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..."
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, it needs to be on average 35,000 Km away to work.
-Sean
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:2)
A space elevator would be more expensive than Concorde to develop and build, and because the asking price to send a payload up it is pretty much the build price divided by how often it is used (plus profit), it may very well not turn out that cheap; I've seen estimates as high as $500-$1000/kg- fairly cheap by todays standards (around $2500-$8000/kg), but probably well wi
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:1)
Why not? There's no reason (other than the capacity of the elevator) not to launch every two minutes.
I'd be willing to spend two weeks in a box to get to space on a budget.
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
In theory you can make the cable thicker, but this takes time and expense. As an example of one of the issues, since it's thought that the elevator cable will be occasionally cut by meteorites or space junk, it probably doesn't pay you to make it too thick (ultimately you'd spend all yo
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:1)
I'm not holding my breath.
PS. Going up in a box would be akin to the folks who deliberately go over Niagra Falls. It's stupid, but some of them survive. Secreting oneself in the center of a bulk shipment of something dense might be doable. Of course while the container may be pressurized for the cargo's sake you'de need to provide your own air purification/recycling. (water and food would be nice too.
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
With materials like that, Concorde would work (Score:2)
Graphite composite was supposed to be the revolution in mass fraction that was going to make the X-33/Venture Star workable, and the only thing came down like a house of cards when the composite cryo fuel tank was not all it was cracked up to be.
Re:With materials like that, Concorde would work (Score:2)
Possibly. Might even be able to get away with a pressure fed rocket.
Graphite composite was supposed to be the revolution in mass fraction that was going to make the X-33/Venture Star workable, and the only thing came down like a house of cards when the composite cryo fuel tank was not all it was cracked up to be.
Yeah, well, th
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:4, Interesting)
Conventional rocketry will never be subject to the economy of scale. Too expensive. SE will.
Besides, supersonic passenger jets and Space Elevators are a bad comparison. In fact, you have it all upside down. You should be comparing the shuttle to the concorde, and the SE to the jumbo.
First off,
The tenth concorde is as expensive as the first.
The tenth SE costs a fraction of the first, because - you can use one elevator to raise another in almost no-time.
Then, and here's where you're off, A concorde has a slightly slower alternative that people find sufficient, and that costs significantly less. That's why there's 1200 747's and 12 concordes out there flying.
Next, you're assuming there will be the same amount of orbit-access demand when it costs 500$/kg or 100$/kg as there is now when it costs in the 5-digit/kg.
DEAD WRONG.
The cheaper the price, the more entities seeking space access as an option for their endeavor will open up their checkbooks. What you have is a completely untapped market of organizations - from poorer countries needing satellites, to research, low-grav-manufacturing of chips and medicine (offer a low-enough price and it'll be cheaper to make stuff up there than build centrifuges on earth), Communication satellite networks, power-beaming to remote and inaccessible areas that today require flying in fuel, satellites sent via SE will not need to be overengineered in a way that doubles their cost just to withstand liftoff shaking.
And it doesn't end there.
A SE is also a giant slingshot, making the entire solar system accessible without the need of large-scale LOX/Solid-fuel-rocket/ION/Nuke engines. All you have to do is go to the top and let go. A 91000km SE will slingshot you as far as Jupiter.
You'll get totally new markets - asteroid mining, settling the solar system (more real estate = more population = larger economies = more money to go around etc. etc. etc.).
The SE makes more financial sense than the computer or the automobile. It's a MASSIVE enabling technology that will make possible stuff you and I can't even imagine yet, the same as the people who harnessed electricity 100 years ago didn't exactly have The Internet or global cell phone networks in mind.
It's just a matter of who'll understand it first. NASA, Europe, China or India. Currently, I think China is in the lead.
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
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:1)
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Laser powered launch can use the atmosphere- but only initially- but pretty soon they have to leave it and do the bulk of their acceleration outside; you need to do mach 25 to reach orbit, and nobody has ever achieved more than mach 6 in the atmosphere.
The big advantage of laser powered launch is that it doesn't need to carry the power supply with it. This means that the fuel can be heated far hotter than it would normally- for example
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Conventional rocketry can only get so cheap, because fundamentally, you're wasting energy. It can never be as cheap as a space elevator. Fundamentally, the efficiency of a space elevator *could* become a significant fraction of "1" - that is,
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Irrelevant. For a rocket, the cost of the fuel/energy per kg of payload is astonishingly low, way down at O($10/kg). The current cost of rocketry, O($1000/kg), is due to other things, primarily because of the low launch rate making the rocket itself expensive and making fully reusable rockets too expensive to develop. Really, the cost of rocketry is because of the standing armies of people necessary to launch- the nu
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Jeez, you're actually supporting what I say, just not realizing the implications of it. That $500/kg does not come from the recurring cost of launching materials. It comes from the cost of the space elevator. There's a huge differ
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Yes. In addition what I'm saying is that the up-front cost of a fully reusable space vehicle and a space elevator is about the same.
There's a huge difference.
No. The vast majority of the cost of the rocket comes from the R&D stage of the vehicle; which is a one-time upfront cost. Bending metal is fairly cheap.
You still have to use propellant., which will always cost money, and
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Brad Edwards has published very legitimate papers on Space Elevators based on a grant from NASA. I've read them; they are excellent work, and they're freely available on the NASA website; he certainly is a well respected space scientist, I cannot comment on his ex-partner.
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Cheap is not free.
No. Look. The typical propellent/payload ratio for a launch vehicle is comfortably under 50:1, usually nearer to 20:1, but let's use 50:1. Let's assume you use hydrocarbon fuel. About 60% of the mass of fuel is LOX- LOX is pennies per pound. Kerosene, perhaps a dollar or two. So the rocket fuel cost is well under $50/kg. That's not
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Not necessarily. It depends, quite a bit on all kinds of things. For example, a launch vehicle is going to be cheaper to build in the first place. The recurring costs are only one, small part of the picture.
I don't care if you can say "well, they can get it down to $10/kg" - whatever it is, the space elevator can get it under tha
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Isn't that what the US Congress just gave to Iraq?
Or the US Interstate System?
The energy cost alone is about $10/kg.
Not necessarily. If you have loads running up and running down the elevator, the energy cost could be zero (in theory, of course - you can't practically do this). But the elevator could easily be powered from space, where the cost would be zero. You'd need to set something up to deal with the nightfall hours, but it could
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Yeah, right. In your dreams. Iraq was primarily a play for the Iraqi oil supply.
the elevator could easily be powered from space, where the cost would be zero
How many times can you make the same mistake? Solar panels cost money to buy. Solar panels cost money to launch (even up an elevator). Solar panels wear out. This means that the energy is not free. It may be cheaper, but certainly not cost free.
Carbon is cheap.
Many owners of diamonds would disagr
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
I thought that was a pretty obvious joke.
I note that you didn't argue with the second comment, regarding the US Interstate system, which is actually a good analogy.
How many times can you make the same mistake? Solar panels cost money to buy. Solar panels cost money to launch (even up an elevator). Solar panels wear out. This means that the energy is not free. It may be cheaper, but certainly not cost free.
Solar panels wil
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:2)
Oh well that's ok then :-)
Guaranteed success is assured!
Re:The Foo Fighters have left Groom Lake (Score:1)
I doubt you can calculate every nuance of orbit-subtlty it would require to make this whole thing work. Not to speak of the strength of the material and the inner structure it would require to stop cracks from distributing further. [Insert favourite field of research here] This is left to the experts.
ALL I say is, do not judge it beforehand. May be there is emotion involved, but
Re:The space elevator is such a joke. (Score:1)
And when it collapses, it will wipe out millions of people.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Something of a misconception. In actual fact an elevator cable has to be attached to the elevator car for the system to work correctly.
How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:2)
I appreciate the humor, but please note the distance of the moon is around 60 times the radius of the Earth [nasa.gov]. Meanwhile, proposed space elevators represent at most 7 Earth radii out. That's one heck of an increase for an already gigantic budget.
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:1)
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:1)
it would still fail miserably.
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:1)
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:1)
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:2)
You need a swivel connector, though.
Re:How about a "moon leash"?... (Score:2)
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:Actual strength? (Score:1)
Re:Actual strength? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, that's surprising, considering that Slashdot has had plenty of explanations as to how you do it.
Nanotube strength is more than you need. Much more. Pure carbon nanotube strands are strong enough to make a completely untapered elevator, all by themselves. (300 GPa tensile strength).
For a space elevator, you're not building one continuous nanotube to orbit. That'd be insane. What you do is you build a composite fiber, just like you have fiberglass, or Kevlar fibers - you dope some composite with nanotubes to increase their strength.
Now, you may say "so what? they still have to build them!". They have. Kilometer-long doped CNT fibers have already been produced. No, they're not as strong as you need. Yes, that's being worked on, and yes, it's an engineering problem, not a fundamental flaw. Once you've got kilometer-long length, it's not much more of a step to be thousands of km long (believe it or not). At *absolute worst* you could build a system to join segments of the elevator together. There have already been presentations and ideas on this theory, and it's perfectly sound.
There is nothing fundamental preventing the space elevator from being built. It's just a matter of time, and this is one (very large) step along the way. But it's important to remember that it's just engineering problems - big, but tractable.
Re:Actual strength? (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. That's a theoretical maximum strength; but the theory is probably wrong. Current experimental strength of short fibers is about 120 GPa, and that's only just what you'd need to do this (about 60 GPa is needed, plus a safety factor of say 2).
What you do is you build a composite fiber, just like you have fiberglass, or Kevlar fibers - you dope some composite with nanotubes to increase their strength.
Not quite. If you dope a plastic with nanotubes you'd end up with a material whose strength and weight were dominated by the polymer. That would be wayyyy too heavy and weak. The idea is that you have to use an absolute bare minimum of glue to stick the nanotubes fibers together. Trouble is no-one knows how to do this right now with adequate strength; nanotubes are slippery and particularly hard to glue; and as noted, we don't have a great deal of strength to play with- we need a safety factor for practical reasons.
Kilometer-long doped CNT fibers have already been produced. No, they're not as strong as you need. Yes, that's being worked on, and yes, it's an engineering problem, not a fundamental flaw.
Those fibers aren't even as strong as Kevlar. So, no, it's still a research problem. The engineering begins when we have a cable even a few feet long; of the right strength/weight ratio. Until then- engineers and financiers must hang fire.
Re:Actual strength? (Score:1)
I think that the original poster meant not that the theoretical maximum strength for CNTs was WRONG... just that there might be other factors, as yet undiscovered, which may also limit the maximum strength. It is much more likely that the maxiumum strength of CNTs will be LESS than 300GPa than it is the strength will be GREATER than 300GPa.
Re:Actual strength? (Score:1)
Nanotubes are sticky (Score:5, Informative)
The process they describe here is a way of storing the nanotubes for transport, so that they can be assembled later.
Creating nanotubes is dead-on easy. I've actually seen a nanotube creation lab in the Physics department in the University of Washington. I think it is on the third or fourth floor. Go visit there if you get a chance.
After the nanotubes are created, they have to be seperated. They come in a hairball and need to be seperated individually. Next they are stored in a liquid type suspension. When they want to form their nanotube rope, they need a way to squeeze them back together again and extract all of the liquid. The liquid described in the article is beneficial because it helps organize the nanotubes so that they can be easily extracted. You will end up with 100% pure nanotube rope or cable at the end of the process.
Now you are probably speculating that it can't be that simple. It is. Sheep hair (wool), cotton fiber, polyester, and such all work in the same way.
Re:Nanotubes are sticky (Score:1)
While this is true, for a sufficiently strong composite material we will also need the nanotubes to bond well to the substrate polymer. Although CNTs are attracted to each other, they tend to have featureless, smooth surfaces that don't bond well with other materials. The likely solution to this problem is a process called 'functionalization' which adds features -- small appendages -- to the CNTs so that there is more traction wi
Re:Nanotubes are sticky (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely. But the fur-balls haven't previously achieved anything like their full strength potential.
Creating nanotubes is dead-on easy.
Yup. But the problem is creating 120GPa nanotube cable- nobody has ever done that so far.
You will end up with 100% pure nanotube rope or cable at the end of the process.
True, but that doesn't make it strong. Furballs have not massive strength. The microstructure of the 100% rope is completely critical. The nano
Re:Actual strength? (Score:2)
I've been reading this thread with great interest, and I agree with points made by both sides. However, IAAE (I Am An Engineer), and I wish to point out that there's a fuzzy line between Physics and Engineering. When Roebling [greatbuildings.com] invented wire rope, was he a Physicist or an Engineer? At what point did his work transition from Research to Engineering? If you asked him, he'd say he was an Engineer and all his work wa
Re:Actual strength? (Score:2)
Yeah, I did, and I've read most of the NACA research papers on space elevators too. Please tell me where, when you RTFS, where it says that the material they made had a strength/weight ratio sufficient to make a Space Elevator. Until that has been demonstrated it's material science; which is really very much more basics physics research than engineering.
Re:Actual strength? (Score:2)
I said it was a fuzzy line...
Re:Actual strength? (Score:2)
Re:Actual strength? (Score:2)
The difference between "evolutionary" progress in science and "revolutionary" progress in science are pretty well understood. You can speed up "evolutionary" progress by throwing mone
Re:Actual strength? (Score:2)
Early experimental strength is 1/3 to 1/2 of what theory predicts, and the theory is probably wrong? The theory is for pure nanotube fibers, based on carbon-carbon bond strength. Considering early experiments are so close to the theory, it's probably correct.
And
Re:Actual strength? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily, it depends on how you join them. You need to ensure that the joints are totally seamless so there are no weak points.
See nanodiamond.info [nanodiamond.info] for an example of how to join them which increases the overall strength (or strength to weight ratio) rather than weakens them. The trick involved actually lets you use them for buildings and bridges under compression as well as cables under tension. Warning: shameless plug
Re:Actual strength? (Score:1)
It's like trying to avoid a gunshot, only this time it's rotating, and in size of a fist...
How come noone talked about that yet?
Yes! One more step! (Score:1)
They don't mention the strength (Score:4, Informative)
Acid? (Score:2)
Re:Acid? (Score:2)
just the space elevator? (Score:2, Interesting)
A.K.A. Fast @ss processors with minimal heat.
Or for more scientific and broader uses, much much much much better inductors (another boost to computers), solenoids (yea yea, same thing), electromagnets (umm, sort of different) for magnetic levitation used in maglev trains, etc...
Good times await.
Re:just the space elevator? (Score:1)
Re:just the space elevator? (Score:3, Informative)
I would suspect fullerines have similar conductance to graphite
Plus, a previous slashdot story indicated that fullerines undergo total disentegration under some conditions [slashdot.org]
Nanotubes as transistors [slashdot.org]
NAnotubes extend battery life [slashdot.org]
Re:just the space elevator? (Score:1)
High T_c is usually defined as above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen, a good, cheap, plentiful, environmentally-friendly coolant, which is 77 K. This implies that liquid nitrogen can be used to keep the material superconducting, a property which drops costs and engineering challenges dramatically. Nanotubes' more popular and practical properties are its tensile strength (i.e. space elevator), and it
not the first (Score:2)
Canadian Carbon Nanotube Product of the Future ... (Score:2)
And that will allow the Canadian government to keep it's existing military equipment flying and floating well into the 22nd century.
so a space elevator isn't next... (Score:2)
or bulletproof clothing? Seems like a fabric made of this stuff could make a mighty fine lightweight aircraft skin, or a parachute that folds up into a money belt, or....???
Re:so a space elevator isn't next... (Score:5, Funny)
Year: 2009
Place: Wal*Mart
Blotter: A bearded armed thug wearing a stylish black blouse was killed while trying to hi-jack the daily armored car. The purp was struck with a .357 caliber round which entered his chest and left his back.
Witnesses report that upon falling to the ground the woman's blouse was missing. Apparently, the robber thought the high tensile strength of Jaquline Smith's new line of clothes would protect him from any bullets. What he didn't consider was that the nylon stitches that held it together would tear and that the round would pull the entire blouse off his back, taking it in through the bullet hole and out a grapefruit sized hole in his back eventually ending up imbedded in the door of an Oldsmobile in the parking lot.
Police finding the round still wrapped in the pretty - if bloodsoaked, blouse, impounded it as evidence.
Carbon economy (Score:2)
Re:Carbon economy (Score:2)
Technical data on Space Elevator (Score:4, Informative)
Institute for Advanced Concepts [usra.edu]
and here is a design study for a space elevator:
Space Elevator Phase 1 [usra.edu]
Space Elevator Phase 2 [usra.edu]
Space elevator news/portal (Score:2, Informative)
I'm glad to see so many space elevator stories on Slashdot lately. I think the actual feasibility of this idea is important to impress upon people. SE research has a considerable amount of NASA funding, the fruits of which where the Phase I & II NIAC reports mentioned in the parent post.
LiftWatch.org [liftwatch.org] is a news/portal site dedicated to following this and other developments in space elevators and related technologies. Besides the main front page news, here are some handy links for the SE afficianado
I RTFA , how do you cut the nanotubes? (Score:1)
Re:I RTFA , how do you cut the nanotubes? (Score:2)
Invisbly cut someones throat (Score:2)
Re:Invisbly cut someones throat (Score:2, Informative)
Wiliam Gibson, "Johhny Mnemonic"? IIRC, it features a japanese dude with a 'monomolecule' spooled in his thumb, used for exactly that purposes.
Re:Invisbly cut someones throat (Score:1)
Re:Invisbly cut someones throat (Score:2)
Re:Invisbly cut someones throat (Score:1)
the real deal (Score:5, Interesting)
A way to self-assemble nanotubes into ropes which can be used macroscopically. Whether or not it's strong enough to use in a space elevator remains to be seen, but we can actually talk about trying that now!
The nanotubes which were used here are electronics grade tubes, that means that most likely they were single or double walled (single walled being the strongest possible), and had a very low defect density. This is obviously important to the mechanical strength.
I work in a nanotechnology lab, and part of my job is to grow nanotubes. They naturally come in ropes which are around 1 to 10 nanometers in diameter and a few microns to a centimeter in length. The tubes are held together in solution due to van der Waals forces (basically friction) which are absurdly high for nanotubes. We've been separating tubes from eachother in solution from years, but efforts to re-align them have focused on the air-water interface. All they have done is found a solution which will solvate more tubes, to the point that the tubes have no room to run "against the grain" and so become aligned. This is done all the time with polymers. In retrospect it seems obvious and easy (it wasn't).
I remember a week ago Smalley was being bashed here about his conflicting views with Drexler on the future of nanotechnology and molecular assemblers (versus self-assembly). If you'll notice, Smalley is on this paper. This is why he has a Nobel prize, and why he disagrees with Drexler, self-assembled nanotechnology is already here, and it's only going to get better.
Not likely (Score:1)
Consider how easily a cessna or some other flying craft filled with delusional muslims, white power supremacists, 7th day adventists or some other crackpot-du-jour, can be flown into it and cause major embarrassment to the spineless politicians that declared it perfectly safe.
On the other hand the politicians might be able to blame it on the autoprompter, in which case it's all due
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
The only thing with a real chance to damage the space elevator will hence be a stealth aircraft or a cruise missile.
This wasn't done yesterday (Score:2)
The other way of doing it is basically the cold fusion method (call a press conference immediately). Pros and cons.
Shigawire (Score:2)