Slashdot Mirror


Space Elevator Company LiftPort In Trouble

TropicalCoder writes "The LiftPort Group, founded four years ago with the lofty dream of building a stairway to heaven, has seemingly reached the end the line. The dream was to develop a ribbon of carbon nanotubes 100,000 km long, anchored to the Earth's surface and with a counterweight in space, providing a permanent bridge to orbit. Elevator cars would be robotic 'lifters' which would climb the ribbon to deliver cargo and eventually people to orbit or beyond. Now LiftPort has all but run out of funds, and the State of Washington's Securities Division has entered a Statement of Charges (PDF) against LiftPort Inc. dba LiftPort Group and founder Michael Laine."

8 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Hah. by daeg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lesson: You don't offer "common stock" to people without following detailed securities regulations and laws. In fact, you don't mention that at all until you've consulted with people that know of these things. The president of Liftport obviously never took an Economics class where you would have learned at least that the whole stock system is very complicated and very regulated.

    Good call, Washington (state). Sucks for the idea, though.

    1. Re:Hah. by glenstar · · Score: 4, Interesting
      he... a prospectus that I used for one of my companies was 37 pages long. The first 10 or so pages were the legal boiler plate (ie... "YOU HAVE A 99.999% CHANCE OF LOSING YOUR MONEY"), followed by a few more pages of definitions. The next 10 or so pages were full of core business info (company overview, product(s) overview, executive bios). 5 or so pages were full of financial and the remaining pages were essentially a rehash of the "YOU WILL LOSE YOUR MONEY". It was embarrassing to be in the presence of a potential investor while they read through it.


      Investor: "What does it mean, 'The Company's methods and operations are unproven'?"
      Me: "That means we are a startup and have not been in business very long."
      Investor: "Ok. What about: 'The Company's products and services may never make it to market'?"
      Me: "Well, we can't guarantee that our services and products will ever sell"
      Investor: 'Hm. What about: 'The Company cannot guarantee that its products and services will be able to compete with its established competitors'?"
      Me: (Twitching uncontrollably and muttering something about first to market)
      Investor: "So, it sounds to me that what you are looking for is someone to put money into an unproven company, that may never actually bring a product to market, and that if you do somehow manage to bring it to market, no one may care. Does that sum it up?"
      Me: "Er..."
      Investor: "Do I have the word 'DUMBFUCK' tattooed on my forehead?"
      Me: "Err... no (under breath: fucking lawyers!)".

      I understand the whole concept of not allowing companies to make absurd claims that ignorant sheep will buy into to, but having to essentially emasculate your company is, well... emasculating.

  2. Blue Sky Laws by whackco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well I would be interested to know how the State of Washinton came to these conclusions and charges. Blue Sky laws are put into place to protect un-savy investors from being taken by kinky investment opportunities, but the charges don't seem to translate into a direct blue sky violation, and at worst, seems to stem from his lack of registering with the State that he would be selling securities.

    They mention that he sold to un-accredited investors, but this is allowable under Regulation D, assuming he didn't take more then $1M and that the people he took money from were previous business associates, friends, or family.

    I think this boils down to an angry Washington resident that put money into this 'venture' and lost it, and now is angry.

  3. Re:What if it falls? by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This issue is addressed in the Wikipedia entry for Space Elevator, with a reference to a simulation.

    It makes a good disaster story, but analysis shows that only significant danger is to anyone that happened to be on the elevator at the time.

  4. Budget. by Melugo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have a website that looks as if it's been knocked together by a 13-year-old kid who wants to be a rocket scientist. If what's on display there is anything to go by the company seems to be going nowhere. "Primarily targeting the hardware of the space elevator, the LiftPort Group member companies are researching and designing the nuts and bolts in the fields of carbon nanotube production, robotics, photo voltaics, power beaming and targeting, and permanent floating structures for the ocean. Outside of that, we also are responsible for project management, web design, public relation, accounting, and legal issues for each member company of the group." So we need to do all this... we're not really sure how to do it... but give us some money and we'll work it out. If it wasn't in the news I'd have assumed it was a scam. Somebody really didn't do their homework before they made an investment.

  5. Re:Not gonna happen by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When you say "notice how slim the margin is" when comparing 62 gigapascals needed with the 100 gigapascals achievable, that seems to be a lot to me. 48 gigpascals is equivalent to 1,000,000 metric tons falling a metre, isn't it? Sounds like quite a lot.

    It's not the amount that's important, it's the percentage. Put it this way... you're pulling a 620lb trailer with your car, which, say, has your kids in it. Would you be comfortable with using a 1,000 pound test rope to haul the trailer? After all, that's an extra 380lbs! Or do you think a few hard jerks could potentially snap the rope pretty easily?

    Now, "hard jerks" wouldn't necessarily be a problem with a space elevator (but maybe winds COULD cause temporary increases in tension, I don't know), but you can see that safety margin isn't a bad thing.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  6. Only one breakthrough needed by mangu · · Score: 3, Interesting
    To build a space elevator only one breakthrough is needed: a high tensile strength cable. Other improvements in current technology are needed, but compared to getting the cable, everything else seems simple.


    In Arthur Clarke's "Fountains of Paradise" the cable was made of monocrystalline diamond. I don't know how the tensile strength of compares to that of other carbon structures, but this paper (PDF) mentions values of over 1200 GPa at certain orientations, much better than what's needed for a space elevator. So, the real breakthrough needed is how to manufacture enough monocrystalline diamond fiber at a reasonable price.

  7. Interview with Michael Laine by TropicalCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just got off the phone with Michael J. Laine, President of the LiftPort Group. In a previous comment, I had noted that there was some direct feedback from Mr. Laine, but his comments came out at 0 because he logged on as AC. Since I felt no one had noticed his comments, I offered to interview him on behalf of Slashdot, and he contacted me and accepted my offer. I was able to authenticate that indeed I was in touch with the real Michael J. Laine. I must say it was very interesting conversation. In the end it was agreed that I will prepare a list of questions for Michael, mostly based on Slashdot comments posted here, giving him a chance to respond to each in his own words. If you wish to add to the that list, pose your question here and now. I hope to be able to submit the completed interview within 24 hours, and then it will be up to Slashdot editors if and when to post it.

    TropicalCoder