Re: [math-fun] A modest proposal for carbon sequestration in space
By the way, how would the mass of the carbon comprising the nanotubes compare to the mass of carbon one is presumably attempting to sequester? At first that's what I thought you were going to use the carbon-tithe for. (Doubtless the pyramids were built mainly to sequester stone; the funerary monument angle was just marketing hype<;-)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator, only 20 (US) tons of carbon are required for an initial fiber, so even a factor of 10 would be 200 tons or 400,000# -- i.e., it could just barely be carried by a single AN-225 or perhaps even the A380 (assuming that it will be able to carry even its own cabling!). Re marketing: the whole point of the exercise is to get a working space elevator -- the carbon sequestration is just a means to this end. At 03:18 PM 8/1/2006, Marc LeBrun wrote:
By the way, how would the mass of the carbon comprising the nanotubes compare to the mass of carbon one is presumably attempting to sequester? At first that's what I thought you were going to use the carbon-tithe for.
(Doubtless the pyramids were built mainly to sequester stone; the funerary monument angle was just marketing hype<;-)
--- Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Re marketing: the whole point of the exercise is to get a working space elevator -- the carbon sequestration is just a means to this end.
Actually carbon sequestration is a silly use for a space elevator; plenty of tremendously beneficial applications have already been proposed. The best way to sequester carbon is in life. You can do your own personal bit by planting something today. But now my posting is starting to intrude into the political arena, so I'll stop here. Gene __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
Eugene Salamin -
Henry Baker -
Marc LeBrun