Slashdot Log In
Space Elevator Group to Open Nanotube Factory
Posted by
timothy
on Sun May 01, 2005 03:08 AM
from the too-small-to-care-about dept.
from the too-small-to-care-about dept.
FleaPlus writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Universe Today report that the LiftPort Group, a consortium dedicated to commercially developing and constructing a space elevator, will be opening a carbon nanotube manufacturing plant in June of this year. The new facility has been dubbed LiftPort Nanotech. Many expect the LiftPort Group to be a front-runner in NASA's recently-announced Centennial Challenges competitions for space elevator technologies, which begin in September of this year."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Elevator Music (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Elevator Music? (Score:2)
Are you sure its not space opera?
Re:Elevator Music (Score:5, Funny)
And once at the top, it will go *PING*
Parent
In the future... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the year 2000... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In the future... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
not really (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actually read this guy's work, he admits a huge problem with this approach. An Equatorial elevator has zero theoretical force applied to the base, this one would have immense pressure trying to tear it from the mooring brackets and pull it to the equator.
As such the cable needs to be thicker, and the thicker the cable, the more the force, etc etc
We'd likely need another revolution in materials technology over and above nanotech for this to even be possible, and it's still vulnerable to breakdown/sabotage, as a snapping off at the moor would be disastrous (as opposed to an Eq Elevator in which case the moor is largely a moot point when loads aren't actively climbing)
And because he hasn't used real constants he has no numbers to give us. You can't base any serious theoretical ideas on this guys work, for all we know the force of the pull is ludicrously huge.
So don't pin your hopes on this.
in his words:
In my opinion, the main drawback with the off-center elevator is that there is a huge tension on the anchor point. This means that the cable will have to be heavier. Also, it means that a way has to be found to get the anchor setup. When building an equatorial elevator, there is no need for a force from the anchor point, so the elevator can simply be extended up and down until it reaches the ground. The off-equator elevator needs a force from the ground to stay off equator, so that strategy won't work. The only idea I can think of is to make an equatorial elevator, and then move the anchor point to the desired position. I am not sure how hard pulling the elevator into place would be, because I did not do the simulation with real numbers.
Parent
Much more recent version. (Score:3, Informative)
To put into perspective what the previous post says. Moving a bit off the equator is possible and costs nearly nothing. On the other hand, if you want to place the Space Elevator in the continental USA, you a
Re:not really (Score:3, Insightful)
They're both too short and too weak currently.
Re:In the future... (Score:3)
Linking to a 2.7MB PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Nice going, pointing to a 2.7MB PDF file. For those of you who want more information about the space elevator concept, visit the Wikipedia page on space elevators [wikipedia.org].
Re:Linking to a 2.7MB PDF (Score:2, Interesting)
We Have Ignition! Carbon Nanotubes Explode When Exposed To Photo Flash [sciencedaily.com]
Re:Linking to a 2.7MB PDF (Score:3, Informative)
its already possible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:its already possible? (Score:2)
Nah, I'm just kidding. Don't you think it would be hard to assemble anything made out of any kind of tube hundreds of miles long? It's far more feasable to do it out of smaller peices (like any other large and complex item we manufacture)
Re:its already possible? (Score:5, Interesting)
make fiber optic cables over a mile long?
We didn't at first, and yet we STILL built
plants to spin fiber optics cable.
It's the same situation here.
Hint: it's called a "lab" by some people.
It's a production plant, technically,
since the focus is also on the industrial
system engineering problems of mass
producing carbon tubes.
E.g., where do the raw inputs go? What
machines connect the hopper to the next stage?
Where the computers located? What sensors
are needed to monitor the reliable production
of lengths of tube wires? We can make one
or two in the lab, but what other equipment
do we need to make fuckloads (that's a
technical term) of tubes?
We can make short tubes, yes. We're learning
how to make long ones. If we suddenly learn
how to make arbitrary length cables over night,
we'll be DAMN sorry if we haven't worked out
the production logistics of a factory first.
What a silly point you've attempted to raise.
And +2 mod already... Oh my.
This is why you read slashdot, while real men
go off and build the technology of a new
century.
Parent
Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres (Score:5, Informative)
We don't need and are not counting on individual carbon nanotube molecules running the entire length of the space elevator or any significant fraction thereof. The individual fibers in a string or rope are only a few millimeters long, yet the rope has a large fraction of the theoretical strength of the fibers. This is even more the case with MOLECULES, several orders of magnitude smaller than a fiber. A diamond is said to be the "hardest substance in the world" because of the strength of the carbon bonds that make it up, but a diamond is not a single molecule. Likewise an SE could be made with CNTs just a few centimeters or millimeters long. (In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!)
Brought to you by the RTFA consortium.
Parent
Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all a diamond *is* a single "molecule".
And then 1g nanotubes currently cost something like $1000. Now go and calculate how much a 300.000km cable will cost...
Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres (Score:2)
Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres (Score:4, Informative)
There are two important points here - first is that the strength of something made up of multiple short fibres is going to be less than than the theoretical strength of the same thickness of continuous fibres. The second point is that is you could make continous fibres the full length (up to geostationary, then double it to balance and keep it up there) the material isn't quite strong enough yet. We'll get there someday, just don't buy any space elevator shares yet without realising that there is a long way to go.
This is nanotech all over again - people talking about little submarines doing fantastic voyage in blood vessels, while ignoring millions of less cinematic applications. We can use nanotubes for a lot of things.
Consider very long chain polymers.Parent
Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres (Score:3, Informative)
It is probably true that doesn't make sense to call a metallic crystal (e.g., iron, aluminum, etc.) or an ionic crystal (e.g., any salt) a molecule, but I think it's pretty safe to call a single-crystal diamond a molecule. All the carbon atoms in the diamond are connected with covalent bonds, like i
Why stop at space elevators? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why stop at space elevators? (Score:5, Interesting)
The former are what you want for the elevator because they have extraordinary tensile strength and are very light (worthy of noting is that while their *theoretical* tensile strength is 5 times what you need for an elevator - 300GPa - and you need a safety factor of about 2 to actually make one - ~110GPa - the strongest single SWNT made to date is somewhere around 60GPa. I *think*.)
The latter - multiwalled - are much more dense and so will not be fit for an elevator - too heavy. These might actually be of use where strong rigid materials are required, such as construction. Just remember that we construct not out of what is strong but of what is cheap and readily available, hence some places use more wood and others use more concrete, and nobody uses steel except where local cheap materials don't cut it (lile.. skyscrapers).
Would be nice to have someone who has up-to-date info clear this up.
Parent
Re:Why stop at space elevators? (Score:3, Funny)
Besides your acronym is no acronym it's a city in Madagascar.
You know what, forget I ever posted this...
Re:Why stop at space elevators? (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously you don't understand, it's all part of the vast nerd-wing conspiracy to gradually increase the number of generally recognized acronyms, until every possible sentence can be Reduced To A Single Word (RTASW). This will cut down on discussion bandwidth by 80%, and the resulting efficiency advantage will allow Slashdot to Dominate The Internet Forever (DTIF).
Parent
Re:Why stop at space elevators? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see this replacing steel rebar in reinforced concrete once it gets cheap enough. The stuff will never rust, no matter how much it is exposed to moisture.
That's a practical application that carbon nanotubes can be applied to now
Parent
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory (Score:5, Informative)
Among the small wonders produced by nanotechnology are carbon nanotubes, an advanced material as strong as diamond. These amazing carbon cylinders possess 100 times the tensile strength of steel and are 10,000 times finer than human hair. They are believed to conduct heat better than any other material, and they can also conduct electricity or function as semiconductors.
"Nanotubes are astonishingly promising, and I'm a realist, not an optimist," says Rod Ruoff, a mechanical engineering professor at Northwestern University. "It's a question of making the technology cheap enough." In 2001, only 3 kilograms of the highest quality carbon nanotubes--the single-walled variety--were produced worldwide, each gram worth $300, or 30 times as expensive as gold.
Now, full-scale production of carbon nanotubes is underway at the world's first ever large-scale nanotube factory, built outside Tokyo by the Carbon Nanotech Research Institute, a subsidiary of Japan's Mitsui & Co. The new facility is expected to churn out 10 tons of carbon nanotubes--albeit the lesser quality multi-walled type--a month, and CNRI anticipates the price will be a much more reasonable $80 a kilogram.
These multi-walled carbon nanotubes may not possess all the impressive properties of their single-walled brethren, but mixed with plastics, they make ultrastrong composites or microscale precision parts. Such carbon nanotube-filled plastics are already being used by automakers in fuel lines because they are conductive and can thus be grounded to release static electricity, which can ignite flammable gasoline.
Re:Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a question that still remains unanswered. what are the ramifications of having a 40,000km cable that is primarily composed of a semiconducter, carbon, stretching up to orbit. Also compare the size such an antenna, with recent solar activity being any indicator, and what effect will this have on the geoclimate and magnetic pole position?
Have we really thought everything through, before rushing into such an epic project, with potentially epic consequences (either a leap in evolution, or the end of an age)? 2018 may seem like a long time from now but for most of the
Parent
Re:Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory (Score:5, Informative)
One issue brought up is the possibility of discharging the ionosphere. Our calculations based on the size and conductivity of the ribbon and the electrical properties exhibited in our upper atmosphere illustrate that a small area (square meters) around the ribbon could become discharged in the worst conditions. The magnitude of this discharging makes us believe with high confidence that no adverse local or global phenomenon will occur. It also shows that it is unlikely, without considerable effort, that any kind of usable power may be generated by this same method.
Parent
Ooo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ooo - huh? (Score:2)
Waste of nanotech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regards, Tommy
Re:Waste of nanotech? (Score:3, Funny)
COOL! (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh cool...
Carbon Nanotube space elevators.
And they conduct electricity.
I hope they insulate the ground base really well, or whomever is the first to step on for their first ride, will likely perish in a BIG FLASH as they vaporise from the built up static potential.
It has to do with tall conducting structures.
Did you ever notice at the bottom of AM transmitting antennas there is usually a big insulator?
Even if the transmitter has been shut off, tower climbers still need to use a long ground pole
Re:COOL! (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference in potential could be used to power the elevator. And if you have more energy than you need, use it for other things. Hell, sell it into the power grid.
Imagine the world having thousands of space cables, because they produce clean power.
Parent
not for human transport.. yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Travelling through the upper atmosphere at such a slow speed will vastly increase your exposure to raidiation (van allen belt) and electrical storms. This technology is designed for lifting material into space, not passengers. We are still discovering much about the upper atmosphere, including huge electrical storms - as seen in national geographic a few years ago) so don't think that everything is completely accounted for and solved.
Later on, I would expect a faster model capable of lifting less weight but at much higher speeds to allow for human transport.
Once we can actually get a lot more material into orbit then we can build larger solar power collectors in space and power this passenger space lift. If I only has to lift 2 tonnes, rather than 20, then it should be able to move 10 times quicker. With materials science improving as we go better raidation shielding should also be possible.
The elevator won't mean the end of ballistic rocket launches. But hopefully the nano-tech that is in development will also help reduce the weight of horizontal take-off and landing space planes at the same time. Lighter materials for the hull and super-structure of the plane, as well as better fuel tanks, lighter wiring, more efficient engines, etc.
Re:not for human transport.. yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember hearing this kind of talk in the late 60's too.
The closest thing there is to a space plane today, is called a 'shuttle'. Seems they are scared of launching it these days because it's so expensive to build, and has a habit of blowing up when they do use it.
There is a little bit of experimentation going on these days with differing propulsion methods, ie scram jets etc, but, for the most part, it's all still based
Is LiftPort vaporware? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure would be nice to have a space elevator. I'm having my doubts that this group of 5 full time and 4 part time people are going to have much to contribute. There is a lot of talk on their website about plans and research and 'groups', but very little substance. It seems their first priority was to develop a line of clothing and an online store. The "Finance" portion of their group consists of investment club opportunities which they generously offer to the public. I couldn't find any mention of other members of their "Group" apart from the sub-companies consisting of the same 9 employees. So far it looks like they have received some money from NASA and $100K from local development agencies in New Jersey where they have announced the building of their first factory. The money from NASA is a little misleading, however. It seems that another company, High Lift Systems, got its start when LiftPort's President, Michael J. Laine, ran into Brad Edwards on a space forum. Edwards is a physicist who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratories for 11 years and had raised $570K from NASA to study the feasibility of a space elevator. Laine originally wasn't interested - "I thought it was ridiculous,' says Laine" [inc.com]- but quickly changed his mind. Edwards is also the only scientist or researcher connected to LiftGroup on their website. Unfortunately for LiftGroup, but probably not for Edwards, after about a year he gave Laine the boot and went off to do research at Eureka Scientific [eurekasci.com] under a NASA grant [usra.edu]. Currently he has received $2.5M from the US government to fund his own lab. His take on Laine? He says that Laine "spins his wheels" and "if Michael Laine is standing there with something, Boeing and the Air Force won't even notice him."
LiftPort Group seems to be a lot of talk and a website. Search results for Laine are few and all related to LiftPort, yet supposedly he has been a leading proponent of the space elevator for years. Content about LiftGroup on other websites consists almost entirely of Liftgroup press releases, with no information other than that provided by LPG. LiftPort Group claims that LiftPort Carbon is a leading force in the industry and its product, Liftite(TM) carbon nanotubes, will "revolutionize the way the world thinks about materials". There is no third party reference to this not originating from LiftPort that I could find. As a matter of fact, I can not find ANY reference from ANY acknowledged authority in the field confirming any of LiftPorts claims. While other companies are mentioned in news stories about product releases, cooperative ventures, and funding awards, LiftGroup is mentioned in quotes from its own press releases. Maybe I'm missing a huge body of information somewhere, if not, the only question left seems to be...is Michael Laine a kook or a crook? I guess time will tell.
billy - who disavows all knowledge of THIS particular mission
Space junk, fragility and disaster (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider that a space elevator is built, with carbon nanotubes, or whatever suitable material. Now, what can damage or destroy the elevator? There is so much space junk hurtling around the planet, about which slashdot has already had articles, that something is bound to hit some portion of the cable on it's 35'000 kilometer length up to geostationary orbit. I assume that even an extremely strong material would be liable to break under such extreme velocity impacts and stress. For instance, a piece of old rocket booster has considerable kinetic energy and I wouldn't like to bet on the elevator being over engineered enough to withstand such an impact.
Or what about that asteroid that is scheduled to pass close to the earth in 2029 or so, or any of the car sized asteroids that hit the earth regularly? What impact and damage could they do to the elevator?
And what happens if the elevator is cut? If part of it comes down on the earth it is going to be one massive impact, far more dangerous than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.
Space stations and elevators as power generators? (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been plenty of schemes to use Solar Power Satellites [space.com] to provide cheap, ecological power to earth-based consumers, but one big problem has always been transmission.
Lasers and microwaves have been proposed, but lasers are notoriously inefficient, and both lasers and satellites have other problems. (cooking birds, airplanes and pedestrians in the case of an alignment problem, etc)
How do you get that power down to earth?
Well, few recent [slashdot.org] articles [spacedaily.com] lead me to believe that a space elevator made of 5,5 quantum wires might be the best!
1) Transmission of power over superconductors wouldn't be very "lossy".
2) Problem of getting power to the elevators themselves largely solved.
3) 5,5 "quantum wires" are single-walled nanotubes, the best kind for tension strength, and are thus a natural fit.
4) No "cooked birds and airplanes" problems with alignment.
5) Getting sufficient material into space to build an economically feasible solar power station is cheap - just put the stuff on the elevator!
Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? Can anybody shoot holes in this idea?
Re:Or in the UK... (Score:2, Funny)
Yes it does, the roof of the elevator will lift anything on it's way. Including space.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
How big a counterweight are we talking about here? Because if you're thinking of using a whale and a flowerpot, that's probably not going to work
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude.
The elevators will be equitorial, for reasons
that would be obvious to even a 18th
century physicist.
They will MAKE the tubes in Bremerton. And
then they will use this advanced technology
called a "boat" to move the tubes to another
location for deployment, if it comes to that
(which it may not for decades...)
You might be familiar with this phenomenon
already, called "transportation".
It turns out people can manufacture
in one city, and move the goods to another.
(And here, all this time, you thought everything
you touch--planes, cars, clothes, food--were
made in your own city!)
Got it?
Now finish your milk and cookies. Nap time is
almost here.
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:3,000-square-foot (Score:2)
It would have sounded more impressive if they had said it was a 36000 cubic foot plant.
But seriously, this plant isn't going to turn out entire space elevators, just the raw materials; or, more likely, materials for a prototype.
Re:3,000-square-foot (Score:2, Funny)
A typo? Or is this whole thing just a sad joke?
Hey, we're speaking of *NANO* tubes here.