Slashdot Mirror
Space Elevator Gets FAA Clearance
lonesome phreak writes "Techzonez has a short piece about the recent FAA waiver received by the LiftPort Group allowing them to conduct preliminary tests or their high altitude robotic lifters. The lifters are early prototypes of the technology that the company is developing for use in its commercial space elevator to ferry cargo back and forth into space."
Last time I checked we do have materials that can handle the stresses of hanging around from orbit.
At least thats what I remember from /.'s last article about super strength diamnond nano-tubes.
(or something like that)
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Thoughts on Space Elevators by Blaise Gassend has a lot of good info & links on space elevators
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.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
According to the article, they just want to try out some climbers by letting them climb up and down a cable tethered to a mile-high balloon. They're not getting aproval to launch an actual space elevator. (You are correct though that a space elevator would optimally be tethered near the equator.)
Does anyone else think that perhaps this article should be linked to the actual source instead of a link to a link that links to another site with a quote from the original source and no link to it? I mean at what point does this become a rumor when it's so far from the original source? Oh here's the link to the companies website: http://www.liftport.com/ And here's one to their staff blog which is much more interesting reading then this quote: http://www.liftport.com/progress/wp/ And heres a link to their september newsletter posted on their forums that talks about the FAA approval among other things: http://www.liftport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25 3
You can register an aircraft anywhere, but you have do abide by the regs of the country in which it is registered. ie, flying an N registered aircraft still requires a properly qualified FAA certified pilot, regardless of where it is, and a C certified aircraft with a properly certified canadian pilot can fly into the us without an FAA cert, but he cant fly an N aircraft in the US or canada (though it is easy to get private privledges in another country, just a paperwork issue)
And nations do not inform other nations of aircraft movements, that is handled by Oceanic ATC or by the domestic ATC of whatever country you are overflying (assuming the airspace you are in is even controlled). As far as airspace to avoid, we have charts and notams to tell us that.
And to take your scenario with an aircraft collision, attatched to an aircraft registration number and serial number is a registration and airworthyness certificate. On this certificate is the name and address of the registered owner, and various governments keep databases of this information. Generally though the pilots are held responsible, and since they are often dead its pretty much a non-issue.
For example, according to Chapter 14 of Federal Regulations Part 47, all trustees of a plane registered in the US must be legal residents or citizens. Since this flight is rather unconventional, something like plane (or balloon + long tether) registration would be required. This isn't just a pilot's license.
Considering that corporations can't become legal residents (AFAIK, IANAL), whatever country they're incorporated in is where they register their planes. This, of course, assumes a certain universality of laws, but I'm sure the FAA and most other countries have laws in place to ensure that unregistered people don't go flying planes around, even in the middle of the ocean.
Ewige Blumenkraft.
~22,250 miles...
= : ^ \ >
Goto: http://www.liftport.com/donate.php
...and they are asking for donations, saying:
"Developing the space elevator will require large amounts of financial capital over the next 10-15 years. At the present, LiftPort Inc. is in the early start-up stages, and like any start-up, has strong financial needs in order to achieve our goal of building the space elevator. If you would like to help support our efforts by making a donation, please click the link below. We thank you for your support."
It makes me feel so good to know i've helped a newborn business down the path of global domination!
Hooray for groveling private enterprise!
+5 Cynical
http://www.elevator2010.org/site/ Has TONS of information on this. It is a contest site that has been mentioned here before a few times (I'm too lazy to look up previous articles). All of the materials are currently available to construct one. The movie on the site explains a space elevator in simple terms. I recommend watching it.
"Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.ht m
Let's see, mach 20+ in the thickest part of the atmosphere... 300+ G acceleration... What's not to love?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I'd like to see you keep something in geostationary orbit over anything other than the equator.
An orbit has to be around the Earth's centre of gravity. The only part of the Earth that rotates around its centre is the equator.
A polar orbit (even one that matches the Earth's 24 hour rotation period) will pass over both poles.
N- is USA general aviation tail numbers. I'm assuming C- is the same for Canada.
Umm.. if you had it stationary above a pole, well, it would just plummet to the earth unless you had a propulsion system holding it up. If you did this the strain on the cables would be far greater too as the *whole* cable would be hanging from the satellite.
The Space Elevator NEEDS to be done at the Equator, thats how its designed, thats how it works. The atmopheric annoyances are just all problems that have to be somehow overcome. Of course the first thing that has to be overcome is the ribbon production itself. Once this is done, I am sure the other hurdles will be addressed.
Yes there would be, but some would be cancelled by a return payload trip and a movable base(sea anchorage). Any increase in tension that would result from the coriolis effect dragging the counterweight back in its orbit would also decrease its orbital height which would then speed up its orbital velocity which then moves the counterweight back towards its previous position. Also, there would be quite a difference in the masses between the anchor/counterweight and the payload. It would be like tying a baseball to the end of a ten foot rope and spinning it around your head and asking if the ants crawling along the rope will affect the rotation.
Because they're flying a tethered balloon in US airspace above the maximum altitude allowed without having to alert air traffic in the area.
/. generated assumptions in the Phase II Study.
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/101-index.shtml
They have to get a waiver to operate outside the limits set by FAR 101. It's a fairly automatic process. Most rocketry clubs do it regularly. By doing this they get clearance and (somewhat) priority for the airspace, and a NOTAM (Notice To Airmen) is posted at air traffic control centers so anyone heading that way will be informed.
According to the LiftPort blog, they've seen you coming:
September 18th, 2005
Welcome Slashdot readers.
You're welcome to rummage around and see what we're up to.
While you are here, sign up for our monthly announcement list. Toss barbed questions at space elevator enthusiasts at the Liftport Forums. Read our out-dated FAQ. Read Dr. Edwards NIAC study and free yourself from
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
That's about a 1/8th of the way to the galactic center.
Methinks you are overestimating the size of this elevator, matey.
I respond to your sigs
As an addendum: Having them demonstrate their climbers (the relatively easy part) when the cables are still so far away really seems kind of silly. It'd be like someone planning a mission to Mars making public demonstrations of the velcro that they plan to have hold things in place insided the spacecraft.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
i'll buy that the paperwork is holding the whole process up. One of the reasons why Europe will get "advanced" cruise control while we in the state will have to wait forever.....i mean, it could be 5 years before we get something like that on the roads.
As for the autopilot, we already have it. Commercial airlines land and take off via autopilot all the time currently. Even if we didn't have it in commercial planes, the military has any number of planes that will do this. This one takes about auto landing at sea.
Heck, there was an article just a while ago about how the military has what amounts to a RTS interface for controling groups of drone aircraft. And that is the stuff they tell us about.
I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
Suffice it to say I don't want to ride in your mass driver unless someone comes up with an artifical gravity field to compensate for the G-loads. (Even at 1000 km long, that's still 5.8 g, not 2.4).
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Why one-off?
The first thing we'll do (yes, assuming we are funded and it's actually doable - work with me) with the thing is to use to build a second. The first ribbon then goes into service as a revenue line. The second ribbon goes into backup status and (when the demand is there) can make a third for (we hope) a fraction of the cost of the first. Then a fourth. And so on.
Display some adaptability.