Slashdot Mirror
The World's Longest Carbon Nanotube
Roland Piquepaille writes "As you probably know, carbon nanotubes have very interesting mechanical, electrical and optical properties. The problem, currently, is that they're too small (relatively speaking) to be of much use. Now, researchers at the University of Cincinnati (UC) have developed a process to build extremely long aligned carbon nanotube arrays. They've been able to produce 18-mm-long carbon nanotubes which might be spun into nanofibers. Such electrically conductive fibers could one day replace copper wires. The researchers say their nanofibers could be used for applications such as nanomedicine, aerospace and electronics."
That puts it in the area of useable length for macro-sized application.
Well, they're still more slippery than wool, so that problem has to be solved too. But this is one piece of the puzzle, and it's very cool to see it coming along.
Although the PR person who wrote this obviously thinks this is a major breakthrough, these guys are using a method which was originally invented by Japanese researchers three years ago (google for "CNT super growth"). The Japanese guys have since focused on getting the fastest growth rate possible (I think it's about 0.2mm/min... if you want to figure out how many, many years it would take to grow a space elevator). There are lots of people working on improving this growth method, 18mm arrays may be the longest, but it seems to be in the same range as other people working on the "super growth" method. That doesn't diminish this research, rather it means that this method is very likely to work in the long run for industrial scale growth of nanotubes for materials (more simply, it's easily reproducible, and people want "nano-enhanced" golf clubs).
Isolated nanotubes have been grown longer than this (I've grown isolated nanotubes longer than this, and I'm not a growth specialist), as have bundles of nanotubes. This is the longest array of pure, aligned, continuous nanotubes.
From wikipedia.
People don't seem to get this somehow. Yes, mass ratio matters. A lot. Let's look at LOX+Kerosene, a very typical combination in many ways. You get an ISP of about 3000 m/s in a medium-high performance vacuum engine (the case for most of the way to orbit). LEO takes about 9000 m/s of delta-v by the time you account for aerodynamic and gravity losses. That means the mass ratio of your rocket needs to be about e^(9000/3000) = e^3 = 20. So 5% of your rocket makes it to orbit. Yup, that sucks. LOX costs about $0.07/lb in bulk, kerosene about $0.30. So propellant costs are about $0.15/lb for propellant, or $3/lb of orbited mass.
Now lets look at the space elevator. Climbing to geosynchronous orbit is equivalent to about 8000 m/s of delta-v (roughly... don't have the exact number off hand and I don't feel like calculating it). From 1/2M*v^2, that's 32MJ/kg. That's about the energy you get from burning 6 kg of LOX-kerosene. So from an energy equivalence standpoint, you're using 6 kg of propellant worth of energy instead of 19 -- a factor of 3 improvement.
The problem with the space elevator is twofold. First, the required *form* of the energy is different. You can't just use cheap hydrocarbon fuels -- you have to convert it to electricity, and then get that electricity up to the elevator either by beaming it or along wires, and neither option is efficient in the slightest. In fact, by the time you turn the hydrocarbon fuel into electricity and then get it to the elevator car, you're under 50% efficient; being as high as 30% would take a lot of work and be quite impressive. But the rocket was 30% efficient! Space elevators are *not* particularly more efficient than rockets.
The second problem is the infrastructure of the space elevator -- the required capital investment for a certain payload rate (kg delivered per day) is higher than for the rocket (we won't even discuss non-reusable rockets). Even if you got the space elevator more energy-efficient than the rocket, this fact combined with the slower transit time, the geosynchronous orbit as the only one available, and the more complicated technological requirements, the rockets win.
Yes, the space elevator tech is harder. The ribbon itself and the beamed power are the obvious examples, but there are others. For example, the tires on the car that work against the ribbon -- you need tires that run at about Mach 3 and are good for 27000 miles. That's not even remotely easy. You need motors that have higher power to weight ratios than currently exist. Etc, etc, etc. Rockets, in comparison, are easy. Especially if you have space-elevator class building materials available -- at that point you can do SSTO with pressure fed rockets, and get rid of the pumps altogether -- the pumps being the hardest part of rocket engine development by far in a conventional design.
When people say that for space elevators you only have to provide the energy to climb up, and aren't wasting the energy carrying propellant, they often forget that it's actually a *lot* of energy to climb up, and that rockets are actually remarkably good at converting available chemical energy into exhaust kinetic energy -- some are better than 80% efficient by that metric.