Sure it does. We might want to be able to study it some day, we don’t know what might be in the atmosphere, we don’t know what extraterrestrial life might be like (there are extreme thermophyles and halophyles on earth for example, and even if not for life then there could be geological or meteorological research to be done) but the other reasons I gave should be more than sufficient.

A nuclear ship is the next step according to nasa. It’s actually the best use of fission I have ever seen.

[removed]

Not always. Things fall, things are destroyed, people are hurt. It happens.

We would risk the nuclear rockets crashing back to Earth, into a city. Even if it's only 1 in 10,000, that's too much risk. Chemical rockets are bad enough.

I just explained why? It's ridiculously impractical and a waste of time and resources. We are working on solutions to the space debris problem. It is a serious concern for future space exploration. But sending that debris to another planet is not a proposed solution for obvious reasons.

I know we can’t use chemical rockets.

And the answer you're overwhelmingly getting and keep trying to argue against is: because it's a very inefficient way to deal with garbage and there are better options that are far more feasible.

[removed]

Probably been said, but the significant delta-v required to take an object from low earth orbit and place it on a trajectory to intercept venus makes this impractical. It would require an ungodly amount of energy.

Contaminate Venus cannot be a reason. It doesn’t make sense at all.

The entire problem I have is why aren’t we working on this problem? Instead we are inventing new ways to make trash but not working on a solution.

No, that’s why I referenced the fact that it would burn up in the atmosphere.

Do you want the ISS falling on the roof where your kids sleep?

Did you miss the part where I did mention that chemical rockets are not suitable for this. I understand why we haven’t. What I don’t understand is why we aren’t working on it. We are working on making it to Alpha Centari and Mars asap but can’t clean up our neighborhood.

By the time we can launch magical non-polluting rockets every ten seconds nonstop we'll probably have much easier ways of dealing with garbage.

Large objects like the ISS are deorbited in a controlled fashion which ensures they burn up over the ocean away from populated areas.

Among many other reasons, Tsiolkovsky is a cruel tyrant. Increasing Δv requirements exponentially increase your propellant requirements. I don't mean that as some hyperbole, it's an exponential equation.

I am talking about using one of these new nuclear pellet ships they are currently developing to do this. Chemical Rockets have to be phased out eventually and are absolutely not suitable for this purpose. Yes I am talking about future technology.

Oh, you mean debris in orbit? Well, my previous points still stand, but now there is the added problem of the fact that we haven't figured out a viable solution for capturing orbital debris to begin with. And, assuming that we had a viable way of doing so, and the funding to launch missions ferrying literal garbage, why would we needlessly contaminate Venus? We could much more easily just send that garbage out on an escape trajectory and call it a day. Rendezvousing with another planet is an extremely technical and difficult process that requires the right timing and months, it not years of planning in advance. It's quite literally like hitting a needle head with a speck of dust.

So like, super retardedly huge stars form after big bang. Star go boom, gases form clouds, cooling happens, electromagnetism makes elements form, clumps get big, some rocks and shit happen, some small boomies form, their reactions pull rocks and lava around them, "gravity" causes solar systems to form, all the while the original lite brights core is pulling stuff in and around itself... am I close?

Still takes way less energy to just push it back into the atmosphere where it’ll burn up.

>For example, one such assumption is, given that Russian space forces have relied primarily on reversible or “soft kill” counter-space systems, and not on “hard kill” weapons systems like anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles, the future of space warfighting will be based on such “soft kill” options. This is a dangerous assumption to make. It is especially unwise to base the national security space strategies and posture of the United States on such a view.

Yeah wtf I 100% agree with the author. It seems unrealistic to hope that adversaries wouldn't try to knock out the entire satellite system. That's a massive capability gap for the US.

It'll be ready just in time to help bring the last iss crew down to earth before the station is decommissioned and deorbited

So the ISS will just burn up? That’s why it can just fall out of the sky over New York with no consequences? There is a lot of stuff up there you don’t want falling on the roof where your kids sleep.