable mountain and store it there, then fill it in with concrete so it is not stolen.

[@FlamingTot]

this video is so stupid and smart at the same time i love it

[@trene6559]

The better help sponsorship? Seriously? Do some research!

[@atlasnetwork7855]

Rather than launch it clockwise, launch it anti clockwise, and then no de-acceleration or braking is needed? Let's see if this video answers that.

[@Space30MINUTES]

1 thousand hours for your production in insane. The process you take to create these videos deserves a video of its own.

[@generalpenultimo6502]

I liked the video, was going to giving a thumbs up, but then you came with the betterhelp ad... I know you need to make money and have ads, but please look a little but into what they have done and are doing before you promote them next time 😅

[@mintonmiller]

has anyone noticed how many rocket launches fail???? What a scary idea. This idea is also not new and has not been done for a reason.

[@vonmajor]

That was addressed over 50 years ago in DOE research in which it was mentioned the loss off a launch vehicle make the proposition too risky.

[@adamredwine774]

Way too expensive, but burying it at subduction zones in the ocean would work a treat.

[@thejontao]

I didn’t understand why we couldn’t do this until I played Kerbal Space Program. Flying into the sun is hard!

[@Mhark127]

What about Venus? Its atmosphere is so powerful to destroy our trash.

[@scurvofpcp]

Venus is in the top two for our local terraforming prospects. Let's not screw over our great grand kids.

[@fallendown8828]

Powerful atmosphere? What does it even mean???

[@scurvofpcp]

@@fallendown8828 It is a huge acid power washer. Russia sent a probe to venus once and it got gobbled up by the atmosphere.

[@AscendancyLF]

@@scurvofpcp Nah that's just plain wrong thinking, once we reach the technology AND space infrastructure of TERRAFORMING a whole planet (which will take thousand of years anyway), there is no way that we don't have technology then to decontaminate it from some minor radiation too. Which it won't be anyway even if we shoot all our nuclear waste at it. In terms of nuclear waste we are talking a few thousand tons maybe up to 100.000 tons over the next CENTURY and not billions (though even billions would be negligible compared to mass of venus atmosphere, which is 4.8×10^20 kg).

[@Kirkvanhouten55]

@@fallendown8828 The atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is around 92 bar, or 1,350 pounds per square inch (psi), which is 93 times thicker than Earth's atmosphere

[@rhouser1280]

Imagine shooting a rocket & planning on using 9 gravity assists at 3 different planets to slow down & hit your target. I have a hard time hitting a can with a BB gun from 20yds lol

[@genericalfishtycoon3853]

Suggesting new glasses and some time on the range. Just saying.

[@scurvofpcp]

You might want to get your blood pressure and sugar checked. You would be surprised how much blood sugar and blood pressure can impact your vision.

[@rhouser1280]

@@genericalfishtycoon3853 it’s a joke, I’m good. Just making a point that it’s pretty cool that you can shoot a rocket, using 9 different gravity assists & 7 years later, hit your target

[@my3dviews]

Imagine trying to get to the moon by launching Starship and 9 or 10 refueling flights. Which is what they are proposing.

[@dmitryshusterman9494]

Its impossible to come up with a stupider idea, except making a video debunking it

[@warrengans1346]

Send it to Jupiter: not a place we are likely to ever want to land, and easier than using the sun.

[@hezekiahglynn6664]

You literally can’t land on Jupiter, there’s no surface (well yea there is but everything burns up before it reaches the surface) same with all the gas/ice giants

[@williamheckening9896]

better health sponsor ins 2024? lol

[@brianschwarm8267]

Astrum, not telling you what to do but…I’d drop the better help sponsor. They are ass, super expensive and not really good at all. L

[@troygaspard6732]

Umm, too expensive. Rockets are not cargo ships.

[@joshuagrunz]

I'm really dissapointed that Astrum chooses to work with the scam that is BetterHelp. Please Astrum, vet your sponsors so you don't recommend people truly harmful services.

[@Ar1AnX1x]

the Sun: you don't want the smoke little bro

[@CynicallySarcasticReserves]

Which disposal problems? Nuclear waste is almost a non-issue.

[@tommymandel]

why go into orbit at all? Why not accellerate to 25,000mph and escape Earth's gravitational field right after launch. I agree about the danger of a crash spreading nuclear waste down here too. I also agree that a good solution would be to waste less and produce less plastics. That's what the Fossil Fuel industry is transitioning into - Plastics Everywhere. Argh!!!

[@user-cl4lg8hs4s]

I remember reading that it costs $500 per kilo to just to send something into orbit. This was awhile ago. It's probably more now. Now weigh your trash at the end of the week and do the math and it becomes pretty clear why just launching our trash into space, never mind sending it into the Sun, is impractical.

[@wildedge9081]

I have alwasy wondered if this is possible. Thank you for the video !

[@fodank]

Oh, God, Astrum, are things so bad that you have to resort to answering stupid questions in order to survive? And taking money from quacks like Better Help? Simply makes me think that you are the ones that need help. Not watching any video sponsored by these fools. Hope you get the help you need. Cheers, D.

[@HeatherJones-yg7wr]

While watching this video my headphones broke and started playing you saying ''Rrrrrr'' in an endless cycle. Cant turn them off, cant turn down the volume, just waiting til it runs out of batteries. Its sad that i need new headphones but the way it broke is funny LOL

[@TedsHoldOver]

If we missed the sun with the garbage rocket, would we get it on the other side of our orbit? Like a roller-coaster rider who yacks at the top of the loop and then catches it at the bottom? 😃

[@heretichazel]

if it missed it would complete an orbit faster than the earth, so it wouldn't immediately hit us but it could potentially in the future

[@Cheka__]

Of course it works. Superman proved it when he threw all those ICBM's into the sun.

[@constantinaichele5357]

Better help is a fraud company please find better sponsors...

[@johannderjager4146]

Reminds me of that Invader Zim episode "Planet Jackers" where an alien race that steals plants and takes them to their solar system to throw into their dying star to "fuel" it like a campfire, and even at the age I was when it came out, I knew stars fused hydrogen as fuel and throwing something like a planet with all the heavy elements that stars create as they die would just make their star die quicker.

[@Ceres_5]

Also the fact that giving a star more fuel to burn makes it die quicker as well. That's why red dwarf stars can live for so long, because they hardly have any fuel to burn. If you want your star to live longer, you have to remove fuel, though possibly at the cost of freezing your planets.

[@eekinelsa]

why bother with the sun? just slingshot it into space and forget about it

[@drewdaly61]

Drop the waste into ocean trenches at subduction zones like off the coast of Chile.Earthquakes liquify the seabed and the waste drops through the sediment and is eventually subducted into the mantle. After a couple of million years some of it may be extruded in volcanoes, but diluted and half life will make it no more radioactive than background. We have known this for years.

[@my3dviews]

Ya, what could possibly go wrong with that plan. 🤣

[@sethbettwieser]

Please do not take "betterhelp" sponsorships. They are scummy.

[@user-yy9hk9od9u]

No. It's too dangerous. If an accident happens, it will end the project and it's too expensive. Burying it deep in the earth is the best solution right now. In the future, the waste can be repurposed to something less toxic.

[@fredricktalbot1945]

They tried shooting their trash into space on futurama and that totally worked out great.

[@silvaskiproductions3937]

half the comments bitching about better help 💀 hope the money was worth it

[@JCMills55]

I have wondered about this very thing for years. Of course some would screech that we're polluting the sun. 🙄

[@Sniper9773]

Right? You could throw the entire earth to the sun and it would literally do nothing.😂

[@SeanBZA]

Lower energy to not slingshot it out, just if you were going to do it lunar disposal would work just as well. Plant it on the lunar surface, and leave it there is a spot. No need for great accuracy either, within 100km is fine.

[@skateboardingjesus4006]

It would have no effect on the Sun. It would however have an effect on the pockets of those paying for the extreme expense of disposal, which would be the customers of power consumption.

[@my3dviews]

@@SeanBZA Storing nuclear waste on the moon? You clearly haven't learned the lesson from watching Space 1999. 🤣

[@SeanBZA]

@@my3dviews Yes, but store it on the far side........

[@not2busy]

What would happen if we put these hazardous materiel into a lava lake? Not an explosive volcano as I'm sure the clouds would be a concern but a non-erupting but active volcano with a lava lake. Would it help if we encased it into a protective shell and weighed it down so that it would sink and not get burned up immediately?

[@SirHefferlot581]

What if you put that stuff into CASTOR containers first, then in starship and then CYA?

[@callum7169]

I love your videos Alex, but PLEASE strongly reconsider Better Help as a sponsor. I know their contracts are tempting from the creator perspective, but if you're not locked-in with them, even a small amount of research will help you to understand why they're such a terrible organisation causing far more harm than good.

[@LukeSeed]

This is a problem with people's spatial perception. Space is soooooo vast that you have no need of putting "waste" into the sun. Put it in a slightly higher orbit than earth is and there becomes 0.00000000000000000% chance of it ever impacting earth.

[@adamredwine774]

Exactly. Very nearly anywhere not near earth is all equally acceptable.

[@my3dviews]

The risk of launching it anywhere into space would be higher than the risk of storing it on Earth. Better to just bore a tunnel into the side of a geologically stable mountain and fill it up, then block the entrance by filling it with concrete.

[@MarkAckerman-x3x]

Thanks for the video, Astrum, but I'm disappointed that it comes up short in one area: Don't use rockets, use a space gun. It should be launched retro-active to the Earth's orbit to slow it down enough to fall towards the sun. Also: once it reaches Escape Velocity the job is done. It may take many years to reach the sun, but the waste is off the earth never to return. The nine Saturn V third states currently drifting around the Solar System aren't causing any problems and will never be back to Earth. The space gun can also be powered by a nuclear reactor.

[@jerotoro2021]

On a related note, how difficult would it be to build a fuel manufacturing station in orbit, harvesting asteroids for fuel materials? Seems like an orbital fuel station would solve a lot of the launch problems, since you only need to carry enough fuel to get into orbit, then refuel at the station to continue with the trip.