Space Elevator Group to Open Nanotube Factory

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."

Comments

its already possible?

[Rapsey]

Did I miss a meating or something? Since when do we have the capabilities to make nanotubes the length of houndreds of miles?

Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.
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:Hmm...

[rufusdufus]

RTFA: The plant will be in NJ because they have a cheap electricity source.

Waste of nanotech?

[thallgren]

Assume nanotubes get used a lot, what will happen to their waste? Will stuff made of nanotubes corrode or how will nature decompose it?

Regards, Tommy

Re:Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory

[BlueJay465]

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

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 /. crowd, it's only half a lifetime.

not for human transport.. yet

[xirtam_work]

I hate to break it to you guys, but don't expect poeple to be travelling on the space elevator once it comes into service. It will travel extremey slowly compred to traditional orbital insertion techniques. Expect it to take days to reach geo-stationary orbit.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, who wants to spend over a week travelling to geo-stationery orbit, when a faster method exists?

Simple: $100/lb for the space elevator, possibly much less as costs are amortized, vs. $1000 or more on the spaceplane. For a 150/lb person with no baggage, that's a $15K trip vs. a $150K trip. On I could do, the other I couldn't. And that's kinda the minimum cost differential...elevator costs could go down quite a bit from there, and the shuttle costs over $10,000/lb. No spaceplane/rocket will be near as cost-effective as the elevator, since you have to carry your fuel with you. Your best hope for a reasonably cheap launch rocket, as rockets go, is nuclear, but good luck getting people to go along with that. I've neglected the cost of lifting the shielding, but since I've seen estimates for the elevator under $20/lb, I don't think I'm too far off here.

Larger elevators with shielded compartments have been proposed. The construction method already involves starting with a very small ribbon, and reinforcing it more and more, using the elevator to carry up its own construction materials. Where you stop that process is fairly arbitrary, and cargo capacity up to a million pounds has been discussed. It's, er, not rocket science.

Re:not for human transport.. yet

[grozzie2]

Spaceplanes, in the near future ? I want some of the stuff you are smoking.

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 on variations of combustion, resulting in reactions based on newtonian physics (f=ma). With the fuels available today, the mass fraction to orbit on such vehicles is so tiny that it's not gonna be practical, ever.

Before travel to/from space becomes commonplace, we need technolgy advances such that the mass fraction to orbit is on par with long haul jetliners of today. that means 30% of the all up launch weight can be fuel, 30% structure, and 40% payload. It doesn't matter what you do with materials to lighten todays orbital lauchers, the fuel fraction is on the order of 80% of launch weight, so it'll never become 'common'.

No matter how you twist it, the energy density of current propulsion techniques just isn't there, and no amount of incremental improvements in structures/engines will solve the problem. The solution requires an order of magnitude improvement in fuel energy density, which implies a major breakthru in propulsion technology. This breakthru needs to be on the order of the move from steam to internal combustion, which replaced the 'coal car' on trains with a 'tank of diesel'. Aviation didn't become efficient enough to become common until the incremental improvement happened that took internal combustion from the piston engine to the continuous flow jet, but that was only an incremental improvement on the technology, not a major new propulsion source. A modern high bypass fanjet operating at high altitude still extracts less than 50% of the available energy in it's fuel, and directs it toward propulsion. the rest disappears into compression and waste heat.

Rockets are horribly inefficient things, the vast majority of the energy stored in the fuel tanks gets thrown away as waste heat, but that heat has a side effect, gas expansion. Rockets utilize this side effect to create massive amounts of force, for a very short period of time. Internal combustion engines are more efficient, and depending on the cycle in use, anywhere from 20 to 35% of the energy stored in the fuel can be recovered for actual propulsion, the rest is expended on compression of the incoming gasses, and waste heat.

Space travel can become commonplace, and economical, when we figure out how to extract all the energy available in the stored fuels of today, or we come up with a fuel with a much higher energy density. As long as we rely on extraction methods where the actual proplusion energy is just a side effect of the main reaction, and are using fuels available today, it's not going to happen. Science fiction writers, and the tv shows can talk/show all they want, but the limiting factors are the phyiscs of propulsion. All the talk in the world isn't going to change that, only a breakthru in propulsion technology that gives us an order of magnitude of improvement in energy density will solve the real problems.

Re:COOL!

[ErikZ]

Why not use the elevator as a source of power?

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.

not really

[Illserve]

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.

Re:not really

[Rei]

No, they're not. The strongest SWNTs ever measured were just over 60GPa, instead of the >100 GPa (and desired >120 GPa) for a space elevator.

They're both too short and too weak currently.

Space junk, fragility and disaster

[theolein]

I've seen numerous people here on slashdot being totally obsessed with the idea of a space elevator, since it offers a cheap and efficient way to get into orbit, but less obsessed with some real dangers in the real world, should an elevator ever be constructed.

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?

[mcrbids]

So, I was laying around lazily on a vacation here in San Diego, and an idea idly struck me while shooting the breeze with my accompanying teacher friend.

There have been plenty of schemes to use Solar Power Satellites 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 articles 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:Hmm...

[Muhammar]

the real outcome of this nanotube factory effort, the new and improved golf clubs, will appear north of equator