White Graphene

[Steven Pietrobon]

A company from Queensland, Australia is producing a new material called White Graphene. It made from a lattice of Boron and Nitrogen, with a specific strength that is 552 times greater than 304 stainless steel. It is also impermeable to hydrogen. If they can make fibres of this stuff, Arthur C. Clarke's dream of a Skyhook from geostationary orbit may become a reality.

https://www.white-graphene.com/about/about-us

The company will receive AU$100,000 to further develop the technology for space applications.

https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/industry/5889-boeing-selects-local-startup-to-advance-nanomaterial-proof-of-concept

"The Queensland-based company will receive up to $100,000, having successfully pitched their nanomaterial solutions during the program, topping the six-team competition.

The nanomaterial developed by the company is described as four times lighter and 138 times stronger than steel."

[edzieba]

Whilst Boron Nitride nanosheets have some interesting fracture behaviour (cracks propagate far less readily than in Graphene) whilst being only a bit weaker overall (~20%), you are still faced with the same challenges as with carbon nanosheet or nanotube tethers: manufacturing massive quantities of defect-free bulk material, and keeping that material defect free (radiation exposure, micrometeoroids, etc) when deployed. And the mechanics of deployment of the tether.

[Elmar Moelzer]

A company from Queensland, Australia is producing a new material called White Graphene. It made from a lattice of Boron and Nitrogen, with a specific strength that is 552 times greater than 304 stainless steel. It is also impermeable to hydrogen. If they can make fibres of this stuff, Arthur C. Clarke's dream of a Skyhook from geostationary orbit may become a reality.

https://www.white-graphene.com/about/about-us

The company will receive AU$100,000 to further develop the technology for space applications.

https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/industry/5889-boeing-selects-local-startup-to-advance-nanomaterial-proof-of-concept

"The Queensland-based company will receive up to $100,000, having successfully pitched their nanomaterial solutions during the program, topping the six-team competition.

The nanomaterial developed by the company is described as four times lighter and 138 times stronger than steel."

Very interesting!
Wonder how it reacts to different and varying temperatures.

[rfdesigner]

My instant reaction is, thermal properties?...  at cryogenic temperatures?

(fuel tanks)

[sanman]

What is the production method for White Graphene? Is it CVD?

I remember reading about BN nanotubes a couple of decades ago, and the production method used was ball milling.

[Robotbeat]

BN nanosheets aren't new at this point.

[redneck]

My instant reaction is, thermal properties?...  at cryogenic temperatures?

(fuel tanks)

Fuel tanks, engines, shrouds.....

Ultimately leading to feasible SSTO? 10% hardware fraction divided by the 552 times strength? Not that I think it works like that, but it's fun to think about vehicles that are 0.02% hardware and 95% propellant.

[Barley]

Ultimately leading to feasible SSTO?

Ultimately leading to a really good TSTO.

[redneck]

Ultimately leading to feasible SSTO?

Ultimately leading to a really good TSTO.

If hardware on 1M GLOW is 200 pounds in this fantasy, then going tsto might not be the best move.  Of course with normal materials SSTO doesn’t work well. 

[InterestedEngineer]

Ultimately leading to feasible SSTO?

Ultimately leading to a really good TSTO.

Imagine three Raptor3 engines with mass 3x2 = Mass 6t.   Payload 20t.  Misc (such as fairing, thrust plate, etc) 4t.

Mass ratio for 9.5km/sec is 15.   30t dry mass. 

Start with 450t of fuel before fuel tankage required.

Stainless fuel tankage is 1.5t per 100t fuel.   Let's say we drop that to 1t per 100t with magic white graphene.

450t of fuel takes 4.5t of tankage which takes 67.5t of fuel which takes .675t of tankage.

so net say 6t of tankage.   

Total dry mass is 36t.  550t of fuel (3t leftover for landing).

TWR wet is 1.3, which is too little.   The gravity losses are going to be more than the model above allows.

TWR dry is (1 engine 30% throtle) 2:1.  Which is too much.

No engine redundancy.    550t of fuel to 20t payload = 27.5t fuel/1t payload.

Now take TSTO Starship system w/ Raptor3.  4830t of fuel per 200t of payload = 24t fuel/1t payload.

TSTO is more fuel efficient and has redundancy.

[redneck]

Ultimately leading to feasible SSTO?

Ultimately leading to a really good TSTO.

Imagine three Raptor3 engines with mass 3x2 = Mass 6t.   Payload 20t.  Misc (such as fairing, thrust plate, etc) 4t.

Mass ratio for 9.5km/sec is 15.   30t dry mass. 

Start with 450t of fuel before fuel tankage required.

Stainless fuel tankage is 1.5t per 100t fuel.   Let's say we drop that to 1t per 100t with magic white graphene.

450t of fuel takes 4.5t of tankage which takes 67.5t of fuel which takes .675t of tankage.

so net say 6t of tankage.   

Total dry mass is 36t.  550t of fuel (3t leftover for landing).

TWR wet is 1.3, which is too little.   The gravity losses are going to be more than the model above allows.

TWR dry is (1 engine 30% throtle) 2:1.  Which is too much.

No engine redundancy.    550t of fuel to 20t payload = 27.5t fuel/1t payload.

Now take TSTO Starship system w/ Raptor3.  4830t of fuel per 200t of payload = 24t fuel/1t payload.

TSTO is more fuel efficient and has redundancy.

You are using realistic numbers.  The premise here is that the magical graphene has a 500 times advantage.  So the Raptors would weigh about 4 pounds each and the tankage would be abou 3 pounds per hundred tons of propellant.   

Evening edit on a real keyboard instead of phone.  Messed up a couple of numbers.  Your 30 ton dry mass with normal materials would be 60 kg of the magical graphene to do the same job. So the 30 tons would be almost all payload in either SSTO or TSTO as there is little mass to drop.

Actually it is nearly impossible that a 552 to 1 reduction could be achieved, especially in all components.  The white graphine may reduce certain components by a useful margin. That margin is unlikely to be enough to change the advantage that is the reality of TSTO.

[sanman]

[sanman]

My instant reaction is, thermal properties?...  at cryogenic temperatures?

(fuel tanks)

One thing I remember is that boron nitride is more stable against oxidation. Here's a NASA video from 10 years ago, which talks about using BN nanotubes for space applications, including as TPS for re-entry vehicles:



(this was just before planar graphene-style monomolecular layers were found to be more useful than nanotubes)

[Robotbeat]

“(this was just before planar graphene-style monomolecular layers were found to be more useful than nanotubes)”
…err, this isn’t really true…

It’s just the hype cycle. Tubes are literally just rolled up planar sheets.

[john smith 19]

A company from Queensland, Australia is producing a new material called White Graphene.

Not actually a new material.

And not anything to do with graphene either.

I guess they are going with the parallel of carbon fibre as "Black aluminum"

Usual problems with all "new" materials.
1) Economic mfg process?
2) very limited knowledgebase. OK it's super-duper capatilities at room temperature. Now, what's it like at 500c? 1000c? And of course what's it like in an oxidising atmosphere (like the one humans breath)?

This sort of material crys out for mechanochemical assembly. I just wish people would stop saying how it's impossible to build a Drexlerian "Assembler" (refuted by every ribosome in the human body) and get on and build one (or rather a plate with a billion of them on it)   

[sanman]

“(this was just before planar graphene-style monomolecular layers were found to be more useful than nanotubes)”
…err, this isn’t really true…

It’s just the hype cycle. Tubes are literally just rolled up planar sheets.

Well, the planar sheets were found to be more manipulable and easier to work with. Trying to do practical stuff with the tubes seems to be harder. Besides, there's a binding energy required to maintain the tube shape, unlike the flatter sheets. The sheets are more stable.

[Robotbeat]

“(this was just before planar graphene-style monomolecular layers were found to be more useful than nanotubes)”
…err, this isn’t really true…

It’s just the hype cycle. Tubes are literally just rolled up planar sheets.

Well, the planar sheets were found to be more manipulable and easier to work with. Trying to do practical stuff with the tubes seems to be harder. Besides, there's a binding energy required to maintain the tube shape, unlike the flatter sheets. The sheets are more stable.

Not in my experience. The CNT yarns are stronger than any graphene fibers I’ve seen, and in practical terms the tubes tend to be so big that they stack like flat sheets anyway, like wet manicotti.

[Seamurda]

Ultimately leading to feasible SSTO?

Ultimately leading to a really good TSTO.

Imagine three Raptor3 engines with mass 3x2 = Mass 6t.   Payload 20t.  Misc (such as fairing, thrust plate, etc) 4t.

Mass ratio for 9.5km/sec is 15.   30t dry mass. 

Start with 450t of fuel before fuel tankage required.

Stainless fuel tankage is 1.5t per 100t fuel.   Let's say we drop that to 1t per 100t with magic white graphene.

450t of fuel takes 4.5t of tankage which takes 67.5t of fuel which takes .675t of tankage.

so net say 6t of tankage.   

Total dry mass is 36t.  550t of fuel (3t leftover for landing).

TWR wet is 1.3, which is too little.   The gravity losses are going to be more than the model above allows.

TWR dry is (1 engine 30% throtle) 2:1.  Which is too much.

No engine redundancy.    550t of fuel to 20t payload = 27.5t fuel/1t payload.

Now take TSTO Starship system w/ Raptor3.  4830t of fuel per 200t of payload = 24t fuel/1t payload.

TSTO is more fuel efficient and has redundancy.

You are using realistic numbers.  The premise here is that the magical graphene has a 500 times advantage.  So the Raptors would weigh about 4 pounds each and the tankage would be abou 3 pounds per hundred tons of propellant.   

Evening edit on a real keyboard instead of phone.  Messed up a couple of numbers.  Your 30 ton dry mass with normal materials would be 60 kg of the magical graphene to do the same job. So the 30 tons would be almost all payload in either SSTO or TSTO as there is little mass to drop.

Actually it is nearly impossible that a 552 to 1 reduction could be achieved, especially in all components.  The white graphine may reduce certain components by a useful margin. That margin is unlikely to be enough to change the advantage that is the reality of TSTO.

Calculations like this are very mode dependant.

NASA/Boeing did some interesting work with "cheating" SSTOs in the early 80's like air launch and ground accelerator launched HTHLs. They could fit example take off with less than 1/1 thrust ratios.

Conclusion of that work was that fairly minor decreases in structural mass may make an "SSTO" more economical as you need fewer engines, fewer vehicles and your very "fluffy" upper stage re-enters higher and thus can get by with hot structure heat shielding.

Only issue with such a vessel is probably that BN nanotubes probably won't be that much of a help to it unless you can use them in a metal matrix composite.

[Vahe231991]

I just read that graphene has been explored as a building material to improve the performance of solar sails. In your opinion, would white graphene be able to enhance a solar sail's performance if it were used in the construction of solar sails?