Updates at the Space Elevator Wiki

Two months ago, I introduced my readers to the Space Elevator Wiki, a project put together and run by Keith Curtis.  From the Mission Statement; “This wiki is intended to be a repository of information and a baseline for research of the space elevator. The general purpose is to provide a structure for collaborative work on the space elevator.”

In the last few weeks, Markus Landgraf has posted a review of current / relevant Carbon Nanotube (CNT) literature.  This is a long-overdue task and I’m very glad to see that Markus has taken the time and effort to put this data together.  There are some very cool articles in his review including;

In situ Observations of Catalyst Dynamics during Surface-Bound Carbon Nanotube Nucleation” where you can see pictures of carbon nanotubes actually being created and

Strong and Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes withWalls of Rectangular Macropores” where Markus describes a material (Colossal Carbon Tubes) which might, today, be strong enough to build a space elevator with. (I’m from Chicagoland – it’s OK for me to end my sentences with a preposition ?).

The Space Elevator Wiki is becoming THE repository for Space Elevator documents and research.  Do yourself a favor and check it out and, if you have anything to contribute, do so…

8 thoughts on “Updates at the Space Elevator Wiki

  1. David Taylor, aka '3Davideo'

    I’m glad that colossal carbon tubes have been noted by the space elevator community. From the figures in their paper, I think CCTs may be strong and long enough already. I noted this in the space elevator and CCT articles on Wikipedia.

  2. Markus Landgraf

    Hi David, you seem to be involved in CCT research. Can you give me some more references besides the Peng et al. (2008) paper? I’d be especially interested in the feasibility of infinitively long CCTs or whether they lend themselves to spinning.

  3. Olga

    I wonder if changing the viscosity or carbon source/carrier gas ratio or flow rate results in pore size change.

  4. Robert Daniel Pickar

    I’m amazed that the SE community has not jumped on the CCT discovery with more enthusiasm. I just discovered in on Wikipedia 3 days ago, and I think that it’s really important, actually singularly important.

    I’m going to contact the lead author of the paper and other important researchers involved.

    Regards, Robert

  5. Melinda Davis

    Hi All,

    I was just introduced to these guys today. Naturally, it sent me on a research frenzy. Most of the articles I find reference the original paper, and there is no indication of any peer reviews having been done. Unfortunately, most of the researchers have moved on or can not be readily contacted. (I’m not giving up tho). It would seem they did not use CVD or arc sputtering in the production of these either. They seem to have used a distillation process similar to polymer production. I’ll keep researching.

  6. Ted Semon Post author

    The findings here don’t seem to have been replicated anyplace else and I’m betting that they can’t. There are errors in this paper with such basic things as the units of measurements. I think this paper is much ado about nothing.

    I’d love to be wrong, of course, but I’m not holding my breath…

  7. Melinda Davis

    I just got an email from one of the scientists involved. He stated they are not making them due to a lack of funding.


Comments are closed.