Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:30 pm
by nimec
I think the main idea behind it is that as of yet we do not have an efficient enough method of launching things into outer space. ?Trust me, you guys are not the first people to have thought of that. ?I mean, scientists have the know-how to build a fusion reactor in theory, but it requires further technology (namely a magical conducting material) to get it working.
What I am saying is, IF and WHEN an efficient way to get the trash into space is created, this would be a good idea.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:40 pm
by glory
if saddem says he has trash, they must be destroyed
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:50 pm
by Chomps
I think the main idea behind it is that as of yet we do not have an efficient enough method of launching things into outer space. ?Trust me, you guys are not the first people to have thought of that. ?I mean, scientists have the know-how to build a fusion reactor in theory, but it requires further technology (namely a magical conducting material) to get it working.
What I am saying is, IF and WHEN an efficient way to get the trash into space is created, this would be a good idea.
And I am saying THIS IS AN OBVIOUS IDEA THAT HAS BEEN THOUGHT OF MILLIONS OF TIMES BEFORE BUT NO ONE BOTHERS TO MENTION IT BECAUSE IT IS FOR NOW STILL FARFETCHED HI THERE NIMEC.
I may as well suggest that IF and WHEN scientists develop an even better insulating material, we should use it in thermoses.
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:53 pm
by JFK
too expensive, dumb idea
it costs over $30,000 dollars to lift one pound into space.
too expensive unless funded by a private company.
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 4:38 am
by big_tex
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:42 pm
by sh3p
maybe if we got lucky the shuttle carrying the nuclear waste would crash over texas