Its a long time since I had info in on the shuttle but from memory the side product of the solid rocket boosters is hydrochloric acid ( a lot of it) , which is spread over as much as 500 square miles whilst they are operating to a 28 mile altitude. The need for still air conditions has more to do with the environmental impact of spreading the acid into populated areas than the trajectory.
The shuttle would only get (risk aside) waste up to inner orbit requiring parking of the stuff whilst another ship is made ready for its onward journey to the moon (echoes of Space 1999 here) or the sun.
Travel to the sun would require nothing more than slowing down the speed of the rocket to allow a drop into a lower orbit than the earth, and as long as Salty guarantees the sun would not 'switch off' the day it arrives, then we should all be OK.
All this however ignores the impact of the original launches into space, propellant gas aside the cost of a launch includes the process of build of the shuttle, the manufacture of the infrastructure around it, the creation (and storage) of both fuels - the main engines use refridgerated gas - probably the most expensive part is keeping it liquid before launch.
Sending stuff into space is not the answer, unless it can be used once it is up there.
I would prefer using the vast areas of deserts that are usually (conveniently) between the two tropics, and stick fields of solar panels a few metres above them. The bases could be designed with buildings within their structure that would help keep the dunes from drifting into arable land, the panels would provide shade and a climate that would favour certain gardening methods (hydroponics) , and the energy from the panels could be sold off to provide part of the worlds needs for energy.
With China actively advertising their interest in redeveloping vast areas of Africa, mass production of solar technology is probably the way forward once the locations have been secured.
