why dont scientist shoot nuclear waste into space?

Both the United States and Russia routinely launch nuclear materials into space. Most probes to the outer planets are powered by Radioactive Thermal Generators that are very reliable devices that use the heat generated by certain radioactive substances to generate electricity for the space-craft. The Casini probe currently orbiting around the planet Saturn uses a RTG to generate its power.

Treaties prevent putting nuclear weapons in orbit - not nuclear waste.

The Outer Space Treaty bars States which are signatories to the Treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space.

Rockets are just not reliable enough to use to lift significant amounts of nuclear waste into space. Even our most reliable launch vehicles fail too often to risk the re-entry of nuclear waste into the atmosphere after a failed launch.

NASA has investigated a more reliable way to get materials into space. One concept is a space elevator where materials could be lifted into space using a carbon fiber rope into the heavens where one end connects to a geosyncronous platform that orbits at the same rate as the earths rotation and the other end is fixed to the earth. Putting the geosynchronous platform at the right orbital height (about 26,199 miles) causes it to always hover over the same spot on earth. If you drop an ultra-strong carbon rope from the geosynchronous platform to the earth you can use it to literally lift material, including potentially nuclear waste, into space. Once the waste is lifted to the height of the geosynchronous platform it would be much safer from accidental falling back to the earth. The waste would just sit in orbit until a rocket could be brought up to shoot the material into the sun. Using a space elevator would involve significantly less risk of an accident than using a rocket.

You may not be aware that nuclear waste from nuclear reactors is actually quite valuable. Each year America’s current 104 LWR reactors produce 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. The energy value left in 2000 tons of spent fuel rods after they are considered expended and are removed from operation in America’s LWRs is approximately 6.7 x 10^12 KW-hours of additional energy if all fissile and fertile uranium in the spent fuel is completely burned in an appropriately designed molten salt reactor. The value of the electricity that would result from fully burning all of the 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is $650 billion dollars a year presuming a 2009 average cost of commercial electricity of 9.79 cents per KW-hour.

Nuclear waste can be "burned" in alternate technology Molten Salt Reactors called Transmuters. Transmuters can take the spent nuclear fuel produced in Light Water Reactors and burn this nuclear waste while producing a large amounts of electrical energy and fission products with significantly shorter half lives. French, Russian, and US nuclear design teams have proposed detailed plans for Transmuter reactors that would dramatically reduce the amount and radio-toxicity of high level waste but as of yet none of these designs have received funding.

Possible Suggestion: Ask your parents to fund the commercialization of Transmuter Reactors so you and your children don't have to worry about the continued accumulation of 2000 tons of nuclear waste per year. Using nuclear reactors that burn Thorium nuclear fuel would also help as they can be operated to produce one hundreth the amount[1] of nuclear waste as Uranium-235 fueled Light Water Reactors.

Nuclear Waste In Space

Because nuclear waste is of course very volatile and just transporting it into space is a huge challenge. It is amazingly expensive and would be very difficult to build viable containers that can first house the waste and then withstand the enormous pressures the waste would be subject to as it leaves the earth's atmosphere. And then what happens if there is an accident/as unfortunately history shows there sometimes are? Nuclear waste would then be spilled indiscriminately around various parts of the world. It is not viable commercially, because of the huge costs involved, and the enormous potential risks. It just isn't worth it. Plus, it is not a responsible idea, because once it is in orbit or some such, is it just to keep orbiting around our Earth, or do you propose dropping it on another planet for other potential life to deal with? We created this waste and should be able to deal with it here on Earth. That is the responsible thing to do. Very interesting question though.

Texas has the right idea, that would be terrible. On the other hand, burying it would only be extremely toxic to humans for a relatively short period of around 100 years - depending on the waste's half life.

A half life is basically the length of time a radioactive material takes to "decay" into something else - for instance, different isotopes of uranium decay into others, before decaying into lead eventually.

So burying it is much more cost effective and manageable. Even after 100 years (or X years) it will still be radioactive, but not in any harmful amount. I'd be quite comfortable handling it unprotected after this time.

Everything is radioactive to an extent, even the concrete you have around your home.

There is no reliable method of firing the stuff into space. The only way currently available is to use rockets ( Guns will not do it - lots of insurmountable reasons.) and rockets cannot be made reliable enough. We cannot risk having hi-level radioactive waste thrown randomly around the planet. Bury it and guard it - thats all that can be done.

A rocket filled with nuclear waste is traveling to space on the way up it explodes in the atmosphere sending nuclear waste around the world.

We signed treaties that we would not do this. Say for example if we launched a rocket full of nuclear waste and it crashed... in another country, that would be a serious diplomatic incident. It has already been a SALT treaty agreement that we wouldn't launch nukes into space.

You're not worried about it being spilled? So you don't mind tons of nuclear waste dust falling on all of us when a launch goes wrong?