Ok , so here it goes .  I haven’t bothered to Google the size of space however the very minimal knowledge I have on this topic tells me that it’s so large nobody actually knows where it starts and where it finishes ( god botherers excluded as they have inside knowledge ) .  So I’m also no expert on what it takes to launch projectiles into space but for the sake of my idea I’m going to assume we can get stuff into space without a rocket to project it ? Maybe not humans , but stuff .  If not now , I wouldn’t assume it’d be too hard to divert their space exploration efforts from getting humans up there and invent something merely to get “stuff” up there . 

 

So what kinda “ stuff “ you ask ?  .. so here’s the kicker and the answer the so called professionals should be welcoming with open arms .  Garbage , waste , fumes , non biodegradeables , anything really we don’t want here .   We could make big cannonball like projectiles and launch the shit into space . I’m thinking like a big hydraulic gun barrel that just launches shit into space . Even the worst criminals if you wish . If they splat from the gforce of launch meh .. but since there is this big black area of nothing why can’t we just launch our shit into it whilst we work on a better soulution ? It’d buy us at least a few thousand years and we won’t be extinct by 2030 as a bonus .   

 

Ok , so what’s the hurdles and/ or negatives ? 

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • This reply was deleted.
    • Didnt krypton blast that bad bastard and his crew into space supposed to be for ever and stay there But the bastard ended up coming here and that didn't end to well .so all the shit we send might end up back here .just saying

  • Interesting concept.

    2 points that I can think of:

    1. I imagine it would be quite costly to propel masses of waste outside of earths atmosphere. See the giant rockets on NASA shuttles just to get them outside of our atmosphere. Gravity is the enemy here.

    2. If it were feasible to get all of our junk into outer space, whats to stop it re-entering our atmosphere again at a later time?

    • Isn’t there already heaps of space junk ?  Only going off what I’ve seen in movies but I’m thinking space is littered with rocks and shit which only rarely enters Earth ?  Needs to enter at speed ? 

      • I think you are right. Once out of our atmosphere, it would take some sort of impetus to send it back our way. And besides, who doesn't love a tin can and banana peel shower when they are lounging on the beach?

  • How much shit can we throw out and how much will it cost to set it up and  run.

    If it costs too much to get the shit up there then it wont happen as greedy people want it done for nothing.

    • Well this costs  I don’t have any idea of . I’ve just thrown up an idea without any regard for its financial viability . Pretty much just like the climate alarmists 

       

      I guess when you look over say the next 100 years , the designing , building and operation costs would be pretty minimal .  Compared to the carbon taxes , tip fees , climate research and donations to the multitudes of fucktards we fund to research things like wind farms , and god knows what other of our taxes are leeched in the name of climate , it’d be a pittance . 

       

      In regards to what we can throw out , well the sky’s literally not the limit . I guess as first and foremost I’d start with things like asbestos , toxic waste, African gangs , child abusers ,all copies of political correct movie remakes like Ghostbusters  and I guess the biggest environmental risks .  

       

      But in all seriousness , if we aren’t researching the possibility of launching waste out of our atmosphere , then this climate “ emergency “ isn’t really as bad as they’d have you believe .  We could send a couple of big balloons up and then use rocket propulsion to send it the last leg . 

       

       

      Wheres Kramer ? 

      • I reckon the idea is brilliant but we don't have the technology to viably do it. The amount of fuel/energy it would take to propel a meaningfull amount of waste out of our atmosphere and on a path out of our galaxy would be massive.

        The Saturn 5 Rocket (the one that got us to the moon - Apollo 11)) punched out about 7 million pounds of thrust on launch (a jumbo produces about 24,000 pounds of thrust) and chewed thru about twenty tonnes of fuel per second, and got to about 30,000kph to escape the earth's pull. . . . the most amazing piece of kit ever produced I reckon:). Mate, if you ever have some spare time do a bit of research on the Saturn rockets - truly incredible feat of engineering.

        This was all to get a little capsule out into space and heading toward the moon - imagine how much grunt it would take to push a dirty big waste container out there. 

        Good idea though - I reckon you should patent it. There's a new "heavy lift rocket" called the Falcon Heavy which can get about 50 tonnes of payload into low orbit, or about 10 tonnes further out - but that's nowhere near enough..

        Although I'm sure there's aliens out there somewhere that are doin' it already...

      • I have an answer for you. Like Willy Wonkers machine that shrinks. If we can shrink everything from the current size to less than 1mm in size then we could easily manage our waste better or just like third world countries just burn it all daily instead of having rubbish bins. If you are old enough to remember back in the day thats what every country did. They just burnt it all.

        Climate Change is real however everyone trying to spunge off it financially is a problem. However if we can contine to develop and grow our solar and wind we will be more sustainable. Also if we nuked a few countries. China and India and America come to mind. We would rid the planet of 3 Billion people. Im down for that first then we can rebuild without all these problems.

        • The problem with solar and wind is that they both need more carbon to make than they’re worth . 

This reply was deleted.

Latest comments

Coryn Hughes replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"💯 it's sickening how it's all panned out against us sickening."
1 hour ago
Coryn Hughes replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"Prime Nathan Brown and Beau Scott in our foward pack would go along way."
1 hour ago
Roy tannous replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"If you add prime fui fui and Hindy.cause even with prime Hayne and semi.our fowards would just be a letdown "
3 hours ago
Poupou Escobar replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"He is worth a million to a club without a good kicking game. But that's not us."
4 hours ago
Joel K replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"it won't be enough, their yardage won't help our slow ruck in the middle"
5 hours ago
Angry Eel replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"You don't think the yardage of Hayne and Semi would lay a better platform for our forwards?"
5 hours ago
Joel K replied to Angry Eel's discussion Hypothetical Question
"Nope, our forwards are nowhere near good enough 
let's say you add them + Hindy and Fuifui then yes I think we would be a threat"
5 hours ago
Angry Eel replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"My good mail is we were both at 1m and St George came through with the 5th year which was always his priority to get security with this contract"
6 hours ago
Angry Eel replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"MON has done an ok job but he's a middle of the road GM. We have the resources we need to recruit THE BEST if we want to break this drought end of story. "
6 hours ago
Cʜɪᴇғy Mclovin replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"I just don't want Ryles to be the fuse, because as much as I wanted ba out, those above washed their hands with him, and made him totally accountable for the demise of the entire club and thats all im going to say about this subject for a while…"
6 hours ago
Randy Handlinger replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"I dunno about MoN being " the number 1 issue with the club atm" but he can be used as a pressure valve...or a fuse if you like...something necessary but replaceable that blows when things get too hot so as to protect the actual important things.…"
6 hours ago
Joel K replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"I did hear that podcast HOE, it was on BTFU. He did say 1.2m over 5 years but didn't specify any TPAs"
6 hours ago
Angry Eel replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"It would be competitive but would it get the deal done. Whilst I admit on the surface 950-1m appears overs I'd pay that to get the deal done. It's not overs when it's exactly what you team needs to make a massive improvement to your squad"
7 hours ago
Angry Eel replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"Poppa I'm a fan of a Burton signing. What im saying is I don't think we are blocking Lorenzo's path if we are paying Burton right. I don't think centre would be an issue for Burton if Lorenzo becomes a must pick at some stage. He doesn't strike me…"
7 hours ago
Richard Jackson replied to Richard Jackson's discussion Remember Rodney Hogg
"Thanks Darren, when Journos asked him for comment he always looked agrieved and sought to end the discussion.
Did you know his sullen appearance belied the fact he was quite smart, matriculating in pure and applied Maths, physics and economics.
He…"
7 hours ago
Poppa replied to Fiddy's discussion Burton to Eels?
"I think you guys have a problem with Renzo as our 5/8. He is not the type of 5/8 Parra needs, unless he can defend to a certain level it will not matter how "brilliant" he is. These brilliant young players look fantastic in Reserve Grade but the…"
7 hours ago
More…

 

<script src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- Sidebar -->
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<script>// <![CDATA[
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
// ]]></script>