Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
29. Getting to the Sun from Earth is remarkably energy intensive
Thu Mar 14, 2013, 10:01 AM
Mar 2013

Orbital mechanics are very counterintuitive, you have to get rid of virtually all of the Earth's orbital velocity in order to put something in the Sun, that's about 67,000 mph.

Orbital velocity around the Earth at 120 miles altitude is about 17,000 mph so you would need nearly four times the energy to put something in the Sun from Earth orbit than it took to get it to Earth orbit from the surface to start with.



Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price [View all] Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 OP
A video on the topic was also posted... PoliticAverse Mar 2013 #1
Don't know how I missed this! Thanks so much! Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Mar 2013 #3
Makes sense to me... Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #4
One of the advantages of the thorium cycle wtmusic Mar 2013 #11
Really? kristopher Mar 2013 #13
Yes... really. FBaggins Mar 2013 #21
Getting to the Sun from Earth is remarkably energy intensive Fumesucker Mar 2013 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author guyton Mar 2013 #30
Beware kristopher Mar 2013 #5
Thank you! Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #6
At the sales stage they always sound great. kristopher Mar 2013 #7
I agree, may sound promising when still in the planning stage Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #8
The liquid salt reactor, if implemented, could be a successful connection between jonthebru Mar 2013 #9
The future energy source is well known - renewables. kristopher Mar 2013 #10
Highly radioactive cooling salt pscot Mar 2013 #27
thanks for posting wtmusic Mar 2013 #12
You're welcome Rhiannon12866 Mar 2013 #15
Half the price but just as deadly to the human race. nt ladjf Mar 2013 #14
I dunno. Fossil fuels are pretty damned deadly, and getting deadlier. hunter Mar 2013 #17
Fossil fuels are very deadly, but the effects aren't as long lasting. However, the obvious answer ladjf Mar 2013 #18
Actually, the effects are longer lasting. hunter Mar 2013 #19
The negative effects of the Chernobyl will last for about 48,000 years. ladjf Mar 2013 #22
And the half life of mercury is forever. hunter Mar 2013 #24
You've got my vote! Nihil Mar 2013 #28
Why is it just as deadly? FBaggins Mar 2013 #20
The Chernobyl disaster will impact the environment for about 48,000 years. ladjf Mar 2013 #23
Sometimes the bullshit gets so thick you have to respond. wtmusic Mar 2013 #25
Thousands of posts on the INTERNET state that it will take about 48,000 years for all of the ladjf Mar 2013 #31
Oh! Why didn't you say so??? FBaggins Mar 2013 #32
‘Scientists don’t know why’: Cesium-137 in soil near Chernobyl has half-life of 180 to 320 years, ladjf Mar 2013 #33
That's just nuts. Sorry. FBaggins Mar 2013 #34
And CO2 will impact for 150,000 years or more NickB79 Mar 2013 #26
morning kick Cooley Hurd Mar 2013 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Safer Nuclear Power, at H...»Reply #29