SkepticJ said:
If that's the case why is time and money being wasted on this then?
I was writing my previous reply when you wrote this one. The above comment really stings. I don't think you understand how research works. Researchers explore new ideas, concepts, and inventions for the love of science, and because what they are doing has never been done before. Do you know how hard it is to get funding for research in today's world?
Nanotubes were only discovered about 10 years ago. We still don't know how to make them affordably, let alone make them into something that can be sold and make a profit. Investors don't often understand how slowly science moves. They want to see returns on their investment almost immediately. So who's left to get the money from? The government, of course.
Most government workers that are signing the checks don't understand science either, but their not trying to make a profit, so the money tends to go to whoever can give the most impressive sales pitch. Having a ribbon dangling from space that a robot can climb sounds like a cool idea. It's no wonder they got money from NASA.
Are they really out to build that ribbon? They don't have to be. All they have to do is continue to work towards it and other scientific achievments are likely to blossom from it.
I'll give you a great example. Tha LASER. The laser was invented in the 1940's. During that time period, every aspect of science that researchers pitched to the government for funding ended with the question, "Yeah, but how can we make it into a weapon?" No descent scientist wants to turn all of his inventions and discoveries into a weapon, but that was the only way to get funding at the time, scrupulous or not. The scientists at the time worked toward building a laser weapon to appease the government, but along the way, other uses were found for it. It took about 40 years for lasers to be developed into bar code scanners and motion sensors, and another 10 years to develop into affordable cd's, DVD's, and hand-held laser pointers. Right now, you can buy a laser cat toy at Petco for $2.
Think about it. If you had gone to the government in 1940 and asked for $50 million dollars to research monochromatic light with the intention of making a $2 cat toy, do you think we would have DVD players today? NOBODY would have predicted that monochromatic light could be used for data storage or even a fraction of the things we use lasers for today.
Don't get discouraged, SkepticJ. You live in a world full of crazy people that don't think like scientists. Good things can come out of telling a few white lies, or red and green lies for that matter. That's how things work outside of the school walls, my friend.
Estimates that I'm finding for perfect(which have been said already to be unstable and thus not able to be super strong) nanotubes range from about 600 GPa-5.5TPa mostly around 1TPa, so the graph I posted is way off, but may have been up to date when it was new. I don't know. I'm not even training to be a scientist. Graphic Arts is my current path, but science will always be my first love.
I might not be back until Monday, cheers.
Nasa is generally a bastion of not blowing the significance of things out of proportion and blowing smoke so I came to trust them. Thought the uber material was just a few decades away. Garrrrrr the trust is tainted and I'm p*ssed!
