> Storage problem has more-or-less been solved, Google (TM) Synrock.

That should be Synrock(tm). ie it's proprietary.
Better, arguably, than vitriication with sugar (I'm not making this up 
:-) ) followed by glass, which is what's used more usually.

But there are no guarantees that Synrock will work long term.
In the 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000 and 100000 year test program it's at 
about step 2. When it's met all 6 stages it may be considered proven. 
Until then there's a severe rsik of it being as much a "salesman's 
dream" as much of the other 'solutions' for intractable problems.

eg a few years ago I ws most pleased to read that "the landmine 
problem has been solved". It reported highly successful fireld trials 
of a landmine detector which worked by exciting the energetic bonds 
whiocjh are necessarily present in explosives and detetcing them at a 
distance. It sounded like the Land Mine's day had come. I haven't 
heard anything of the system since. One may, of course, postulate 
other reasons for such a silence.

> Given the reliability of the Space Shuttle, Sun disposal may 
> actually result
> in somewhat random Earth disposal.

No rocket system is liable to be reliable enough to meet public 
expectations for such a system. The space elevator(s), when they 
happen, should be. Tjhis should happen at about the same time as the 
He3 reactors ;-).

> Anyway, getting stuff to the Sun (or
> general vicinity) takes a lot of effort.

Energy taken to reach the sun is slightly more than to send material 
to outer space - especially so if "slingshot" assists are used along 
the way out.
"Get to earth orbit and you're half way to anywhere." Getting to the 
sun, or outer space, takes about as much energy again as Low Earth 
Orbit. Unfortunately the availble payload fraction decreases very 
markedly in the process.



        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist