Ah yes, we should just send all the heavy things into space using extremely energy-intense transportation fueled by combustion. That will fix polution right up.
Nooo we don't need to use rockets! We can just use electromagnetic launch loops that are 80 kilometers tall and 2,000 kilometers long, or build a tower that goes all the way into space and is supported by an equally tall particle accelerator, or build an extremely vulnerable space elevator out of unobtainium, or simply build two tethers that dangle off of a 36,000 kilometer long superconducting cable rotating at 8km/s in low-Earth orbit! I mean, capitalism is famous for investing in capital-intensive long-term endeavors, right? It's not like the state always has to take on projects costing tens of billions of dollars let alone the trillions necessary for this scale, right?
The launch loop doesn't have to go all the way into space.
Why not build a really fast maglev up mt Chimborazo and use it to fling a rocket with some ablative tiles fast enough that you can use a much smaller rocket with less fuel?
maybe it could be somehow possible to have huge flexible plastic tubes connected to smokestacks, which funnel all factory pollution directly into outer space?
the atmosphere is only 300 miles thick
maybe somehow anchor it to a really cheap satellite that orbits exactly at the same rate as earth
but if it fell down it'd probably destroy a city so maybe not good
That's just a space elevator. Unfortunately, a 32,000km tether requires semi-unobtainium (A monomolecular carbon nanotube just about does the job, but also it needs to be a giant braid of single 32,000km molecules with no defects)
it's not the same thing as a space elevator though, because it wouldn't need to move any loads. Just passively diffuse out gas. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work yes
why would it need to be 32000 km? only 400 km would be enough to get the co2 to directly enter outer space
The main issue I see is the weight of the tubing, it would need to be anchored to a satellite with some kind of energy reserve that allows it to indefinitely support the tube's weight
Light particles like helium can escape from the edge of the atmosphere. CO2 is ~11 times heavier, so you have to pump it well above the atmosphere for its orbit to have a chance of carrying it away, or else it will just fall right back down. It's probably not that difficult to maintain the pressure on the ground to keep it flowing, but the problem is you now need 1000's of km of a rigid pressure vessel, instead of a thin film or something.
Gas has mass. The density differential of gases heavier than oxygen can't overcome gravity. You have to lift it, so you have an elevator.
It actually needs to be longer than 32000km if you want it to be geostationary because it needs a counterweight so the tension on the cable is equal at GEO. Yes you can vent the gas at LEO (though it will eventually come back down in a decade or so at that altitude)
Ah yes, we should just send all the heavy things into space using extremely energy-intense transportation fueled by combustion. That will fix polution right up.
If we can lift off a billionaire, we can lift off Earth's industrial infrastructure
:pete:
I read this in his voice. My day is ruined.
Nooo we don't need to use rockets! We can just use electromagnetic launch loops that are 80 kilometers tall and 2,000 kilometers long, or build a tower that goes all the way into space and is supported by an equally tall particle accelerator, or build an extremely vulnerable space elevator out of unobtainium, or simply build two tethers that dangle off of a 36,000 kilometer long superconducting cable rotating at 8km/s in low-Earth orbit! I mean, capitalism is famous for investing in capital-intensive long-term endeavors, right? It's not like the state always has to take on projects costing tens of billions of dollars let alone the trillions necessary for this scale, right?
The launch loop doesn't have to go all the way into space.
Why not build a really fast maglev up mt Chimborazo and use it to fling a rocket with some ablative tiles fast enough that you can use a much smaller rocket with less fuel?
And then use similarly energy intense transportation to ship it back down.
I mean, shipping it down can be done with very little energy if you're willing to wait awhile and use solar-electric propulsion.
maybe it could be somehow possible to have huge flexible plastic tubes connected to smokestacks, which funnel all factory pollution directly into outer space?
the atmosphere is only 300 miles thick
maybe somehow anchor it to a really cheap satellite that orbits exactly at the same rate as earth
but if it fell down it'd probably destroy a city so maybe not good
That's just a space elevator. Unfortunately, a 32,000km tether requires semi-unobtainium (A monomolecular carbon nanotube just about does the job, but also it needs to be a giant braid of single 32,000km molecules with no defects)
it's not the same thing as a space elevator though, because it wouldn't need to move any loads. Just passively diffuse out gas. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work yes
why would it need to be 32000 km? only 400 km would be enough to get the co2 to directly enter outer space
The main issue I see is the weight of the tubing, it would need to be anchored to a satellite with some kind of energy reserve that allows it to indefinitely support the tube's weight
Light particles like helium can escape from the edge of the atmosphere. CO2 is ~11 times heavier, so you have to pump it well above the atmosphere for its orbit to have a chance of carrying it away, or else it will just fall right back down. It's probably not that difficult to maintain the pressure on the ground to keep it flowing, but the problem is you now need 1000's of km of a rigid pressure vessel, instead of a thin film or something.
Gas has mass. The density differential of gases heavier than oxygen can't overcome gravity. You have to lift it, so you have an elevator.
It actually needs to be longer than 32000km if you want it to be geostationary because it needs a counterweight so the tension on the cable is equal at GEO. Yes you can vent the gas at LEO (though it will eventually come back down in a decade or so at that altitude)
ah, ok.