Slashdot Mirror
Stepping Closer To The Space Elevator
multicsfan writes "This article at Space Daily indicates that one of the major stumbling blocks against the space elevator has a potential solution. What do you make the elevator from? What's strong enough? It appears that carbon nanotubes may meet that requirement with a strength twice the minimum estimated." Now the problem is just getting a process that can get us from growing 4 mm in length to 47,000 km - I've got Wallace (and Gromit) working on it now.
Space Elevators work by orbiting synchronously with the Earth. Indeed due to their stationary nature they're often referred to as "beanstalks" (Jack and the...) There are other designs where they instead act as a giant rotating spar slicing down through the atmosphere and back up again but the most popular is where they're tethered (anchored is probably too strong a word) somewhere on or near the Earth's equator.
Many designs truncate the outer-end of the cable, instead substituting some sort of counterweight such a captured asteroid. For vertical transport sealed cabins would be used for passengers, unsealed would do for hardy cargo. The technologies wouldn't be very exotic, indeed they could be built today by anyway halfway competent Jr. Technical School.
Most designs have the cabins ascend & descend using electric motors (none using winches & cables found in the more traditionial elevators.) The motors themselves needn't be anything special, anything that can lift the cabin in 1G would do fine. Another alternative would be some sort of magnetic drive, Lawrence Livermore's Inductrak being one good candidate.
Power requirements would be fairly modest & using the electric motors as electrical generators on the down trip could recover much of the power used. A single large power station would be enough with today's technologies, or possibly several solar satellites using future technology.
However there are a couple of fundamental problems that are evident even from this far away.
- Carbon nanotubes have thus far only been created in very short lengths. Scaling them up hasn't been achieved yet.
- There isn't a good mechanism for bonding, braiding, or otherwise welding together the nanotubes.
- The mechanical, electrical & chemical properties of the tubes are still being studied. They may prove to be unsuitable for this application.
- Carbon is flammable, be it as lumps of coal or as diamonds or as nanotubes.
- However recently other materials then carbon have been formed into nanotubes so it may not be the only choice.
- We don't have a way to get the construction materials into orbit from where to begin building. An expansion of space shipping by several orders of magnitude for an extended period of time would be required to ferry up an elevator's components from the planetary surface.
- As others have pointed out the dangers of a disrupted elevator would be significant, indeed catastrophic.
- The financial investment in such a project would dwarf all other civil engineering to date. While the payoffs could well be incredible the risk would be great & the markets unproven.
Space Elevators may well indeed prove in the long term the best way to get between orbit & a planetary surface. However they're a way off in terms of materials alone not to mention finances & other practicalities. Even if we were to develop a magic fiber tomorrow with all of the necessary properties it would be several decades before we'd be in a position to use it. That said it's never too soon to start laying the groundwork.I purposely didn't look up & embed URLs into this: Clearly you're already online if you're reading this so paste the interesting bits into your favorite search engine and look up the nouns yourself.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
A few years back, John Storrs-Hall (for many years the moderator of sci.nanotech) was talking about an interesting idea that, like the space elevator, is not very far beyond existing material science. It is also probably more economical. The gist is an airport runway, 300 km long and at an altitude of 100 km, with a built-in linear motor that can accelerate a spacecraft. Over 80 seconds at 10 G, the craft accelerates to 8 km/sec, necessary to maintain a circular orbit. Humans (at least young healthy ones) can survive this acceleration. Current approaches to space launch cost around $10,000 per kilogram. The space dock could allow launches for 91 cents per kilogram, dropping to 42 cents per kilogram as the construction was amortized over the first few decades of use.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
Dammit, it's supposed to be a stairway to heaven, not a friggin elevator.
Arthur C Clarke's Space Odyssey 3001 - printed in 1997 - have space elevators and in the end of the book he explains that they could very well be possible to manufacture using tubular buckminsterfullerene. In the back of the book he says:
"Meanwhile, the discovery of the third form of carbon, buckminsterfullerene (C60) has made the concept of the Space Elevator much more plausible. In 1990 a group of chemists at Rice University, Houston, produced a tubular form of C60 - which has far greater tensile strength than diamond. The group's leader, Dr. Smalley, even went so far as to claim it was the strongest material that could ever exist - and added that it would make possible the construction of the Space Elevator."
So will spray-paint stick to that fancy carbon shit? Cuz we ain't gonna let Whitey forget they roots, nowahmsayn?
"Smear'd with gumms of glutenous heat, I touch..." - Comus, John Milton
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
I think I got a spam the other day advertising just that.
-----
Besides launching ships, what advantages might such a country have?
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
In the Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson, he describes a space elevator on Mars which is destroyed by terrorists. The effects of the billions of tons of carbon tubules smashing into Mars as the space elevator falls (wrapping itself around Mars in the process) is on a par with the destruction caused by asteroid/comet impact.
The books are quite good, with a lot of cool ideas, and are probably one of the most realistic treatments of how we could terraform Mars. But you'll have to work your way through some lengthy discussions about the geology of the red planet.
Wrong. Cut at the bottom, the whole assembly would enter Earth orbit. The question of whether parts of it would ever hit the Earth would depend on the solutions to a hell of a lot of differential equations.
If it were cut at the top, the weight would fly out, and the rope, although no longer able to lift objects, would continue to stay aloft because it also has outward momentum.
Wrong. Cut at the top, the rope would not have enough outward momentum to hold its own against gravity. That's why there is a counterweight.
The only potential problem is if it were cut in the middle. Even in this case, only half of the rope would come back to earth.
Very astute. Except...
the only effect would be a few miles of super-strong rope falling down on whatever remote location they build this thing at.
True if by "few" you mean about 10,000. Hint: There is no equatorial location on Earth that is not within 10,000 miles of an ocean.
Re-read (Re? Oh well, make that just "read") the finale of Red Mars and get back to us.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Actually, nanotubes are NOT cohesive enough. In fact in nanotube composite materials, the tubes are so smooth and so non interactive that they slip around each other and any binding matrix. So I'm afraid we'll be needing that nanotube polymerase or polymerizing reaction or nanomachine constructor. Potentially some slight modifications may need to be made - if it's twice as strong as it needs to be, maybe we could compromise that strength a little by cross-linking them. If they were somewhat longer, weaving might also be an option. Perhaps carbon nanofibers (VGCF) would be easier to produce. How would they perform?
But there are other problems too. Nanotubes will degrade under certain high-energy conditions. Therefore they might not work so well in space. And finally, one of the forms of nanotubes is conducting. If you have an electrical conductor (the elevator wire) sweeping through a magnetic field (the earth's) you'll generate an electrical current in the conductor (high voltage, potentially useful) as well as mechanical force perpendicular to the magnetic field and the conductor (BIG problem). It wouldn't take long for that to be dragged down to earth. I'm not sure how the semiconductor form would hold up. Carbon nanofibers are very conductive too.
cryptochrome
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
On a discussion of ways to purify U-235 for making an atomic bomb (this was in the 1940's), a scientist was talking about atomic-mass spectrometers. He said, "A unit can purify uranium-235 more than sufficiently to make a bomb, but it would take a million years to purify enough for just one bomb."
Someone from the audience said, "So you build a million units, then it only takes one year."
We currently make cable in machines that go much more than one mile per hour. The rest is just assembly and orbital mechanics (you have to put the stuff in orbit and build it downward, or rather outward both ways from geosynchronous orbit).
--
spam spam spam spam spam spam
No one expects the Spammish Repetition!
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Can you imagine listening to elevator music for 47,000 kilometers???