Slashdot Mirror


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."

47 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Elevator Music by Before+The+End+Chaos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Naturally, this elevator's music will be composed entirely of Star Trek themes.

    --
    If you think you're a hardcore roleplayer, come prove it to us at ArmageddonMUD.
    1. Re:Elevator Music by Skiron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Naturally, this elevator's music will be composed entirely of Star Trek themes.

      And once at the top, it will go *PING*

  2. In the future... by Stalyn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    all major cities will have a space elevator just like airports and subways... or not.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    1. Re:In the future... by Stalyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check this link out. It'll blow your mind how a space elevator not anchored at the equator is possible!!!

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    2. Re:In the future... by Mantorp · · Score: 2

      I don't believe a functioning space elevator will ever be built on earth.

  3. Linking to a 2.7MB PDF by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Linking to a 2.7MB PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I wonder if terrorists will eventually be able to obtain a CMD (Camera of Mass Destruction)?

      We Have Ignition! Carbon Nanotubes Explode When Exposed To Photo Flash

    2. Re:Linking to a 2.7MB PDF by gfody · · Score: 2, Informative

      The single-walled carbon nanotube samples in this situation were just a jumble of tubes. They were not laid out in any pattern, and because of that, the heat generated from the flash could not dissipate, so the nanotubes just burned.

      --

      bite my glorious golden ass.
  4. its already possible? by Rapsey · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:its already possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Since when did we have the capability to
      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.

  5. Re:Or in the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    it doesnt actually lift space does it?

    Yes it does, the roof of the elevator will lift anything on it's way. Including space.

  6. Why stop at space elevators? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many other applications will these nanotubes have in large-scale construction? Could they replace materials such as steel?

    1. Re:Why stop at space elevators? by MikShapi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IANAMA (I'm not a materials engineer) but to my best understanding carbon nanotubes come in single walled (SWNT) and multiwalled (MWNT) flavors.
      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.

      --
      -
    2. Re:Why stop at space elevators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well IANAPABPOOS (I am not a prude of acronyms but play one on Slashdot), but these IANA acronyms are getting out of hand, if you're only going to use it once, explain it, then throw it away it's a waste of time.

      Besides your acronym is no acronym it's a city in Madagascar.

      You know what, forget I ever posted this...

    3. Re:Why stop at space elevators? by ErikZ · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Why stop at space elevators? by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny
      but these IANA acronyms are getting out of hand, if you're only going to use it once, explain it, then throw it away it's a waste of time


      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).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  7. Well... by PsychicX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Won't it be kinda boring? I mean, I always enjoyed going to a large skyscraper, pressing every button in the elevator from bottom to top, and then getting off at the very next floor, leaving any other poor bastards to wait as the elevators stops on every one of 84 floors. Not too many floors in space though. At least, not yet. I'm betting there'll be a McDonald's half way up by the time you or I get a ride.

  8. Re:Hmm... by xanalogical · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The elevator will be anchored to an offshore sea platform near the equator in the Pacific Ocean, and to a small counterweight in space."

  9. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The recently opened NanoFactory has been reported lost. Scientists are combing the floor near their desk to find the misplaced factory.

  10. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    WTF?

    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.

  11. Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the faq http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

    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.

    1. Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres by dbIII · · Score: 3, Informative
      but a diamond is not a single molecule
      effectively it is - it is a single crystal - the word "molecule" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of crystaline materials - you don't have a molecule of iron or steel just as you don't have a beer atom. Crystals are described in terms of the smallest repeating unit, which is called a unit cell. The actual crystal - atoms all tightly bonded together, can be the size of the silicon ingot that wafers are cut from to make microprocessors. Multicystalline diamond is only useful as an abrasive.

      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.

      In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!
      Consider very long chain polymers.
    3. Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres by erki · · Score: 2, Informative
      First of all a diamond *is* a single "molecule".
      Wow. Science at its finest.

      A diamond is a crystal. A crystal formed of carbon atoms, usually arranged in a cubic structure.

      *sigh*
      --
      AhForgetIt tendency rated 39%
    4. Re:Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres by DaleBob · · Score: 3, Informative
      effectively it is - it is a single crystal - the word "molecule" makes no sense whatsoever in the context of crystaline materials - you don't have a molecule of iron or steel just as you don't have a beer atom.

      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 in a "normal" molecule. This isn't true in metallic and ionic crystals. That is, the crystallinity of the atoms in the molecule doesn't influence the classification as a molecule, while the type of bonding does.

      To me, it will always be very cool that a large crosslinked polymer, like, say, a bowling ball, is a single molecule.

  12. Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Informative

    After submitting the article a few days ago, it's come to my attention that this isn't going to be the first nanotube factory; I didn't explicitly say anything of the sort in the submission, but wanted to clear any possible assumptions. From an industry report:

    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.

    1. Re:Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory by BlueJay465 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Japan's Mitsui built first nanotube factory by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The PDF document by Edwards discusses this a little:

      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.

  13. Ooo by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't wait, if they actually build one of these, Space is going to be completely different from SciFi!

  14. Re:3,000-square-foot by hashwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    3,000-square-foot? I have a front yard bigger than that..

    A typo? Or is this whole thing just a sad joke?


    Hey, we're speaking of *NANO* tubes here.

    --
    - "They misunderestimated me."
  15. Re:Hmm... by rufusdufus · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  16. Waste of nanotech? by thallgren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Waste of nanotech? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Funny

      It will turn into grey goo that takes over the world. I for one welcome our nanowaste overlords.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  17. COOL! by Anonymous Coward · · 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 to discharge static electricity from the tower, and then connect a hefty safety ground strap before touching it, otherwise, Blammo!, another bad day at work.

    1. Re:COOL! by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  18. not for human transport.. yet by xirtam_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:not for human transport.. yet by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  19. In the year 2000... by Nirvelli · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...all major space elevator lines will show live broadcasts of Conan O'Brian.

  20. StarTrek themes and customer satisfaction by CarpetShark · · Score: 2, Funny

    Somehow the thought of an elevator that plays "It's been a long road gettin' from there to here" doesn't sound great for customer satisfaction ;)

  21. Re:Hmm... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

    a small counterweight in space.

    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

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  22. not really by Illserve · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:not really by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
  23. Is LiftPort vaporware? by ramblin+billy · · Score: 4, 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" - 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 under a NASA grant. 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

  24. Space junk, fragility and disaster by theolein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  25. Much more recent version. by TheMadReaper · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the page an non-equatorial elevators you are looking at is a bit out of date. There is much more recent material in the paper I presented at the 3rd annual space elevator conference. The slides are also available here. The paper should give you a quantitative idea of what the situation is.

    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 are going to have to significantly increase the tension at the base of the space elevator, for a given payload.

    The reason for this increase in tension is that as you move further away from the equatorial plane, the elevator ribbon starts being inclined at the anchor. The vertical component of the tension needs to be able to lift the desired payload, so the total tension in the ribbon is greater. This gets really bad as the inclination of the ribbon nears 90 degrees (at a latitude of about 48 degrees for the standard Edwards ribbon parameters).

  26. Space stations and elevators as power generators? by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  27. Re:Hmm... by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it