• Email Us: [email protected]
  • Contact Us: +1 718 874 1545
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Medical Market Report

  • Home
  • All Reports
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Why Can’t We Send All Our Garbage Into Space?

November 24, 2024 by Deborah Bloomfield

There’s no getting around it: Earth has a trash problem. Particularly in the West: we throw away more than two billion – with a “b” – tonnes of the stuff every year, and only a tiny proportion of it ever gets recycled. The rest? Eternal garbage. 

Of course, nobody likes living surrounded by their own refuse – which is why we’re willing to do just about anything to avoid that. We’ve tried burying it; we’ve tried chucking it in the sea. We’ve tried making poorer nations live in it instead, and feeding it to wildlife who then die in terrible pain because of it. But none of these are viable long term, and we’re running out of options.

Advertisement

So, some people – specifically, the readers of Popular Science – have suggested thinking outside the box to solve our garbage problem. And by “box”, we mean… “planet”.

And you know what? It’s a fair question: why don’t we just chuck all our trash into space?

The cost

Hey, remember when Blue Origin sent up a bunch of people into space a few years ago, and some person spent $28 million to be on board only to declare they were “too busy” that day to go to space? You ever wonder why the journey had such a hefty price tag?

The fact of the matter is that, while costs have decreased dramatically in the past few years, getting to space is still an expensive endeavor. The cheapest recent option is probably Falcon 9, which (when it works) comes out at around $1,200 per kilo of payload – and that’s only to reach low-Earth orbit.

Advertisement

Throwing our junk out into space, therefore, is “not cost-feasible at all,” John L. Crassidis, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the State University of New York at Buffalo, told Popular Science. “You require a lot of thrust and a lot of fuel to do that.”

Which – while we’re on the subject…

The pollution

Look, nobody likes the sight of a massive pile of garbage – but getting rid of it in a way that might straight-up destroy the ozone layer through the massive expulsion of soot and aluminum oxides might not be the best solution.

The environmental impact of rocket launches has “never been that big of a concern or focus because the number of rockets being launched every year was so small,” Christopher Maloney, a research scientist at the NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, told BBC Future back in 2022. 

Advertisement

“Now if you look at the trajectory of the industry, or proposals from various governments, then we can expect to see a tenfold increase in rocket launches and emissions within the next 10 to 20 years,” he said, “and that is why, suddenly, it’s starting to get momentum in terms of scientific research.”

So, what kind of emissions are we talking about? Well, one analysis of a 2016 Falcon 9 launch found that sending a rocket into space expelled 116 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere… in the first 165 seconds alone. 

That’s one launch. Scale it up to cope with a couple of billion tonnes of trash, and it starts to look a little less eco-friendly than… well, just about anything else.

And that’s assuming it stays up there.

The safety

We’ve been talking about the various costs of sending stuff into low-Earth orbit – but there’s a very good reason that wouldn’t be enough.

“You’ve got to get it away from the Earth’s influence,” Crassidis told Popular Science – in other words, at least 22,000 miles from the surface. Fall short, he warned, and all that garbage will just end up hanging out with a bunch of satellites and space junk – and, eventually, it’ll probably come back down on someone’s roof.

That’s not hyperbole. We’ve all seen the occasional headline of a massive piece of rocket falling out of the sky and into someone’s backyard, and we tend to think of each one as a one-in-a-million chance event. But scientists are already warning of a one in ten chance of rocket debris literally killing someone within the next decade, and a dramatic increase in rocket launches – like, say, if we were trying to send billions of tonnes of crap off-world every year – would only result in a corresponding uptick in debris incidents. 

Even if it stayed in orbit, things could still go haywire. It’s called Kessler syndrome: the nightmare space scenario that, depending on which astrophysicist you ask, we’re either already edging towards – or already watching the start of.

Advertisement

It’s “an idea proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978,” explains the Natural History Museum. “He said that if there was too much space junk in orbit, it could result in a chain reaction where more and more objects collide and create new space junk in the process, to the point where Earth’s orbit became unusable.”

Of course, you may be thinking, there’s an easy answer to that: just send the junk to the moon, or Mars or somewhere, instead. Well, about that…

The logistics

Okay, forgetting about cost, pollution, all those other things for a minute – the moon seems like the perfect solution, right? There’s nobody there; no animals to poison or national parks to screw up. You can’t even destroy the ozone layer, because it doesn’t have one. It’s practically begging to be turned into a dump.

Well, sure – but it depends on how long-term you’re thinking. 

Advertisement

“You definitely don’t want to send [our garbage] around the moon,” Crassidis told Popular Science. “It could crash onto the moon, right? You want our junk to pile up on the moon?”

Okay, so how about Mars? Surely we could cover the red planet entirely in garbage, and the only things that would mind is a couple of lonely rovers and some hypothetical bacteria. But again, Crassidis cautioned that such a plan could eventually backfire: “You’ve got to think 200 years from now,” he said. “Hopefully we’ll be colonizing [Mars]. You don’t want junk there too.”

Of course, there’s always the nuclear option. What if we fired all our garbage right into the sun, like all the memes say?

Look – it might be feasible. One day. But for now, Crassidis told Popular Science, “it’s just beyond cost viable.” 

Advertisement

“First, you got to get all this stuff and put it in a central location, and put that much garbage onto a rocket (that can’t launch that big of a payload), and then send that payload out to the sun,” he explained – pointing out that “you can only launch a certain amount of stuff at a time, right?”

Overall, he suggested, it could cost trillions of dollars to pull off – and that’s not even accounting for all the other problems we’ve already mentioned. So, while in theory it’s a great plan, in practice? There’s just no way it’s happening right now.

Guess we’ll have to stick to recycling for the foreseeable future after all. 

Deborah Bloomfield
Deborah Bloomfield

Related posts:

  1. Cricket-Manchester test likely to be postponed after India COVID-19 case
  2. EU to attend U.S. trade meeting put in doubt by French anger
  3. Soccer-West Ham win again, Leicester and Napoli falter
  4. Lacking Company, A Dolphin In The Baltic Is Talking To Himself

Source Link: Why Can't We Send All Our Garbage Into Space?

Filed Under: News

Primary Sidebar

  • Unethical Experiments: When Scientists Really Should Have Stopped What They Were Doing Immediately
  • The First Humans Were Hunted By Leopards And Weren’t The Apex Predators We Thought They Were
  • Earth’s Passage Through The Galaxy Might Be Written In Its Rocks
  • What Is An Einstein Cross – And Why Is The Latest One Such A Unique Find?
  • If We Found Life On Mars, What Would That Mean For The Fermi Paradox And The Great Filter?
  • The Longest Living Mammals Are Giants That Live Up To 200 Years In The Icy Arctic
  • Entirely New Virus Detected In Bat Urine, And It’s Only The 4th Of Its Kind Ever Isolated
  • The First Ever Full Asteroid History: From Its Doomed Discovery To Collecting Its Meteorites
  • World’s Oldest Pachycephalosaur Fossil Pushes Back These Dinosaurs’ Emergence By 15 Million Years
  • The Hole In The Ozone Layer Is Healing And On Track For Full Recovery In The 21st Century, Thanks To Science
  • First Sweet Potato Genome Reveals They’re Hybrids With A Puzzling Past And 6 Sets Of Chromosomes
  • Why Is The Top Of Canada So Sparsely Populated? Meet The “Canadian Shield”
  • Humans Are In The Middle Of “A Great Evolutionary Transition”, New Paper Claims
  • Why Do Some Toilets Have Two Flush Buttons?
  • 130-Year-Old Butter Additive Discovered In Danish Basement Contains Bacteria From The 1890s
  • Prehistoric Humans Made Necklaces From Marine Mollusk Fossils 20,000 Years Ago
  • Zond 5: In 1968 Two Soviet Steppe Tortoises Beat Humans To Orbiting Around The Moon
  • Why Cats Adapted This Defense Mechanism From Snakes
  • Mother Orca Seen Carrying Dead Calf Once Again On Washington Coast
  • A Busy Spider Season Is Brewing: Why This Fall Could See A Boom Of Arachnid Activity
  • Business
  • Health
  • News
  • Science
  • Technology
  • +1 718 874 1545
  • +91 78878 22626
  • [email protected]
Office Address
Prudour Pvt. Ltd. 420 Lexington Avenue Suite 300 New York City, NY 10170.

Powered by Prudour Network

Copyrights © 2025 · Medical Market Report. All Rights Reserved.

Go to mobile version