Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: liftport.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to liftport.com.

Comments · 109

  1. Not the first test of the technology, actually by GroeFaZ · · Score: 5, Informative · on Space Elevator Gets FAA Clearance

    FTA:

    marking the first-ever test of this technology in the development of the space elevator concept.

    It may be the first test of the technology that actually requires a federal permit because of the altitude, but here are pictures and a video of an earlier test in November 2004.

  2. Re:Space elevator by QuantumG · · Score: 1 · on New Technique for Creating Nanotube Sheets

    duh. LiftPort and they're responsible for most of the nanotube based materials production that is going on right now. The key point about developing any new technology is the spinoffs. They tend to make more money than the target use. Especially in the case of space technology.

  3. Waste of Time given pending Space Elevators? by weemattisnot · · Score: 1 · on U.S. Okays Virgin Galactic Plans
    Surely this is a doomed effort if space elevators are going to be up in 10-15 years from now.

    Companys have been formed to massproduce the carbon fibres necessary to build the space elevator cables. http://www.liftport.com/nanotech.php

    Granted this guy I quote below is a promoter of his own cause, looking for funds - but I like to think his guesstimate of the timescale isn't too far off. Anyone (who knows anything) think he's wrong?

    "Edwards told SPACE.com that he's been wrapped up in space elevator work for some three years, supported by grants from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program. "I'm convinced that the space elevator is practical and doable. In 12 years, we could be launching tons of payload every three days, at just a little over a couple hundred dollars a pound," he said."http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/tech nology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

  4. Re:Old Days by iggymanz · · Score: 1 · on Debris Seen Falling Off Shuttle During Launch

    there is invested money and people interested: http://www.liftport.com/

  5. Re:The next x-prize by serutan · · Score: 1 · on NPR Talks Skyhooks

    NASA actually is investing money in researching the space elevator concept. A number of companies besides Carbon Designs Inc. are working on it. For example Liftport Group also plans to locate their base station in the South Pacific because of the lack of storms and lightning, and has a similar timetable. It's really exciting and even a little spooky to me to be seeing serious, business-minded people not just brainstorming this but actually doing it, for real, right now. If I had the qualifications I would be camping on their doorstep for a job.

  6. Space Elevator? by dark+grep · · Score: 1 · on A Step Toward the Diamond Age

    Ok... so how long before they can extrude a diamond long enough to build A C Clarkes space elevator? I am going to buy shares in these guys right now!

  7. Don't need the shuttle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement

    We need an operational space elevator.

    http://www.liftport.com/

  8. Re:Is it economical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Space Elevator Group to Open Nanotube Factory
    You'll just lower the counterweight's orbit/speed. To compensate you need to accelerate the counterweight to gain back a higher orbit. Obviously, you need to burn fuel for this; fuel who needs to get from down Earth up to the counterweight.

    No no no no NO! Why do people post this kind of crap here without spending the least amount of time actually reading about the subject at hand? Do you think that the people working on this are all sci-fi enthusiasts who have no grounding whatsoever in physics?

    To answer your specific question, the counterweight is located higher than geosynchronous orbit. The cable is under tension caused by centrifical force. (Yes, I know that centrifical force is "imaginary", but I am using it here for illustrative purposes.) This tension prevents the counterweight from moving into a higher orbit. A "weight" (actually, "mass") moving up the cable will exert a force on the counterweight, that's true. However, the centrifical force of the rotation of the Earth prevents the altitude of the counterweight from actually decreasing.

    To illustrate what is happening in a somewhat crude manner, imagine that someone is swinging a rock around his head on a string. Centrifical force keeps the string taut, and prevents the rock from moving "down" the string. Now imagine a small (very small!) person clinging to the string about halfway between the swinger's had and the rock. The small person pulls on the string "rock"-wards of his position, thus causing a momentary slackness to that part of the string, and a decrease in the effective length of the entire string. Then, the small person lets go of the string. What happens? The string straightens out again, and the rock returns to its original distance from the big person's hand. Notice that there was no need for the rock to use fuel to accelerate back out so that the string was taut again. The centrifical force did it.

    Now, the above analogy is not perfect, because the space elevator exists in a much more complex environment. (For example, if the string breaks on the rock, the rock flies off, but if the cable breaks in the Space Elevator, the counterweight simply moves to a slightly higher average orbit.) However, it serves to illustrate that no fuel of any kind need be sent up to the counterweight; the centrifical force caused by the rotation of the Earth will keep the counterweight fairly stationary, relative to the surface of the Earth.

    But, you may be asking, where does the energy come from to keep the counterweight up? Since a mass is moving up the cable, gaining potential energy, there must be some other energy lost elsewhere. Where? The answer is: from the rotation of the Earth. When a mass is sent up the cable, the Earth's rate of rotation decreases. Now, in case you are worried that continuing to send stuff up the cable would cause continents to slide around and other major geological problems (not to mention everyone having to replace their current watches with slower ones), don't be. The amount of decrease is so miniscule that it is immeasurable. Debris from space, solar flares, the Moon's gravity, etc., etc., have a greater impact on the Earth's rotation than the Space Elevator ever will.

    What gigantic advantage does the space-elevator actually have over conventual methods to counterweight the gigantic economic cost to develop and practically engineer it?

    Once it's working, it will be cheaper and more environmentally friendly (than rockets) to send stuff into space.

    Please go to any of the many available space elevator sites if you want to find out more about the advantages of the space elevator (and about how it works, safety concerns, etc.):
  9. Not 100,000s of kilomters each, just fibres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative · on Space Elevator Group to Open Nanotube Factory

    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.

  10. Keeping them up longer by serutan · · Score: 1 · on Sanswire Demonstrates First Stratellite

    The article mentions that the maximum time in the air for one of their balloons is 18 months, then it's replaced and brought down for "refitting" and then sent back up. The refitting is probably to replenish the helium, or whatever they use -- the site says "proprietary lifting gas technology" (gimme a break). The folks from LiftPort who are developing the Space Elevator talked about this problem with balloons in their presentation at NorWesCon a couple weeks ago. Apparently helium is very hard to contain. One thing LiftPort plans to do to make money while waiting for carbon nanotube technology to develop is to hire out their cable-climbing robots to climb up and do in-flight refueling for tethered balloons. Seems like a neat idea for lower altitude balloons providing similar service to a smaller area.

  11. Re:Money by khayman80 · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Update
    The real lesson in the Tower of Babel story is that you shouldn't be doing dumbass things just for the sake of doing them, because sometimes they fail, and if you haven't even thought about what's going to happen when it fails, you're gonna get screwed, really really hard.

    The Space Elevator is in fact such a case: think about the absolute nightmare a cable cut would be. I mean, all that has to happen is a plane goes the wrong way, or a meteor happens through the wrong area, or bad weather, or lightning, or god knows what. That cable is going to be seriously heavy - half a ton per mile, maybe more, even designed to be as light as possible - and it's flexible so it won't get brittle, and it's, well, long. So it starts falling to earth, right?

    A space elevator that had the linear density you quote wouldn't be able to support it's own weight, let alone the weight of any climbers. Most estimates of the total mass of the elevator's ribbon are on the order of 1000 metric tons.

    It's roughly equivalent to a highway just sort of coming out of the sky one day. There's pretty much nowhere you can put the space elevator where, if it gets cut, it's not going to cross some urban areas; the Earth/Moon lagrange 1 point is about 200,000 miles above Earth - enough to wrap around the planet a little over eight times. That's how it would fall, too - it'd be dragged behind a planet moving forward, and would wrap around under its own momentum, like a whip.

    So, you've got a highway coming down, in bands, around the Earth eight times. Right through the middles of cities. Over the ocean. Into parks, monuments, farmland. Cutting cities in half. Killing tens of millions.

    This is one of the largest and most common misconceptions about a space elevator. A broken space elevator would not kill tens of millions of people. In fact, a severed space elevator would likely be a disappointing anti-climax, as the powerpoint file on TFA shows. Impact occurs at 0.5 m/s (that's the terminal velocity of the ribbon).

  12. Re:They can't be built by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Update

    Rebuttal to your first point

    Rebuttal to your second point

    The last two don't seem to be directly addressed. However, that's probably because they arise from your apparent belief that the elevator is a solid structure, instead of a really long rope. The rope gets suddenly longer? The anchor at the top moves outward a bit. As a percentage of the elevator's overall length, the change isn't significant.

    Nor will the structure "bend" significantly, because again, the anchor will take up any slack in the cable.

    It's never good to turn arguments like these into arguments from authority, but I'm still curious about your background. How is it you're raising these objections when many apparently-well-informed people seem to think they're not issues at all? Moreover, many of your objections seem just plain wrong. So I'm hesitant to give your objections much weight.

  13. Re:They can't be built by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Update

    Rebuttal to your first point

    Rebuttal to your second point

    The last two don't seem to be directly addressed. However, that's probably because they arise from your apparent belief that the elevator is a solid structure, instead of a really long rope. The rope gets suddenly longer? The anchor at the top moves outward a bit. As a percentage of the elevator's overall length, the change isn't significant.

    Nor will the structure "bend" significantly, because again, the anchor will take up any slack in the cable.

    It's never good to turn arguments like these into arguments from authority, but I'm still curious about your background. How is it you're raising these objections when many apparently-well-informed people seem to think they're not issues at all? Moreover, many of your objections seem just plain wrong. So I'm hesitant to give your objections much weight.

  14. Re:Ok I'll bite... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Update

    I'm not an expert on this stuff, but even I'm reading this and going "Come on now..."

    We're talking about, say, five tons falling from five kilometers. First, I would imagine that it would fall straight down from whatever it's position is. We'll also assume it's at sea.

    As to it landing on the base of the thing where the crew was working, here's a novel solution--Don't put anyone there! I think we could safely have the base of the cable a good half mile from where all the people are and still manage to control it. It's not like the launch facilities of NASA are right under the Shuttle. Heck, once it clears the tower, the Shuttle is controlled in Houston--several thousand miles away from Florida. I don't think we absolutely have to put the people controlling the thing right next to it.

    As for it landing on the poor hapless ship unloading it's cargo, we institute a simple rule: No ship can approach the base until the cargo is high enough that there would be sufficient warning so that the ship could get out of the way. I don't know how much air-resistance might affect the lifting abilities, but you could probably fashion the cargo containers in such a way that you would have a "low" terminal velocity which would allow anything underneath it extra time to get out of the way.

    I don't know how fast something would move up the space elevator from it's starting point on the ground--from what I've read, that's sort of a question of "how fast do you want it to go?" So if it takes 8 hours to move it to the point where they would have one hour of warning--which is deemed long enough to "drop everything and get the heck out of there"--that still gives them 16 hours to fill up the next container if they want to launch one per day (Something LiftPort would like to do).

    Again, I'm not an expert on this stuff, but even I came up with those answers.

    "Thinking, if only you could, will ruin this test."

  15. Re:A post free of FUD, a dab of on-topic by TomNugent · · Score: 2, Informative · on Space Elevator Update

    Michael (the "vision" guy who talked during the robot demo) also gave a talk at Norwescon the previous night outlining many of the technical matters. Because the space elevator is a complex infrastructure project, technical discussions can go on for hours, so it can be hard to deal with people's questions in a one-hour talk.

    FYI, there are plenty of people willing to discuss the technical (as well as legal, political, financial, etc. etc.) issues on our forums at http://www.liftport.com/forums/. Drop in, ask questions, read some of the alternate design suggestions, and see what you think.

  16. Re:Talk about a nonstarter! by IntricateEnigma · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Update

    Actually, if you read some of the other information available on the space elevator, a breakage anyewhere in the cable would liely not go splat at all. The space end of the cable will we be weighted end past geosynchronous orbit. The cable is in tension. A break in the cable means that anything above the break point will slowly drift off into space. Depending on where a break were to occur, it might even be possible to retrieve the cable and repair the elevator. To reference the liftport site again, they have an FAQ on the matter: http://www.liftport.com/faq.php#science2 The cable below the break point would fall back to earth. If the break point was high enough,this might present potential problems, but it is most likely only the anchor station that would be in greatest danger. I imagine this wouldn't be any more risky than other space debri falling to earth like old space stations (mir). From what I saw, the bigger issues to this have to do with international politics...

  17. Re:In a post 9/11 world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Space Elevator Update

    Oh sure, it's a fun story, but the elevator falling with the crushing and the earthquakes and the lamentations of the women is bullshit. See here for information on what would happen if the elevator fell.

  18. Less of a problem than you might think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on Space Elevator Update

    Apparently some people have this notion of a space elevator as a giant column, which if left unsupported would come crashing down like the Tower of Babel, destroying all in its path. However, the actual designs being considered are more like long ribbons which stretch up into space. The space elevator has to be very strong and very light per unit length, or it would be phsically impossible (ie, we cannot use steel, because it could not support its own weight).

    Here is an experiment: take a standard ribbon, about 2m long, and attach it to the ceiling. Now cut the ribbon or otherwise detach it from the ceiling. Stand back! The ribbon will fall like a rock, and may cut right through you if you are in its path.

    Wait, actually the ribbon flutters to the ground thanks to our good friend air resistance. This is similar to what would happen if the space elevator fell; the portion outside our atmosphere would gain enough speed to burn up during reentry, and the rest would flutter to the ground (see here).

    I wish people would stop with the unfounded fearmongering, but from the moderation here I see that it is much more popular than the more correct postings.

  19. More information by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative · on Space Elevator Update

    In the interest of promoting more enlightened discussion, a lot of good information concerning space elevators can be found here.

  20. No mention of Space Elevator passengers by serutan · · Score: 1 · on Draft Guidelines for Space Tourists

    This weekend at NorWesCon I attended some presentations by LiftPort, the company that plans to implement a space elevator as envisioned by Arthur C. Clarke. The electric elevator, receiving power from ground based lasers, would climb up a ribbon made of carbon nanotubes anchored between an ocean platform and a space station. Their goal is to have it operational by 2018. As far-fetched as that idea seems, I found their presentations very intriguing. The small scale climber prototype they demo'd was pretty cool too, repeatedly running up and down a 4-story strip of sheetrock tape in the rain.

    The technology to manufacture the carbon nanotube ribbon in arbitrarily long lengths is coming along too. From 15 nm 4 years ago to 4 cm today. After another similar leap in scale they will be up to 1 km, at which time I bet they'll be able to make them as long as them want.

    To make money while the nanotube technology evolves, they plan to use their climber robots to service helium balloons anchored high above cities to provide WiFi and other services. The main reason permanent balloons aren't already being used for this purpose is that the helium leaks out in a matter of months. With a robot carrying spare helium tanks up the tether once in a while it would be viable.

    Good stuff! The elevator will take about 5 hours to climb to low earth orbit at a leisurely 125 mph or so, and a week to get to geostationary. I'd much prefer a comfortable passenger lounge to riding a giant bomb into orbit.

  21. Re:16 Billion now build that space elevator! by wqurg · · Score: 2, Interesting · on President Bush's Money For Space Cometh

    Check out Liftport Group at http://www.liftport.com/. They are working on building a space elevator. Interestingly, they estimate that it will cost ~16 Billion and 14 more years to build.

  22. Re:Elevator from Earth to Moon? by beware1000 · · Score: 1 · on Lunar Space Elevator Instead?

    this is an interesting read, it really doesn't make the cable snapping sound too scary

  23. Ah yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    One of the pics. A wonderful reminder of just how ugly MIT is.

  24. Was it really first prototype? by salnikov · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    This is the interesting picture here. You really don't think those black craters are from previous prototypes, do ya?

  25. Jerry-Rigged by karniv0re · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    Is it just me, or does this look like they just Jerry-rigged this thing at the last minute? I'm imagining a space elevator held together by 2x4s and water pipes. Hey, I'm all for it if it works!

  26. Re:Photos of the robot! also height=290 feet by TomNugent · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    OK, so the server load caused by using Gallery for our photos was too much once we were slashdotted, and our host shut down our server sometime last night. We've now set up some static pages until the heavy traffic blows over. Sorry for the problem! If you're looking for some pictures of the demo, you can see them at http://www.liftport.com/MIT_demo/

  27. Photos of the robot! also height=290 feet by TomNugent · · Score: 4, Informative · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    Wow, I wasn't expecting my blog post to get /.'d. I was dead tired from the day of the test, and just wanted to get some info online for anyone who was curious. Sorry for not getting more details or photos up sooner.

    BTW, the height of the building our robot climbed is 290 feet, not 260. Not a huge difference, but I wanted to correct the error in the original /. post.

    After seeing more than a half-dozen comments on my blog post right after being slashdotted tonight, I got real motivated to get the pictures up ASAP. You can now see pictures of the day at http://www.liftport.com/gallery/MITdemo_2004Nov

  28. Proper link by Peyna · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    Story link

  29. more useful blog link... by s.d. · · Score: 5, Informative · on Space Elevator Prototype Climbs MIT Building

    http://liftport.com/progress/index.php?blog=9&cat= 28

  30. All the more reason. by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Insightful · on NASA Considering Early Retirement of Shuttle Program

    All the more reason to develop the space elevator.

  31. Re:Space Elevator, here we come! by Liselle · · Score: 1 · on Carbon Nanotubes Harder Than Diamond

    These guys are already on the job:

    http://www.liftport.com/carbon.php

  32. Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. by jerde · · Score: 1 · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    >>Except if the cable breaks and wraps around the planet 3 times!

    >1) it's not that long

    Well, it is, almost: Earth's circumference is about 25k miles, and a space elevator would extend out to 62k or so, according to LiftPort.

    But the point is there's no danger from such a system breaking and falling. The ribbon will be remarkably flimsy as far as doom-from-the-sky things go, and will just shred into little pieces.

    - Peter

  33. Liftport in the lead? by LS · · Score: 2, Interesting · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    According to who is Liftport in the lead on space elevator technology? As far as I can tell, this company is just a few of geeks who played with lego mindstorms and set up a fancy webpage. Their site hasn't changed in a year, and their team consists of mostly administrators who write blogs about unpacking and filing things. Their Liftport group umbrella has almost as many companies as employees. What have these people done that makes anyone think that they have more of a chance of building a space elevator than my kid brother Joey?

    LS

  34. Liftport in the lead? by LS · · Score: 2, Interesting · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    According to who is Liftport in the lead on space elevator technology? As far as I can tell, this company is just a few of geeks who played with lego mindstorms and set up a fancy webpage. Their site hasn't changed in a year, and their team consists of mostly administrators who write blogs about unpacking and filing things. Their Liftport group umbrella has almost as many companies as employees. What have these people done that makes anyone think that they have more of a chance of building a space elevator than my kid brother Joey?

    LS

  35. Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. by rhsanborn · · Score: 2, Informative · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    Read their site. Theyr rely on centripital force to keep the cable taught, otherwise there would be no tension on the cable. They plan on putting the satellite outside of goesynchronus orbit.

    http://www.liftport.com/research1.php

  36. Ehm... Lego? by apanap · · Score: 1 · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    Not sure I would trust a company that builds it prototypes from Lego...

  37. For everyone who thinks they know... by bobetov · · Score: 5, Informative · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    ...what a space elevator is, how it would work, and so forth, but really doesn't, check out this link. This is the NASA-sponsored report that basically declared it open season on space elevators. It's fascinating, in-depth, and answers questions such as "how do we build it" and "what happens when in falls/gets holes in it". A must-read for space buffs.

  38. You're right by Lord+Grey · · Score: 4, Informative · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    It looks like what I knew -- or thought I knew -- about space elevators is a bit dated. Which amounts to "wildly inaccurate" now. For those of you who might want to see some direct comparisons between the current technology and what was believed a few years ago, see LiftPort's Frequent Misconceptions page. It was enlightening, at least to me.

  39. Breakage by n4KdR4zr · · Score: 2, Interesting · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    According to the http://www.liftport.com/faq.php#science2b FAQ the cable will break if it gets struck by lightening or hit by a Category 5 hurricane. Basically their argument seems to be that this won't be a problem because they'll build it where there isn't any lightening or hurricanes. That sounds kind of risky to me considering the massive amount of money involved. I mean huricanes I can see but isn't there lightening everwhere?

  40. Re:Governments will be involved by Neil+Watson · · Score: 5, Informative · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

    Actually the cable seems quite safe even if part of it "falls". Please read the FAQ before such wild speculation.

  41. I think it's a great idea, but... by ericspinder · · Score: 3, Insightful · on The Space Elevator - Public or Private?
    I couldn't help but feel a little 'spun' by this passage from the space elevator page:
    The technology is based on Chinese gun powder rockets developed four thousand years ago.
    ...as opposed to the wheel and tackle technology of a lifting system, which the space elevator is a decendant.

    Queue, the correction hordes...

  42. Moron! by leonbrooks · · Score: 4, Informative · on Space Elevator Prizes Proposed

    You don't have the first clue how it all works, do you?

  43. Cost of solar by leonbrooks · · Score: 1 · on Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions
    The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.
    The initial estimate for a system that worked was about ten Iraqs. At the end of that, you'd not only have grid solar power for less than current prices but also a working space industry.

    On one hand, prices have gone up, on the other, technology has improved. On the gripping hand, if Michael Laine has his way, that cost will plummet in the next decade or two.
  44. Re:Cost to orbit by BerntB · · Score: 1 · on Blimps... In... Space...
    Space elevators require an enormous mass of carbon
    7.5 kg/km. Not particularly many tons, in total.

    The low weight of the cable means most should burn up in the atmosphere if it breaks.

    From the faq: "The majority, the long end out in space, gains enough speed that it burns up in the atmosphere, with the lower portion falling into the sea. It will not fall on top of anyone."

    I saw that you made further claims to an Anon Poster that a break would have "catastrophic consequences".

    Are there any news I'm not aware of? Otherwise, it do seem like you haven't read even the faq about what you're totally sure about.

  45. If we as a race had ANY brains... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1 · on Out of Gas

    ...these would be providing around half of our power already.

    You could smelt Al at ten times today's rate with approximately zero pollution related to power production, or better yet smelt it at source and drop shaped Jumbo-sized billets of pure Al (or alloyed to taste) into a big artificial lake somewhere at regular intervals.

    If you're worried about transmission leakage, why not just build a conductive pair of these to carry the electricity directly?

  46. Humans to Mars? Not yet. by jjo · · Score: 1 · on Methane on Mars?

    While we certainly will send humans to Mars at some point, now is not the time. The cost of human spaceflight is not a small increment over the cost of a robotic mission, but a massive multiple of cost. Given this, it makes sense to have several more robotic missions to learn as much as we can before sending people.

    Besides, in less than 15 years we might have a functioning Space Elevator that would make our current method of getting to space (strapping people onto a glorified Roman Candle) seem barbaric as well as wasteful. Rather than rush into spending vast sums for a follow-on Shuttle as a component of a Mars mission, it would make more sense to step back and consider what the optimal technology for space travel will be in the next 30 years, rather than just assuming that the only thing we can do is continue tweaking the same technology Robert Goddard was using in the 1930's.

    I believe the human exploration of Mars will come, but it will come after improvements in space transport technology have vastly reduced both the expense and risk involved in space travel.

  47. A good thing too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting · on SpaceShipOne Back in Action

    They better not have any more delays like that last one, if they want to win the X-Prize. The $10 million dollar prize expires at the end of this year, and a lot of other groups are competing for it.

    I think we'll see some exciting new developments in space technology over the next few years. I'm confident someone will win the X-Prize,(which is more a PR bonus for starting a space tourism company than anything else) the Bush Admin wants to send folks to the moon or Mars (probably using nuclear propulsion), and it's all but a foregone conclusion that someone will try to build a Space Elevator soon.

  48. Re:As predicted by Robert A. Heinlein! by PMuse · · Score: 1 · on Powered Exoskeleton Legs

    Or than Arthur C. Clarke invented the space elevator. Much praise though Foundations of Paradise (1978) deserves.

  49. Re:don't be so quick... by liftwatch · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Space Elevators Going Up
    I've seen this stuff... somewhere, and it looks just like black string.

    There are some pictures of real carbon nanotubes in plexiglass containers available here, taken with my crappy digital camera at LiftPort.

    Cool story: at one point some of this material, which looks more or less like soot, spilled onto the flat, seemingly smooth table top. After wiping it off, there was a permanent black smudge left on the table top that no amount of scrubbing would remove... some of the nano-scale CNTs had slipped down into the microscopic grooves and divots on the table surface!

  50. Re:This may be the coolest thing I've ever seen by liftwatch · · Score: 1 · on Space Elevators Going Up

    Michael Laine (of LiftPort Inc.) told me that Edwards' Phase 1 presentation had much the same effect on him, and in fact it was what finally inspired him to pursue this concept full-time.

    Apparently hecklers in the audience gradually converted and by the end were offering up resumes to work on the project. :-)