If you want to prove a point: Trebuchet them into active volcanoes. It uses no propellant, very little effort, and gets the point across.
If you want to be efficient: Grind them up and use their corpse-meal as compost. Spread them in a field, grow hemp and/or soybeans.
deleted by creator
- Please don’t pollute interstellar space with assholes. It’s bad enough that we filled Earth with them.
- If I wanted to be efficient, I’d drop them in an active volcano. If I want someone thrown into the Sun, I WANT SOMEONE THROWN INTO THE SUN.
You can have your cake and eat it. Launch them into a different sun, we can create a congo line of frozen corpses, on their way to Alpha Centauri. Although it might weird any aliens out that might come across it.
Good pitch, I like it.
^ This guy efficients.
Yeah I’m not risking them coming back later with an alien army
Send them to the bottom of the ocean. Concrete shoes are a lot less expensive than a rocket. Probably more environmentally friendly, too.
Even more environmentally friendly, use a geopolymer cement that doesn’t use a quicklime reaction that requires heat to produce.
If you accelerate to a very high orbit, you will have nearly zero velocity at the apoapsis. From there it takes only a very small delta v to reduce your velocity to zero and fall into the sun.
Source: This is how I killed Jebidiah Kerman.
This only worked because Jedediah did not die in the many years it took time wraping between your maneuvres.
For the sun instead of Krebol, Jupiter might most likely throw you of track within then 200-300 years. So you would have to spend more than on escape. Even though theoretically (and in KSP), you can spend exactly only escape dV
This is the part I don’t understand apparently. Wouldn’t it be pretty easy for the thing so giant that it causes other giant things to circle it suck up a tiny person relatively easily?
If the tiny person wasn’t going so fast that it’s in orbit around the big thing, yeah - all you have to do to get the person to fall in is to stop them moving. The problem is that you have to push them reeeeeal hard to get them to stop moving in orbit around the sun. (That’s what Delta-v means - change in velocity.)
I need you to understand that when I want someone launched into the sun, it’s not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I want to go to the extra effort and delta v necessary so that we can make it abundantly clear that you, evil horrible cretin, are worth the collective effort of thousands to personally be launched into the sun.
Ok, JFK, calm down.
Can we compromise by strapping them to the launch pad directly underneath the rocket before it’s ignited?
But then you miss out on all the time they would spend contemplating how they ended up in that situation, damn millenials trying to kill the record scratch industry.
you miss out on all the time they would spend contemplating how they ended up in that situation
You can leave them strapped to the pad as long as you want before igniting if you want to give them time to contemplate.
Plus, imagine how nervous they’ll be once they start hearing the countdown…
Yes. It’s surprisingly hard to get something to hit the sun.
What you have to do is slow down. Remember we are orbiting it.
You’d think a giant mass like that might have some helpful gravity, but we’re all in a stable orbit with a strong angular momentum.
Throw them backwards really hard.
And if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
I get that it’s very difficult to send something directly into the Sun. Couldn’t you just put them into a highly eccentric and unstable orbit that would crash into the sun after several passes?
frankly, yeeting them 50m into the air is enough to give them a bad day.
Can someone explain why it’s easier to yeet something out of the solar system, than to yeet something into a massive gravity well?
My dumbass thanks you in advance
Orbital speeds. Remember earth and by consequence everything on it is moving at 30km/s. Most efficient way to hit the sun is to cancel that out, or decelerating until your velocity relative to the sun is 0 and then gravity does the rest of the work. Orbiting a stellar object is missing with flair. It’s easier to entirely miss the sun by accelerating at roughly 12 Km/s additional velocity which will allow you to escape the sun’s gravity. Or 40% of the delta V (more velocity is not linear fuel expended either, more exponential with needing roughly 99x more fuel to do one than the other… not even accounting for the chase of now accelerating that fuel weight.)
Well, technically, the more efficient way to hit the sun would be some gravity assists into the outer solar system and then slowing down to zero at a higher point, where your orbital velocity will be lower.
Well, technically
The best kind of correct!
Just download Kerbal Space Program and it’ll all become clear. It’s a blast and accidentally teaching you orbital mechanics.
Make sure to buy the original in that case.
Do NOT buy Ksp2. That game is a very unfinished early access game which has been conpletely abandoned, and it’s shameful that it’s still listed in the Steam store.
The earth is moving rapidly around the sun, so anything we launch is already orbiting the sun. To hit the sun you then have to counteract all that momentum. To escape the solar system you just have to add a bit more speed to what we already have. Though both take a lot of energy.
We’re technically falling towards the Sun.
We don’t hit it, because we’re also moving around it at a crazy speed.
So even though we’re falling, we permanently miss it. If that makes sense.
The change in speed (deceleration) it would take to slow us down enough that we fall directly towards and into the Sun… is greater than the change in speed required to go fast enough to fly away from it.
So, you need energy to either change your velocity by 30km/s, or by 12km/s.
Hence, easier to speed up a ‘little bit’ more.
Right now you are flying, together with earth more or less the speed you need to stay orbiting the sun forever.
Add a “little” speed and you fly away
A soccer player needs to either score a goal, which would be hitting the sun. Or they need to knock it out of bounds, which would be sending out of the solar system.
Both require power to drive the vehicle, but only one needs accuracy.
more like, you need to hit a goal at the bottom of a funnel-shaped pit, but you’re in a car driving in circles on the walls of the funnel at 100mph, and anything going 150 mph shoots out of the top of the funnel. aim isn’t the problem, the shape of the funnel will take care of that. the issue is to get to the bottom you have to kick the ball backward hard enough to cancel out the speed of the car, i.e. 100mph, whereas to launch out of the pit, you only have to kick the ball forward at 50mph. if you kick backwards at 50mph, the ball will just keep circling the pit at 50mph; it might eventually reach the bottom but it will take a long time
Operative word is “into” the sun. Hitting the sun specifically = harder vs the general “away” direction.
Isn’t it possible to use some swing-by maneuver around other planets to fly directly into the sun?
No idea if this has any real world application, but Kerbal Space Program taught me that launching outwards to a huge planet (Jupiter), one can get a reverse gravity assist to get an extremely narrow ellptical orbit. Then you just need a light retrograde thrust at the apoapsis, and your orbit will intersect with the sun
Yeah. Check out the path they launched the Parker Solar Probe on. That wasn’t into the Sun, but it was as close as anything we’ve ever sent up.
I’m assume the reason why is because, in order to go into the sun, 100% of Earth’s rotational velocity has to be counteracted, and it doesn’t for the opposite direction?
I suppose we could sent them to a Lagrange point and call it good?
I’d be satisfied with a sub-orbital parabola in the general direction of *gestures at sky*
Someone on the other end might need a mop but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What about launching them into Venus? It’s smaller, and closer. Would that save on gas?
~I think I got three-fitty in my center console.~
