First Pure Nanotube Fibers Made 97
TheSync writes "Researchers at Rice have announced the discovery of how to create continuous fibers from single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNT). The breakthrough was based on the ability to dissolve a large amount of SWNTs in sulfuric acid, up to 10% SWNTs in solution. At high concentrations, the SWNTs form tightly packed liquid crystals that can be processed into pure fibers. The Space Elevator can't be far away now..."
Actual strength? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's more than a little bit premature. Sure, it seems like we can make them a little easier now in the lab... but as an earlier poster mentioned, we're going to need some pretty long lengths to streach into orbit. Nowhere have I heard how exactly the little fibres that are grown in the lab will be joined together *at the usual nanotube strength* over and over again to make these long lengths.
Won't the 'joints' between individual fibres be a weak point in the system, and since we're joining thousands (if not millions) of little tube lengths in the lab, won't that have a rather large impact on the actual strength of the tube (vs if it was actually one long continuous length)?
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2, Insightful)
In Fact the dictating method here is NOT belief, but lies in the technology itself. If it can be built, it will be. If not... not.
So no reason to be jerky about it. To build one may be a important step forward to becoming perhaps an interplanetary society. So it should be relevant to build actually one. If its made of super-duper nanotube2000 or simply a uniform brick of diamond does not matter. As long as it is built.
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if I understand you correctly you are arguing that conventional rocketry will never be cheap because the space launch market it is too small. But the space elevator will be cheaper and so will create a larger space launch market... for conventional rocketry too.
The economies of scale apply just as much to conventional rocketry as to the space elevator- as I say, I've seen the figures for both space elevators and rocketry and it is much more arguable than you seem to think- the underlying, per launch, costs of both are very small indeed (maybe $50/kg); in both cases they are hidden behind the fact you need to borrow billions of dollars to build them in the first place.
Ultimately, the Space Elevator may end up cheaper, but it's not a slam-dunk; and frankly I wouldn't want to bet on it; but I am by no means anti-elevator.
And you're very definitely right about the interplanetary aspects of space elevators; even if it winds up more expensive (it doesn't look like it at the moment, but there's plenty of potentially fatal flaws with them) they are still very much worth building.
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, regarding launch costs and making the elevator thicker... once you get the first elevator up it becomes much much cheaper to get a second (and third, etc) elevator up. You don't get reliability and high traffic by making the cable bigger, you get it by making more cables. The additional cables will also be much cheaper to build, as they can be lifted and deployed using the first one and the infrastructure to create the cable itself will already exist. This is when launch prices start dropping even more dramatically, to the point that rockets no longer stand a chance of being economical.